John Adams was born on 30 (O.S. 19) October 1735
on a farm in Braintree, Massachusetts.
He wanted to be a farmer until his father showed him how much hard work was involved.
His father was a deacon and a selectman.
He wanted his son to have a good education so that he could become a minister.
Young John, who had the same name as his father,
began attending a Dame School when he was six years old.
He soon transferred to the Latin School in Braintree.
A better teacher there helped him prepare for Harvard College,
and the teachers passed John with an oral entrance examination in 1750.
At that time the faculty of Harvard consisted of a president,
two professors, and four tutors for less than one hundred students.
In his four years at Harvard in Cambridge he learned Latin, Greek,
rhetoric, logic, mathematics, and physics first before studying science and ethics.
He was influenced by the philosophy of Plato and
Cicero and the histories of Thucydides and Tacitus.
The day began at 6 with prayer and breakfast before classes
started at 8 and went on after a short lunch break to 5.
By 1753 Adams was thinking he did not really want to be a minister,
John Adams was 19 when he graduated from Harvard,
and he began teaching Latin at the Worcester grammar school.
He began keeping a diary, and on 16 February 1756 he wrote,
Oh! That I could wear out of my mind every mean and base
affectation, conquer my natural Pride and Self Conceit,
expect no more deference from my fellows than I deserve,
acquire that meekness, and humility, which are the sure
marks and Characters of a great and generous Soul,
and subdue every unworthy Passion and treat all men
as I wish to be treated by all.
How happy should I then be,
in the favor and good will of all honest men,
and the sure prospect of a happy immortality!1
On March 2 he wrote,
The reasonings of Philosophers having nothing surprising
in them, could not overcome the force
of Prejudice, Custom, Passion, and Bigotry.
But when wise and virtuous men, commissioned
from heaven, by miracles awakened men’s attention
to their Reasonings the force of Truth made its way,
with ease to their minds.2
He wanted to become a lawyer.
When he was about 21, he began working as an apprentice to the lawyer
James Putnam for two years while continuing teaching to pay his expenses.
He promised himself that he would not use the law meanly or unjustly.
In his diary he wrote, “I set out with firm Resolutions.
The Practice of the Law, I am sure does not dissolve
the obligations of morality or of Religion.”3
He would keep a diary for thirty years.
A minister in Worcester hired Adams as a schoolmaster.
In the summer of 1756 he gave up teaching to concentrate on the law.
His apprenticeship ended in August 1758.
In his diary on August 14 he was developing a philosophy
influenced by the Puritans of New England, and he wrote,
Man is sometimes flushed with Joy and transported
with the full Fury of sensual Pleasure, and the next Hour,
lies groaning under the bitter Pangs
of Disappointments and adverse Fortune.
Thus God has told us, by the general Constitution
of the World, by the Nature of all terrestrial Enjoyments,
and by the Constitution of our own Bodies, that This World
was not designed for a lasting and a happy State,
but rather for a State of moral Discipline,
that we might have a fair Opportunity and
continual Excitements to labor after a cheerful
Resignation to all the Events of Providence,
after Habits of Virtue, Self Government, and Piety.
And this Temper of mind is in our Power to acquire, and this
alone can secure us against all the Adversities of Fortune,
against all the Malice of men,
against all the Operations of Nature.
A World in Flames, and a whole System tumbling in Ruins
to the Center, has nothing terrifying in it to a man
whose Security is built on the adamantine Basis
of good Conscience and confirmed Piety.
If I could but conform my Life and Conversation
to my Speculations, I should be happy.4
Putnam advised Adams to consult with the eminent lawyers
Jeremiah Gridley, Oxenbridge Thacher, Benjamin Prat, and
James Otis Jr. Gridley questioned him and offered use of his library.
Thacher discussed metaphysics and said he would support Adams, though Prat did not.
Otis had completed his studies at Harvard in 1743, and they became friends.
Adams studied Justinian’s Institutes, Geoffrey Gilbert’s On Feuds and Feudal Tenures,
and Edward Coke’s Institutes. In the summer of 1759 Adams wrote in his diary,
Law is human Reason.
It governs all the Inhabitants of the Earth;
the political and civil Laws of each Nation should be only
the particular Cases, in which human Reason is applied.5
In 1760 he was studying The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu,
works by John Milton, James Harrington, Niccolò Machiavelli, and
John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Later Adams would get to Locke’s Treatises on Government
and Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government.
The father of Adams died in May 1761 and left him the farm and a third of his estate.
Adams in November was permitted to practice law in the province’s superior court,
and he considered James Otis most outstanding
until he met Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
Otis wrote A Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representatives in 1762.
In 1763 Otis became upset when the Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson
was appointed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court
after the father of Otis had been promised the position.
In response John Adams wrote two essays for the
Boston Gazette on how to handle such quarrels.
No. 1 “On Private Revenge” was published on August 1.
This is much of what he wrote:
Man is distinguished from other animals, his fellow
inhabitants of this planet, by a capacity of acquiring
knowledge and civility, more than by any excellency,
corporeal, or mental, with which
mere nature has furnished his species.
His erect figure and sublime countenance would give him
but little elevation above the bear or the tiger;
nay, notwithstanding those advantages, he would hold
an inferior rank in the scale of being, and would have
a worse prospect of happiness than those creatures,
were it not for the capacity of uniting with others,
and availing himself of arts and inventions in social life.
As he comes originally from the hands of his Creator,
self-love or self-preservation is the only spring that
moves within him; he might crop the leaves or berries with
which his Creator had surrounded him, to satisfy his hunger;
he might sip at the lake or rivulet to slake his thirst;
he might screen himself behind a rock or mountain
from the bleakest of the winds;
or he might fly from the jaws of voracious beasts
to preserve himself from immediate destruction.
But would such an existence be worth preserving?
Would not the first precipice or the first beast of prey
that could put a period to the wants, the frights,
and horrors of such a wretched being,
be a friendly object and a real blessing?
When we take one remove from this forlorn condition,
and find the species propagated, the banks of clams
and oysters discovered, the bow and arrow invented,
and the skins of beasts or the bark of trees employed
for covering,—although the human creature has
a little less anxiety and misery than before,
yet each individual is independent of all others.
There is no intercourse of friendship; no communication
of food or clothing; no conversation or connection,
unless the conjunction of sexes, prompted by instinct,
like that of hares and foxes, may be called so.
The ties of parent, son, and brother, are of little obligation.
The relations of master and servant, the distinction
of magistrate and subject, are totally unknown.
Each individual is his own sovereign, accountable
to no other upon earth, and punishable by none.
In this savage state, courage, hardiness, activity,
and strength, the virtues of their brother brutes,
are the only excellencies to which men can aspire.
The man who can run with the most celerity,
or send the arrow with the greatest force,
is the best qualified to procure a subsistence.
Hence, to chase a deer over the most rugged mountain,
or to pierce him at the greatest distance, will be held,
of all accomplishments, in the highest estimation.
Emulations and competitions for superiority in such qualities,
will soon commence; and any action which may be taken
for an insult, will be considered as a pretension
to such superiority; it will raise resentment in proportion,
and shame and grief will prompt the savage
to claim satisfaction or to take revenge.
To request the interposition of a third person to arbitrate
between the contending parties, would be considered
as an implicit acknowledgment of deficiency
in those qualifications, without which,
none in such a barbarous condition would choose to live.
Each one, then, must be his own avenger.
The offended parties must fall to fighting.
Their teeth, their nails, their feet, or fists, or, perhaps,
the first club or stone that can be grasped,
must decide the contest, by finishing the life of one.
The father, the brother, or the friend, begins then
to espouse the cause of the deceased; not, indeed,
so much from any love he bore him living,
or from any grief he suffers for him dead,
as from a principle of bravery and honor,
to show himself able and willing to encounter
the man who had just before vanquished another.
Hence arises the idea of an avenger of blood, and thus
the notions of revenge, and the appetite for it grow apace.
Everyone must avenge his own wrongs when living,
or else lose his reputation, and his near relation
must avenge them for him after he is dead, or forfeit his.
Indeed, nature has implanted in the human heart
a disposition to resent an injury when offered;
and this disposition is so strong, that even the horse
treading by accident on a gouty toe, or a brickbat falling
on the shoulders, in the first twinges of pain,
seems to excite the angry passions, and we feel
an inclination to kill the horse and to break the brickbat.
Consideration, however, that the horse and brick
were without design, will cool us;
whereas the thought that any mischief has been done
on purpose to abuse, raises revenge in all its strength
and terrors; and the man feels the sweetest, highest
gratification, when he inflicts the punishment himself.
From this source arises the ardent desire in men to judge
for themselves, when, and to what degree they are injured,
and to carve out their own remedies for themselves.
From the same source arises that obstinate disposition
in barbarous nations to continue barbarous, and the extreme
difficulty of introducing civility and Christianity among them.
For the great distinction between savage nations
and polite ones, lies in this,—that among the former
every individual is his own judge and his own executioner;
but among the latter all pretensions to judgment and
punishment are resigned to tribunals erected by the public;
a resignation which savages are not, without infinite
difficulty, persuaded to make, as it is of a right and privilege
extremely dear and tender to an uncultivated nature.
To exterminate from among mankind such revengeful
sentiments and tempers, is one of the highest and
most important strains of civil and humane policy.
Yet the qualities which contribute most to inspire
and support them may, under certain regulations,
be indulged and encouraged.
Wrestling, running, leaping, lifting, and other exercises
of strength, hardiness, courage, and activity, may be
promoted among private soldiers, common sailors, laborers,
manufacturers, and husbandmen, among whom they are
most wanted, provided sufficient precautions are taken
that no romantic, cavalier-like principles of honor
intermix with them, and render a resignation of the right of
judging, and the power of executing, to the public, shameful.
But whenever such notions spread so inimical to the peace
of society, that boxing, clubs, swords, or firearms,
are resorted to for deciding every quarrel, about a girl,
a game at cards, or any little accident that wine or folly
or jealousy may suspect to be an affront,—the whole power
of the government should be exerted to suppress them.
If a time should ever come when such notions
shall prevail in this Province to a degree, that no privileges
shall be able to exempt men from indignities and personal
attacks, not the privilege of a counsellor, nor the privilege
of a House of Representatives of “speaking freely in that
assembly, without impeachment or question in any court
or place,” out of the General Court—when whole armed mobs
shall assault a member of the House,
when violent attacks shall be made upon counsellors,
when no place shall be sacred, not the very walls of legislation,
when no personages shall overawe,
not the whole General Court added to all the other
gentlemen on ’Change, when the broad noon-day
shall be chosen to display before the world such high,
heroic sentiments of gallantry and spirit, when
such assailants shall live unexpelled from the legislature,
when slight censures and no punishments shall be
inflicted,—there will really be danger of our becoming
universally ferocious, barbarous, and brutal,
worse than our Gothic ancestors before the Christian era.
The doctrine, that the person assaulted
“should act with spirit,” “should defend himself
by drawing his sword and killing, or by wringing noses,
and boxing it out with the offender,”
is the tenet of a coxcomb and the sentiment of a brute.
The fowl upon the dunghill, to be sure, feels a most gallant
and heroic spirit at the crowing of another,
and instantly spreads his cloak, and prepares for combat.
The bull’s wrath enkindles into a noble rage,
and the stallion’s immortal spirit can never forgive
the pawing, neighing, and defiance of his rival.
But are cocks and bulls and horses the proper exemplars
for the imitation of men, especially of men of sense,
and even of the highest personages in the government!
Such ideas of gallantry have been said
to be derived from the army.
But it was injuriously said, because not truly.
For every gentleman, every man of sense
and breeding in the army, has a more delicate
and manly way of thinking, and from his heart
despises all such little, narrow, sordid notions.
It is true that a competition, and a mutual affectation
of contempt, is apt to arise among the lower, more ignorant,
and despicable, of every rank and order in society.
This sort of men, (and some few such there are
in every profession,) among divines, lawyers, physicians,
as well as husbandmen, manufacturers, and laborers,
are prone, from a certain littleness of mind, to imagine that
their labors alone are of any consequence to the world,
and to affect a contempt for all others.
It is not unlikely, then, that the lowest and most despised
sort of soldiers may have expressed a contempt
for all other orders of mankind, may have indulged
a disrespect to every personage in a civil character,
and have acted upon such principles of revenge, rusticity,
barbarity, and brutality, as have been above described.
And, indeed, it has been observed
by the great Montesquieu, that
“From a manner of thinking that prevails among mankind,”
(the most ignorant and despicable of mankind, he means,)
“they set a higher value upon courage than timorousness,
on activity than prudence, on strength than counsel.
Hence, the army will ever despise a senate, and respect
their own officers; they will naturally slight the orders sent
them by a body of men whom they look upon as cowards,
and therefore unworthy to command them.”
This respect to their own officers, which produces
a contempt of senates and councils, and of all laws,
orders, and constitutions, but those of the army
and their superior officers, though it may have prevailed
among some soldiers of the illiberal character
above described, is far from being universal.
It is not found in one gentleman of sense
and breeding in the whole service.
All of this character know that the common law of England
is superior to all other laws, martial or common,
in every English government, and has often asserted
triumphantly its own preeminence against the insults
and encroachments of a giddy and unruly soldiery.
They know, too, that civil officers in England hold a great
superiority to military officers, and that a frightful despotism
would be the speedy consequence
of the least alteration in these particulars.
And, knowing this, these gentlemen, who have so often
exposed their lives in defense of the religion, the liberties,
and rights of men and Englishmen, would feel the utmost
indignation at the doctrine which should make the
civil power give place to the military, which should make
a respect to their superior officers destroy or diminish
their obedience to civil magistrates, or which should give
any man a right in conscience, honor, or even in punctilio
and delicacy, to neglect the institutions of the public,
and seek his own remedy for wrongs and injuries of any kind.6No. 3 “On Private Revenge” was published on September 5.
It seems to be necessary for me,
(notwithstanding the declaration in my last)
once more to digress from the road of agriculture
and mechanic arts, and to enter the list of disputation
with a brace of writers in the Evening Post,
one of whom has subscribed himself X, and the other W.
I shall agree with the first of these gentlemen, that
“to preach up non-resistance with the zeal of a fanatic,”
would be as extraordinary as to employ a bastille
in support of the freedom of speech or the press,
or an inquisition in favor of liberty of conscience;
but if he will leave his own imagination, and recur to what
I have written, he will not find a syllable against resistance.
Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only
of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property,
is an indisputable right of nature which I never
surrendered to the public by the compact of society,
and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.
Nor is there anything in the common law of England,
(for which Mr. X supposes I have so great a fondness,)
inconsistent with that right.
On the contrary, the dogmas of Plato, the maxims
of the law, and the precepts of Christianity,
are precisely coincident in relation to this subject.
Plato taught that revenge was unlawful,
although he allowed of self-defense.
The divine Author of our religion has taught us that
trivial provocations are to be overlooked;
and that if a man should offer you an insult,
by boxing one ear, rather than indulge a furious passion and
return blow for blow, you ought even to turn the other also.
This expression, however, though it inculcates
strongly the duty of moderation and self-government
upon sudden provocations, imports nothing
against the right of resistance or of self-defense.
The sense of it seems to be no more than this:
that little injuries and insults ought to be
borne patiently for the present, rather than
run the risk of violent consequences by retaliation.
Now, the common law seems to me to be founded
on the same great principle of philosophy and religion.
It will allow of nothing as a justification of blows, but blows;
nor will it justify a furious beating, bruising, and wounding,
upon the provocation of a fillip of the finger,
or a kick upon the shins; but if I am assaulted,
I can justify nothing but laying my hands lightly upon
the aggressor for my own defense; nothing but what
was absolutely necessary for my preservation.
I may parry or ward off any blow;
but a blow received is no sufficient provocation
for fifty times so severe a blow in return.
When life, which is one of the three favorites of the law,
comes into consideration, we find a wise
and humane provision is made for its preservation.
If I am assaulted by another, sword in hand,
and if I am even certain of his intention to murder me,
the common law will not suffer me to defend myself,
by killing him, if I can avoid it.
Nay, my behavior must absolutely be what would be
called cowardice, perhaps, by Mr. X and W,
though it would be thought the truest bravery,
not only by the greatest philosophers and legislators,
but by the best generals of the world;
I must run away from such an assailant, and avoid him
if I have room, rather than stand my ground
and defend myself; but if I have no room to escape,
or if I run and am pursued to the wall or into a corner where
I cannot elude his fury, and have no other way to preserve
my own life from his violence, but by taking his there,
I have an indisputable right to do it, and should be justified
in wading through the blood of a whole army, if I had power
to shed it and had no other way to make my escape.
What is said by Mr. W, that “if a gentleman should be
hurried by his passions so far as to take the life of another,
the common law will not adjudge it murder or manslaughter,
but justifiable homicide only,”—by which he must mean,
if in truth he had any meaning at all, that killing upon a
sudden provocation is justifiable homicide,—is a position
in comparison of which the observations of the grave-digger
upon the death of the young lady, in Shakespeare’s Hamlet,
ought to be ranked among the responsa priuleniium.
Every catechumen in law, nay, every common man,
and even every porter upon the dock, that ever attended
a trial for murder, knows that a sudden provocation raising
a violent passion, where there is no precedent malice, is,
in consideration of human frailty, allowed to soften killing
from murder down to manslaughter; but manslaughter
is a heinous crime, and subjected to heavy punishments.
Such is the wisdom and humanity of English law;
upon so thorough a knowledge of human nature is it
founded, and so well is it calculated to preserve the lives
and limbs of men and the interior tranquility of societies!
I shall not dispute with Mr. X my affection for this law,
in preference to all other systems of law
that have ever appeared in the world.
I have no connection with parishioners, nor patients,
nor clients, nor any dependence upon either for business
or bread; I study law as I do divinity and physic;
and all of them as I do husbandry and mechanic arts,
or the motions and revolutions of the heavenly bodies;
or as I do magistracy and legislation; namely,
as means and instruments of human happiness.
It has been my amusement for many years past,
as far as I have had leisure, to examine the systems
of all the legislators, ancient and modern,
fantastical and real, and to trace their effects in history
upon the felicity of mankind; and the result of this long
examination is a settled opinion that the liberty,
the unalienable, indefeasible rights of men, the honor
and dignity of human nature, the grandeur and glory
of the public, and the universal happiness of individuals,
were never so skillfully and successfully consulted
as in that most excellent monument of human art, the
common law of England; a law that maintains a great
superiority, not only to every other system of laws,
martial or canon, or civil and military, even to majesty itself;
it has a never-sleeping jealousy of the canon law,
which in many countries, Spain in particular, has subjected
all officers and orders, civil and military, to the avarice
and ambition, the caprice and cruelty of a clergy;
and it is not less watchful over the martial law, which
in many cases and in many countries, France in particular,
is able to rescue men from the justice of the municipal laws
of the kingdom; and I will own, that to revive in the minds
of my countrymen a reverence for this law, and to prevent
the growth of sentiments that seemed to me to be in their
tendency destructive of it, especially to revive a jealousy
of martial laws and cavalier-like tempers, was the turn
which I designed to serve for myself and my friends
in that piece which has given offence to X and W.
A certain set of sentiments have been lately
so fashionable, that you could go into few companies
without hearing such smart sayings as these,—
“If a man should insult me, by kicking my shins,
and I had a sword by my side I would make the sun shine
through him;”—“if any man, let him be as big as Goliath,
should take me by the nose, I would let his bowels out
with my sword, if I had one, and if I had none,
I would beat his brains out with the first club I could find.”
And such tempers have been animated by some inadvertent
expressions that have fallen from persons
of higher rank and better sentiments.
Some of these have been heard to say, that “should a man
offer a sudden insult to them, they could not answer
for themselves, but they should lay him prostrate
at their feet in his own blood.”
Such expressions as these, which are to be supposed
but modest expressions of the speaker’s diffidence of his
own presence of mind, and government of his passions,
when suddenly assaulted, have been taken
for a justification of such returns to an insult,
and a determination to practice them upon occasion.
But such persons as are watching the lips of others
for wise speeches, in order to utter them afterwards
as their own sentiments, have generally as little
of understanding as they, have of spirit,
and most miserably spoil, in reporting, a good reflection.
Now, what I have written upon this subject was intended
to show the inhumanity of taking away the life of a man,
only for pulling my nose or boxing my ear; and the folly of it
too, because I should be guilty of a high crime,
that of manslaughter at least, and forfeit all my goods,
besides receiving a brand of infamy.
But I have not yet finished my history of sentiments.
It has been said by others that
“no man ought to receive a blow without returning it;”
“a man ought to be despised that receives a cuff
without giving another in return.”
This I have heard declared for a sober opinion
by some men of figure and office and importance.
But I beg leave to repeat it,—this is the tenet of a coxcomb
and the sentiment of a brute; and the horse, the bull, and the
cock, that I mentioned before, daily discover precisely
the same temper and the same sense of honor and decency.
If, in walking the streets of this town, I should be met
by a negro, and that negro should lay me over the head
with his cudgel, should I think myself bound in honor or
regard to reputation to return the blow with another cudgel?
to put myself on a level with that negro,
and join with him in a competition
which was most expert and skillful, at cudgels?
If a mad dog should meet me and bite me,
should I think myself bound in honor,
(I mean before the poison had worked upon me enough
to make me as mad as the dog himself,)
to fall upon that dog and bite him again?
It is not possible for me to express that depth of contempt
that I feel for such sentiments, and for every mortal that
entertains them; and I should choose to be “the butt,
the jest, and contempt” of all companies that entertain such
opinions, rather than to be in their admiration or esteem.
I would take some other way to preserve myself and
other men from such insolence and violence for the future;
but I would never place myself
upon a level with such an animal for the present.
Far from aiming at a reputation for such qualities
and accomplishments as those of boxing or cuffing,
a man of sense would hold even the true martial qualities,
courage, strength, and skill in war, in a much lower
estimation than the attributes of wisdom and virtue,
skill in arts and sciences, and a true taste to what is right,
what is fit, what is true, generous,
manly, and noble, in civil life….
Mr. X tells us “that cases frequently occur where a man’s
person or reputation suffer to the greatest degree, and yet
it is impossible for the law to make him any satisfaction.”
This is not strictly true; such cases but seldom occur,
though it must be confessed they sometimes do;
but it seldom happens, very seldom indeed, where
you know the man who has done you the injury,
that you can get no satisfaction by law; and if such a case
should happen, nothing can be clearer than that you ought
to sit down and bear it; and for this plain reason, because
it is necessary, and you cannot get satisfaction in any way.
The law, by the supposition, cannot redress you; and you
cannot, if you consider it, by any means redress yourself.
A flagellation in the dark would be no reparation of the
injury, no example to others, nor have any tendency to
reform the subject of it, but rather a provocation to him to
contrive some other way to injure you again; and of
consequence would be no satisfaction at all to a man even
of that false honor and delicacy of which I have been
speaking, unless he will avow an appetite for mere revenge,
which is not only worse than brutal, but the attribute of
devils; and to take satisfaction by a flagellation in public
would be only, in other words, taking a severe revenge
upon yourself; for this would be a trespass and a violation
of the peace, for which you would expose yourself to the
resentment of the magistrate and the action of the party,
and would be like running your sword through your own
body to revenge yourself on another for boxing your ears;
or like the behavior of the rattle-snake that will snap and
leap and bite at every stick that you put near him, and at
last when provoked beyond all honorable bearing,
will fix his sharp and poisonous teeth into his own body.
I have nothing more to add, excepting one word of advice
to Mr. W and all his readers, to have a care how they
believe or practice his rule about “passion and killing,”
lest the halter and the gibbet should become their portion;
for a killing that should happen by the hurry of passion
would be much more likely to be adjudged murder
than justifiable homicide only.
Let me conclude, by advising all men to look into
their own hearts, which they will find to be deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked.
Let them consider how extremely addicted they are
to magnify and exaggerate the injuries that
are offered to themselves, and to diminish
and extenuate the wrongs that they offer to others.
They ought, therefore, to be too modest and diffident
of their own judgment, when their own passions
and prejudices and interests are concerned,
to desire to judge for themselves in their own causes,
and to take their own satisfactions for wrongs
and injuries of any kind.7
James Otis wrote The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved in 1764.
Adams was influenced by Benjamin Franklin’s rules for self-improvement,
and he agreed with taking Jesus and Socrates as role models.
Adams had met 15-year-old Abigail Smith in 1759, and two years later
they began courting. In 1763 Adams published seven essays in Boston.
In 1764 John Adams like his father was made a selectman and the assessor of Braintree.
In the spring of 1764 he was inoculated with smallpox that made him immune.
Adams and Abigail were married on October 25 in her father’s Weymouth meetinghouse.
In 1764 John Adams like his father was made a selectman and the assessor of Braintree.
He began writing his autobiography on 5 October 1802.
This is the part he wrote about his life up to and not including 1765:
As the Lives of Philosophers, Statesmen or Historians
written by themselves have generally been suspected
of Vanity, and therefore few People have been able
to read them without disgust; there is no reason to expect
that any Sketches I may leave of my own Times
would be received by the Public with any favor,
or read by individuals with much interest.
The many great Examples of this practice will not be
alleged as a justification, because they were Men
of extraordinary Fame, to which I have no pretensions.
My Excuse is, that having been the Object of much
Misrepresentation, some of my Posterity may probably
wish to see in my own hand Writing a proof of the falsehood
of that Mass of odious Abuse of my Character, with which
News Papers, private Letters and public Pamphlets
and Histories have been disgraced for thirty Years.
It is not for the Public but for my Children that
I commit these Memoirs to writing: and to them
and their Posterity I recommend, not the public Course,
which the times and the Country in which I was born
and the Circumstances which surrounded me compelled me
to pursue: but those Moral Sentiments and Sacred Principles,
which at all hazards and by every Sacrifice
I have endeavored to preserve through Life….
My Father married Susanna Boylston in October 1734,
and on the 19th of October 1735 I was born.
As my Parents were both fond of reading,
and my father had destined his first born, long before
his birth to a public Education I was very early taught
to read at home and at a School of Mrs. Belcher
the Mother of Deacon Moses Belcher, who lived
in the next house on the opposite side of the Road.
I shall not consume much paper
in relating the Anecdotes of my Youth.
I was sent to the public School close by the Stone Church,
then kept by Mr. Joseph Cleverly,
who died this Year 1802 at the Age of Ninety.
Mr. Cleverly was through his whole Life
the most indolent Man I ever knew
though a tolerable Scholar and a Gentleman.
His inattention to his Scholars was such as gave me
a disgust to Schools, to books and to study,
and I spent my time as idle Children do in making and
sailing boats and Ships upon the Ponds and Brooks,
in making and flying Kites, in driving hoops,
playing marbles, playing Quoits, Wrestling, Swimming,
Skating and above all in shooting, to which Diversion
I was addicted to a degree of Ardor which I know not that
I ever felt for any other Business, Study or Amusement.
My Enthusiasm for Sports and Inattention to Books,
alarmed my Father, and he frequently entered into
conversation with me upon the Subject.
I told him I did not love Books and wished he would
lay aside the thoughts of sending me to College.
What would you do Child? Be a Farmer. A Farmer?
Well I will shew you what it is to be a Farmer.
You shall go with me to Penny ferry tomorrow Morning
and help me get Thatch.
I shall be very glad to go Sir.—
Accordingly next morning he took me with him, and with
great good humor kept me all day with him at Work.
At night at home he said Well John
are you satisfied with being a Farmer.
Though the Labor had been very hard and very muddy
I answered I like it very well Sir.
Ay but I don’t like it so well:
so you shall go to School to day.
I went but was not so happy as among the Creek Thatch.
My School master neglected to put me into Arithmetic
longer than I thought was right, and I resented it.
I procured me Cockers I believe and applied myself to it
at home alone and went through the whole Course,
overtook and passed by all the Scholars at School,
without any master.
I dared not ask my father’s Assistance because
he would have disliked my Inattention to my Latin.
In this idle Way I passed on till fourteen and upwards,
when I said to my Father very seriously I wished he would
take me from School and let me go to work upon the Farm.
You know said my father I have set my heart
upon your Education at College and
why will you not comply with my desire.
Sir I don’t like my Schoolmaster.
He is so negligent and so cross that
I never can learn anything under him.
If you will be so good as to persuade Mr. Marsh to take me,
I will apply myself to my Studies as closely as my nature
will admit, and go to College as soon as I can be prepared.
Next Morning the first I heard was John I have
Persuaded Mr. Marsh to take you,
and you must go to school there today.
This Mr. Marsh was a Son of our former Minister
of that name, who kept a private Boarding School
but two doors from my Fathers.
To this School I went, where I was kindly treated,
and I began to study in Earnest.
My Father soon observed the relaxation
of my Zeal for my Gun, Fowling Piece
and my daily increasing Attention to my Books.
In a little more than a Year
Mr. Marsh pronounced me fitted for College.
On the day appointed for the Examination at Cambridge
for the Examination of Candidates for Admission
into the College I mounted my horse and
called upon Mr. Marsh, who was to go with me.
The Weather was dull and threatened rain.
Mr. Marsh said he was unwell and afraid to go out.
I must therefore go alone.
Thunder struck at this unforeseen disappointment,
and terrified at the Thought of introducing myself to
such great Men as the President and fellows of a College,
I at first resolved to return home: but foreseeing the Grief
of my father and apprehending he would not only
be offended with me, but my Master too whom
I sincerely loved, I aroused myself,
and collected Resolution enough to proceed.
Although Mr. Marsh had assured me that he had seen
one of the Tutors the last Week and had said to him,
all that was proper for him to say if he should go
to Cambridge; that he was not afraid to trust me
to an Examination and was confident I should acquit my self
well and be honorably admitted;
yet I had not the same confidence in myself,
and suffered a very gloomy melancholy journey.
Arrived at Cambridge I presented myself according
to my directions and underwent the usual Examination
by the President Mr. Holyoke
and the Tutors Flint, Hancock, Mayhew and Marsh.
Mr. Mayhew into whose Class We were to be admitted,
presented me a Passage of English to translate into Latin.
It was long and casting my Eye over it I found several
Words the Latin for which did not occur to my memory.
Thinking that I must translate it without a dictionary,
I was in a great fright and expected to be turned by,
an Event that I dreaded above all things.
Mr. Mayhew went into his Study and bid me follow him.
Their Child, said he is a dictionary, and there a Grammar,
and there Paper, Pen and Ink,
and you may take your own time.
This was joyful news to me,
and I then thought my Admission safe.
The Latin was soon made, and I was declared Admitted
and a Theme given me, to write on in the Vacation.
I was as light when I came home
as I had been heavy when I went:
my Master was well pleased and my Parents very happy.
I spent the Vacation not very profitably
chiefly in reading Magazines and a British Apollo.
I went to College at the End of it and took the Chamber
assigned me and my place in the Class under Mr. Mayhew.
I found some better Scholars than myself,
particularly Lock, Hemmenway and Tisdale.
The last left College before the End of the first Year,
and what became of him I know not.
Hemmenway still lives a great divine,
and Locke has been President of Harvard College
a Station for which no Man was better qualified.
With these I ever lived in friendship,
without jealousy or Envy.
I soon became intimate with them, and began to feel
a desire to equal them in Science and Literature.
In the Sciences especially Mathematics, I soon surpassed
them, mainly because, intending to go into the Pulpit,
they thought Divinity and the Classics
of more Importance to them.
In Literature I never overtook them.
Here it may be proper to recollect something which makes
an Article of great importance in the Life of every Man.
I was of an amorous disposition and very early
from ten or eleven Years of Age,
was very fond of the Society of females.
I had my favorites among the young Women
and spent many of my Evenings in their Company
and this disposition although controlled for seven Years
after my Entrance into College returned
and engaged me too much till I was married.
I shall draw no Characters nor give
any enumeration of my youthful flames.
It would be considered as no compliment
to the dead or the living:
This I will say they were all modest and virtuous Girls
and always maintained this Character through Life.
No Wife or Virgin or Matron ever had cause to blush
at the sight of me, or to regret her Acquaintance with me.
No Father, Brother, Son or Friend ever had cause of Grief
or Resentment for any Intercourse between me
and any Daughter, Sister, Mother,
or any other Relation of the female Sex.
My Children may be assured that no illegitimate
Brother or Sister exists or ever existed.
These Reflections, to me consolatory beyond all expression,
I am able to make with truth and sincerity, and I presume
I am indebted for this blessing to my Education.
My Parents held every Species of Libertinage
in such Contempt and horror, and held up constantly to view
such pictures of disgrace, of baseness and of Ruin,
that my natural temperament was always overawed
by my Principles and Sense of decorum.
This Blessing has been rendered the more precious to me,
as I have seen enough of the Effects of a different practice.
Corroding Reflections through Life are
the never failing consequence of illicit amours,
in old Countries as well as in new Countries.
The Happiness of Life depends more upon Innocence
in this respect, than upon all the Philosophy of Epicurus,
or of Zeno without it.
I could write Romances, or Histories as wonderful
as Romances of what I have known or heard in France,
Holland and England, and all would serve to confirm
what I learned in my Youth in America, that Happiness
is lost forever if Innocence is lost, at least until
a Repentance is undergone so severe as to be
an over-balance to all the gratifications of Licentiousness.
Repentance itself cannot restore
the Happiness of Innocence, at least in this Life….
I soon perceived a growing Curiosity, a Love of Books
and a fondness for Study, which dissipated all my Inclination
for Sports, and even for the Society of the Ladies.
I read forever, but without much method,
and with very little Choice.
I got my Lessons regularly
and performed my recitations without Censure.
Mathematics and natural Philosophy attracted
the most of my Attention, which I have since regretted,
because I was destined to a Course of Life, in which
these Sciences have been of little Use,
and the Classics would have been of great Importance.
I owe to this however perhaps some degree of Patience
of Investigation, which I might not otherwise have obtained.
Another Advantage ought not to be omitted.
It is too near my heart.
My Smattering of Mathematics enabled me afterwards
at Auteuil in France to go, with my eldest Son,
through a Course of Geometry, Algebra and several
Branches of the Sciences, with a degree of pleasure
that amply rewarded me for all my time and pains.
Between the Years 1751 when I entered, and 1754
when I left College a Controversy was carried on
between Mr. Bryant the Minister of our Parish and
some of his People, partly on Account of his Principles
which were called Arminian and partly on Account of
his Conduct, which was too gay and light if not immoral.
Ecclesiastical Councils were called
and sat at my Father’s House.
Parties and their Acrimonies arose in the Church
and Congregation, and Controversies from the Press
between Mr. Bryant, Mr. Niles, Mr. Porter, Mr. Bass,
concerning the five Points.
I read all these Pamphlets and many other Writings
on the same Subject and found myself involved
in difficulties beyond my Powers of decision.
At the same time, I saw such a Spirit of Dogmatism
and Bigotry in Clergy and Laity, that if I should be a Priest
I must take my side, and pronounce as positively
as any of them, or never get a Parish,
or getting it must soon leave it.
Very strong doubts arose in my mind,
whether I was made for a Pulpit in such times,
and I began to think of other Professions.
I perceived very clearly, as I thought, that by the Study of
Theology and the pursuit of it as a Profession would involve
me in endless Altercations and make my Life miserable,
without any prospect of doing any good to my fellow Men.
The two last years of my Residence at College,
produced a Club of Students.
I never knew the History of the first rise of it,
who invited me to become one of them.
Their plan was to spend their Evenings together,
in reading any new publications, or any Poetry
or Dramatic Compositions, that might fall in their Way.
I was as often requested to read as any other,
especially Tragedies, and it was whispered to me
and circulated among others that
I had some faculty for public Speaking
and that I should make a better Lawyer than Divine.
This last Idea was easily understood and embraced by me.
My Inclination was soon fixed upon the Law:
but my judgment was not so easily determined.
There were many difficulties in the Way.
Although my Fathers general Expectation was that I should
be a Divine, I knew him to be a Man of so thoughtful and
considerate a turn of mind, to be possessed of so much
Candor and moderation, that it would not be difficult
to remove any objections he might make to my pursuit
of Physic or Law or any other reasonable Course.
My Mother although a pious Woman
I knew had no partiality for the Life of a Clergyman.
But I had Uncles and other relations,
full of the most illiberal Prejudices against the Law.
I had indeed a proper Affection and veneration for them,
but as I was under no Obligation of Gratitude to them,
which could give them any color of Authority to prescribe
a course of Life to me, I thought little of their Opinions.
Other Obstacles more serious
than these presented themselves.
A Lawyer must have a Fee, for taking me into his Office.
I must be boarded and clothed for several Years:
I had no Money; and my Father having three Sons,
had done as much for me, in the Expenses of my Education
as his Estate and Circumstances could justify
and as my Reason or my honor would allow me to ask.
I therefore gave out that I would take a School,
and took my Degree at College undetermined
whether I should study Divinity, Law or Physic.
In the public Exercises at Commencement,
I was somewhat remarked as a Respondent,
and Mr. Maccarty of Worcester who was empowered
by the Select Men of that Town to procure them
a Latin Master for their Grammar School
engaged me to undertake it.
About three Weeks after commencement in 1755,
when I was not yet twenty Years of Age,
a horse was sent me from Worcester
and a Man to attend me.
We made the journey about Sixty miles in one day,
and I entered on my Office.
For three months I boarded with one Green at the Expense
of the Town and by the Arrangement of the Select Men.
Here I found Morgan’s Moral Philosopher, which
I was informed had circulated, with some freedom,
in that Town and that the Principles of Deism had made
a considerable progress among several Persons,
in that and other Towns in the County.
Three months after this the Select Men procured
Lodgings for me at Dr. Nahum Willards.
This Physician had a large Practice,
a good reputation for Skill, and a pretty Library.
Here were Dr. Cheyne’s Works, Sydenham and others
and Van Sweetens Commentaries on Boerhave.
I read a good deal in these Books and entertained
many thoughts of Becoming a Physician and a Surgeon:
But the Law attracted my Attention more and more,
and Attending the Courts of justice, where I heard
Worthington, Hawley, Trowbridge, Putnam and others,
I felt myself irresistibly impelled
to make some Effort to accomplish my Wishes.
I made a Visit to Mr. Putnam, and offered myself to him.
He received me with politeness and even Kindness,
took a few days to consider of it, and then informed me
that Mrs. Putnam had consented that I should board
in his House, that I should pay no more,
than the Town allowed for my Lodgings,
and that I should pay him an hundred dollars,
when I should find it convenient.
I agreed to his proposals without hesitation
and immediately took Possession of his Office.
His Library at that time was not large;
but he had all the most essential Law Books;
immediately after I entered with him however
he sent to England for a handsome Addition of Law Books
and for Lord Bacon’s Works.
I carried with me to Worcester, Lord Bolingbroke’s Study
and Use of his History, and his Patriot King.
These I had lent him, and he was so well pleased with them
that he Added Bolingbroke’s Works to his List,
which gave me an Opportunity of reading
the Posthumous Works of that Writer in five Volumes.
Mr. Burke once asked, who ever read him through?
I can answer that I read him through, before the Year 1758
and that I have read him through at least twice
since that time; but I confess without much good or harm.
His Ideas of the English Constitution are correct
and His Political Writings are worth something;
but in a great part of them there is
more of Faction than of Truth.
His Religion is a pompous Folly, and his Abuse
of the Christian Religion is as superficial as it is impious.
His Style is original and inimitable;
it resembles more the oratory of the Ancients,
than any Writings or Speeches I ever read in English.
In this Situation I remained, for about two Years
Reading Law in the night and keeping School in the day.
At Breakfast, Dinner, and Tea, Mr. Putnam was commonly
disputing with me upon some question of Religion.
He had been intimate with one Peasley Collins, the Son of a
Quaker in Boston, who had been to Europe and came back,
a Disbeliever of Every Thing: fully satisfied that all Religion
was a cheat, a cunning invention of Priests and Politicians:
That there would be no future State, any more
than there is at present any moral Government.
Putnam could not go these whole Lengths with him.
Although he would argue to the extent of his Learning
and Ingenuity, to destroy or invalidate the Evidences
of a future State, and the Principles of natural and revealed
Religion, Yet I could plainly perceive that he could not
convince himself, that Death was an endless Sleep.
Indeed he has sometimes said to me, that he fully believed
in a future Existence, and that good Conduct in this Life,
would fare better in the next World than its contrary.
My Arguments in favor of natural and revealed Religion,
and a future State of Rewards and Punishments,
were nothing more than the common Arguments
and his against them may all be found in Lucretius,
together with many more….
At this Time October 1758 the Study of the Law was
a dreary Ramble, in comparison of what it is at this day.
The Name of Blackstone had not been heard,
whose Commentaries together with Sullivan’s Lectures
and Reeves’s History of the Law, have smoothed the path
of the Student, while the long Career of Lord Mansfield,
his many investigations and Decisions,
the great Number of modern Reporters in his time
and a great Number of Writers on particular Branches
of the Science have greatly facilitated the Acquisition of it.
I know not whether a set of the Statutes at large was
or of the State Trials was in the Country.
I was desirous of seeking the Law as well as I could
in its fountains, and I obtained as much Knowledge
as I could of Bracton, Britton, Fleta and Glanville,
but I suffered very much for Want of Books,
which determined me to furnish myself, at any Sacrifice,
with a proper Library: and Accordingly by degrees
I procured the best Library of Law in the State.
Looking about me in the Country, I found the practice
of Law was grasped into the hands of Deputy Sheriffs,
Pettifoggers and even Constables, who filled all
the Writs upon Bonds, promissory notes and Accounts,
received the Fees established for Lawyers
and stirred up many unnecessary Suits.
I mentioned these Things to some
of the Gentlemen in Boston, who disapproved
and even resented them very highly.
I asked them whether some measures might not
be agreed upon at the Bar and sanctioned by the Court,
which might remedy the Evil?
They thought it not only practicable but highly expedient
and proposed Meetings of the Bar to deliberate upon it.
A Meeting was called and a great Number of regulations
proposed not only for confining the practice of Law
to those who were educated to it and sworn to fidelity in it,
but to introduce more regularity, Urbanity, Candor
and Politeness as well as honor, Equity
and Humanity, among the regular Professors.
Many of these Meetings were the
most delightful Entertainments, I ever enjoyed.
The Spirit that reigned was that of Solid Sense, Generosity,
Honor and Integrity: and the Consequences were
most happy, for the Courts and the Bar instead of
Scenes of Wrangling, Chicanery, Quibbling and ill manners,
were soon converted to order, Decency, Truth and Candor.
Mr. Pratt was so delighted with these Meetings
and their Effects, that when We all waited on him
to Dedham in his Way to New York
to take his Seat as Chief justice of that State,
when We took leave of him after Dinner,
the last Words he said to Us, were, “Brethren above
all things forsake not the Assembling of yourselves together.”
The next Year after I was sworn, was the memorable
Year 1759 when the Conquest of Canada was completed
by the surrender of Montreal to General Amherst.
This Event, which was so joyful to Us and so important
to England if she had seen her true Interest,
inspired her with a jealousy, which ultimately lost her
thirteen Colonies and made many of Us at the time
regret that Canada had ever been conquered.
The King sent Instructions to his Custom house officers to
carry the Acts of Trade and Navigation into strict Execution.
An inferior Officer of the Customs in Salem
whose Name was Cockle petitioned the justices
of the Superior Court, at their Session in November
for the County of Essex, to grant him Writs of Assistants,
according to some provisions in one of the Acts of Trade,
which had not been executed, to authorize him to
break open Ships, Shops, Cellars, Houses &c.
to search for prohibited, and Goods, and merchandizes
on which Duties had not been paid.
Some Objection was made to this Motion,
and Mr. Stephen Sewall, who was then Chief Justice
of that Court, and a zealous Friend of Liberty,
expressed some doubts of the Legality and Constitutionality
of the Writ, and of the Power of the Court to grant it.
The Court ordered the question to be argued at Boston,
in February term 1761.
In the meantime Mr. Sewall died,
and Mr. Hutchinson then Lt. Governor, a Councilor,
and Judge of Probate for the County of Suffolk &c.
was appointed in his Stead, Chief Justice.
The first Vacancy on that Bench, had been promised, in two
former Administrations, to Colonel James Otis of Barnstable.
This Event produced a Dissention between Hutchinson
and Otis which had Consequences of great moment.
In February Mr. James Otis Jr. a Lawyer of Boston,
and a Son of Colonel Otis of Barnstable,
appeared at the request of the Merchants in Boston,
in Opposition to the Writ.
This Gentleman’s reputation as a Scholar, a Lawyer,
a Reasoner, and a Man of Spirit was then very high.
Mr. Putnam while I was with him had often said to me,
that Otis was by far the most able, manly and commanding
Character of his Age at the Bar, and this appeared to me
in Boston to be the universal opinion
of judges, Lawyers and the public.
Mr. Oxenbridge Thatcher whose amiable manners and pure
principles, united to a very easy and musical Eloquence,
made him very popular, was united with Otis,
and Mr. Gridley alone appeared for Cockle the Petitioner,
in Support of his Writ.
The Argument continued several days
in the Council Chamber, and the question was analyzed
with great Acuteness and all the learning,
which could be connected with the Subject.
I took a few minutes, in a very careless manner,
which by some means fell into the hands of Mr. Minot,
who has inserted them in his history.
I was much more attentive to the Information
and the Eloquence of the Speakers, than to my minutes,
and too much alarmed at the prospect
that was opened before me, to care much about
writing a report of the Controversy.
The Views of the English Government towards
the Colonies and the Views of the Colonies towards
the English Government, from the first of our History
to that time, appeared to me to have been directly
in Opposition to each other, and were now by the
imprudence of Administration, brought to a Collision.
England proud of its power and holding Us
in Contempt would never give up its pretentions.
The Americans devoutly attached to their Liberties,
would never submit, at least without an entire devastation
of the Country and a general destruction of their Lives.
A Contest appeared to me to be opened, to which
I could foresee no End, and which would render my Life
a Burden and Property, Industry and every Thing insecure.
There was no Alternative left, but to take the Side,
which appeared to be just, to march intrepidly forward
in the right path, to trust in providence for the Protection of
Truth and right, and to die with a good Conscience and
a decent grace, if that Trial should become indispensable….
In the Winter of 1764 the Small Pox prevailing in Boston,
I went with my Brother into Town
and was inoculated under the Direction of
Dr. Nathaniel Perkins and Dr. Joseph Warren.
This Distemper was very terrible
even by Inoculation at that time.
My Physicians dreaded it, and prepared me, by a milk Diet
and a Course of Mercurial Preparations, till they reduced me
very low before they performed the operation.
They continued to feed me with Milk and Mercury through
the whole Course of it, and salivated me to such a degree,
that every tooth in my head became so loose that I believe
I could have pulled them all with my Thumb and finger.
By such means they conquered the Small Pox,
which I had very lightly, but they rendered me incapable
with the Aid of another fever at Amsterdam of speaking
or eating in my old Age; in short they brought me
into the same Situation with my Friend Washington, who
attributed his misfortune to cracking of Walnuts in his Youth.
I should not have mentioned this, if I had not been
reproached with this personal Defect,
with so much politeness in the Aurora.
Recovered of the Small Pox, I passed the summer of 1764
in Attending Court and pursuing my Studies
with some Amusement on my little farm to which
I was frequently making Additions till the Fall
when on the 25th of October 1764 I was married
to Miss Smith a Daughter of the Reverend Mr. William Smith
a Minister of Weymouth, Granddaughter of the Honorable
John Quincy Esquire of Braintree, a Connection which
has been the Source of all my felicity.
Although a Sense of Duty which forced me away
from her and my Children for so many Years
has produced all the Griefs of my heart
and all that I esteem real Afflictions in Life.
The Town of Braintree had chosen me,
one of the Select Men, Overseers of the Poor and Assessors,
which occasioned much Business, of which I had enough
before: but I accepted the Choice and attended diligently
to the functions of the Office, in which
humble as it was I took a great deal of Pleasure.8
Notes
1. John Adams Revolutionary Writings 1755-1775, ed. Gordon Wood, p. 5-6.
2. Ibid., p. 8.
3. John Adams: A Life by John Ferling, p. 19.
4. John Adams Revolutionary Writings 1755-1775, p. 22-23.
5. Ibid., p. 50.
6. The Portable John Adams ed. John Patrick Diggins, p. 189-194.
7. Ibid., p. 200-207.
8. John Adams Revolutionary Writings 1755-1775, p. 617-628.
This work has not yet been published as a book, and all the chapters are free in this website.