On 4 March 1801 John Adams left the city of Washington
at 4 a.m. to go home, declining to witness the inauguration
of his friend and political adversary Thomas Jefferson.
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson on March 24 John Adams wrote
about his grief because of the death of his son Charles Adams,
I have rec’d your favor of March 8
with the Letter enclosed, for which I thank you.
Enclosed is a Letter to one of your Domestics
Joseph Dougherty.
Had you read the Papers enclosed they might
have given you a moment of Melancholy
or at least of Sympathy with a mourning Father.
They relate wholly to the Funeral of a Son who
was once the delight of my Eyes and a darling of my heart,
cut off in the flower of his days, amidst very flattering
Prospects by causes which have been the greatest Grief
of my heart and the deepest affliction of my Life.
It is not possible that anything of the kind should happen
to you, and I sincerely wish you may never experience
anything in any degree resembling it.
This part of the Union is in a State of perfect Tranquility,
and I See nothing to obscure your prospect of a quiet and
prosperous Administration, which I heartily wish you.1
John Adams wrote at least 19 letters to Benjamin Rush
from February 1805 to January 1813 including a long letter
on 30 September 1805 warning against European alliances in which he concluded,
Now let me propose to your Son Richard,
a political Theorem or two for his Solution.
1. If Washington had seen as I did, and consented to
the appointment of Col. Burr, as a Brigadier in the Army,
a rank and command he would have eagerly accepted
for he was then in great humiliation and near despair,
what would at this hour be
the situation of the United States?
Would the Manhattan Bank have ever been founded?
Would the momentary Union of the Livingstons
and Clintons have ever been formed?
Would the State of New York have been democrified so?
Would not the Federal Candidates have had the
unanimous votes of the Electors for that State?
2. If I had appointed Augustus Muhlenberg, Treasurer of
the Mint, or Peter, a Brigadier in the Army, would Augustus
have united with Tench Coxe at Lancaster in that impudent
and insolent address to the Public, with their Names
in which I was so basely slandered and belied?
If the Germans had been gratified with appointments of
these their Leaders, would not the Electors
of Pennsylvania have been all Federal?
and consequently the Federal cause, triumphant?2
On 5 February 1806 John Adams wrote to John Quincy Adams
about the blockade and the impressment of seamen.
In the first place, I must, in conformity with one of the
rules ordained by you orators, endeavor to conciliate
the affections of my reader, by quieting your Anxiety
for your Children, which I can do with a good conscience
by assuring you that George and John are
in very good health and very fine Spirits.
My Sheet would not hold the history
of their Studies, their Sports and frolics.
In the next place I must turn my thoughts to a more grave
and gloomy Subject, the State of our public affairs.
I see the tendency of everything to a System of
too much tameness towards France and Spain
and too much rashness with Great Britain.
As I know not the Points which have been insisted on,
by our Ministers, I know not what provocation to resentment
may have been given to the English Government.
But whatever Affronts or Injuries may have been offered,
if any, they can not justify the new Doctrine they hold
and still less the Impressment of Seamen.
I think we have gone too far already, by acquiescing
in their pretension that the continuity of a Voyage,
must be broken by landing Cargoes in the United States
and paying the Duties.
I desire to know in what Writer on the Law of Nations,
is to be found the Rule that a neutral Vessel has not a right
to purchase a Cargo in one Part of the Dominions of a
belligerent Power and carry it directly to another
and there sell it, provided no contraband goods are in it,
and it is not bought nor sold in a blockaded Port.
Why may it not be carried and sold to the other belligerent
Power, provided its own Laws have not prohibited it?
and why may it not be carried to any other neutral Power
and there sold?
For Example why may not Mr. Sears send a Vessel to the
Isle of France, there purchase bona fide a Cargo
and then carry it to Bordeaux and there sell it?
Why may he not carry it to London?
Because the Laws of England,
not the Law of Nations forbid it.
Why may he not carry it to Amsterdam, Italy
or up the Baltic?
If there is any rule of the Law of Nations that forbids it,
I have forgot it and should be glad to see the
chapter and Verse where it is to be found cited.
I am perfectly convinced that
England is wrong in its present Pretensions.
The Impressment of Seamen is, if possible,
still more clearly against her.
More than thirty years ago I had occasion
to look with attention into this Subject.
There is in Fosters Crown Law, the only investigation of it,
that ever has been written by any English Judge or Lawyer.
He contends that Impressments are lawful
when Authorized by Warrants from the Admiralty
in the River Thames and perhaps
within the neighboring Seas from English Ships.
But no Writer nor any Man of common Sense ever
pretended that with or without a Warrant,
English officers had a right to impress foreign Seamen
from foreign Ships all over the Ocean or in any Part of it.
Did any Man ever read of, hear of any such Title or Article
in the Law of Nations as Impressment of Seamen?
Nothing surely in that Law can be found to give a color
to the practice: nor indeed in the Laws of England
before Foster wrote.
English unwritten Usage is all the foundation it has.
The Right of Visitation to Search for Contraband of War,
gives no right to touch the hair of the head of any Seaman
on board, not even of an English Seaman,
no, not if he were a deserter from their own Men of War.
Jealousy of Commerce and Envy of maritime power
in any people but themselves is
a very strong passion in an English Bosom.
It is seated and rooted in every fold of every English heart.
I have been so sensible of it all my Lifetime that
I always expected it would occasion another War with Us.
When I was in England,
I saw it in a Stronger light than ever.
I have invariably endeavored to avoid it by avoiding
all invidious Connections with France, Spain and Holland
and by doing ample and impartial Justice to England:
But I fear that things that make for her peace
are hidden from her Eyes as they have been from ours.
If she forces us into a War, she will find an Enemy
very different from that of 1775:
Our Confusion will be very great,
but she will suffer most in the End.
Another War will transmit an eternal hatred to England
to our American Posterity, a closer intimacy if not a
perpetual alliance with France, Spain and Holland,
and be the ultimate ruin of the greatest maritime Power
and the freest government that ever existed.
Croak! Croak! Croak!
I can do nothing but croak in the present state of Things.
I often hear it said that
Britain does not desire a War with Us.
This, provided she can destroy our Capitals,
Commerce and navy, may be true.
But she cannot bear the appearance of Capitals in America.
England sees America through such a mist of Passions
and Prejudices, such a mixture of Contempt, Jealousy,
fear and hatred that she never will think or Act
judiciously towards Us; at least those are my fears.
A Motion for an immediate declaration of War,
or for issuing Letters of Marque would have been
much more dignified than Mr. Wrights.
British Spirits have been too much exalted last Season
by the Coalition of Austria, Russia &c and the hopes
of Prussia and especially by their naval Victory.
The World is all afloat, incertum quo fata ferunt.3
After more than a decade without a letter between them
John Adams on 1 January 1812 wrote to Thomas Jefferson this letter:
As you are a Friend to American Manufactures
under proper restrictions, especially Manufactures
of the domestic kind, I take the Liberty of Sending you
by the Post a Packet containing two Pieces of Homespun
lately produced in this quarter by One who was
honored in his youth with Some of your Attention
and much of your kindness.
All of my Family whom you formerly knew are well.
My Daughter Smith is here and has Successfully
gone through a perilous and painful Operation, which
detains her here this Winter, from her Husband and
her Family at Chenango: where one of the most gallant
and Skillful Officers of our Revolution is probably
destined to Spend the rest of his days, not in the Field
of Glory, but in the hard Labors of Husbandry.
I wish you Sir many happy New years and that
you may enter the next and many Succeeding years
with as animating Prospects for the Public
as those at present before us.
I am Sir with a long and Sincere Esteem
your Friend and Servant.4
Jefferson responded to Adams with a letter on January 12.
Adams wrote a much longer letter on manufacturing to Jefferson on February 3.
On June 11 Jefferson wrote a letter to Adams about Indians,
and four days later he wrote a letter about liberties and political parties.
John Adams wrote in a letter on 28 June 1812 to Jefferson on American Indians,
The Opinions of the Indians and their Usages, as they
are represented in your obliging Letter of the 11 June,
appear to me to resemble the Platonizing Philo, or the
Philonizing Plato, more than the Genuine System of Judaism.
The Philosophy both of Philo and Plato
are at least as absurd.
It is indeed less intelligible.
Plato borrowed his doctrines from Oriental and Egyptian
Philosophers, for he had travelled both in India and Egypt.
The Oriental Philosophy, imitated and adopted in part,
if not the whole both by Plato and Philo was
1. One God the good.
2. The Ideas, the thought, the Reason, the Intellect,
the Logos, the Ratio, of God.
3. Matter, the Universe, the Production of the Logos,
or contemplations of God.
This Matter was the Source of Evil.
Perhaps, the three powers of Plato, Philo, the Egyptians
and Indians, cannot be distinctly made out from your Account
of the Indians, but
1. The great Spirit, the good, who is worshiped by the
Kings, Sachems and all the great Men in their
solemn Festivals as the Author, the Parent of Good.
2. The Devil, or the Source of Evil.
They are not metaphysicians enough as yet to Suppose it,
or at least to call it matter, like the Wiseacres of Antiquity,
and like Frederic the Great, who has written a very silly
Essay on the Origin of Evil, in which he ascribes it all to
Matter, as if this was an original discovery of his own….
The Indians are not Metaphysicians enough to have
discovered This Idea, this Logos, this intermediate Power
between good and Evil, God and Matter.
But of the two Powers The Good and the Evil they
seem to have a full Conviction; and what Son
or Daughter of Adam and Eve has not?
This Logos of Plato, Seems to resemble if it was not the
Prototype of the Ratio and its Progress of Manilius
the Astrologer; of the Progress of the Mind of Condorcet;
and the Age of Reason of Tom Paine.5
John Adams wrote to Jefferson on 28 June 1813 about Christianity and Liberty.
It is very true that “the denunciations of the
Priesthood are fulminated against every Advocate
for a complete Freedom of Religion.”
Combinations, I believe, would be plenteously pronounced
by even the most liberal of them against Atheism, Deism;
against every Man who disbelieved or doubted the
Resurrection of Jesus or the Miracles of the New Testament.
Priestley himself would denounce the man who Should deny
The Apocalypse, or the Prophecies of Daniel.
Priestley and Lindsay both have denounced as Idolaters
and Blasphemers all the Trinitarians and even the Arrians.
Poor weak Man, when will thy Perfection arrive!
Perfectibility I Shall not deny: for a greater Character
than Priestley or Godwin has Said “Be ye perfect &c.”
For my part I cannot deal damnation round the land
on all I judge the Foes of God or Man, But I did not
intend to Say a Word on this Subject in this Letter.
As much of it as you please hereafter:
but let me now return to Politics.
With Some difficulty I have hunted up or down
“the Address of the young men of the City of Philadelphia,
the District of Southwark, and the Northern Liberties:”
and the Answer.
The Addressers Say “Actuated by the same principles
on which our forefathers achieved their independence,
the recent Attempts of a foreign Power to derogate
from the dignity and rights of our country, awaken
our liveliest Sensibility and our Strongest indignation.”
Huzza my brave Boys!
Could Thomas Jefferson or John Adams hear these
Words with insensibility and without Emotion?
These Boys afterwards add “We regard our Liberty
and Independence as the richest portion given Us
by our Ancestors.”
And who were these Ancestors?
Among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
And I very cooly believe that no two Men among those
Ancestors did more towards it than those two.
Could either hear this like Statues?
If one hundred years hence your Letters and mine
Should See the light I hope the Reader, will hunt up this
Address and read it all: and remember that We were then
engaged or on the point of engaging in a War with France.
I Shall not repeat the Answer till We come to the paragraph,
upon which you criticized to Dr. Priestley:
though every Word of it is true, and I now rejoice to
See it recorded; and though I had wholly forgotten it.
The Paragraph is “Science and Morals are the great
Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its
present population, Opulence and prosperity, and
these alone can advance, Support and preserve it.”
“Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity,
or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a
prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial
Researches, the longest liver of you all will find no
Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education
more fit in general to be transmitted to your Posterity
than those you have received from your Ancestors.”
Now compare the paragraph in the Answer with
the paragraph in the Address, as both are quoted above:
and See if We can find the Extent and the limits
of the meaning of both.
Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows
that was then before my Eyes?
There were among them Roman Catholics, English
Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians,
Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans,
German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans,
Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists,
Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists
and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien.”
Very few however of Several of these Species.
Never the less all Educated in the general Principles
of Christianity: and the general Principles of English
and American Liberty.
Could my Answer be understood by any candid Reader
or Hearer to recommend to all the others the general
Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of
the Roman Catholics? or those of the Quakers?
or those of the Presbyterians? or those of the Menonists?
or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians?
or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers?
No.
The general Principles on which the Fathers Achieved
Independence were the only Principles in which
that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite,
and these Principles only could be intended by them
in their Address or by me in my Answer.
And what were these general Principles?
I answer, the general Principles of Christianity
in which all those Sects were United: And the general
Principles of English and American Liberty in which
all those young Men United and which had United
all Parties in America in Majorities Sufficient
to assert and maintain her Independence.
Now I will avow that I then believed and now believe
that those general Principles of Christianity are as eternal
and immutable as the Existence and Attributes of God:
and that those Principles of Liberty are as unalterable as
human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
I could therefore Safely Say consistently with all
my then and present Information, that I believed
they would never make Discoveries in contradiction
to these general Principles.
In favor of these general Principles in Philosophy,
Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of
quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume,
Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau and Voltaire;
as well as Newton and Locke: not to mention
thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferior Fame.
I might have flattered myself that my Sentiments
were Sufficiently known to have protected me against
Suspicions of narrow thoughts contracted Sentiments,
bigoted, enthusiastic or Superstitious Principles
civil, political, philosophical, or ecclesiastical.
The first Sentence of the Preface to my Defense
of the Constitutions, Vol. 1, printed in 1787 is
in these Words “The Arts and Sciences in general
during the three or four last centuries have had
a regular course of progressive improvement.
The Inventions in Mechanic Arts, the discoveries in
natural Philosophy, navigation and commerce, and
the Advancement of civilization and humanity,
have occasioned Changes in the condition of the World
and the human Character which would have astonished
the most refined Nations of Antiquity.”
I will quote no farther: but request you to read again that
whole page and then Say whether the Writer of it could be
Suspected of recommending to youth “to look backward,
instead of forward” for instruction and Improvement.6
On 15 June 1813 Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams
wrote this in the last paragraph:
As to myself, I shall take no part in any discussions.
I leave others to judge of what I have done, and to give me
exactly that place which they shall think I have occupied.
Marshall has written libels on one side; others, I suppose,
will be written on the other side; and the world will sift both,
and separate the truth as well as they can.
I should see with reluctance the passions of that day
rekindled in this, while so many of the actors are living,
and all are too near the scene not to participate
in sympathies with them.
About facts, you and I cannot differ;
because truth is our mutual guide.
And if any opinions you may express should be different
from mine, I shall receive them with the liberality and
indulgence which I ask for my own, and still cherish with
warmth the sentiments of affectionate respect of which
I can with so much truth tender you the assurance.7
On June 28 John Adams wrote to Jefferson on Christianity and Liberty,
and two days later Adams discussed terrorism in their era in a letter to Jefferson.
Then on July 9 Adams wrote to Jefferson on the advances in government
since the era of Aristotle. Here is how he expounded on that:
Aristotle wrote the History and description of
Eighteen hundred Republics, which existed before his time.
Cicero wrote two Volumes of discourses on Government,
which, perhaps were worth all the rest of his works.
The works of Livy and Tacitus &c that are lost
would be more interesting than all that remain.
Fifty Gospels have been destroyed, and where are
St. Luke’s World of Books that had been written?
If you ask my Opinion, who has committed all the havoc?
I will answer you candidly: Ecclesiastical and Imperial
Despotism have done it to conceal their Frauds.
Why are the Histories of all Nations,
more ancient than the Christian Era lost?
Who destroyed the Alexandrian Library?
I believe that Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis,
Grecian Sages and Roman Emperors
had as great a hand in it as Turks and Mahomidans.
Democrats, Rebels and Jacobins, when they possessed
a momentary Power, have Shown a disposition
both to destroy and to forge Records,
as vandalic as Priests and Despots.
Such has been and Such is the World We live in.
I recollect, near 30 years ago to have said carelessly
to you, that I wished I could find time and means
to write Something upon Aristocracy.
You Seized upon the Idea and encouraged me to do it with
all that friendly warmth that is natural and habitual to you.
I soon began and have been writing
upon that Subject ever Since.
I have been So unfortunate as never to be able
to make myself understood.
Your “aristoi” (aristocrats) are the most difficult
Animals to manage, of anything in the
whole Theory and practice of Government.
They will not Suffer themselves to be governed.
They not only exert all their own Subtlety, Industry
and courage, but they employ the Commonalty,
to knock to pieces every Plan and Model
that the most honest Architects in Legislation
can invent to keep them within bounds.
Both Patricians and Plebeians are as furious as the
Work men in England to demolish labor-saving Machinery.
But who are these “ἄρiςτοi”? Who shall judge?
Who Shall Select these choice Spirits
from the rest of the Congregation? Themselves?
We must first find out and determine who themselves are.
Shall the congregation choose?
Ask Xenophon.
Perhaps hereafter I may quote you Greek.
Too much in a hurry at present, English must Suffice.
Xenophon Says that the ecclesia, always chooses
the worst Men they can find,
because none others will do their dirty work.
This wicked Motive is worse than Birth or Wealth.8
On 13 July 1813 John Adams wrote this letter to Thomas Jefferson:
Let me allude, to one circumstance more,
in one of your Letters to me, before I touch upon
the Subject of Religion in your Letters to Priestley.
The first time, that you and I differed in Opinion
on any material Question; was after your arrival
from Europe; and that point was the French Revolution.
You were well persuaded in your own mind
that the Nation would Succeed in establishing
a free Republican Government.
I was as well persuaded, in mine, that a project of
Such a Government, over five and twenty millions people,
when four and twenty millions and five hundred thousands
of them could neither write nor read: was as
unnatural, irrational and impracticable; as it would be
over the Elephants, Lions, Tigers, Panthers, Wolves
and Bears in the Royal Menagerie, at Versailles.
Napoleon has lately invented a Word, which perfectly
expresses my opinion at that time and ever Since.
He calls the Project Ideology.
And John Randolph, though he was 14 years ago as wild
an Enthusiast for Equality and Fraternity as any of them;
appears to be now a regenerated Proselyte to
Napoleon’s opinion and mine, that it was all madness.
The Greeks in their allegorical Style Said that the two
Ladies Αριστοκρατια and δημοκρατια, always in a quarrel,
disturbed every neighborhood with their brawls.
It is a fine Observation of yours that
“Whig and Tory belong to Natural History.”
Inequalities of Mind and Body are So established by
God Almighty in his constitution of Human Nature that
no Art or policy can ever plain them down to a Level.
I have never read Reasoning more absurd,
Sophistry more gross, in proof of the Athanasian Creed,
or Transubstantiation, than the subtle labors
of Helvetius and Rousseau to demonstrate
the natural Equality of Mankind.
Jus cuique; the golden rule; do as you would be done by;
is all the Equality that can be Supported or defended
by reason, or reconciled to common Sense.
It is very true, as you justly observe, I can Say
nothing new on this or any other Subject of Government.
But when La Fayette harangued you and me,
and John Quincy Adams, through a whole evening in
your Hotel in the Cul-de-Sac, at Paris;
and developed the plans then in operation to reform France:
though I was as silent as you were, I then thought
I could Say Something new to him.
In plain Truth I was astonished at the Grossness
of his Ignorance of Government and History,
as I had been for years before at that of Turgot,
La Rochefoucauld, Condorcet and Franklin.
This gross Ideology of them all, first Suggested to me
the thought and the inclination which I afterwards hinted
to you in London, of writing Something upon Aristocracy.
I was restrained for years, by many fearful considerations.
Who and what was I?
A Man of no name or consideration in Europe.
The manual Exercise of writing was painful and distressing
to me, almost like a blow, on the elbow or the knee;
my Style was habitually negligent, unstudied, unpolished;
I should make Enemies of all the French Patriots,
the Dutch Patriots, the English Republicans, Dissenters,
Reformers, call them what you will; and what came
nearer home to my bosom than all the rest, I knew.
I Should give offence to many, if not all of my best Friends
in America, and very probably destroy all the little Popularity
I ever had, in a Country where Popularity had more
omnipotence than the British Parliament assumed.
Where Should I get the necessary Books?
What Printer or Bookseller would undertake
to print Such hazardous Writings?
But when the French Assembly of Notables met,
and I Saw that Turgot’s “Government in one Center
and that Center the Nation” a Sentence as mysterious
or as contradictory as the Athanasian Creed,
was about to take place; and when I Saw that
Shays’ Rebellion was breaking out in Massachusetts,
and when I Saw that even my obscure Name was often
quoted in France as an Advocate for Simple Democracy;
when I Saw that the Sympathies in America had caught
the French flame: I was determined to wash
my own hands as clean as I could of all this foulness.
I had then Strong forebodings that I was Sacrificing
all the honors and Emoluments of this Life;
and So it has happened:
but not in so great a degree as I apprehended.
In Truth my “defense of the Constitutions” and
“Discourses on Davila,” laid the foundation of that immense
Unpopularity, which fell like the Tower of Siloam upon me.
Your Steady defense of democratic Principles, and your
invariable favorable opinion of the French Revolution
laid the foundation of your unbounded Popularity.
Sic transit Gloria Mundi.
Now, I will forfeit my Life, if you can find one Sentence
in my Defense of the Constitutions, or
the Discourses on Davila, which by a fair construction,
can favor the introduction of hereditary Monarchy
or Aristocracy into America.
They were all written to Support and Strengthen
the Constitutions of the United States.
The woodcutter on Ida, though he was puzzled to find
a Tree to chop, at first, I presume knew how to leave off,
when he was weary; But I never know when to cease,
when I begin to write to you.9
Two days later Adams in a letter asked Jefferson how society could be improved.
On 14 September 1813 John Adams expounded on God and the universe
in a letter to Jefferson, and on November 15 Adams
in a long letter to Jefferson discussed natural aristocracy.
John Adams on 16 July 1814 sent Jefferson a letter on the philosophy
of Plato and also discussed the ideas of Rousseau and others.
On 31 March 1815 John Adams in a letter to James Lloyd
defended his policy that kept the peace.
Before I proceed to St. Domingo,
I have a few Words more to say.
And after all I expect to forget and omit,
more than half that I ought to Say.
In my last I hinted at the happy conclusion of the Peace
with France in 1801 and its fortunate Effects
and Consequences.
Here Sir, I must ask indulgence.
I cannot repent of my “Strong Character.”
Whether I have one or not, I know not,
I am not conscious of any Character Stronger than common.
If I have Such a Nature, it was given me.
I Shall neither be rewarded or punished for it.
For all my Foibles Strong or weak
I hold myself responsible to God and Man.
I hope to be forgiven for what I humbly acknowledge
I cannot justify; and not to be too severely censured for
what in my Circumstances, “humana parum cavit Natura.”
I did not humble France, nor have the combined Efforts
of Emperors and Kings humbled her: And I hope
She never will be humbled below Austria Russia or England.
But I humbled the French Directory as much as
all Europe has humbled Bonaparte.
I purchased Navy Yards which would now Sell,
for double their cost with compound Interest.
I built Frigates, manned a Navy, and Selected Officers
with great Anxiety and care, who
perfectly protected our commerce,
and gained Virgin Victories against the French; and who
afterwards acquired Such Laurels in the Mediterranean;
and who have lately emblazoned themselves and their
Country with a Naval Glory which I tremble to think of.
God forbid that American Naval Power Should
ever be Such a Scourge to the human Race
as that of Great Britain has been!
I was engaged in the most earnest Sedulous,
and I must own extensive exertions to preserve Peace
with the Indians and prepare them for Agriculture and
Civilization through the whole of my Administration.
I had the inexpressible Satisfaction of complete Success.
Not a Hatchet was lifted in my time: and the
Single Battle of Tippecanoe has Since cost the United States
a hundred times more money than it cost me
to maintain Universal and perpetual Peace.
I finished the Demarcation of Limits
and Settled all Controversies with Spain.
I made the composition with England for all the Old
Virginia Debts and all the other American Debts,
the most Snarling angry, thorny, Scabreux negotiation
that ever mortal Ambassador, King, Prince Emperor
or President was ever plagued with.
I Say I made it and So I did, though the Treaty
was not ratified till Jefferson came in.
My Labors were indefatigable, to compose all Differences
and Settle all Controversies with all Nations
civilized and Savage.
And I had complete and perfect Success and left my Country
at Peace with all the World upon terms consistent with
the honor and Interest of the United States and with all
our Relations with other Nations, and all our Obligations
by the Law of Nations or by Treaties.
This is So true, that No Nation or Individual
ever uttered a Complaint of Injury, Insult or Offence.
I had Suppressed an Insurrection in Pennsylvania,
and effectually humbled and punished the Insurgents;
not by Assembling an Army of Militia from three or four
States and marching in all the Pride pomp and
Circumstance of War at an Expense of Millions;
but Silently, without Noise, and at a trifling Expense.
I pardoned Fries, and what would a Triumphant victorious
and intoxicated Party, not to Say Faction, under the
“Command in Chief,” of John Randolph have done with
honest Judge Chace and Judge Peters if I had hanged him?
But I am not about to laugh off, this question.
What good?
What Example would have been exhibited to the Nation
by the Execution of three or four obscure miserable Germans,
as ignorant of our Language, as they were
of our Laws and the nature and definition of Treason?
Pitiful Puppets, danced upon the Wires of Jugglers
behind the Scene or under Ground?
But I am not going to make an Apology here.
Had the Mountebanks been in the place of the Puppets,
Mercy would have had a harder Struggle
to obtain Absolution for them.
The Verdict of a Jury and the Judgment of the court
would to be sure have justified me in the Opinion
of the Nation, and in the Judgment of the World,
if I had Signed the Warrant for their Execution:
but neither nor both could have Satisfied
my Conscience nor tranquillized my Feelings.
If I had entertained only a doubt of their Guilt,
notwithstanding Verdicts and Judgments
it was my duty to pardon them.
But my determination did not rest upon
So wavering a foundation as a doubt.
My Judgment was clear, that
their Crime did not amount to Treason.
They had been guilty of a high handed Riot and Rescue,
attended with circumstances hot, rash, violent
and dangerous: but all these did not amount to Treason.
And I thought the Officers of the Law had been injudicious
in indicting them for any Crime
higher than Riot aggravated by Rescue.
Here I rest my cause on this head and proceed to another.
As I am not now writing a history of my Administration,
I will sum up all I have to Say in a few Words.
I left my Country in Peace and harmony with all the World,
and after all my “extravagant Expenses” and
“wanton Waste of public money,” I left Navy Yards,
Fortifications, Frigates, Timber, Naval Stores,
Manufactories of Cannon and Arms
and a Treasury full of Five Millions of Dollars.
This was all done, Step by Step, against perpetual
Oppositions, Clamors and Reproaches, Such as
no other President ever had to encounter and with
a more feeble divided and incapable support than has
ever fallen to the Lot of any Administration before or Since.
For this I was turned out of Office, degraded
and disgraced by my Country: and I was glad of it.
I felt no disgrace because I felt no remorse.
It has given me fourteen of the happiest Years of my Life:
And I am certain I could not have lasted one year more in
that Station, Shackled in the chains of that arbitrary Faction.Virtus repulsæ nescia Sordidæ
Intaminatis fulget honoribus
Non Sumit nec ponit Secures
Arbitrio popularis Auræ.As I had been intimately connected with Mr. Jefferson
in Friendship and Affection for five and twenty years
I well know his crude and visionary notions of Government,
as well as his Learning, Taste and Talent
in other Arts and Sciences,
I expected his Reign would be very nearly what it has been.
I regretted it, but could not help it.
At the same time I thought it would be better than following
the Fools who were intriguing to plunge Us into
an Alliance with England, an endless War with
all the rest of the World and wild Expeditions
to South America and Saint Domingo;
and what was worse than all the rest, a civil War,
which I knew would be the consequence of the Measures
the heads of that Party wished to pursue.10
On 24 August 1815 Adams in a letter attempted to persuade Jefferson
that the French Revolution was only in the minds of the people,
and he asked when would human rights and freedom be respected.
If I am neither deceived by the little Information I have,
or by my Wishes for its truth, I Should Say that France
is the most Protestant Country of Europe at this time,
though I cannot think it the most reformed.
In consequence of these Reveries I have imagined that
Camus and the Institute, meant, by the revival and
continuance of the Acta Sanctorum, to destroy the Pope and
the Catholic Church and Hierarchy, de fonde en comble, or
in the language of Frederick, Voltaire, D’Alembert &c
“ecraser le miserable,” “crush the Wretch.”
This great Work must contain the most complete History
of the corruptions of Christianity, that has ever appeared;
Priestleys not excepted.
And his History of ancient opinions not excepted.
As to the history of the Revolution, my Ideas may be
peculiar, perhaps Singular.
What do We mean by the Revolution? The War?
That was no part of the Revolution.
It was only an Effect and Consequence of it.
The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was
effected, from 1760 to 1775,1 in the course of fifteen Years
before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.
The Records of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamphlets,
Newspapers in all the Colonies ought be consulted,
during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which the
public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning
the Authority of Parliament over the Colonies.
The Congress of 1774, resembled in Some respects,
though I hope not in many, the Counsel
of Nice in Ecclesiastical History.
It assembled the Priests from the East and the West the
North and the South, who compared Notes, engaged in
discussions and debates and formed Results,
by one Vote and by two Votes, which went
out to the World as unanimous.
Mr. Madison’s Notes of the Convention of 1787 or 1788
are consistent with his indefatigable Character.
I Shall never See them: but I hope Posterity will.
That our correspondence has been observed is no Wonder;
for your hand is more universally known than your face.
No Printer has asked me for copies:
but it is no Surprize that you have been requested.
These Gentry will print whatever will Sell: and our
Correspondence is thought Such an Oddity by both Parties,
that the Printers imagine an Edition would Soon
go off and yield them a Profit.
There has however been no tampering
with your Letters to me.
They have all arrived in good order.
Poor Bonaparte! Poor Devil!
What has and what will become of him?
Going the Way of King Theodore, Alexander, Cæsar,
Charles 12th, Cromwell, Wat Tyler and Jack Cade;
i.e. to a bad End.
And What will become of Wellington?
Envied, hated despized by all the Barons, Earls,
Viscounts, Marquis’s as an Upstart a Parvenue
elevated Over their heads.
For these People have no Idea of any Merit, but Birth.
Wellington must pass the rest of his days buffetted,
ridiculed, Scorned and insulted by Factions
as Marlborough and his Dutchess did.
Military Glory dazzles the Eyes of Mankind, and for a time
eclipses all Wisdom all Virtue, all Laws humane and divine;
and after this it would be Bathos to descend
to Services merely civil or political.
Napoleon has imposed Kings Upon Spain, Holland,
Sweden, Westphalia, Saxony, Naples &c.
The combined Emperors and Kings are about to retaliate
upon France, by imposing a King upon her.
These are all abominable Examples, detestable Precedents.
When will the Rights of Mankind the Liberties and
Independence of Nations be respected?
When the Perfectibility of the human Mind
Shall arrive at Perfection.
When the Progress of Manillius’s Ratio Shall have not only
Eripuit Cælo fulmen, Jovisque fulgores,
but made Mankind rational Creatures.
It remains to be Seen whether The Allies were honest in
their Declaration that they were at War only with Napoleon.
Can the French ever be cordially
reconciled to the Bourbons again?
If not, who can they find for a head?
The Infant or one of the Generals?
Innumerable difficulties will embarrass either Project.11
On 3 May 1816 John Adams wrote to Jefferson about death and the afterlife.
On 17 June 1817 Adams wrote to James Madison on universal suffrage.
If “the Idea of a Government in one Center Seems to be
everywhere exploded” perhaps Something remains
undefined, as dangerous, as plausible
and pernicious as that Idea.
Half a million of People in England, have petitioned
Parliament for annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage.
Another Account Says near a Million of People have
petitioned for the Theory of the Constitution,
which they contend prescribes
annual Parliaments and universal Suffrage.
Parliament is unanimous against them.
What is this State of things Short, of a declaration of War
between the Government and the People?
And is not this the Picture of all Europe?
Sovereigns who modestly call themselves legitimate are
conspiring in holy and in unhallowed Leagues against
the progress of human Knowledge and human Liberty.
War Seems on the point of breaking out
between Government and People.
Were the latter united the question would be soon decided.
But they are everywhere divided into innumerable Sects.
Whereas the former are united and have all the Artillery
and Bayonets in their hands.
And what is most melancholy of all; an appeal to Arms,
almost always results in an exchange
of one military Tyranny for another.
The questions concerning Universal Suffrage,
and those concerning the necessary limitations
of the Power of Suffrage, are among the most difficult.
It is hard to Say that every man has not an equal right.
But admit this equal Right and equal Power,
and an immediate Revolution would ensue.
In all the nations of Europe, the Number of Persons
who have not a Penny is double to those who have a Groat.
Admit all these to an Equality of Power and
you would Soon See, how the groats would be divided.
Yet in a few days the Party of the Pennies and the Party
of the Groats would be found to exist again,
and a new Revolution and a new division must ensue.
If there is any where an exception
from this reasoning, it is in America.
Nevertheless, there is in these United States a Majority of
Persons who have no property, over those who have any.
I know of nothing more desirable in Society
than the Abolition of all hereditary distinctions.
But is not a distinction among Voters, really
as arbitrary and Aristocratical as hereditary distinctions?
You well remember, that between 30 and 40 Years ago,
the Irish Patriots asked Advice of the Duke of Richmond,
Dr. Price, Dr. Jebb &c.
These three great Statesmen, Divines and Philosophers
solemnly advised a universal Suffrage.
Tracy in his Review of Montesquieu,
adopts this Principle in its largest extent.
A Party among Mankind countenanced at this day
by Such numbers and Such names,
is not to be despised neglected, nor easily overborne.
There is nothing more irrational, absurd or ridiculous,
in the Sight of Philosophy, than the Idea of
hereditary Kings and Nobles.
Yet all the Nations of the Earth
civilized Savage and brutal have adopted them.
Whence this universal and irresistible Propensity?
How Shall it be controlled, restrained,
corrected, modified or managed?
A Government, a mixed Government may be
So organized, I hope, as to preserve the Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity of the People,
without any hereditary ingredient in its composition.
Our Nation has attempted it,
and if any People can accomplish it, it must be this,
and may God Almighty prosper and Succeed them.
I have Seen the Efforts of the People
in France, Holland and England.
You have read them in all Europe.
We both know the result.
What is to come We know not.12
On 13 February 1818 John Adams wrote this letter to Hezekiah Niles:
The American Revolution was not a common Event.
It’s Effects and Consequences have already been
awful over a great Part of the Globe.
And when and Where are they to cease?
But what do We mean by the American Revolution?
Do We mean the American War?
The Revolution was effected before the War commenced.
The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People.
A Change in their Religious Sentiments
of their Duties and Obligations.
While the King and all in Authority under him were believed
to govern in Justice and Mercy according to the Laws
and Constitutions derived to them from the God of Nature,
and transmitted to them by their Ancestors—
they thought themselves bound to pray for the King and
Queen and all the Royal Family and all the Authority
under them as Ministers ordained of God for their good.
But when they Saw those Powers renouncing all the
Principles of Authority and bent up on the destruction
of all the Securities of their Lives, Liberties and Properties,
they thought it their Duty to pray for the Continental
Congress and all the thirteen State Congresses, &c.
There might be, and there were others, who thought
less about Religion and Conscience, but had certain
habitual Sentiments of Allegiance and Loyalty derived
from their Education; but believing Allegiance and
Protection to be reciprocal, when Protection was withdrawn,
they thought Allegiance was dissolved.
Another Alteration was common to all.
The People of America had been educated in a habitual
Affection for England as their Mother-Country;
and while they Thought her a kind and tender Parent,
(erroneously enough, however, for she never was
such a Mother,) no Affection could be more Sincere.
But when they found her a cruel Beldam willing,
like Lady Macbeth, to “dash their Brains out,”
it is no wonder if their filial Affections ceased
and were changed into Indignation and horror.
This radical Change in the Principles, Opinions,
Sentiments and Affection of the People,
was the real American Revolution.
By what means, this great and important Alteration
in the religious, moral, political and social Character
of the People of thirteen Colonies, all distinct,
unconnected and independent of each other, was begun,
pursued and accomplished, it is surely interesting
to Humanity to investigate, and perpetuate to Posterity.
To this End it is greatly to be desired that young
Gentlemen of Letters in all the States, especially in the
thirteen Original States, would undertake the laborious,
but certainly interesting and amusing Task, of searching
and collecting all the Records, Pamphlets, Newspapers
and even hand Bills, which in any Way contributed
to change the Temper and Views of the People
and compose them into an independent Nation.
The Colonies had grown up under Constitutions of
Government so different, there was so great a Variety
of Religions, they were composed of so many different
Nations, their Customs, Manners and Habits had so little
resemblance, and their Intercourse had been so rare and
their Knowledge of each other so imperfect, that
to unite them in the same Principles in Theory and the same
System of Action was certainly a very difficult Enterprise.
The complete Accomplishment of it, in so short a time
and by such simple means, was perhaps
a singular Example in the History of Mankind.
Thirteen Clocks were made to strike together; a perfection
of Mechanism which no Artist had ever before effected.
In this Research, the Glory roles of Individual Gentlemen
and of separate States is of little Consequence.
The Means and the Measures are
the proper Objects of Investigation.
These may be of use to Posterity, not only in this Nation,
but in South America, and all other Countries.
They may teach Mankind that Revolutions are no Trifles;
that they ought never to be undertaken rashly;
nor without deliberate Consideration and sober Reflection;
nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of
Justice and Humanity; nor without a People possessed of
Intelligence, Fortitude and Integrity sufficient to carry them
with Steadiness, Patience, and Perseverance through
all the Vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery Trials and
melancholy Disasters they may have to encounter.
The Town of Boston early instituted an annual Oration
on the fourth of July, in commemoration of the Principles
and Feelings which contributed to produce the Revolution.
Many of those Orations I have heard,
and all that I could obtain I have read.
Much Ingenuity and Eloquence appears upon every Subject,
except those Principles and Feelings.
That of my honest and amiable Neighbor, Josiah Quincy,
appeared to me, the most directly
to the purpose of the Institution.
Those Principles and Feelings ought to be traced back
for two hundred Years, and sought in the history
of the Country from the first Plantations in America.
Nor should the Principles and Feelings of the English
and Scotch towards the Colonies,
through that whole Period ever be forgotten.
The perpetual discordance between British Principles
and Feelings and those of America, the next year
after the Suppression of the French Power in America,
came to a crisis and produced an Explosion.
It was not till After the Annihilation of the French Dominion
in America, that any British Ministry had dared to gratify
their own Wishes, and the desire of the Nation,
by projecting a formal Plan for raising a national
Revenue from America by Parliamentary Taxation.
The first great manifestation of this design, was by the
Order to carry into strict Executions those Acts of Parliament
which were well known by the Appellation of the Acts of
Trade, which had lain a dead Letter, unexecuted for half a
Century, and some of them I believe for nearly a whole one.
This produced in 1760 and 1761 an Awakening and
a Revival of American Principles and Feelings
with an Enthusiasm which went on increasing till
in 1775 it burst out in open Violence, Hostility and Fury.
The Characters, the most conspicuous, the most ardent
and influential in this Revival from 1760 to 1766, were;—
First and Foremost before all and above all, James Otis;
next to him was Oxenbridge Thatcher, next to him
Samuel Adams, next to him John Hancock,
then Dr. Mayhew, then Dr. Cooper and his Brother.
Of Mr. Hancock’s Life, Character, generous Nature,
great and disinterested Sacrifices, and important Services
if I had forces, I Should be glad to write a Volume.
But this I hope will be done
by some younger and abler hand.
Mr. Thatcher, because his Name and Merits are less known,
must not be wholly omitted.
This Gentleman was an eminent Barrister at Law,
in as large practice as anyone in Boston.
There was not a Citizen of that Town more universally
beloved for his Learning, Ingenuity, every domestic Social
Virtue, and conscientious Conduct in every Relation of Life.
His Patriotism was as ardent as his Progenitors
had been ancient and illustrious in this Country.
Hutchinson often said “Thatcher was not born a Plebian,
but he was determined to die one.”
In May 1763, I believe, he was chosen by the Town
of Boston One of their Representatives in the Legislature,
a Colleague with Mr. Otis, or he had been a Member
from May 1761, and he continued to be reelected annually
till his Death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected
to fill his place, on the Absence of Mr. Otis,
then attending the Congress at New York.
Thatcher had long been jealous of the unbounded Ambition
of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content
with the Office of Lieutenant Governor, the Command
of the Castle and its Emoluments, of Judge of Probate
for the County of Suffolk, a Seat in his Majesty’s Council
in the Legislature, his Brother-in-Law Secretary of State by
the King’s Commission, a Brother of that Secretary of State,
a Judge of the Superior Court and a Member of Council,
now in 1760 and 1761, soliciting and accepting the Office
of Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature,
he concluded as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened
Friend of his Country did, that he sought that Office with the
determined Purpose of determining all Causes in favor of the
Ministry at Saint James’s and their servile Parliament.
His Indignation against him henceforward, to 1765,
when he died, knew no bounds but Truth.
I Speak from personal Knowledge.
For from 1758 to 1765 I attended every superior and
inferior Court in Boston, and recollect not one in which he
did not invite me home to spend several Evenings with him,
when he made me converse with him as well as I could
on all Subjects of Religion, Morals, Law, Politics, History,
Philosophy, Belle letters, Theology, Mythology, Cosmogony,
Metaphysics, Locke, Clark, Leibnitz, Bolingbroke, Berkeley,
the preestablished Harmony of the Universe,
the Nature of Matter and Spirit, and the eternal
Establishment of Coincidences between their Operations;
Fate, foreknowledge, absolute—and we reasoned on such
unfathomable Subjects as high as Milton’s Gentry
in Pandemonium; and We understood them
as well as they did, and no better.
To such mighty Mysteries he added the News of the day,
as the Little Tattle of the Town.
But his favorite Subject was Politics, and the impending
threatening System of Parliamentary Taxation
and universal Government over the Colonies.
On the Subject he was so anxious and agitated that
I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death.
From the time when he argued the question of Writs
of Assistance to his death, he considered the King, Ministry,
Parliament and Nation of Great Britain as determined
to new model the Colonies from the Foundation;
to annul all their Charters, to constitute them all
Royal Governments; to raise a Revenue in America
by Parliamentary Taxation; to apply that Revenue
to pay the Salaries of Governors, Judges and all other
Crown Officers; and after all this, to raise as large
a Revenue as they pleased to be applied
to national Purposes at the Exchequer in England;
and further to establish Bishops and
the whole System of the Church of England,
Tithes and all, throughout all British America.
This System, he said, if it was suffered to prevail
would extinguish the Flame of Liberty all over the World;
that America would be employed as an Engine
to batter down all the miserable remains of Liberty
in Great Britain and Ireland, when only
any Semblance of it was left in the World.
To this System he considered Hutchinson, the Olivers
and all their Connections dependents, adherents,
Shoe-lickers to be and entirely devoted.
He asserted that they were all engaged with all the
Crown Officers in America and the Understrappers
of the Ministry in England in a deep and treasonable
Conspiracy to betray the Liberties of their Country
for their own private personal and family Aggrandizement.
His Philippics against the unprincipled Ambition and Avarice
of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled;
not only in private, confidential Conversations,
but in all Companies and on all Occasions.
He gave Hutchinson the Sobriquet of “Summa Polestatis,”
and rarely mentioned him but by the Name of “Summa.”
His Liberties of Speech were no Secrets to his Enemies.
I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him
over the Barr, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley.
For they hated him worse than they did James Otis
or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more,—
because they had no Revenge for a Father’s disappointment
of a Seat on the Superior Bench to impute to him
as they did to Otis; and Thatcher’s Character through Life
had been so modest, decent, unassuming—
his Morals so pure, and his Religion so venerated,
that they dared not attack him.
In his Office were educated to the Barr two eminent
Characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy,
aptly called the Boston Cicero.
Mr. Thatcher’s frame was slender, his Constitution delicate.
Whether his Physicians overstrained his Vessels
with Mercury, when he had the Small Pox by Inoculation
at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public
Anxieties & Exertions, the Small Pox left him
in a Decline from which he never recovered.
Not long before his death he sent for me to commit
to my care some of his Business at the Barr.
I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia Resolves.
“Oh yes.—They are Men!
They are noble Spirits!
It kills me to think of the Lethargy and Stupidity
that prevails here.
I long to be out. I will go out. I will go out.
I will go into Court, and make a Speech which shall be read
after my death as my dying Testimony against
this infernal Tyranny they are bringing upon us.”
Seeing the violent Agitation into which it threw him,
I changed the subject as Soon as possible and retired.
He had been confined for some time.
Had he been abroad among the People he would have
complained so pathetically of the “Lethargy and Stupidity
that prevailed,” for Town and Country were all alive
and in August became active enough;
and Some of the People proceeded to unwarrantable
Excesses, which were more lamented by the Patriots
more than by their Enemies.
Mr. Thatcher soon died, deeply lamented
by all the Friends of their Country.
Another Gentleman who had great influence in the
Commencement of the Revolution was
Doctor Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant
of the ancient Governor of Martha’s Vineyard.
This Divine had raised a great Reputation both in Europe
and America by the publication of a Volume of
Seven Sermons in the Reign of King George the Second,
1748, and by many other Writings, particularly
a Sermon in 1750 on the thirtieth of January
on the Subject of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance
in which the Saintship and Martyrdom of
King Charles the first are considered seasoned with Wit
and Satire, superior to any in Swift or Franklin.
It was read by every Body, celebrated by Friends,
and abused by Enemies.
During the Reigns of King George the first and
King George the Second, the Reigns of the Stewarts,
the two Jameses, and the two Charleses
were in general disgrace in England.
In America they had always been held in Abhorrence.
The Persecutions and Cruelties suffered by their Ancestors
under those Reigns, had been transmitted by History
and Tradition, and Mayhew Seemed to be raised up
to revive all their Animosities against Tyranny,
in Church and State, and at the same time to destroy
their Bigotry, Fanaticism and Inconsistency.
David Hume’s plausible, elegant, fascinating and fallacious
Apology in which he varnished over the Crimes
of the Stewarts had not then appeared.
To draw the Character of Mayhew
would be to transcribe a dozen Volumes.
This transcendent Genius threw all the Weight
of his great Fame into the Scale of his Country in 1761, and
maintained it there with Zeal and Ardor till his death in 1766.
In 1763 appeared the Controversy between him
and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson and
Archbishop Secker on the Charter and Conduct of
the Society for propagating the Gospel in foreign Parts.
To form a Judgment of the debate I beg leave to refer
to a Review of the whole, printed at the time,
and written by Samuel Adams, though by some,
very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr. Apthorp.
If I am not mistaken, it will be found a Model of Candor,
Sagacity, Impartiality and close correct Reasoning.
If any Gentleman Supposes this Controversy to be
nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken.
It Spread a universal Alarm
against the Authority of Parliament.
It excited a general and just Apprehension that Bishops
and Dioceses and Churches, and Priests and Tithes,
were to be imposed upon us by Parliament.
It was known that neither King nor Ministry
nor Archbishops could appoint Bishops in America
without an Act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us,
they could establish the Church of England with all its
Creeds, Articles, Tests, Ceremonies and Tithes, and prohibit
all other Churches as Conventicles and Schism Shops.
Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten.
His good sense and sound Judgment, the Urbanity
of his manners, his universal good Character, his numerous
Friends and Connections and his continual intercourse
with all sorts of People, added to his constant Attachment
to the Liberties of his Country, gave him a great
and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.
Let me recommend these hints to the Consideration
of Mr. Wirt, whose Life of Mr. Henry
I have read with great delight.
I think, that after mature investigation, he will be convinced
that Mr. Henry did not “give the first impulse to the Ball of
Independence,” and that Otis, Thatcher, Samuel Adams,
Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing and thousands of others were
laboring for Several Years at the Wheel before the Name
of Mr. Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.
If you print this, I will endeavor to send you something
concerning Samuel Adams, who was destined
to a longer Career, and to Add a more conspicuous
and perhaps a more important Part than any other Man.
But his Life would require a Volume.
If you decline printing this Letter,
I pray to return it as soon as possible to
Sir, your humble Servant, John Adams.13
John Adams on 31 July 1818 in a letter to Mordecai M. Noah wrote,
Accept my best thanks for, your polite and obliging favor
of the 24th and especially for the discourse enclosed.
I know not when I have read a more liberal
or a more elegant Composition.
You have not extended your Ideas of the Right of
private Judgement and the Liberty of Conscience
both in Religion and Philosophy farther than I do.
Men are limited only by Morals and Property.
I have had occasion to be acquainted with Several
Gentlemen of your Nation and to transact Business with
some of them, whom I found to be Men of as liberal Minds,
as much honor, Probity, Generosity and good Breeding,
as any I have known in any Sect of Religion or Philosophy.
I wish your nation may be admitted to all the Privileges
of Citizens in every Country of the World.
This Country has done much; I wish it may do more
and annul every narrow Idea
in Religion, Government and Commerce.
Let the Wits yoke; the Philosophers sneer!
What then?
It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause,
the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give Religion
not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahometans,
the greatest Part of the modern civilized World.14
John Adams on September 23 wrote to William Tudor on Indian land rights.
If, in our Search of Principles We have not been able
to investigate any moral philosophical or rational foundation
for any Claim of Dominion or Property in America,
in the English Nation, their Parliament or even of their King;
if the whole appears a mere Usurpation of Fusion, Fancy
and Superstition: What was the Right to dominion
or Property in the native Indians?
Shall We Say that a few handfuls of Scattering Tribes
of Savages have a Right of Dominion and Property
over a quarter of the Globe capable of nourishing
hundreds of Millions of happy human Beings?
Why had not Europeans a Right to come
and hunt and fish with them?
The Indians had a Right to Life, Liberty
and Property in common with all Men.
But what Right to Dominion or Property beyond these?
Every Indian had a Right to his Wigwam, his Armor,
his Utensils; When he had burned the Woods about him
and planted his Corn and Beans, his Squashes and
Pompions, all these were his undoubted Right:
but will you infer from this that he had
Right of Exclusive Dominion and Property over immense
Regions of uncultivated Wilderness that he never Saw,
that he might have the exclusive Privilege
of hunting and fishing in them which he
himself never expected or hoped to enjoy.
These Reflections appear to have occurred
to Our Ancestors, and their general Conduct
was regulated by them.
They do not Seem to have had any Confidence
in their Charter, as conveying any Right,
except against the King who Signed it.
They considered the Right to be in the Native Indians.
And in Truth all the Right there was in the Case, lay there.
They accordingly respected the Indian Wigwams
and poor plantations, their Clam banks and Muscle banks
and Oyster banks and all their Property.
Property in Land, antecedent to civil Society,
or the Social Compact, Seems to have been confined
to actual Possession, and power of commanding it.
It is the Creature of Convention;
of Social Laws and artificial Order.
Our Ancestors however, did not amuse themselves
nor puzzle themselves with these Refinements.
They considered the Indians as having Rights:
and they entered into Negotiations with them,
purchased and paid for their Rights and Claims
whatever they were, and procured Deeds, Grants and
Quit-claims of all their Lands, leaving them their
Habitations, Arms, Utensils, Fishing, hunting and Plantations.
There is Scarcely a Litigation at Law concerning a Title
to Land, that may not be traced to an Indian Deed.
I have in my Possession, Somewhere a Parchment Copy
of a Deed of Massasoit of the Township of Braintree
incorporated by the Legislature
in one thousand Six hundred And thirty nine.
And this was the general Practice, through the Country
and has been to this day, through the Continent.
In Short I See not how the Indians could have been treated
with more Equity or Humanity than
they have been in general in North America.
The Histories of Indian Wars
have not been Sufficiently regarded.
When Mr. Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay
first Appeared, one of the most Common Criticisms upon it,
was the Slight, cold and unfeeling manner in which
he passes over the Indian Wars.
I have heard Gentlemen the best informed
in the History of the Country Say
“He had no Sympathy for the Sufferings of his Ancestors.”
“Otherwise he could not have winked out of Sight,
one of the most important, most affecting, afflicting
and distressing Branches of the History of his Country.”
There is Somewhere in Existence, as I hope and believe,
a Manuscript History of Indian Wars,
written by the Reverend Samuel Niles of Braintree.
Almost Sixty Years ago I was a humble acquaintance
of this venerable Clergyman, then, as I believe
more than fourscore Years of Age.
He asked me many questions and informed me
in his own House that he was endeavoring to recollect
and commit to writing and History of Indian Wars in his own
time, and before it as far as he could collect Information.
This History he completed and prepared for the Press:
but no Printer would undertake it,
or venture to propose a Subscription for its publication.
Since my return from Europe, I enquired of his Oldest Son,
The Honorable Samuel Niles of Braintree, on a Visit
he made me at my own House,
what was become of that Manuscript?
He laughed and Said it was Still Safe in the Till
of a certain Trunk, but no Encouragement
has ever appeared for its publication.
Ye Liberal Christians! Laugh not at me,
nor frown upon me, for thus reviving the Memory
of your once formidable Enemy.
I was then no more of a Disciple
of his Theological Science than Ye are now.
But I then revered and Still revere
the honest virtuous and pious man.
Fas est, et ab hoste doceri.
And his Memorial of Facts might be
of great Value to this Country.
What infinite Pains have been taken and expenses
incurred in treaties, Presents, Stipulated Sums of Money,
Instruments of Agriculture, Education?
What dangerous and unwearied Labors
to convert these poor ignorant Savages to Christianity?
And Alas! With how little Success?
The Indians are as bigoted to their Religion as the
Mahomedans are to their Koran, the Hindus, to their Shasta,
the Chinese to Confucius, the Romans to their Saints
and Angels, or the Jews to Moses and the Prophets.
It is a Principle of Religion, at bottom, which inspires
the Indians with Such an invincible Aversion
both to Civilization and Christianity.
The Same Principle has excited their perpetual Hostilities
against the Colonists and the independent Americans.
If the English Nation, their Parliaments and all their Kings
have appeared to be totally ignorant of all these things,
or at least to have vouchsafed no Consideration upon them;
if We, good patriotic Americans have forgotten them;
Mr. Otis had not.
He enlarged on the Merit of our Ancestors in Undertaking
So perilous, arduous and almost desperate Enterprise,
in deforesting bare Creation; in conciliating
and necessarily contending with Indian Natives;
in purchasing rather than conquering a Quarter of the Globe
at their own Expense, at the Sweat of their own Brows;
at the hazard and Sacrifice of their own Lives;
without the Smallest Assistance or Comfort from the
Government of England, or from England itself as a Nation.
On the contrary, constant Jealousy, Envy, Intrigue against
their Charter, their Religion and all their Privileges.
Laud, the pious Tyrant dreaded them,
as if he foresaw they would overthrow his Religion.
Mr. Otis, reproached the Nation, Parliaments and Kings
with Injustice, Ungenerosity, Ingratitude Cruelty,
and Perfidy in all their Conduct towards this Country,
in a Style of oratory that I have never heard equaled
in this or any other Country.15
On October 20, 1818 Adams wrote in a letter to
Jefferson about the final illness of his wife Abigail.
On 9 February 1819 Adams wrote to William Tudor about Samuel Adams.
You seem to wish me to write something to diminish
the fame of Samuel Adams to show that he was
not a man of profound learning, a great lawyer,
a man of vast reading, a comprehensive statesman.
In all this I shall not gratify you.
Give me leave to tell you, my friend, that you have
conceived prejudices against that great character,
and I wonder not at it.
At present, I shall make only one observation,
Samuel Adams to my certain Knowledge from 1758 to 1775
that is for seventeen years made it his Constant rule
to watch the rise of every brilliant genius,
to seek his acquaintance, to court his friendship,
to cultivate his natural feelings in favor of
his native Country, to warn him against the hostile designs
of Great Britain and to fix their affections and reflections
on the side of their native Country.
I could enumerate a list but I will confine myself to a few.
John Hancock afterwards President of Congress
and governor of the state.
Doctor Joseph Warren afterwards major General of the
militia of Massachusetts and the martyr of Bunkers Hill.
Benjamin Church the poet and the orator,
once a pretender if not a real patriot, but afterwards
a monument of the frailty of human nature.
Josiah Quincy, the Boston Cicero, the great orator
in the body meetings, the author of the observations
on the Boston Port Bill, and of many publications
in the newspapers I will stop here for the present.
And now I will take the liberty of perfect friendship to add,
that if your Judge Minot, your Fisher Ames, and your
honorable senator Josiah Quincy the third
had been as intimately acquainted with Samuel Adams as
Hancock, Warren, and Josiah Quincy the second,
they would have been as ardent patriots as he was.
If Samuel Adams was not a Demosthenes in Oratory
nor had the learning of a Mandsfield in law
or the universal history of a Burke,
he had the art of commanding the learning, the oratory,
the talents, the diamonds of the first water that his country
afforded without any body’s Knowing or suspecting
he had it, but, himself and a very few friends.16
On 18 February 1825 John Adams wrote a short letter
to his son John Quincy Adams congratulating him on being
elected President of the United States,
Never did I feel so much solemnity as upon this occasion—
the multitude of my thoughts and the intensity of my feelings
are too much for a mind like mine in its ninetieth year—
May the blessing of God Almighty continue to protect you
to the end of your life as it has heretofore protected you
in so remarkable a manner from your cradle.
I offer the same prayer for your Lady and your family.17
On 4 July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,
the 90-year-old John Adams fell asleep early in the morning.
At noon he woke up and with great effort managed to say,
“Thomas Jefferson survives.”
Those were his last words, and the second President
of the United States died at about 6 p.m.
Ironically at Monticello in Virginia the third President of the United States
Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence,
had died about noon on that day.
John Adams had only one accomplishment inscribed on his tombstone,
and that was that he “took upon himself the responsibility
of peace with France in the year 1800.”
Adams was the first incumbent President to be defeated for re-election,
and the second was when Andrew Jackson defeated
his son John Quincy Adams in 1828.
Notes
1. To Thomas Jefferson from John Adams, 24 March 1801 (Online)
2. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 436.
3. Ibid., p. 449-451.
4. Ibid., p. 531-532.
5. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 538-540.
6. Ibid., p. 353-356.
7. Thomas Jefferson Writings, p. 1279.
8. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p.
9. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 13 July 1813 (Online)
10. John Adams Writings from the New Nation 1784-1826, p. 596-599.
11. Ibid., p. 601-603.
12. Ibid., p. 627-629.
13. Ibid., p. 629-636.
14. Ibid., p. 637-638.
15. Ibid., p. 638-641.
16. Ibid., p. 643-644.
17. Ibid., p. 673.
This work has not yet been published as a book, and all the chapters are free in this website.