John Adams had been apart from his wife Abigail
for about ten years while he was in Europe.
When the Senate was not meeting, he usually spent several months
each year with his family at Peacefield, Massachusetts.
In 1790 he had plenty of time to write Discourses on Davila
as his response to the early stage of the French Revolution.
Henrico Caterino Davila was an Italian who in 1630 had written
The History of the Civil War in France, and it would later be published as a book.
The Federalist editor John Fenno published the first essay by Adams
on April 27 in Pennsylvania in the Gazette of the United States.
Adams was also influenced by the Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith.
Because he did not make clear the difference between his writing and quotations
of the more conservative Davila, the writing of Adams was often misinterpreted.
His chapter XI begins with two lines by Alexander Pope:
Think we, like some weak prince, the eternal cause Prone,
for his favorites, to reverse his laws?Emulation which is imitation and something more—
a desire not only to equal or resemble, but to excel,
is so natural a movement of the human heart, that,
wherever men are to be found, and in whatever manner
associated or connected, we see its effects.
They are not more affected by it, as individuals,
than they are in communities.
There are rivalries between every little society
in the same city; between families and all the connections
by consanguinity and affinity; between trades, faculties,
and professions; between congregations, parishes,
and churches; between schools, colleges, and universities;
between districts, villages, cities, provinces, and nations.
National rivalries are more frequently the cause of wars
than the ambition of ministers, or the pride of kings.
As long as there is patriotism,
there will be national emulation, vanity, and pride.
It is national pride which commonly
stimulates kings and ministers.
National fear, apprehension of danger, and the necessity
of self-defense, is added to such rivalries
for wealth, consideration, and power.
The safety, independence, and existence of a nation,
depend upon keeping up a high sense of its own honor,
dignity, and power, in the hearts of its individuals,
and a lively jealousy of the growing power
and aspiring ambition of a neighboring state.
This is well illustrated in the Political Geography, published
in our newspapers from London, within a few weeks.
“The jealousies and enmities, the alliances and friendships,
or rather the combinations of different states and princes,
might almost be learned from a map, without attention
to what has passed, or is now passing in the world.
Next neighbors are political enemies.
States between which a common neighbor, and,
therefore, a common enemy intervenes, are good friends.
In this respect, Europe may be compared to a chess-board
marked with the black and with the white spots
of political discord and concord.
Before the union between England and Scotland,
a friendship and alliance subsisted for centuries
between the latter of these kingdoms and France
and because they were both inimical to England
For a like reason, before a Prince of Bourbon,
in the beginning of the present century, was raised
to the Spanish throne, a good understanding subsisted
for the most part between England and Spain;
and before the late alliance, there was peace and kindness,
with little interruption, for the space of centuries,
between England and the Emperor.
An alliance has long subsisted between the French
and the Turks, on account of
the intervening dominion of the Austrians.
The Swedes were long the friends of France,
on account of the intervention of Holland and Denmark;
and because Sweden, the friend of France, was situated
in the neighborhood of the Russian territories,
a friendship and commercial intercourse were established,
from the very first time that Muscovy appears on the
political theatre of Europe, between England and Russia.
It is superfluous to multiply instances of this kind.
All past history and present observation will confirm
the truth of our position, which, though very simple,
is like all other simple truths, of very great importance;
for, however the accidental caprices and passions
of individual princes, or their ministers, may alter
the relative dispositions and interests of nations for a time,
there is a natural tendency to revert
to the alteration already described.
We have been led into these reflections by the treaty
offensive and defensive, that has been formed between
Sweden, Prussia, and the Sublime Porte;
between Prussia and Holland; and the report, which is
very probable, that a treaty offensive and defensive is on
the point of being concluded between Turkey and Poland.
In this chain of alliances we find the order of the
chessboard adhered to, in some instances,
but passed over in others.
It is observed that there should be an alliance between
Turkey and Sweden, and also that there should be
an alliance between Poland and Turkey,
because Russia intervenes between Turkey and Sweden,
and Hungary between Turkey and Poland;
but that there should be an alliance between Poland and
Prussia is owing to particular and accidental circumstances.
The two former alliances may, therefore, be expected
to be lasting; the latter to be only temporary and precarious.
In general, the chain of alliance, that is formed or forming
among the Swedes, Prussians, Poles, Dutch, Turks,
and we may say the English, is a most striking proof
of the real or supposed strength and influence
of the two imperial courts of Russia and Germany.
The writer of this paragraph might have added
the alliance between England and Portugal,
and that of the United States of America and France.
The principle of all the samples is as natural as emulation,
and as infallible as the sincerity of interest.
On it turns the whole system of human affairs.
The Congress of 1776 were fully aware of it.
With no small degree of vehemence was it urged
as an argument for the declaration of independence.
With confidence and firmness was it foretold that France
could not avoid accepting the propositions that should be
made to her; that the Court of Versailles could not answer it
to her own subjects, and that all Europe would pronounce
her blind, lost, and undone, if she rejected so fair
an opportunity of disembarrassing herself from the danger
of so powerful and hostile a rival, whose naval superiority
held all her foreign dominions, her maritime power,
and commercial interest at mercy.
But why all this of emulation and rivalry?
Because, as the whole history of the civil wars of France,
given us by Davila, is no more than a relation of rivalries
succeeding each other in a rapid series, the reflections
we have made will assist us, both to understand that
noble historian, and to form a right judgment of the state
of affairs in France at the present moment.
They will suggest also to Americans, especially to those
who have been unfriendly, and may be now lukewarm
to their national constitution, some useful inquiries,
such as these, for example: Whether there are not
emulations of a serious complexion among ourselves?
between cities and universities? between north and south?
the middle and the north? the middle and the south?
between one state and another? between the governments
of states and the national government?
and between individual patriots and heroes in all these?
What is the natural remedy against the inconveniences
and dangers of these rivalries?
Whether a well-balanced constitution, such as that of our
Union purports to be, ought not to be cordially supported
by every good citizen, as our only hope of peace
and our ark of safety, till its defects,
if it has any, can be corrected?
But it must be left to the contemplations of our state
physicians to discover the causes and the remedy
of that fever whereof our power is sick.”
The question shall only be respectfully insinuated.
Whether equal laws, the result only of balanced
governments can ever be obtained and preserved
without some signs or bother of distinction and degree?
We are told that our friends, the National Assembly
of France, have abolished all distinctions.
But be not deceived, my dear countrymen.
Impossibilities cannot be performed.
Have they levelled all fortunes
and equally divided all property?
Have they made all men and women
equally wise, elegant, and beautiful?
Have they annihilated the names of Bourbon and
Montmorenci, Rochefoucauld and Noailles, Lafayette and
La Moignon, Necker and De Calonne, Mirabeau and Bailly?
Have they committed to the flames all the records,
annals, and histories of the nation?
All the copies or Mezerai, Daniel, De Thou,
Velly, and a thousand others?
Have they burned all their pictures,
and broken all their statues?
Have they blotted out of all memories, the names,
places of abode, and illustrious actions of all their ancestors?
Have they not still princes of the first and second order,
nobles and knights?
Have they no record nor memory who are the men
who compose the present national assembly?
Do they wish to have that distinction forgotten?
Have the French officers who served in America
melted their eagles and torn their ribbons?1
This is what Adams wrote in chapter XIII
following these two lines by Alexander Pope:
First follow nature; and your judgment frame
By her just standard, which is still the same.The world grows more enlightened.
Knowledge is more equally diffused.
Newspapers, magazines, and circulating libraries
have made mankind wiser.
Titles and distinctions, ranks and orders,
parade and ceremony, are all going out of fashion.
This is roundly and frequently asserted in the streets,
and sometimes on theatres of higher rank.
Some truth there is in it; and if the opportunity were
temperately improved, to the reformation of abuses,
the rectification of errors, and the dissipation
of pernicious prejudices, a great advantage it might be.
But, on the other hand, false inferences may be drawn
from it, which may make mankind wish
for the age of dragons, giants, and fairies.
If all decorum, discipline, and subordination are to be
destroyed, and universal Pyrrhonism, anarchy,
and insecurity of property are to be introduced,
nations will soon wish their books in ashes,
seek for darkness and ignorance, superstition
and fanaticism, as blessings, and follow the standard
of the first mad despot, who, with the enthusiasm
of another Mahomet, will endeavor to obtain them.
Are riches, honors, and beauty going out of fashion?
Is not the rage for them, on the contrary,
increased faster than improvement in knowledge?
As long as either of these are in vogue,
will there not be emulations and rivalries?
Does not the increase of knowledge in any man
increase his emulation; and the diffusion
of knowledge among men multiply rivalries?
Has the progress of science, arts, and letters yet discovered
that there are no passions in human nature?
no ambition, avarice, or desire of fame?
Are these passions cooled, diminished, or extinguished?
Is the rage for admiration less ardent in men or women?
Have these propensities less a tendency to divisions,
controversies, seditions, mutinies,
and civil wars than formerly?
On the contrary, the more knowledge is diffused, the more
the passions are extended, and the more furious they grow.
Had Cicero less vanity, or Caesar less ambition,
for their vast erudition?
Had the King of Prussia less of one than the other?
There is no connection in the mind between science
and passion, by which the former can extinguish
or diminish the latter.
It, on the contrary, sometimes increases them,
by giving them exercise.
Were the passions of the Romans less vivid
in the age of Pompey than in the time of Mummius.
Are those of the Britons more moderate at this hour
than in the reigns of the Tudors?
Are the passions of monks the weaker for all their learning?
Are not jealousy, envy, hatred, malice, and revenge,
as well as emulation and ambition, as rancorous
in the cells of Carmelites as in the courts of princes?
Go to the Royal Society of London.
Is there less emulation for the chair of Sir Isaac Newton
than there was, and commonly will be,
for all elective presidencies?
Is there less animosity and rancor, arising from mutual
emulations in that region of science,
than there is among the most ignorant of mankind?
Go to Paris.
How do you find the men of letters?
united, friendly, harmonious, meek, humble, modest,
charitable? prompt to mutual forbearance? unassuming?
ready to acknowledge superior merit?
zealous to encourage the first symptoms of genius?
Ask Voltaire and Rousseau, Marmontel and De Mably.
The increase and dissemination of knowledge,
instead of rendering unnecessary the checks of emulation
and the balances of rivalry in the orders of society and
constitution of government, augment the necessity of both.
It becomes the more indispensable that every man
should know his place, and be made to keep it.
Bad men increase in knowledge as fast as good men;
and science, arts, taste, sense, and letters, are employed
for the purposes of injustice and tyranny, as well as those
of law and liberty; for corruption, as well as for virtue.
Frenchmen! Act and think like yourselves!
Acknowledging and boasting yourselves to be men,
avow the feelings of men.
The affectation of being exempted
from passions is inhuman.
The grave pretension to such singularity
is solemn hypocrisy.
Both are unworthy of your frank and generous natures.
Consider that government is intended to set bounds
to passions which nature has not limited;
and to assist reason, conscience, Justice, and truth,
in controlling interests, which, without it,
would be as unjust as uncontrollable.
Americans! Rejoice, that from experience you have
learned wisdom; and instead of whimsical and fantastical
projects, you have adopted a promising essay
towards a well-ordered government.
Instead of following any foreign example, to return to
the legislation of confusion, contemplate the means
of restoring decency, honesty, and order in society,
by preserving and completing, if anything should be found
necessary to complete the balance of your government.
In a well-balanced government, reason, conscience, truth,
and virtue, must be respected by all parties,
and exerted for the public good.
Advert to the principles on which you commenced that
glorious self-defense, which, if you behave
with steadiness and consistency,
may ultimately loosen the chains of all mankind.
If you will take the trouble to read over
the memorable proceedings of the town of Boston,
on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1772,
when the Committee of Correspondence
of twenty-one persons was appointed to state the rights
of the colonists as men, as Christians, and as subjects,
and to publish them to the world, with the infringements
and violations of them, you will find the great principles
of civil and religious liberty for which you have contended
so successfully, and which the world
is contending for after your example.
I could transcribe with pleasure the whole of this immortal
pamphlet, which is a real picture of the sun of liberty
rising on the human race; but shall select only a few words
more directly to the present purpose.
“The first fundamental, positive law of all commonwealths
or states is the establishment of the legislative power.”
“It is absolutely necessary in a mixed government like that
of this province, that a due proportion or balance of power
should be established among
the several branches of the legislative.
Our ancestors received from King William and Queen Mary
a charter, by which it was understood by both parties
in the contract, that such a proportion or balance was fixed;
and, therefore, everything which renders any one branch
of the legislative more independent of the other two
than it was originally designed,
is an alteration of the constitution.”
Americans! in your Congress at Philadelphia,
on Friday, the fourteenth day of October, 1774,
you laid down the fundamental principles for which
you were about to contend, and from which it is to be hoped
you will never depart.
For asserting and vindicating your rights and liberties,
you declared, that, by the immutable laws of nature,
the principles of the English constitution
and your several charters or compacts,
you were entitled to life, liberty, and property;
that your ancestors were entitled to all the rights, liberties,
and immunities of free and natural born subjects in England;
that you, their descendants, were entitled to the exercise
and enjoyment of all such of them as your local and
other circumstances enabled you to exercise and enjoy.
That the foundation of English liberty and of all free
governments, is a right in the people to participate
in their legislative council.
That you were entitled to the common law of England,
and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege
of being tried by your peers of the vicinage,
according to the course of that law.
That it is indispensably necessary to good government,
and rendered essential by the English constitution,
that the constituent branches of the legislature
be independent of each other?”
These among others you then claimed, demanded,
and insisted on, as your indubitable rights and liberties.
These are the principles on which
you first united and associated,
and if you steadily and consistently maintain them,
they will not only secure freedom and happiness
to yourselves and your posterity, but your example will be
imitated by all Europe, and in time, perhaps, by all mankind.
The nations are in travail, and great events must have birth.
“The minds of men are in movement
from the Boristhenes to the Atlantic.
Agitated with new and strong emotions, they swell
and heave beneath oppression, as the seas
within the polar circle, at the approach of spring.
The genius of philosophy, with the touch of Ithuriel’s spear,
is trying the establishments of the earth.
The various forms of prejudice, superstition, and servility,
start up in their true shapes, which had long imposed
upon the world, under the revered
semblances of honor, faith, and loyalty.
Whatever is loose must be shaken;
whatever is corrupted must be lopped away;
whatever is not built on the broad basis of public utility
must be thrown to the ground.
Obscure murmurs gather and swell into a tempest;
the spirit of inquiry, like a severe and searching wind,
penetrates every part of the great body politic;
and whatever is unsound, whatever is infirm,
shrinks at the visitation.
Liberty, led by philosophy, diffuses her blessings
to every class of men; and even extends
a smile of hope and promise to the poor African,
the victim of hard, impenetrable avarice.
Man, as man, becomes an object of respect.
Tenets are transferred from theory to practice.
The growing sentiment, the lofty speculation,
no longer serve ‘but to adorn the pages of a book.’
They are brought home to men’s business and bosoms;
and what, some centuries ago, it was daring but to think,
and dangerous to express,
is now realized and carried into effect.
Systems are analyzed into their first principles,
and principles are fairly pursued
to their legitimate consequences.”
This is all enchanting.
But amidst our enthusiasm, there is great reason
to pause and preserve our sobriety.
It is true that the first empire of the world
is breaking the fetters of human reason
and exerting the energies of redeemed liberty.
In the glowing ardor of her zeal, she condescends,
Americans, to pay the most scrupulous attention
to your maxims, principles, and example.
There is reason to fear she has copied from you
errors which have cost you very dear.
Assist her, by your example, to rectify them before they
involve her in calamities as much greater than yours,
as her population is more unwieldy, and her situation
more exposed to the baleful influence of riyal neighbors.
Amidst all their exultations, Americans and Frenchmen
should remember that the perfectibility of man
is only human and terrestrial perfectibility.
Cold will still freeze, and fire will never cease to burn;
disease and vice will continue to disorder,
and death to terrify mankind.
Emulation next to self-preservation will forever be
the great spring of human actions, and the balance
of a well-ordered government will alone be able to prevent
that emulation from degenerating into dangerous ambition,
irregular rivalries, destructive factions,
wasting seditions, and bloody, civil wars.
The great question will forever remain, who shall work?
Our species cannot all be idle.
Leisure for study must ever be the portion of a few.
The number employed in government
must forever be very small.
Food, raiment, and habitations, the indispensable wants
of all, are not to be obtained without the continual toil
of ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind.
As rest is rapture to the weary man, those who labor little
will always be envied by those who labor much,
though the latter in reality be probably the most enviable.
With all the encouragements, public and private,
which can ever be given to general education,
and it is scarcely possible they should be too many or too
great, the laboring part of the people can never be learned.
The controversy between the rich and the poor,
the laborious and the idle, the learned and the ignorant,
distinctions as old as the creation, and as extensive
as the globe, distinctions which no art or policy,
no degree of virtue or philosophy can ever wholly destroy,
will continue, and rivalries will spring out of them.
These parties will be represented in the legislature,
and must be balanced, or one will oppress the other.
There will never probably be found any other mode
of establishing such an equilibrium, than by constituting
the representation of each an independent branch
of the legislature, and an independent executive authority,
such as that in our government, to be a third branch
and a mediator or an arbitrator between them.
Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.
But if unlimited or unbalanced power of disposing property,
be put into the hands of those who have no property,
France will find, as we have found,
the lamb committed to the custody of the wolf.
In such a case, all the pathetic exhortations and addresses
of the national assembly to the people, to respect property,
will be regarded no more than
the warbles of the songsters of the forest.
The great art of lawgiving consists in balancing the poor
against the rich in the legislature, and in constituting the
legislative a perfect balance against the executive power,
at the same time that no individual or party
can become its rival.
The essence of a free government consists
in an effectual control of rivalries.
The executive and the legislative powers are natural rivals;
and if each has not an effectual control over the other,
the weaker will ever be the lamb in the paws of the wolf.
The nation which will not adopt an equilibrium of power
must adopt a despotism.
There is no other alternative.
Rivalries must be controlled, or they will throw all things
into confusion; and there is nothing but despotism
or a balance of power which can control them.
Even in the simple monarchies, the nobility
and the Judicatures constitute a balance,
though a very imperfect one, against the royalties.
Let us conclude with one reflection more which
shall barely be hinted at, as delicacy, if not prudence,
may require, in this place, some degree of reserve.
Is there a possibility that the government of nations
may fall into the hands of men who teach the most
disconsolate of all creeds, that men are but fireflies,
and that this all is without a father?
Is this the way to make man, as man, an object of respect?
Or is it to make murder itself
as indifferent as shooting a plover,
and the extermination of the Rohilla nation as innocent
as the swallowing of mites on a morsel of cheese?
If such a case should happen, would not one of these,
the most credulous of all believers, have reason to pray
to his eternal nature or his almighty chance (the more
absurdity there is in this address the more in character)
give us again the gods of the Greeks;
give us again the more intelligible as well as more
comfortable systems of Athanasius and Calvin;
nay, give us again our popes and hierarchies,
Benedictines and Jesuits, with all their superstition
and fanaticism, impostures and tyranny.2
John Adams at the end of his Discourses on Davila included this Postscript:
If anyone wishes to see more of the spirit of rivalry,
without reading the great historians of France,
he may consult L’Esprit de la Ligue, L’Esprit de la Fronde,
and the Memoirs of De Retz and his contemporaries.
The history of England is more familiar to Americans;
but, without reading many volumes, he may find
enough of rivalries in those chapters of Henry’s History of
Great Britain, which treat of civil and military affairs.
If even this study be too grave, he may find
in Shakespeare’s Historical Plays, especially Henry IV,
V, and VI, and Richard III, enough to satisfy him.
If the gayety of Falstaff and his associates excite not
so much of his laughter as to divert his attention
from all serious reflections, he will find, in the efforts
of ambition and avarice to obtain their objects,
enough of the everlasting pretexts of religion, liberty,
love of country, and public good, to disguise them.
The unblushing applications to foreign powers to France,
Germany, the Pope, Holland, Scotland, Wales,
and Jack Cade, to increase their parties and assist
their strength, will excite his indignation, while the blood
of the poor cheated people, flowing in torrents on all sides,
will afflict his humanity.
The English constitution in that period was not formed.
The house of commons was not settled;
the authority of the peers was not defined;
the prerogatives of the crown were not limited.
Magna Charta, with all its confirmations and solemnities,
was violated at pleasure by kings,
nobles, and commons too.
The judges held their offices at pleasure.
The habeas corpus was unknown; and that balance
of passions and interests, which alone can give authority
to reason, from which results all the security to liberty
and the rights of man, was not yet wrought into the
English constitution, nor much better understood
in England than in France.
The unity of the executive power was not established.
The national force, in men and money, was not in the king,
but in the landholders, with whom the kings were obliged
to make alliances, in order to form their armies
and fight their enemies, foreign and domestic.
Their enemies were generally able to procure an equal
number of powerful landholders, with their forces,
to assist them, so that all depended on the chance of war.
It has been said, that
it is extremely difficult to preserve a balance.
This is no more than to say that
it is extremely difficult to preserve liberty.
To this truth all ages and nations attest.
It is so difficult, that the very appearance of it is lost over
the whole earth, excepting one island and North America.
How long it will be before she returns to her native skies,
and leaves the whole human race in slavery,
will depend on the intelligence and virtue of the people.
A balance, with all its difficulty, must be preserved,
or liberty is lost forever.
Perhaps a perfect balance, if it ever existed,
has not been long maintained in its perfection;
yet, such a balance as has been sufficient to liberty,
has been supported in some nations for many centuries
together; and we must come as near as we can
to a perfect equilibrium, or all is lost.
When it is once widely departed from,
the departure increases rapidly, till the whole is lost.
If the people have not understanding and public virtue
enough, and will not be persuaded of the necessity
of supporting an independent executive authority,
an independent senate, and an independent judiciary power,
as well as an independent house of representatives,
all pretensions to a balance are lost,
and with them all hopes of security
to our dearest interests, all hopes of liberty.3
On 25 April 1791 John Adams wrote this letter
to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton:
I do my self the honor to transmit to you my accounts
which remain unsettled, for the last two years
and eight months of my Administrations abroad
in the service of the United States.
I have left a blank for my salary.
In my own opinion it is but justice that it should be filled up
with the sum of two thousand five hundred pounds sterling
a year, because this was the contract under which
I accepted my commission for the peace in 1779
and that for their High Mightinesses in 1781
which last continued in force until my return home.
The resolution of Congress, which stated the salary
of a minister abroad at 9000 dollars, could not reasonably
be intended to operate upon ministers and commissioners
which had been given and accepted
upon different conditions.
Such an interpretation of it would make it
amount to a breach of public faith.
Moreover, I have been well informed by Mr. Gerry, who
proposed the alteration, that the reason of this resolution
was a supposition that, in that time of peace,
the expenses of living in Europe were reduced.
This motive was so far from being a just one,
as applied to me, that I found the expenses of living
in London about a quarter part dearer
than I had ever known them in Paris or the Hague.
This therefore, was rather a reason for raising my salary
to three thousand pounds sterling a year, which I actually
spent, than for reducing it to nine thousand dollars.
I have been informed by Mr. Barclay that
Mr. Franklin charged, and has been allowed,
two thousand five hundred pounds sterling a year
till his return, and as I am in the same predicament with
him, it is at least as just that it should be allowed to me;
indeed, it is more so, because I certainly was obliged to
spend more than that sum, and he undoubtedly spent less.
I have also requested an allowance
for a private secretary.
As the business of my mission to Holland, as well as that
to England, lay upon me, in addition to my share in all the
negotiations with Prussia and the other powers of Europe,
as well as the Barbary States, it may readily be conceived
that I had a great deal of business and still more writing
to do, as copies of all such correspondences must be
preserved, and therefore I hope the charge for
a private secretary will not be thought unreasonable.
An allowance is asked also for one ministerial
or diplomatic entertainment for each year.
This is done for two reasons:
1. because it is the custom of the whole Corps Diplomatique;
2. because it seems to be a reasonable custom; and
3. because Mr. Franklin has charged and been allowed for
all extraordinary entertainments, as I suppose, as he
told me he had charged them or should charge them.
An outfit I have asked for, amounting to one year’s salary.
This will be but a very inadequate compensation to me,
for the extraordinary expenses I was put to by the variety
of services and multiplicity of commissions
which were heaped upon me.
My case is singular, and distinguished from that
of every other gentleman who has ever been sent abroad
in the service of the United States.
In 1779 Congress sent me abroad, with two commissions,
one to negotiate a peace, and another
to his Britannic Majesty to negotiate
a treaty of commerce with that power.
Under these commissions I went to Paris, and resided there,
which obliged me to take a house or apartments
ready furnished, and establish a household,
equipage, and set of servants there.
In 1780, Congress sent me a commission to borrow money
in Holland to the amount of ten millions of dollars.
This obliged me to live in Holland.
In 1781, Congress sent me a commission to treat with that
republic, and a letter of credence to the States General.
This obliged me to hire a house and completely furnish it,
because there was no such thing to be hired in Holland
as furniture, as might be done and was done
by Mr. Deane, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and myself at Paris.
My commission for the peace obliged me
to make journeys to Versailles.
My commission for borrowing money not only augmented
my expenses, but gave me more trouble and occasioned
more labor and perplexity than all the other services.
The frequent removals from one country to another,
the continual change of servants and liveries,
the wear and tear of baggage, and destruction of furniture,
besides the perpetual plunder I was subjected to
in my absence from my house in one country,
while attending my duty in another, have wasted
and consumed my salary in such a manner,
that my family must be deprived of that reward for my time,
trouble, risk, and services, which all of us were entitled to,
and which some may have been
happy enough honestly to secure.
I say all of us were entitled to it, because Congress
on the 28th September, 1786, resolved, that their ministers
should live in such a style and manner as they might find
suitable and necessary to support the dignity of their
public character, and that besides their actual expenses,
a handsome allowance be made to each of them, as a
compensation for their time, trouble, risk, and services.
If the articles I have submitted are allowed me,
difficult as it will be to justify myself to my family,
I shall be content; but if not, I must crave an allowance
of one half per cent., as commissions on nine millions of
guilders, by me borrowed in Holland for the United States.
When Congress allows four per cent. to the houses
of Willinks and Van Stapherst, and their undertakers,
upon all these loans, which has already amounted
to a handsome fortune to each house,
it would be extremely hard and unreasonable to oblige me,
who had more trouble with every one of these loans
than those houses had—nay, who had more trouble
with the first of them than they have had with the whole—
not only to do this whole business for nothing,
but live at my own expense while I did it.
This must be my hard fate, if nothing can be allowed me
as commissions, nor for extraordinary services.
Considerable sums were spent by me, at times,
for secret services and other sums, to no small amount,
were advanced to Americans in distress,
some of them in prison, and others escaped;
but, as I have no vouchers for these,
and I suppose Congress would not be willing to set
a precedent, I make no charge for them, although they
were advanced out of my own money—part of my salary.
Let me ask the favor of you, Sir,
to look over these accounts, and then present them
to the auditor, that they may be settled in some way
or other by the next session of Congress.4
Thomas Paine published Rights of Man in England in the early spring of 1791,
and his criticism of political heresies on monarchy and
aristocracy were probably aimed at John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson complained to President Washington about the
Vice President’s “apostasy to hereditary monarchy and nobility.”
His son John Quincy Adams published his ideas in the Columbian Centinel
of Boston using the name “Publicola” that criticized Paine’s book and Jefferson
who on July 17 wrote a letter to John Adams apologizing in which he wrote,
I found on my return from a journey of a month that
a writer came forward under the signature of Publicola,
attacking not only the author and principles of the pamphlet,
but myself as it’s sponsor, by name.
Soon after came hosts of other writers defending the
pamphlet and attacking you by name
as the writer of Publicola.
Thus were our names thrown on the public stage
as public antagonists.
That you and I differ in our ideas of the best form of
government is well known to us both:
but we have differed as friends should do,
respecting the purity of each other’s motives, and
confining our difference of opinion to private conversation.
And I can declare with truth in the presence of the almighty
that nothing was further from my intention or expectation
than to have had either my own or your name
brought before the public on this occasion.
The friendship and confidence which has so long existed
between us required this explanation from me, and I know
you too well to fear any misconstruction of the motives of it.
Some people here who would wish me to be,
or to be thought, guilty of improprieties, have suggested
that I was Agricola, that I was Brutus etc. etc.
I never did in my life, either by myself or by any other,
have a sentence of mine inserted in a newspaper without
putting my name to it; and I believe I never shall.5
On 29 July 1791 John Adams in a letter to Jefferson wrote,
Yesterday, at Boston, I received your friendly Letter
of July 17th with great pleasure.
I give full credit to your relation of the manner,
in which your note was written and prefixed to the
Philadelphia edition of Mr. Paine’s pamphlet on
the rights of Man: but the misconduct of the person,
who committed this breach of your confidence,
by making it public, whatever were his intentions, has sown
the seeds of more evils, than he can ever atone for.
The Pamphlet, with your name, to so striking a
recommendation of it, was not only industriously propagated
in New York and Boston; but that the recommendation
might be known to everyone, was reprinted with great care
in the Newspapers, and was generally considered
as a direct and open personal attack upon me,
by countenancing the false interpretation of my Writings
as favoring the Introduction of hereditary Monarchy
and Aristocracy into this Country.
The Question everywhere was What Heresies
are intended by the Secretary of State?
The Answer in the Newspapers was, The Vice President’s
notions of a limited Monarchy, an hereditary Government
of King and Lords, with only elective commons.
Emboldened by these murmurs soon after appeared the
Paragraphs of an unprincipled Libeler in the
New Haven Gazette, carefully reprinted in the Papers
of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, holding up the
Vice President to the ridicule of the World, for his meanness,
and to their detestation for wishing
to Subjugate the People to a few Nobles.
These were Soon followed by a formal Speech
of the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts very Solemnly
holding up the Idea of hereditary Powers and cautioning
the Public against them, as if they were at that moment
in the most imminent danger of them.
These Things were all accompanied with the most marked
neglect both of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor
of this State towards me; and all together operated
as a Hue and Cry to all my Enemies and Rivals,
to the old constitutional faction of Pennsylvania
in concert with the late Insurgents of Massachusetts,
both of whom consider my Writings as the Cause of their
overthrow, to hunt me down like a hare, if they could.
In this State of Things, Publicola, who, I suppose thought
that Mr. Paine’s Pamphlet was made Use of
as an Instrument to destroy a Man, for whom
he had a regard, he thought innocent and in the present
moment of some importance to the Public, came forward.
You declare very explicitly that you never did,
by yourself or by any other, have a Sentence of yours,
inserted in a Newspaper, without your name to it.
And I, with equal frankness declare that I never did,
either by myself or by any other, have a Sentence of mine
inserted in any Newspaper since I left Philadelphia.
I neither wrote nor corrected Publicola.
The Writer in the Composition of his Pieces followed
his own Judgment, Information and discretions,
without any assistance from me.
You observe “That you and I differ in our Ideas of
the best form of Government is well known to Us both.”
But, my dear Sir, you will give me leave to say,
that I do not know this.
I know not what your Idea is
of the best form of Government.
You and I have never had a Serious conversation together
that I can recollect concerning the nature of Government.
The very transient hints that have ever passed between Us,
have been jocular and Superficial,
without ever coming to any explanation.
If You suppose that I have or ever had a design or desire,
of attempting to introduce a Government of King, Lords
and Commons in other Words a hereditary Executive
or a hereditary Senate, either into the Government
of the United States, or that of any Individual State,
in this Charge you are wholly mistaken.
There is not Such a Thought expressed or intimated
in any public writing or private Letter of mine,
and I may Safely challenge all Mankind to produce
such a passage and quote the Chapter and Verse.
If you have ever put such a Construction on any Thing
of mine, I beg you would mention it to me,
and I will undertake to convince you,
that it has no such meaning.
Upon this occasion I will venture to say that
my unpolished Writings, although they have been read
by a sufficient Number of Persons to have assisted
in crushing the Insurrection of the Massachusetts,
the formation of the new Constitutions of Pennsylvania,
Georgia and South Carolina and in procuring the Assent
of all the States to the new national Constitution.
Yet they have not been read by great Numbers.
Of the few who have taken the pains to read them,
some have misunderstood them and others have willfully
misrepresented them, and these misunderstandings
and misrepresentations have been made the pretense
for overwhelming me with floods and whirlwinds
of tempestuous abuse,
unexampled in the History of this Country.
It is thought by Some, that Mr. Hancock’s friends
are preparing the Way, by my destruction,
for his Election to the Place of Vice President,
and that of Mr. Samuel Adams to be Governor
of this Commonwealth, and then the Stone House Faction
will be sure of all the Loaves and Fishes,
in the national Government
and the State Government as they hope.
The Opposers of the present Constitution of Pennsylvania,
the Promoters of Shays’ Rebellion and County Resolves,
and many of the Detesters of the present
national Government, will undoubtedly aid them.
Many People think too that no small Share of a foreign
Influence, in revenge for certain untractable conduct
at the Treaty of Peace, is and will be intermingled.
The Janizaries of this goodly Combination,
among whom are three or four, who hesitate
at no falsehood, have written all the Impudence
and Impertinence, which have appeared
in the Boston Papers upon this memorable Occasion.
I must own to you that the daring Traits of Ambition
and Intrigue, and those unbridled Rivalries which
have already appeared, are the most melancholy and
alarming Symptoms that I have ever seen in this Country:
and if they are to be encouraged to proceed in their Course,
the Sooner I am relieved from the Competition
the happier I Shall be.
I thank you, Sir very Sincerely
for writing to me upon this occasion.
It was high time that you and I should come to
an explanation with each other.
The friendship which has Subsisted for fifteen years
between Us, without the Smallest Interruption,
and until this occasion without the Slightest Suspicion,
ever has been and Still is, very dear to my heart.
There is no office which I would not resign, rather than
give a just occasion for one friend to forsake me.
Your motives for writing to me, I have not a doubt
were the most pure and the most friendly,
and I have no suspicion that you will not receive this
explanation from me in the same candid Light.6
When the Senate was meeting, John Adams presided each day.
When the Senate was in session, the routine of Adams was to read public
documents most of the day and then write letters and read books in the evening.
His health improved, and daily exercise made him feel “bold and strong.”
He supported the Federalism of Washington and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
In May 1792 the United States Congress adjourned,
and John Adams went home for the summer.
He was running again for Vice President as a Federalist,
and both parties nominated Washington for President.
Anti-federalists Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formed the Republican Party,
and they nominated Governor of New York George Clinton for Vice President.
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Jefferson were feuding,
and what they did agree on was that Washington should be President for a second term.
Hamilton in early September urged John Adams to come back to Philadelphia, writing,
“I am persuaded you are very indifferent personally to the event of a certain election,
yet I hope you are not so as to the cause of good government.”7
Washington in November announced that he would accept another term,
and that persuaded Adams to go back to Philadelphia.
Once again Washington received the votes of all 132 electors
as he won in all 15 states; he got 28,579 in the popular vote.
Vice President Adams with 77 elector votes defeated Clinton who had 50.
Jefferson received 4, and the New York Senator Aaron Burr got one electoral vote.
Each party gained one seat in the Senate, and the Federalists still had a majority 18-11.
In the coming year the Anti-federalists gained 24 seats in the House of Representatives
while Federalists added only 12 which gave those
opposing the Federalist administration a 54-51 advantage.
John Adams accepted a membership in the American Philosophical Society,
and Jefferson accompanied him to his first meeting.
On 4 March 1793 John Adams was inaugurated for a second term as Vice President.
In March they learned that France’s King Louis XVI had been beheaded on January 21.
Britain and Spain soon went to war against France which declared war on February 1.
That year John Adams lost several teeth from having pyorrhea, and he spoke with a lisp.
Edmund Charles Genêt in early April arrived in South Carolina,
and he began recruiting privateers to attack British ships.
John Adams had met his father in the translation office in France.
On April 22 President Washington proclaimed neutrality,
and Adams supported that policy.
Philadelphia in August suffered its worst epidemic of yellow fever.
By October over a hundred were dying each day.
By the time a frost ended it November, they had lost 5,000 people.
The government resumed in late November, and Adams went back to his routine.
He also went to church on Sundays.
John Adams on 19 December 1793 wrote in a letter to his wife Abigail,
Citizen Genêt made me a Visit yesterday
while I was in Senate and left his Card.
I shall leave mine at his Hotel Tomorrow as Several
of the Senators have already hastened to return their Visits;
but We shall be in an Awkward Situation with this Minister.
I write you little concerning public affairs,
because you will have every Thing in Print.
How a Government can go on, publishing all their
Negotiations with foreign Nations I know not.
To me it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel;
but upon this occasion
it could not perhaps have been avoided.
You know where I think was the Error
in the first Concoction.
But Such Errors are unavoidable where the People
in Crowds out of Doors undertake to receive Ambassadors,
and to dictate to their Supreme Executive.
I know not how it is: but in proportion
as dangers threaten the Public, I grow calm.
I am very apprehensive that a desperate Anti-federal Party,
will provoke all Europe by their Insolence.
But my Country has in its Wisdom contrived for me,
the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man
contrived or his Imagination conceived:
and as I can do neither good nor Evil,
I must be born away by Others and meet the common Fate.
The President has considered the Conduct of Genêt,
very nearly in the Same light with Columbus
and has given him a Bolt of Thunder.
We Shall See how this is supported by the two Houses.
There are, who gnash their Teeth with Rage
which they dare not own as yet.
We Shall Soon See whether We have
any Government or not in this Country.
If the President has made any Mistake at all,
it is by too much Partiality for the French Republicans
and in not preserving a Neutrality between the Parties
in France as well as among the Belligerent Powers.
But although he Stands at present as high in the Admiration
and Confidence of the people as ever he did,
I expect he will find many bitter and desperate Enemies
arise in Consequence of his just Judgment against Genêt.
Besides that a Party Spirit will convert
White into black and Right into Wrong.
We have I fear very corrupt Individuals in this Country,
independent of the common Spirit of Party.
The common Movements of Ambition every day disclose
to me Views and Hopes and Designs that are very diverting.
But these I will not commit to Paper.
They make sometimes a very pretty Farce, for Amusement,
after the great Tragedy or Comedy is over.8
On December 31 Thomas Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State.
On 3 January 1794 John Adams in this letter dated 1793
wrote to John Quincy Adams about Jefferson:
The Public Papers will inform you that Mr. Jefferson
has resigned and that Mr. Randolph
is appointed Secretary of State.
The Attorney General is not yet nominated.
Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Benson, Mr. Gore,
Mr. Potts &c have been mentioned in Conversation.
The Motives to Mr. Jefferson’s Resignation
are not assigned, and are left open
to the Conjectures of a Speculating World.
I also am a Speculator in the Principles and Motives
of Men’s Actions and may guess as well as others.
1. Mr. Jefferson has a habit as well as a disposition
to expensive Living, and as his Salary was not Adequate
to his Luxury, he could not Subdue his Pride and Vanity
as I have done, and proportion
his Style of Life to his Revenue.
2. Mr. Jefferson is in debt as I have heard to an amount
of Seven thousand Pounds before the War,
so that I Suppose he cannot afford to Spend
his private income in the Public service.
3. Mr. Jefferson has been obliged
to lower his Note in Politics.
Pains, Principles when adopted by Genêt,
were not found so convenient for a Secretary of State.
4. He could not rule the Roast in the Ministry.
He was often in a Minority.
5. Ambition is the Subtlest Beast
of the Intellectual and Moral Field.
It is wonderfully adroit in concealing itself from its owner;
I had almost said from itself.
Jefferson thinks he shall by this step get a Reputation
of a humble, modest, meek Man,
wholly without ambition or Vanity.
He may even have deceived himself into this Belief.
But if a Prospect opens, The World will see,
and he will feel that he is as ambitious
as Oliver Cromwell, though no soldier.
6. At other Moments he may meditate the gratification
of his Ambition;
Numa was called from the Forests to be King of Rome.
And if Jefferson, after the Death or Resignation
of the President should be summoned from the familiar
Society of Egeria, to govern the Country
forty Years in Peace and Piety, So be it.
7. The Tide of popular sentiment in Virginia runs
not so rapidly in favor of Jacobinical feelings as it did.
Though the Party were a Majority
and carried every Member at the last Election,
there are Symptoms of increasing federalism in Virginia.
A Wise Man like Jefferson
foresees the Evil and hides himself.
But after all I am not very anxious what were his Motives.
Though his Desertion may be a Loss to Us of some Talents
I am not sorry for it on the whole,
because his soul is poisoned with Ambition,
and his Temper imbittered against the Constitution
and Administration as I think.
All this is confidential.9
During his second term Adams avoided controversy by writing
most of his letters to his wife Abigail and his son Charles.
He wrote two letters to Charles on equality.
In the first one on 9 January 1794 he wrote,
I received this Morning your valuable Letter of the 6th
and am much pleased with your Observations
as well as with your Researches.
But I wish you would examine
the Passage in Polybius in Greek.
It is the highest Satisfaction to me to perceive that you have
so just a sense of the Importance of the Belief of a Deity
and his Providence and moral Government
to the Happiness of Nations as well as Individuals.
Although your Opinion of the Duration of Christianity
is not expressed in Terms so decided, I am also happy to
find that you think it promotive of the happiness of Mankind.
Let me however recommend to you,
not easily to believe that it is in much danger.
You may take my Word for it, that if any Gates
could have easily prevailed against it,
it would have disappeared long ago.
If you live to the Age of Man,
you will find the Faith in it very little diminished.
It is founded on that eternal and fundamental Principle
of the Law of Nature: Do as you would be done by,
and Love your Neighbor as yourself.
Equality is the Element of Christianity, and how the
Preachers of Equality of the present day can be so absurd
as to quarrel with their best Friend & supporter I know not.
You may perhaps be surprised to find me an Advocate
for the modern Doctrine of Equality;
but your surprise may cease when I tell you that
I was one of the earliest and most explicit asserters of it.
I drew the Article in the Massachusetts Declaration
of Rights, which has given so much offense.
All Men are by Nature free And equal.
I have heard such Men as Mr. Gerry, Mr. Parsons
& Mr. Bradbury say lately that they wished this Article
out of the Constitution because it is not true.
I wondered at this and differed entirely in opinion.
It was opposed in Convention,
and I was called upon to defend and explain it.
I asserted it to be a fundamental elementary Principle
of the Law of Nature: and We were then
in a state of Nature laying down first Principles.
It meant not a Physical but a moral Equality.
Common sense was sufficient to determine that
it could not mean that all Men were equal in fact,
but in Right, not all equally tall, Strong, wise, handsome,
active: but equally Men, of like Bodies and Minds,
the Work of the Same Artist, Children of the Same father,
almighty, all equally in the Same Cases
entitled to the Same Justice.
How the present Age can boast of this Principle
as a Discovery, as new Light and modern Knowledge
I know not.
As I wish you to look into this subject, I will enlarge upon it.
But not at present.
You may consider this as an Introduction.10
In his second letter to Charles on moral equality
John Adams wrote on 24 February 1794,
As the genuine Equality of human Nature is the true
Principle of all our Rights and Duties to one another,
and the false Notions of Equality, the source of much folly
and Wickedness, and the undefined
and indeterminate Ideas of it,
the Cause of much Nonsense and confusion.
It is of great Importance to ascertain, what it does mean,
and what it does not mean.
It really means little more than that
We are all of the same Species: made by the same God:
possessed of Minds and Bodies alike in Essence: having
all the same Reason, Passions, Affections and appetites.
All Men are Men and not Beasts:
Men and not Birds: Men and not Fishes.
The Infant in the Womb is a Man, and not a Lion.
The Idiot even is a Man and not an Eagle.
The Dwarf himself is a Man and not a Whale.
The blind are Men, and not Insects, the deaf are Men
and not reptiles, the dumb are Men and not Trees.
All these are Men and not Angels.
Men and not Vegetables &c.
The difficulty of inventing a definition of Man has been seen
by all Learned Men, and there is Scarcely
a Satisfactory one to be found to this day.
A definition which shall comprehend those Particulars
which constitute the Equality in question and no more,
and no less, is not easily hit upon.
The Equality of Nature is a moral Equality only:
an Equality of Rights and Obligations; nothing more.
The Physical Inequalities among Men
in a State of Nature are infinite.
I recollect not, my Charles, whether you even
accompanied me to the Hospital
of the Enfans-trouvees at Paris.
There have I seen in one room fifty Children every one
of whom was under three days old, all lying neatly dressed
and lodged in separate beds or Cradles in Rows.
In this little Congregation, you might observe all the
Inequalities of Health, Strength, Beauty,
Joy, sorrow, Gaiety, Horror and despair
that you can discern in a populous City.
In every School and every College
you may see the Same Difference.
The Physical Inequalities, in a State of Nature,
are so obvious, so determinate and so unalterable,
that no Man is absurd enough to deny them.
These Inequalities are rights.
The healthy Infant has as clear a natural right to his healthy
Constitution, as the Sickly one has to his infirm Constitution.
The Strong Child has as Sound a natural Right
to his Strength, as the Weak one to his frailty.
The active Babe has the Same natural Right to his Activity,
as the Sluggish one to his Sloth.
The mental vigor of one is as undoubtedly his right
as the imbecility of the other.
The handsome Infant has the Same right
to its beauty as the Ugly one to its deformity.
A pleasant temper is as natural to one,
as a sour disposition to the other.
These Physical Inequalities, lay the foundation for
Inequalities of Wealth, Power, Influence
and Importance, throughout human Life.
Laws and Government have neither the Power
nor the Right to change them.
In what Sense, Charles, can a Child,
in a State of Nature be Said to be born equal to its Mother?
Its Body is not equal.
Its Mind is not equal.
It is in the Power of the Mother.
She has the Power of Life and death over it.
She has Authority too over it, she has Wisdom, Power and
Goodness, which give her a natural Authority to govern it.
The Truth is not difficult to be understood by any Man,
who sincerely Searches for it in this Instance.
The natural Equality is moral only and not Physical:
and in no Way affects the Question concerning forms
of Government any farther than to determine that to be
the best which but Secures the Equality of Rights,
not that which attempts to destroy Physical Inequalities
or any of their Consequences in society,
upon Property, Reputation or Power.
Society may institute and establish any Inequalities except
of Rights, which it judges necessary to Secure the Laws.
Government of no kind can be instituted
without great Inequalities.
Not even the Simplest democracy, for the Moment the
assembly meets, a few will Start forth more Eloquent,
more Wise, and more brave than the rest
and acquire a superior Influence, Reputation & Power.
Hereditary Monarchies and Hereditary Senates,
may be instituted by any Nation which knows them
to be essential to the preservation of their equal Rights;
and even these Kings and Nobles are still
upon a moral Level with their meanest subjects.11
John Adams on May 11 in a letter to Thomas Jefferson wrote,
I think nevertheless that “the Rights of one Generation
of Men must Still depend, in Some degree,
on the Paper Transactions of another.”
The Social Compact and the Laws
must be reduced to Writing.
Obedience to them becomes a national Habit,
and they cannot be changed but by Revolutions
which are costly Things.
Men will be too Economical of their Blood and Property
to have Recourse to them very frequently.
This Country is becoming the Asylum
of all the ardent Spirits in Europe.
The Bp. of Autun and Mr. Beaumez, are arrived,
and Dr. Priestley is expected.
The President has Sent Mr. Jay to try if he can find
any way to reconcile our honor with Peace.
I have no great Faith in any very brilliant Success:
but hope he may have enough to keep us out of a war.
Another war would add two or three hundred Millions
of Dollars to our Debt: rouse up a many-headed
and many-bellied Monster of an Army to tyrannize over Us,
totally disadjust our present Government,
and accelerate the Advent of Monarchy
and Aristocracy by at least fifty years.
Those who dread Monarchy and Aristocracy
and at the Same time advocate war
are the most inconsistent of all Men.12
In May 1794 President Washington appointed the lawyer John Quincy Adams
to be the resident minister to The Hague, and his younger brother
Thomas Boyleston Adams in September sailed to be his secretary.
Quincy Adams visited John Jay in London and became the Minister Plenipotentiary
to the Netherlands at The Hague on November 6 and served until June 1797.
On 14 February 1795 John Adams wrote to
his son Charles about popularity and party spirit,
Our amiable Professor, in the 5th Page, informs us that
“The free Commonwealth of the United States,
which in all its ties, relations and dependencies,
is animated with the pure Spirit of popular Representation,
offers the highest Rewards to a Successful cultivation
of the Law, and the Utmost Encouragement to Genius.”
I Scarcely have the Courage, my dear son,
to write even to you, my candid, free
and independent Thoughts upon this Passage.
Would to God it were true
in any reasonable Construction of the Words!
Is it animated with the pure Spirit
of Popular Representation?
And what is the pure Spirit of popular Representation?
I know of no other Answer which can be given to this last
question than this viz a Spirit in Elections, of Candor, Truth,
Justice, and public Affection: in Contradistinction and
opposition to all Partiality, falsehood, party Spirit,
Intrigue or other Species of Corruption.
Is the Commonwealth of the U. S.
animated with Such a pure Spirit?
Recollect the first Election of P. and V. P.
There were no Bribes received or offered.
But were there not Intrigues of an unwarrantable Nature,
wholly inconsistent with the pure Spirit We have described!
Recollect the Second Election of the same officers.
Collect together the Newspapers, in all the States and see
what a monstrous Mass of Lies you will have before you.
Recollect the pure Spirit of Clintonian Cabal—
of Virginia Artifice—of Kentucky Delusion—
and then Say whether all this is pure Spirit.
Examine and see whether you find, this pure Spirit,
in the Elections of Senators of U. S.
I shall not descend into minute Details.
But in general, my son enquire whether the Elections
of senators are not too often determined by Party Spirit
and even by Factious motives in the Legislatures
of the states and whether there is not danger
that Such an Evil will increase?
But I have a more serious Question still to ask,
whether the pure Spirit of popular Representation,
when Elections are so frequent of the Executives
as well as of the Senate is consistent with Liberty?
The purest Spirit of popular Representation will forever
elect Representatives of the Majority in Number—
Education, Property, Honor
will not be proportionally represented.
Consequently Education, Property and Honor
will not be Secure.
Moreover if the pure Spirit of Popularity is
to give the Ton to every Thing why are
the P. & V.P. chosen by Electors instead of the People?
Why are senators chosen by another Description of Electors
and not by the People?
The Answer is obvious the pure Spirit of Popularity
is not always and in all Things to be trusted.
We are told, further that “The free Commonwealth of the
U. S. offers the highest Rewards to a successful Cultivation
of the Law and the Utmost Encouragement to Genius.”
Whether this is true or not, and in what degree it is true,
or otherwise deserves your serious Consideration.
The purest Spirit of Popularity that We have in this Country
is adulterated if not poisoned with ancient monkish
Prejudices against the Profession and Professors of Law,
which it is difficult to overcome.
It deserves your Consideration whether the highest Rewards
are given to the cultivation of the Law, or not.
Whether they are not given too often to a Successful
Cultivation of popular Prejudices?
to an assiduous fomentation of contracted notions—
to a party Spirit? and to vulgar sophistry,
to an abuse of Words?
Read Mr. Lock’s Chapter on the Abuse of Words and see
if the Frauds and Knaveries there described do not
too often decide the Spirit of popular Representation,
and bestow the highest rewards.
I am afraid “the Encouragements to Genius”
will as little bear Examination.
Genius with Integrity appears to be very little Encouraged—
and Genius without Integrity,
had better not be encouraged at all.
Genius is too much encouraged to affect Popularity,
to flatter the People, to excite Prejudices,
to inflame Passions, to unite with Parties,
to associate with Clubs, but not enough to study
and pursue the public Good in the plain path
of Virtue, Honor and Knowledge.13
On March 21 John Adams wrote about slavery in this letter to Jeremy Belknap:
I have read the Queries concerning the Rise & Progress
of slavery but as it is a subject to which I have never given
any very particular attention I may not be able to give you
so much Information as many others.
I was concerned in several Causes, in which Negroes sued
for their Freedom before the Revolution.
The arguments in favor of their Liberty were much the same
as have been urged since in Pamphlets and Newspapers,
in Debates in Parliament &c. arising from the Rights of
Mankind, which was the fashionable Word at that time.
Since that time they have dropped the “kind.”
Argument might have some Weight, in the Abolition
of Slavery in the Massachusetts, but the real Cause
was the multiplication of laboring White People,
who, would no longer suffer the Rich to employ these
Sable Rivals, so much to their Injury.
This Principle has kept Negro Slavery
out of France, England and other Parts of Europe.
The common People would not Suffer, the Labor by which
alone they could obtain a subsistence to be done by Slaves.
If the gentlemen had been permitted by Law to hold Slaves,
the common white People would have put the Negroes
to Death and their Masters too perhaps.
I never knew a Jury by a Verdict
to determine a Negro to be a Slave—
They always found them free.
As I was not in the General Court in 1773,
I have no particular Remembrance of the Petition
for the Liberation of all the Blacks,
and know not how it was supported or treated.
The common white People, or rather the laboring People,
were the Cause of rendering Negroes unprofitable servants.
Their Scoffs & Insults, their continual Information,
filled the Negros with Discontent, made them lazy, idle,
proud, vicious, and at length wholly Useless
to their Masters’: to such a Degree that
the Abolition of Slavery became a measure of Economy.14
On June 8 President Washington asked only John Adams
to dine with him privately to discuss the Jay Treaty with Britain.
Adams told him that Jay had made peace with the British
but to do more “was impossible.”
In the treaty the British agreed to remove their troops
from American territory by June 1796.
President Washington summoned the Senate to a session in June 1795.
Adams returned to the capital.
The House of Representatives demanded to
see the information on the controversial treaty.
Adams believed that the House was jealous of the power in the Senate.
Fisher Ames in the House of Representatives gave a rousing speech in favor
of the treaty, and on June 24 two-thirds of the Senators ratified the treaty.
A few days later the full text was published by the Philadelphia Aurora,
which had replaced Freneau’s National Gazette as the Republican newspaper.
Crowds gathered, called Jay a traitor, and burned him in effigy.
Riots erupted in New York and Boston.
Never before had President Washington been exposed to so much criticism.
Adams believed that a defective treaty was better than a war against the British.
When the Secretary of State Edmund Randolph was accused of corruption,
which he denied, he resigned.
This meant that the entire cabinet, which Washington had chosen, had been replaced.
On 5 September 1795 the United States made a Friendship Treaty
with the Regency of Algiers, and on 6 May 1796 they promised
an annuity of 12,000 Algerian sequins in gold.
In December 1795 John Adams learned that
Washington was going to retire after his second term ended.
On 7 January 1796 John Adams in a letter to Abigail wrote,
The President appears great in Randolph’s vindication
throughout, excepting that he wavered about signing
the treaty, which he ought not to have done one moment.
Happy is the Country to be rid of Randolph;
but where shall be found good men and true
to fill the offices of Government?
There seems to be a necessity of distributing the offices
about the States in some proportion to their numbers;
but in the southern part of the Union, false politics
have struck their roots so deep, that it is very difficult to find
gentlemen who are willing to accept of public trusts,
and at the same time capable of discharging them.
The President offered the office of State to several
gentlemen who declined; to Mr. Patterson, Mr. King,
Mr. Henry of Virginia, Mr. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
of South Carolina, and three others
whose names I do not recollect.
He has not been able to find anyone
to accept the war office.
The expenses of living at the seat of government
are so exorbitant, so far beyond all proportion
to the salaries, and the sure reward of integrity
in the discharge of public functions is such obloquy,
contempt, and insult, that no man of any feeling is willing
to renounce his home, forsake his property and profession
for the sake of removing to Philadelphia,
where he is almost sure of disgrace and ruin.
Where these things will end I know not.
In perfect secrecy between you and me, I must tell you
that I now believe the President will retire.
The consequence to me is very serious, and I am not able,
as yet, to see what my duty will demand of me.
I shall take my resolutions with cool deliberation.
I shall watch the course of events with more critical
attention than I have done for some time,
and what Providence shall point out to be my duty,
I shall pursue with patience and decision.
It is no light thing to resolve upon retirement.
My country has claims; my children have claims,
and my own character have claims upon me; but all
these claims forbid me to serve the public in disgrace.
Whatever anyone may think, I love my country too well
to shrink from danger in her service, provided I have
a reasonable prospect of being able
to serve her to her honor and advantage.
But if I have reason to think that I have either a want
of abilities or of public confidence to such a degree as to be
unable to support the government in a higher station,
I ought to decline it.
But in that case, I ought not to serve in my present place
under another, especially if that other should entertain
sentiments so opposite to mine as to endanger
the peace of the nation.
It will be a dangerous crisis in public affairs, if the President
and Vice-President shall be in opposite boxes.
“These lucubrations must be confined to your own bosom.
But I think, upon the whole, the probability is strong that
I shall make a voluntary retreat, and spend the rest
of my days, in a very humble style, with you.
Of one thing I am very sure—
it would be to me the happiest portion of my whole life.”15
On 20 January 1796 Adams wrote to her again.
This is one of my red-letter days.
It is the anniversary of the signature of the declaration
of an armistice between the United States
and Great Britain, in 1783.
There are several of these days in my calendar,
which I recollect as they pass in review,
but which nobody else remembers.
And, indeed, it is not otherwise worth my while
to remember them than to render an ejaculation
of gratitude to Providence for the blessing.
We are wasting our time in the most insipid manner,
waiting for the treaty.
Nothing of any consequence will be done, till that arrives,
and is mauled and abused, and then acquiesced in.
For the anti’s must be more numerous than I believe them,
and made of sterner stuff than I conceive,
if they dare hazard the surrender of the posts
and the payment for spoliations, by any resolution
of the House that shall render precarious
the execution of the treaty on our part.
I am as you say, quite a favorite.
I am to dine to-day again.
I am heir apparent, you know,
and a succession is soon to take place.
But whatever may be the wish or the judgment of the
present occupant, the French and the demagogues
intend, I presume, to set aside the descent.
All these hints must be secrets.
It is not a subject of conversation as yet.
I have a pious and a philosophical resignation to the
voice of the people in this case, which is the voice of God.
I have no very ardent desire
to be the butt of party malevolence.
Having tasted of that cup,
I found it bitter, nauseous, and unwholesome.16
By January 1796 most Federalists were supporting John Adams
to succeed Washington as President.
In February the Aurora suggested that Thomas Jefferson
was the ideal person to replace Washington.
Adams was not willing to be Vice President under Jefferson
because he would rather be in the House of Representatives.
On February 28 Jefferson in a letter to John Adams wrote,
I am to thank you, my dear Sir, for forwarding
M. D’Ivernois’ book on the French revolution.
I receive everything with respect which comes from him.
But it is on politics, a subject I never loved, and now hate.
I will not promise therefore to read it thoroughly.
I fear the oligarchical executive of the French will not do.
We have always seen a small council get into cabals and
quarrels, the more bitter and relentless the fewer they are.
We saw this in our committee of the states;
and that they were from their bad passions,
incapable of doing the business of their country.
I think that for the prompt, clear and consistent action
so necessary in an Executive,
unity of person is necessary as with us.
I am aware of the objection to this, that the office becoming
more important may bring on serious discord in elections.
In our country I think it will be long first; not within our day;
and we may safely trust to the wisdom of our Successors
the remedies of the evil to arise in theirs.
Both experiments however are now fairly committed,
and the result will be seen.
Never was a finer canvas presented to work on
than our countrymen.
All of them engaged in agriculture or the pursuits of
honest industry, independent in their circumstances,
enlightened as to their rights, and firm in
their habits of order and obedience to the laws.
This I hope will be the age of experiments in government,
and that their basis will be founded on principles of honesty,
not of mere force.
We have seen no instance of this since the days of the
Roman republic, nor do we read of any before that.
Either force or corruption has been the principle of every
modern government, unless the Dutch perhaps be excepted,
and I am not well enough informed
to except them absolutely.
If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis
of their own government, it is our case; and he who
could propose to govern such a people by the corruption
of their legislature, before he could have one night
of quiet sleep, must convince himself that
the human soul as well as body is mortal.
I am glad to see that whatever grounds of apprehension
may have appeared of a wish to govern us otherwise
than on principles of reason and honesty,
we are getting the better of them.
I am sure, from the honesty of your heart, you join me
in detestation of the corruption of the English government,
and that no man on earth is more incapable than yourself
of seeing that copied among us, willingly.
I have been among those who have feared
the design to introduce it here, and it has been a
strong reason with me for wishing there was an ocean
of fire between that island and us.—But away politics.
I owe a letter to the Auditor on the subject of my accounts
while a foreign minister, and he informs me yours
hang on the same difficulties with mine.
Before the present government there was a usage either
practiced on or understood which regulated our charges.
This government has directed the future by a law.
But this is not retrospective, and I cannot conceive why
the treasury cannot settle accounts under the old Congress
on the principles that body acted on.
I shall very shortly write to Mr. Harrison on this subject,
and if we cannot have it settled otherwise,
I suppose we must apply to the legislature.
In this I will act in concert with you if you approve of it.
Present my very affectionate respects to Mrs. Adams,
and be assured that no one more cordially esteems your
virtues than Dear Sir Your sincere friend & servt.17
On March 1 John Adams in a letter to Abigail wrote,
Yesterday the President sent his Carriage for me
to go with the Family to the Theatre.
The Rage and the Spoiled Child were the two Pieces.
It rained and the House was not full.
I thought I perceived a little Mortification.
Mr. George Washington and his fine Lady were with Us.
Yours of 21st gives me a Satisfactory Account of farming.
I think I would engage Billings if I could.
I must leave it to you to give him what you think fit.
There is no Vessel up for Boston,
and Seeds are very Scarce and uncommonly dear.
As to the Subject of yours of the 20th
I am quite at my Ease.
I never felt less Anxiety
when any considerable Change lay before me.
Aut transit aut finit.
I transmigrate or come to an End.
The Question is between living at Phila or at Quincy,
between great Cares and Small Cares.
I have looked into myself
and see no meanness nor dishonesty there.
I see weakness enough But no timidity.
I have no concern on your Account but for your health.
A Woman can be silent, when she will.
After all, Persuasion may overcome
the Inclination of the Chief to retire.
But if it should, it will shorten his days I am convinced.
His heart is set upon it, and the Turpitude of the Jacobins
touches him more nearly than he owns in Words.
All the studied Efforts of the Feds, to counterbalance
Abuses by Compliments don’t answer the End.
View larger image I suspect, but don’t know, that
Patrick Henry, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Jay and Mr. Hamilton
will all be voted for.
I ask no questions, but questions are forced upon me.
I have had some Conversations purposely Tonight,
in order as I believe indeed as I know, to convince me, that
the Feds had no thoughts of overleaping the Succession.
The only Question that labors in my Mind is
whether I shall retire with my Leader?
I hate to live in Phila in Summer,
and I hate still more to relinquish my farm.
I hate Speeches, Messages, Addresses and answers,
Proclamations and such affected, constrained Things.
I hate Levees and Drawing Rooms.
I hate to Speak to a 1000 People
to whom I have nothing to say.
Yet all this I can do.
But I am too old to continue more than one
or at most more than two heats,
and that is scarcely time enough to form contact
and complete any very useful system.
Electioneering enough We shall have;
the enclosed Scraps will show specimens.18
John Adams on 11 March 1796 wrote in a letter to Abigail
that he would support a Quincy Academy.
He also reported these concerns,
The House of Representatives have fastened on the
British Treaty with all their Teeth and all their Nails.
Individuals will bite like savages, and tear like Lions.
There will be a desperate Effort of a Party which seems
to think and perhaps justly that their Power
depends entirely on the Destruction of that Instrument.
The Business of the Country in many important
Departments stands still and suffers for Want of attention,
which is all Absorbed by the Debates on the Treaty
and will continue to be so for several Weeks.
Many Persons are very anxious,
and forebode a Majority unfavorable,
and the most pernicious and destructive Results.
I cannot yet believe that
they will be so desperate and unreasonable.
If they should be, what is to come next I know not.
It will be then evident that this Constitution cannot Stand.19The French revolutionary government was involved in a war,
and on 4 July 1796 they declared their attention to act toward neutral ships
in the same way the British were.
French ships began seizing American ships to capture their cargo.
That month President Washington sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
to replace James Monroe as the ambassador in France.
His brother Thomas Pinckney did good work on a treaty with Spain
that was signed on 27 October 1795.
John Adams in a letter to John Sullivan on 2 August 1796 wrote,Sir,—I received last evening the letter you did me
the honor to write me the 30th of July, and am ready
to give you all the information in my power.
Mitchell’s Map was the only one, which
the ministers plenipotentiary of the United States,
and the minister plenipotentiary of Great Britain,
made use of in their conferences and discussions
relative to the boundaries of the United States,
in their negotiation of the peace of 1783, and
of the provisional articles of the 30th of November, 1782.
Upon that map, and that only, were these boundaries
delineated; and the river marked on that map
with the name of St. Croix, was the river agreed upon
as the eastern boundary of the State of Massachusetts
and of the United States.
It was not intended by either party to give any new
boundary to the east side of Massachusetts;
but the real eastern boundary of the province of
Massachusetts Bay, according to the charter of
William and Mary, was intended to be
the eastern boundary of the United States.
To the forgoing facts I am ready to attest in any manner
that may be judged necessary, and if Mr. Jay
should transmit you an affidavit, I shall be very willing
to do the same; but I can scarcely think it necessary,
because I cannot believe that
any of these facts will be denied or questioned.
The decease of Mr. Oswald is unfortunate, because
I am well assured he would have avowed all these facts
with the utmost frankness and candor.
Mr. Whitefoord, the secretary to his commission,
I am confident, will readily admit them all.
Mr. William Franklin, the secretary to the
American commission, knows them.
Dr. Franklin, before his death, transmitted to the then
Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, as I was informed by him
a full state of this affair, according to his recollection,
a document which probably
Colonel Pickering has transmitted to you.
If not, it may be useful for you to obtain it from his office.
Lord St. Helens, formerly Mr. Fitzherbert, might
or might not be informed by Mr. Oswald at the time.
If he was, I have confidence enough in his lordship’s
honor and candor to believe that
he will confirm all that I have said.
Benjamin Vaughan, Esq., might or might not be informed;
if he was, either by Mr. Oswald or Mr. Whitefoord,
or any of the American ministers, his testimony
cannot but corroborate the account I have given.20
France in August recalled their ambassador
Pierre Adet from Philadelphia, and he was not replaced.
The French also told James Monroe that his diplomacy was
improper and would be fruitless or would have a bad effect.
Adet received the letter of his recall on 12 October 1796,
and Monroe
in November got his letter from the
Secretary of State of his recall by the President.
President Washington had released his famous Farewell Address to
the newspapers on September 17, and that triggered the election campaign.
The Federalist Adams and the Republican Jefferson were the leading candidates,
and they both remained at their homes away from the capital.
The leading candidates for Vice President were the Republican Senator Aaron Burr
from New York and the Federalist Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina
who ended his ministry to London on July 27 to run for the House of Representatives.
John Fenno in October published the pamphlet
The Pretensions of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency and the Charges
Against John Adams Refuted Addressed to the Citizens of America in General
and Particularly to the Electors of the President by William Loughton Smith.
In this Phocion series Smith wrote,
His elevation to the Presidency must eventuate either
in the debasement of the American name, by a whimsical,
inconsistent, and feeble administration, or in the prostration
of the United States at the feet of France, the subversion
of our excellent Constitution, and the consequent destruction
of our present prosperity.21
The French Minister Adet on October 27 informed the American government
that the French Directory had announced acting toward neutral ships by searching,
confiscating property, and capturing sailors just as the English were doing to them.
On December 7 James Monroe introduced to the French his replacement
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and four days later the Foreign Minister and the
Directory demanded that the American government redress grievances
before France would recognize the United States Ambassador.
Voting for the 138 electors was held from November 5 to December 7.
Jefferson and Burr were supported by Governor Samuel Adams of Massachusetts
and George Clinton, the former Governor of New York.
Adams and Thomas Pinckney were backed by Governor John Jay of New York,
US Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, Pinckney’s brother,
and by Supreme Court Justice James Iredell and
former Senator Samuel Johnston who were both from North Carolina.
Notes
1. The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States, Volume 8
by Charles Francis Adams, p. 267-270.
2. Ibid., p. 274-284.
3. Ibid., p. 398-399.
4. Ibid., p. 500-503.
5. Thomas Jefferson Writings, p. 981.
6. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 291-294.
7. John Adams by David McCullough, p. 437.
8. John Adams to Abigail Adams, 19 December 1793 (online).
9. John Adams to John Quincy Adams, 3 January 1793 (online).
10. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 300-301.
11. Ibid., p. 301-303.
12. To Thomas Jefferson from John Adams, 11 May 1794 (online).
13. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 310-312.
14. Ibid., p. 313-314.
15. The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States, Volume 1,
p. 483-484.
16. Ibid., p. 484-485.
17. Thomas Jefferson Writings , p. 1033-1035.
18. Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 1 March 1796 (online).
19. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 315-316.
20. The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States, Volume 8,
p. 519-520.
21. The First Presidential Contest: 1796 and the Founding of American Democracy
by Jeffrey Pasley, p. 273.
This work has not yet been published as a book, and all the chapters are free in this website.