Title: From John Adams to Boston Patriot, 29 May 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Boston Patriot

					Sirs,
					Quincy, May 29, 1809.

				Mr. Hamilton, in his pamphlet, page 21, speaks of
the anterior mission of Messieurs Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry, and says, “it was resolved to make another, and a more
solemn experiment in the form of a commission of
 three.”
When I first read this sentence, I am not certain
whether it excited most of astonishment, indignation, contempt, or ridicule. By whom was this Measure resolved?
By President Washington? Certainly not. If it had
been he would have nominated the ministers. By the
President elect, Mr. Adams? Certainly not. He had
not been consulted. His resolutions were not known. By whom, then, was this important resolution taken?
By Mr. Hamilton and his privy counsellors. And what
had Mr. Hamilton and his privy counsellors to do with
the business? And who were his privy counsellors?
Page 22, he says, “the expediency of this step was
suggested to Mr. Adams, through a federal channel, a
considerable time before he determined to take it. He
hesitated whether it could be done, after the rejection of General Pinckney, without national debasement.
The doubt was an honorable one.” I disclaim and renounce all the honor of this doubt. I never entertained
such a doubt for a moment. I might ask the opinion of
twenty persons, (for I too “consulted much”) in order
to discover whether there was any doubt in the public mind, or any party who were averse to such a measure
or had any doubt about it. But I never had any hesitation myself. This passage, like all the rest of this pamphlet, shews that it was written from his mere imagination, from confused rumors, or downright false information.
It is true “the expediency of the step was suggested to
Mr. Adams,” before he took the step and before he had
time to take it; but long after he had determined to take
it. The mystery may be revealed. I have no motive,
whatever others may have, to conceal or dissemble it.
The morning after my inauguration, Mr. Fisher Ames
made me a visit, to take leave. His period in Congress
had expired, and the delicacy of his health, the despondency of his disposition, and despair of a re-election from
the increase of the opposite party in his district, had induced him to decline to stand a candidate. I was no longer
to have the assistance of his counsel and eloquence, though
Mr. Hamilton continued to enjoy both till his death. Mr.
Ames was no doubt one of Mr. Hamilton’s privy council,
when he resolved to send a new commission of three.
Mr. Ames, with much gravity and solemnity, advised me
to institute a new mission to France. Our affairs with
that republic were in an unpleasant and dangerous situation, and the people, in a long recess of congress must
have some object on which to fix their contemplation and
their hopes. And he recommended Mr. George Cabot,
for the northern States to be one of the three, if a commission was to be sent, or alone, if but one was to go.
I answered Mr. Ames, that the subject had almost engrossed my attention for a long time. That I should
take every thing into serious consideration and determine
nothing suddenly; that I should make deliberate enquiries concerning characters, and maturely consider the
qualities and qualifications of candidates, before any thing
was finally determined. Mr. Ames departed for Massachusetts.
I had rolled all these things in my own mind long before. The French nation and their government were in a very umbrageous and inflammable disposition. Much
delicacy and deliberation were necessary in the choice of
characters. Most of the prominent characters in America,
were as well known at Paris, as they were at Philadelphia.
I had sometimes thought of sending Mr. Madison, and
Mr. Hamilton to join Mr. Pinckney in a new Commission.
I had thought of Mr. Ames himself, as well as Mr. Cabot,
Judge Dana, Mr. Gerry, and many others in the northern,
middle, and southern states. I thought much of Mr.
Jefferson, but had great doubts whether the constitution
would allow me to send the Vice President abroad. The
nation at large had assigned him a station, which I doubted whether he had a right to abandon, or I a right to invite him to relinquish, though but for a time.
I had great doubts about re-appointing Mr. Pinckney.
He might have been so affected with the horrors he had
seen or heard in France, as to have uttered some expressions, which reported by spies to the ruling powers, might
have excited prejudices against him, which would insure
his second rejection, and that of his colleagues too. But
as I knew of no such accusation, I could not bear the
thought of abandoning him. I had not time to communicate all these reflections to Mr. Ames, and, moreover,
I had business of more importance to do. I had long
wished to avail myself and the public of the fine talents
and amiable qualities and manners of Mr. Madison.—Soon
after Mr. Ames left me, I sought and obtained an interview with Mr. Jefferson. With this gentleman I had lived
on terms of intimate friendship for five and twenty years,
had acted with him in dangerous times and arduous conflicts, and always found him assiduous, laborious, and as
far as I could judge, upright and faithful.—Though by
this time I differed from him in opinion by the whole horizon concerning the practicability and success of the
French revolution, and some other points, I had no reason
to think that he differed materially from me with regard
to our national constitution. I did not think that the
rumbling noise of party calumny ought to discourage me
from consulting men whom I knew to be attached to the interest of the nation, and whose experience, genius, learning and travels had eminently qualified them to give advice. I asked Mr. Jefferson what he thought of another
trip to Paris, and whether he thought the constitution and
the people would be willing to spare him for a short time?
Are you determined to send to France? Yes. That is
right, said Mr. Jefferson; but without considering whether the constitution will allow it or not, I am so sick of residing in Europe, that I believe I shall never go there again.
I replied, I own I have strong doubts whether it would be
legal to appoint you; but I believe no man could do the
business so well. What do you think of sending Mr.
Madison? Do you think he would accept of an appointment? I do not know, said Mr. Jefferson. Washington
wanted to appoint him some time ago, and kept the place
open for him a long time; but he never could get him
to say that he would go. Other characters were considered, and other conversation ensued. We parted as good
friends as we had always lived; but we consulted very
little together afterwards. Party violence soon rendered
it impracticable, or at least useless, and this party violence
was excited by Hamilton more than any other man. I
will not take leave of Mr. Jefferson in this place, without
declaring my opinion that the accusations against him of
blind devotion to France; of hostility to England; of
hatred to commerce; of partiality and duplicity in his
late negociations with the belligerent powers, are without
foundation.
From Mr. Jefferson I went to one of the heads of departments, whom Mr. Washington had appointed, and I
had no thoughts of removing. Indeed I had then no objection to any of the secretaries. I asked him what he
thought of sending Mr. Madison to France, with or without others? Is it determined to send to France at all?
Determined? Nothing is determined till it is executed,
smiling. But why not?—I tho’t it deserved consideration.—So it does; but suppose it determined, what do
you think of sending Mr. Madison? Is it determined to
send Mr. Madison? No; but it deserves consideration.—Sending Mr. Madison will make dire work among the passions of our parties in Congress, and out of doors, thro’
the States! Are we forever to be overawed and directed
by party passions? All this conversation on my part
was with the most perfect civility, good humor, and indeed familiarity: But I found it excited a profound gloom
and solemn countenance in my companion, which after some time broke out in “Mr. President, we are willing
to resign.” Nothing could have been more unexpected
to me than this observation—Nothing was farther from
my thoughts than to give any pain or uneasiness. I had
said nothing that could possibly displease, except pronouncing the name of Madison. I restrained my surprise, however, and only said, I hope nobody will resign:
I am satisfied with all the public officers.
Upon further inquiries of the other heads of departments, and of other persons, I found that party passions
had so deep and extensive roots, that I seriously doubted
whether the Senate would not negative Mr. Madison, if I
should name him.—Rather than expose him to a negative,
or a doubtful contest in the Senate, I concluded to omit
him. If I had nominated Madison, I should have nominated Hamilton with him. The former, I knew, was
much esteemed in France: the latter was rather an object
of jealousy. But I thought the French would tolerate
one for the sake of the other.—And I thought too that the manners of the one would soon wear off the prejudices against him, and probably make him a greater favorite than the other. But having given up Madison, I ought
to give up Hamilton too. Who then should I name? I
mentioned Mr. Dana and Mr. Gerry to the heads of departments and to many leading men in both Houses.
They all preferred Mr. Dana. But it was evident enough
to me, that neither Dana nor Gerry was their man. Dana
was appointed, but refused. I then called the heads of
departments together, and proposed Mr. Gerry. All the
five voices unanimously were against him. Such inveterate prejudice shocked me. I said nothing, but was determined I would not be the slave of it. I knew the man infinitely better than all of them. He was nominated and
approved, and finally saved the peace of the nation; for
he alone discovered and furnished the evidence that X. Y.
and Z. were employed by Talleyrand; and he alone
brought home the direct, formal and official assurances
upon which the subsequent commission proceeded, and
peace was made.
I considered Mr. Ames’s candidate, Mr. Cabot, as
deliberately as any of the others, and with as favorable
and friendly a disposition towards him as any other, without exception. But I knew his character and connections
were as well known in France, particularly by Talleyrand,
as Mr. Gerry’s were; and that there were great objections
against the former, and none at all against the latter. It
would be therefore inexcusable in me to hazard the success of the mission merely to gratify the passions of a party
in America, especially as I knew Mr. Gerry, to say the
least, to be full as well qualified by his studies, his experience, and every quality for the service, as the other.
I afterwards nominated Mr. Cabot to be Secretary of
the Navy, a station as useful as important, and as honorable as the other, and for which he was eminently qualified. But this he refused.
No man had a greater share in propagating and diffusing these prejudices against Mr. Gerry than Hamilton,
whether he had formerly conceived jealousies against him,
as a rival candidate for the Secretaryship of the Treasury:
for Mr. Gerry was a financier, and had been employed
for years on the committee on the treasury in the old
Congress, and a most indefatigable member too. That
committee had laid the foundation for the present system
of the treasury, and had organized it almost as well,
though they had not the assistance of clerks and other conveniences, as at present. Any man who will look into
the journals of the old Congress, may see the organization and the daily labors and reports of that committee,
and may form some judgment of the talents and services
of Mr. Gerry in that department. I knew that the officers of the treasury in Hamilton’s time dreaded to see him rise in the House upon any question of finance, because
they said he was a man of so much influence, that they
always feared he would discover some error or carry some
point against them—Or whether he feared that Mr. Gerry would be President of the United States before him, I
know not. He was not alone, however. His friends among the heads of departments and their correspondents in
Boston, New-York and Philadelphia, sympathized with him
very cordially in his hatred of Gerry, and of every other
man who had labored and suffered early in the revolution.
This preference of Mr. Gerry to Mr. Cabot was my
first mortal offence against my sovereign heads of departments and their disciples in all the States. It never was
or has been forgiven me by those who call themselves, or
are called by others, “the leading men” among the federalists.
Mr. Hamilton says, page 49, “After the rejection of Mr. Pinckney by the government of France, immediately after the instalment of Mr. Adams as President, and
long before the measure was taken, I urged a member
of Congress, then high in the confidence of the President, to propose to him the immediate appointment of
three Commissioners, of whom Mr. Jefferson or Mr.
Madison to be one, to make another attempt to negociate.”I will relate all that I can recollect relative to this subject. Mr. Tracy of Connecticut, who indeed was always
in my confidence, came to me, I believe at the opening
of the special session of Congress which I called soon after
my inauguration, and produced a long elaborate letter
from Mr. Hamilton, containing a whole system of instruction for the conduct of the President, the Senate, and the
House of Representatives. I read it very deliberately,
and really thought the man was in a delirium. It appeared
to me a very extraordinary instance of volunteer empiricism thus to prescribe for a President, Senate, and House
of Representatives all desperately sick and in a state of
deplorable debility, without being called. And when I
maturely considered the contents of the letter, my surprise was increased. I despised and detested the letter too
much to take a copy of it, which I now regret. This
letter is still in being & I doubt not many copies of it
are extant. I most earnestly request any gentleman who
possesses one to publish it. That letter, though it had no
influence with me, had so much with both Houses of Congress, as to lay the foundation of the overthrow of the
federal party, and of the revolution that followed four
years afterwards. I will endeavor to recollect as much
of the contents of it as I can, and if I am incorrect in any
point, those who possess the letter can, by the publication
of it, easily set all right.
It began by a dissertation on the extraordinarily critical
situation of the U. States.
It recommended a new mission to France of three Commissioners, Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison to be one.
It recommended the raising an army of fifty thousand
men, ten thousand of them to be cavalry, an army of great
importance in so extensive a country vulnerable at so many points on the frontiers, and so accessible in so many
places by sea.
It recommended an alien and sedition law.
It recommended an invigoration of the Treasury, by
seizing on all the taxable articles not yet taxed by the
government.—And lastly,
It recommended a national Fast, not only on account
of the intrinsic propriety of it, but because we should be
very unskilfull if we neglected to avail ourselves of the religious feelings of the people in a crisis so difficult and dangerous.—There might be more, but these are all that I
now recollect.
Mr. Hamilton’s imagination was always haunted by
that hedious monster or phantom, so often called a Crisis
and which so often produces imprudent measures.
How it happened that Mr. Hamilton’s contemplations
coincided so exactly with mine, as to think of Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison for envoy to France, it may be more
difficult to explain. But let it be considered that this letter was written long after my conversation with Mr. Jefferson, concerning himself and Mr. Madison, which was
the morning after my inauguration; that I had communicated that conversation to one or more of the heads of
departments the same morning. It is probable, therefore,
that Mr. Hamilton received hints from some of his correspondents that I had thought of Madison and Hamilton,
and that he was not displeased with the idea. I asked one
of the heads of departments how he could account for
Hamilton’s recommending Jefferson or Madison? “Why,
said the gentleman, I suppose Hamilton is weary of his
practice, as an attorney, at N. York, and is willing to
enter into some other employment.” Mr. Hamilton,
however, might thank those who had been his warmest
friends for his disappointment: for had it not been for
their opposition to Madison, I should have appointed him
and Hamilton.
The army of fifty thousand men, ten thousand of them
to be horse, appeared to me to be one of the wildest extravagancies of a Knight Errant. It proved to me that
Mr. Hamilton knew no more of the sentiments and feelings
of the people of America, than he did of those of the inhabitants of one of the planets. Such an army without
an enemy to combat, would have raised a rebellion in
every state in the Union. The very idea of the expence
of it would have turned President, Senate and House
out of doors. I adopted none of these chimeras into my
speech, and only recommended the raising of a few regiments of artillery to garrison the fortifications of the most
exposed places. Yet such was the influence of Mr. Hamilton in Congress, that, without any recommendation from
the President they passed a bill to raise an army, not a
large one, indeed, but enough to overturn the then federal government.
Nor did I adopt his idea of an alien or sedition law.
I recommended no such thing in my speech. Congress,
however, adopted both these measures. I knew there
was need enough of both, and therefore I consented to
them. But as they were then considered as war measures and intended altogether against the advocates of the French and peace with France, I was apprehensive that a
hurricane of clamour would be raised against them, as in
truth there was, even more fierce and violent than I had
anticipated.
Seizing on all the taxable articles not yet taxed, to support an army of fifty thousand men, at a time when so
many tax laws, already enacted, were unexecuted in so
many states, and when insurrections and rebellions had
already been excited in Pennsylvania, on account of taxes,
appeared to me altogether desperate, altogether delirious.
I wanted no admonition from Mr. Hamilton to institute
a national fast. I had determined on this measure long
enough before Mr. Hamilton’s letter was written. And
here let me say, with great sincerity, that I think there is
nothing upon this earth more sublime and affecting, than
the idea of a great nation all on their knees at once before their God, acknowledging their faults and imploring
his blessing and protection, when the prospect before them
threatens great danger and calamity. It can scarcely fail
to have a favorable effect on their morals in general, or
to inspire them with warlike virtues in particular. When
most, if not all the religious sects in the nation hold such
fasts among themselves, I never could see the force of the
objections against making them, on great and extraordinary
occasions, national; unless it be the jealousy of the separate states, lest the general government should become too
national. Those however, who differ from me in opinion
on this point, have as good a right to their judgment as
I have to mine, and I shall submit mine to the general
will.
In fine, Mr. Hamilton, in the passage I have been commenting, in this letter, has let out facts, which if he
had possessed a grain of common sense, he would have
wished should be forever concealed. I should never have
revealed or explained them if he, and his partizans, had
not compelled me.

					John Adams.


Title: From John Adams to Joseph Ward, 6 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Ward, Joseph

Sir
Quincy June 6 1809

I recd in Season your interesting favor of the 10th of May: but have not had Opportunity to acknowledge it till now.
There appears to me, to be a very extraordinary and unaccountable Inattention in our Countrymen to the History of their own Country. While every kind of Trifle from Europe is printed and Scattered profusely in America our own Original Historians are very much neglected. A Copy of Dr Mathers Magnolia is not to be purchased at any rate and is Scarcely to be found. Yet this contains the greatest quantity of Materials relative to the first Characters. Mr Princes Chronology is rarely to be found. The Second Volume not at all. I never Saw but one Copy of it in my Life. Belknaps and Minots Labours are neglected. Dr Mayhews Writings are forgotten. Samuel Adams and John Handcock are almost buried in oblivion. Gordons Ramseys, Marshalls Histories appear to me to be Romances. And the funding System and the Banking Systems Seem to threaten a total Destruction of all Distinctions between Virtue and Vice.
There is a total Occlusion of all the Federal Papers against to Truth. Your Success has been like that of twenty others who have made Similar Attempts.
You mention the recent Publications bearing my Signature as generally read. Those that have been reprinted in the Chronicle have been read by the Republicans: but I See no Evidence that any of the “Boston Patriots” have been read at all. I am informed from the Southward that they have been reprinted in Several of their Papers: but here I know nothing whether they are read by any body. Have you read them? And what is your Judgment of them? Is it worth while to persevere?
With great Esteem I am Sir your old Friend / & Sert
J. Adams


Title: From John Adams to Boston Patriot, 6 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Boston Patriot

               Sirs,
               Quincy, June 6, 1809.

            In page 28, Mr. Hamilton acknowledges that "the
President had pledged himself in his speech, (he should
have said in his message) to send a minister, if satisfactory
assurances of a proper reception were given." Notwithstanding this, Mr. Hamilton, and all his confidential
friends, exerted their utmost art and most strenuous endeavors to prevail on the President to violate this pledge.
What can any man think of the disposition of these men
towards the personal or official character of the President?
But that they were secretly, if not avowedly, his most
determined and most venomous enemies? When the
measure had been solemnly, irrevocably, determined and
could not be recalled nor delayed without indelible dishonor, I own I was astonished, I was grieved, I was afflicted, to
see such artificial schemes employed, such delays studied,
such embarrassments thrown in the way, by men who
were, or at least ought to have been my bosom friends.This was a point of honor indeed: not such a stupid,
fantastical point of honor as that which Mr. Hamilton
maintains with so much fanaticism, and so much folly: but a point of honor in which my moral character was
involved as well as the public faith of the nation. Hamilton’s point of honor was such as one of those Irish duelists, who love fighting better than feasting, might have made
a pretext for sending a challenge—and however conformable it might be to Hamilton’s manner of thinking, it was
altogether inconsistent with the moral, religious and
political character of the people of America.
It was such a point of honor as a Machiavilian or a
Jesuit might have made a pretext for a war. It was such a
point of honor as a Roman senate, in the most corrupt
days of that republic, might have made a pretext for
involving the nation in a foreign war, when Patrician
monopolies of land, and Patrician usury at twelve per
cent a month, had excited the Plebeian debtors to the
crisis of a civil war. But the American people were not
Roman Plebeians. They were not to be deceived by such
thin disguises.Surely those who have lately censured Mr. Jefferson
and Mr. Madison, for insisting on knowing the satisfaction
which was to be given for the outrage on the Chesapeake,
before they revoked a certain proclamation, can never
blame me for not insisting on a point that was no point
of honor at all.In page 28, Mr. Hamilton says "When the President
pledged himself in his speech (he should have said his
message) to send a Minister, if satisfactory assurances of a
proper reception were given, he must have been understood to mean such as were direct and official, not such as
were both informal and destitute of a competent sanction."
The words "direct and indirect," "official and inofficial," "formal and informal," "competent sanction,"
&c. appear to have seized this gentleman’s mind, and to
have rolled and tumbled in it, till they had produced an
entire confusion of his understanding.
He here supposes that I did not understand my own
message, and patriotically undertakes to expound it both
for me and the public. According to his metaphysics, I
meant, by assurances of a proper reception, assurances direct and official, not such as were informal. Let me ask,
what more formal or official assurances could have been
given than Talleyrand’s letters? What more formal, official, or direct, than Mr. Gerry’s letters? If I understand Mr. Hamilton, he must have meant to say that my
message demanded an ambassador to be sent directly from
the Directory to me, for the express purpose of assuring
me that they would receive a minister plenipotentiary from
me. This, instead of being my meaning was directly the
reverse of it.—From first to last I had refused to be taken
in this snare. I had always refused to demand that a
minister should be sent here first, though I had declared
explicitly enough in my speech, that a French minister, if
sent, would be received. I had always insisted that both
the doors of negociation should be held open. And as I
have already said I now repeat that I preferred to send a
minister rather than receive one: not only for the reasons
explained in a former letter, but because I thought the
amende honorable ought to be made at Paris where the
offence was given; where it would be known and observed by all Europe—whereas if it had been made at Philadelphia, little notice would have been taken of it by any
part of the world.
I am somewhat disappointed in not finding in this pamphlet the word "obscure" applied to Mr. Pichon, because
the newspapers in Boston, Newyork, and Philadelphia,
written by Mr. Hamilton’s coadjutors and fellow-laborers
in the same field of scandal, had profusely scattered their
dull sarcasms on the obscurity of the agent or agents at
the Hague. Mr. Pichon obscure? A secretary of legation and charge des affaires obscure! Especially in the
absence of his ambassador? The office of secretary of legation is an object of ambition and desire to many of the first scientific and literary characters in Europe. The place is worth
about a thousand guineas a year, affords a fine opportunity and great advantages for travel, and is commonly
a sure road to promotion. These secretaries are almost
always men of science, letters and business. They are
often more relied upon than the ambassadors themselves for the substantial part of business. Ambassadors are often chosen for their birth, rank, title, riches, beauty, elegance of manners, or good humor. They are intended to
do honor to their sovereigns by their appearance and representation. Secretaries of legation are selected for their
science, learning, talents, industry and habits of business.
I doubt not Mr. Locke or Sir Isaac Newton in their younger days would have thought themselves fortunate to have
been offered such a place. Would these have been called
obscure? Was Matthew Prior or David Hume obscure?
Yet both of them were secretaries of legation.Such reflections as these which were thrown upon Mr.
Pichon might impose upon a people who knew no better
than the writers, but must have been despised by every
man who knew any thing of the world.
Had Talleyrand sent his letters to general Washington
to be communicated to me, had he sent them directly to
my secretary of state, had he sent them to the Spanish
minister to be by him communicated to the secretary of
state, or to the Dutch minister for the same purpose, I
do not say that I would have nominated a minister in consequence of them; nor will I say that I would not. There
is no need to determine this question, because in fact the
utmost rigour of diplomatic etiquette was observed. But
I will say that my message demanded nothing but evidence to convince my own mind and give satisfaction to
the Senate and the public, that a minister would be received—And if such evidence had arrived to me, in any
manner that would leave no doubt in the public mind I
would not have sacrificed the National Neutrality to any
diplomatic trammels or shackles whatever.

               John Adams.


Title: From John Adams to William Cunningham, 7 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Cunningham, William

Dear Sir,
Quincy, June 7, 1809.

Yours of May 6th, I have not acknowledged, and cannot particularly consider the abundance of matter in it at present. If you see the Patriot, you will see that I am scribbling, twice a week. I am hammering out a brass farthing into an acre of leaf brass. But I was determined that posterity should know the facts relative to my peace with France in 1800. I expect “angry surges” enough. Let them come. They cannot sink me lower than the bottom, and I have been safely landed there these eight years.
I rodomontaded with Lyman and Wright. They called me Father of New-England—I resented that, because if I was a Father at all, I was Father of all the States.—I am, in earnest, a friend to the whole Union, comprehending East, West, North and South, and I will not countenance a project of division.
John Q. Adams exposed Eaton’s usurped title of General, which is directly against the Constitution, and opposed the grant of fifty thousand dollars to him, for which he had no just claim. That is enough for Eaton to revenge. It is true, that Pickering, at the instigation of Hamilton as I suppose, who was jealous of Smith as a favourite of Washington and a better officer than himself, excited a faction in the Senate against him, and to my knowledge propagated many scandalous falsehoods concerning him, and got him negatived, though Washington had recommended him to me. But no personal or family considerations would have induced me to dismiss Pickering. My motives were public altogether: but I have not yet told you half of them.
A most profound silence is observed relative to my scribbles. I say not a word about them to any one: and nobody says a word to me. The Newspapers are as still as midnight. I suppose the sulphureous combustibles are preparing under ground, and the electrical fire collecting in the clouds. The storm of thunder and lightning, hail and rain, I expect, will burst upon me all at once; and, the volcanoes burst out at the same time. If I am neither drowned in the rain, nor pierced with the bolts, nor blown into the atmosphere by the eruptions, I must be invulnerable.
Hic murus aheneus Esto. This heart be my wall of Brass.
I will not die for nothing. My pen shall go as long as my fingers can hold it.
I should be glad to know if you read the Patriot, and what is thought of it, whether and wherein I have exposed myself?
In great haste,
John Adams.


Title: From John Adams to Boston Patriot, 10 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Boston Patriot

					Sirs,
					Quincy, June 10, 1809

				IN page 29. Mr. Hamilton says, "when an ordinary
man dreams himself to be a Frederick," &c.To this I shall make but a short answer. When a Miss
of the street shall print a pamphlet in London, and call
the Queen of England an ordinary woman, who dreams
herself a Catharine of Russia, no Englishman will have
the less esteem for his queen for that impudent libel.There is something in the 24th page, of a graver complexion. It is said, “that the session which ensued the
promulgation of the dispatches of our commissioners was
about to commence. This was the session of 1798. Mr. Adams arrived at Philadelphia. The tone of his mind
seemed to be raised."Let me ask a candid public, how did Mr. Hamilton
know any thing of the tone of Mr. Adams’s mind, either
before or at that conference? To make the comparison,
he must have known the state of Mr. Adams’s mind at
both these periods. He had never conversed with Mr.
Adams before, nor was he present at that conference.
Who was the musician that took the pitch of Mr. Adams’s
mind, at the two moments here compared together?
And what was the musical instrument, or whose exquisite
ear was it that ascertained so nicely the vibrations of the
air, and Mr. Adams’s sensibility to them? Had Mr. Hamilton a spy in the cabinet? Who transmitted to him,
from day to day, the confidential communications between
the President and heads of department? If there existed
such a spy, why might he not communicate these conferences to Mr. Liston, or the Marquis Yrujo, as well as to
Mr. Hamilton? He had as clear a right. I believe that
all the privy councillors of the world but our own, are
under an oath of secrecy; and ours ought to be. But as
they are not, their own honor and sense of propriety
ought, with them, to be obligations as sacred as an oath.The truth is, I had arrived at Philadelphia, from a long
journey, which had been delayed longer than I intended,
very much fatigued; and as no time was to be lost, I
sent for the heads of departments, to consult, in the evening, upon the points to be inserted in the speech to Congress, who were soon to meet.My intention was, in the language of the lawyers,
merely to break the questions, or moot the points necessary for us to consider; not intending to express any opinion of my own, or to request any opinion of theirs
upon any point; but merely to take the questions into
their consideration, and give me their advice upon all of
them at a future meeting.I observed, that I found, by various sources of information, and particularly by some of the newspapers in
Boston and New-York, that there was a party who expected an unqualified recommendation of a declaration
of war against France.These paragraphs, I was well satisfied, were written by
gentlemen who were in the confidence and correspondence of Hamilton and one of the heads of departments at
least, though I gave them no intimation of this.I said to the gentlemen, that I supposed it would be
expected of us, that we should consider this question, and
be able to give our reasons for the determination, whatever it might be.The conduct of the gentlemen upon this question was
such as I wished it to be upon all the others. Not one of
them gave an opinion either for or against a declaration
of war. There was something, however, in the total silence and reserve of all of them, and in the countenances
of some, that appeared to me to be the effect of disappointment. It seemed to me, that they expected I should have
proposed a declaration of war, and only asked their advice
to sanction it. However, not a word was said.That there was a disappointment, however, in Hamilton and his friends, is apparent enough, from this consideration—that when it was known that a declaration of
war was not to be recommended in the President’s speech,
a caucus was called of members of Congress, to see if
they could not get a vote for a declaration of war, without
any recommendation from the President, as they had
voted the alien and sedition law, and the army. What
passed in that caucus, and how much zeal there was in
some, and who they were, judge Sewall can tell better
than I. All that I shall say, is, that Mr. Hamilton’s
friends could not carry the vote.My second proposition to the heads of departments was
to consider, in case we should determine against a declaration of war, what was the state of our relations with
France, and whether any further attempt at negociation
should be made.Instead of the silence and reserve with which my first
question was received, Mr. Hamilton shall relate what
was said.Mr. Hamilton says, "It was suggested to him, Mr.
Adams, that it might be expedient to insert in the speech,
a sentiment of this import, that after the repeatedly rejected advances of this country, its dignity required that it
should be left with France, in future, to make the first
overture: that if desirous of reconciliation, she should
evince the disposition, by sending a minister to this government; he would be received with the respect due to
his character, and treated with, in the frankness of a sincere desire of accommodation. The suggestion was received in a manner both indignant and intemperate."I demand again, how did Mr. Hamilton obtain this information? Had he a spy in the cabinet? If he had,
I own I had rather that all the courts in Europe should
have had spies there; for they could have done no harm
by any true information they could have obtained there;
whereas Hamilton has been able to do a great deal of mischief, by the pretended information he has published.It is very true, that I thought this proposition intended
to close the avenues to peace, and to ensure a war with
France; for I did believe that some of the heads of departments were confident, in their own minds, that
France would not send a minister here.From the intimate intercourse between Hamilton and
some of the heads of departments, which is demonstrated
to the world and to posterity, by this pamphlet, I now
appeal to every candid and impartial man, whether there
is not reason to suspect and to believe, whether there is
not a presumption, a violent presumption, that Hamilton
himself had furnished this machine to his correspondent
in the cabinet, for the very purpose of ensnaring me, at unawares, of ensuring a war with France, and enabling
him to mount his hobby horse, the command of an army
of fifty-thousand, ten thousand of them to be horse?Hamilton says, "the suggestion was received in a manner both indignant and intemperate." This is false. It
is true, it was urged with so much obstinacy, perseverance
and indecency, not to say intemperance, that at last I declared I would not adopt it, in clear and strong terms.Mr. Hamilton says, "Mr. Adams declared, as a sentiment he had adopted on mature reflection, that if France
should send a minister here to-morrow, he would order
him back the day after."Here I ask again, where, how, and from whom did he
get this information? Was it from his spy in the cabinet? Or was it the fabrication of his own "sublimated,
excentric," and intemperate imagination? In either case,
it is an entire misrepresentation.I said that when in my retirement at Quincy, the idea
of the French government sending a minister here, had
sometimes occurred to me, my first thoughts were, that I would send him back the next day after his arrival, as a retaliation for their sending ours back; and because the
affront offered to us had been at Paris, publicly, in the
face of all Europe the atonement ought to be upon the
same theatre; and because, as the French government
had publicly and officially declared that they would receive no minister plenipotentiary from the United States
until the President had made apologies for his speeches
and answers to addresses, they ought to be made to retract and take back that rash declaration, on the same
spot where it had been made. They might send a minister here, consistently with that offensive declaration. This was my first thought; but upon mature reflection,
I saw that this would not be justifiable; for, to retaliate
one breach of principle by another breach of principle,
was neither the morality nor the policy that had been
taught me by my father and my tutors. Our principle was, that the right of embassy was sacred. I would
therefore sacredly respect it, if they sent a minister here.
But I would not foreclose myself from sending a minister
to France, if I saw an opening for it, consistent with our honor: in short, that I would leave both doors and all
doors wide open for a negociation. All this refutation
came from myself, not from the heads of departments.All that he says in this place and in the beginning of
the next page, of my wavering, is false. My mind never underwent any revolution or alteration at all, after I left Quincy. I inserted no declaration in my speech, that I
would not send a minister to France; nor any declaration,
that if France would give assurances of receiving a minister from this country, I would send one. Nothing like
that declaration was ever made, except in my message to
Congress, of the 21st of June, 1798, in these words: “I will never send another minister to France, without
assurances that he will be received, respected and honored, as the representative of a great, free, powerful and
independent nation." This declaration finally effected
the peace.
Both the doors of negociation were left open. The
French might send a minister here without conditions—we might send one to France, upon condition, of a certainty that he would be received in character.What conduct did the French government hold, in
consequence of this declaration? They retracted their
solemn and official declaration, that they would receive
no minister plenipotentiary, in future, from the United
States, without apologies from the President, for his
speeches and answers to addresses. They withdrew, and
expressly disavowed all claims of loans and doucœurs,
which had been held up in a very high tone. They even
gave encouragement, I might say they promised, to make
provision for an equitable compensation for spoliations.—They promised to receive our ministers, and they did
receive them, and made peace with them—a peace that
completely accomplished a predominant wish of my heart
for five and twenty years before, which was, to place our
relations with France and with Great Britain, upon a
footing of equality and impartiality, that we might be able
to preserve, in future, an everlasting neutrality in all the
wars of Europe.I see now, with great pleasure, that England professes
to acknowledge and adopt this our principle of impartiality, and I hope that France will soon adopt it too. The
two powers ought to see, that it is the only principle we
can adopt with safety to ourselves, or justice to them. If
this is an error, it is an error in which I have been invariably and unchangeably fixed for five and thirty years, in the whole course of which I have never seen reason to
suspect it to be an error, and I now despair of ever discovering any such reasons.Nevertheless, Mr. Hamilton calls the declaration that
accomplished all this, "a pernicious declaration!"Pernicious it was to his views of ambition and domination. It extinguished his hopes of being at the head of a
victorious army of fifty thousand men; without which,
he used to say, he had no idea of having a head upon his shoulders for four years longer.Thus it is, when self-sufficient ignorance impertinently
obtrudes itself into offices and departments, in which it
has no right, nor color, nor pretence to interfere.Thus it is, when ambition undertakes to sacrifice all
characters, and the peace of nations, to its own private
interest.I have now finished all I had to say on the negociations
and peace with France, in 1800—I find I must say something of the peace with England, in 1783.In the meantime, when I look back on the opposition
and embarrassments I had to overcome, from the faction
of British subjects, from that large body of Americans
who revere the English and abhor the French, from some
of the Heads of Departments, from so many gentlemen in
Senate, and so many more in the House of Representatives, and from the insidious and dark intrigues as well as
open remonstrances of Mr. Hamilton, I am astonished at
the event.In some of my jocular moments I have compared myself to an animal I have seen, take hold of the end of a
cord with his teeth and be drawn slowly up by pullies,
through a storm of squibs, crackers, and rockets, flashing
and blazing round him every moment: and though the
scorching flames made him groan, and mourn, and roar,
he would not let go his hold till he had reached the ceiling of a lofty theatre, where he hung sometime, still suffering a flight of rockets, and at last descended through
another storm of burning powder, and never let go, till
his four feet were safely landed on the floor.In some of my social hours I have quoted Virgil:Fata obstant, placidasque viri Deus obstruit aures.Ac velut annoso validam cum robore quercumAlpini Boreæ nunc hinc nunc flatibus illincEruere inter se certant; it stridor; et altæConsternunt terram concusso stipite frondes:Ipsa hæret scopulis: et quantum in virtice ad aurasÆtherias, tantum radice in Tartara tendit.Haud secus assiduis hinc atque hinc vocibus herosTunditur, et magno persentit pectore curas.Mens immota manet: lacrimæ volvuntur inanes.Lib. 4. 440.His hardened heart nor prayers nor threatening move;Fate and the Gods had stopp’d his ears,As when the winds their airy quarrels try,Justling from every quarter of the sky;This way and that the mountain oak they bend,His boughs they shatter, and his branches rend;With leaves and falling mast, they spread the ground.The hollow vallies to the echo sound:Unmov’d the sturdy plant, their fury mocks,Or shaken, clings more closely to the rocks:Far as he shoots his towering head on high,So deep in earth his deep foundations lie;No less a storm the Trojan hero bears;Thick messages and loud complaints he hears,And bandied words still beating on his ears.Sighs, groans and tears, proclaim his inward pains,But the firm purpose of his heart remains.
Dryden, B. 4. 186.But this is all levity. There have been sober hours,
not a few: and I know not that there has been one, in
which I have not adored that Providence of Almighty
God, which alone could have carried me safely through,
to a successful issue, this transaction and so many others,
equally difficult, and infinitely more dangerous to my life,
if not to my reputation.

					John Adams.


Title: To John Adams from Samuel Perley, 12 June 1809
From: Perley, Samuel
To: Adams, John

Honored Sir,
Gray June, 12th. 1809.

Your Letter of April, 18th. 1809, came safe to my Hand. It was soon read by our Lawyer in Gray. He  was so Pleased with it, that he quickly publised it, in the Portland Gazette. I have seen your Letter and mine, Published in the Boston Patriot. Both are published (as I Understand) in Amherst Paper in the State of New-Hampshire. No writings, that appear in our public Papers, are in General read, with so much Avidity as those are, which Appear from the Pen of the Honorable, and ever to be Honored John Adams, while Gratitude is to be found in Our independent, united States. I beleive, that more Gratitude is due from the united States of America to the Immortal Washington, and to his Excellency John Adams, Than to any other two respectable Names, within the Limits of our Independence.
Honored Sir, you mention in your Letter to me, a Number Of Books printed in Defence of our State and National Constitutions, not one of which have I ever Seen. And this I beleive to be true with respect to many Gentlemen Of a public Education, and most of our best Farmers Within a Hundred Miles of me. We know nothing of Them, except what some of our ungovernable News-Papers, have published to your Honours disadvantage. May I not ask, if an Abridgement of your Works, (such a One; as could be purchased by Farmers) would not be a Great Releaf and Blessing in these perilous Times? Would it not extend it’s Influence to Posterity, yet unborn? I am fully perswaded, that such an Exertion, would be Consistent with your wise and benevolent Disposition, from the Days of the nefarious Governour Hutchinson, to the present Moment. With pleasure I could easily fill Sheets of Paper In an Epistolary Way, but the deficiency of my  Station in Life, considering your exalted Character, forbids Any Further Additions.
with profound Sentiments of cordial Respects, I am Honored Sir, your most Obedient and Very Humble Servant,

Samuel Perley
P.S. Your Sentiments on the Impressment of Seamen, Ought to be set in Letters of Gold. Your Honour’s  at Supra

Samuel Perley
   Simon Greenleaf Esquire.


Title: To John Adams from William Cunningham, 14 June 1809
From: Cunningham, William
To: Adams, John

Dear Sir.
Fitchburg, June 14. 1809.

I am favoured with yours of the 7th. inst. After telling me that the employment of your thoughts upon your public essays precludes your attention, for the present, to my letters, I should be bereft of apology for filling again a whole sheet, if you had not also said that you are in no apprehension of being inundated. Amidst the heaviest outpouring which may be supposed to be congregating in the elements of human vengeance, I know you will stand like a conductor of electric fluid, which the lightning can only seize, envelope, and rush down its sides, but which it leaves uninjured to cool, and to stand again, with its daring points, amid the storm.
That you are a friend to an indivisible union of these States is most clearly evinced; and you derive from your concern for their common welfare as indisputable a right as was possessed by Augustus, to the honourable and endearing title of “The Father of your Country.”
It was then, because Mr. Jno. Q. Adams, had given the upstart, scribbler, and pedantic mystagogue Eaton, his deserts, that he spit at him the venom toady poison with which he was so much distended. This description of his venom gives it fitter qualities for a Bull’s manger, to inspirit him for the bating, than for whip cream in a dessert.
I take the Patriot, but either through miscarriage or purloining, I have failed of the reception of two of the numbers. You ask me, “What is thought of your communications, and, whether and wherein, you have exposed yourself?” I understand that a replication to your papers will be a task assigned to, or assumed by Colman. But if you are not to be answered, some short sentence of scurrility will be invented and scattered. An elderly and respectable clergyman, on his way home from Boston, called on me last Friday, and continued over night. He informed me, without any reserve, that Mr. Whitney, your Minister, represented to him, that your resolution to rescue your reputation from reproach, was regarded, by your whole Family, as an unfortunate determination, but that you are inexorable to their entreaties to desist. This is one of the tales of the table, and whether true, or unfounded, ought not, I think, to be propagated by Mr. Whitney, without permission. Osgood made a lunge pass at you in his Election Sermon, but he is as among the pragmatical:—Perhaps the Clergy have got their cue. Some of the village papers, mere puppies of the pack, have scented, and wag their joy that they have dared to bark at some of your numbers. It is unnecessary to refer you to these papers, for like Alexander or Scander, you can enter the lists with none but Kings. You may have noticed that the Repertory, which I consider as sounding the highest note in the federal gamut, lately insinuated, that Everett and Munroe were put by you into the typographical department to serve as the instruments of your ill-will against certain characters. But this arrow is unbarb’d by the perfect harmony between your sentiments now on the impressment of our Seamen, and the sentiments, on the same subject, entertained by you forty years ago. In your defence of the British Soldiers, you advanced the doctrines which you now defend. Indeed it may be justly observed, that, as you said in your Letter to Perley, your thoughts on Government have all been frankly avowed, and undeviatingly followed. But what of that? The man who, to shun the crookedness of this world’s ways, stretches his path of principle, like a turnpike, over bogs and morasses, through hills and over vallies, will discover in his way the track which he avoided—sometimes it will appear upon his right hand, and sometimes upon his left—sometimes it lies in his course, and sometimes he intersects it, but for the most part he leaves it wholly out of sight; and though his own path is straight, he will be accused by the herd of wanderers in the devious way, with inconsistency! The political guide who would preserve, in the vox populi, a character for uniformity, must be like the goose which leads a flock in their migration—when he veers, he may venture, if his flock will follow; but to fly alone, even though his course is direct to the region he is seeking, what a goose! The accusation of being actuated by malice or revenge in your advocacy of the sentiments you proudly professed at an early period of the Revolution, is an instance of the most abandoned profligacy; and it is singular that you should be represented as an anthropophagi (for there is little or no difference between the deeds of malignity, and eating of flesh.) in your very attempts to defend the lives and liberties of an important and much exposed class of your fellow-men. But such sports-men at your reputation will find they have been discharging popguns at an elephant.
The enquiry, “Whether, and wherein, you have exposed yourself,?” imposes upon me the most difficult of duties, though one which, towards a great mind, may be performed without dread. Before I reply, I cannot but remark on the free and flowing style in which your developement is written. To an application I made to you last Winter for some statements, you answered that you had neither hands, nor eyes, nor time to write. The occasion which has brought you before the public has been the Medea of your renovation. The struggle in which you are engaged, may demand the strength of earlier years, and I am happy in the discovery, that you are in the vigour of the restored Æson.
In the number, dated Maywherein you describe the importunate and fatigueing earnestness of Hamilton to inoculate you with his visionary fears, you piteously and deridingly use, in a notice of his person, the adjective little. I lamented the appearance of that descriptive word, because the stature of a man has no relation to a mensuration of his mind; and I lamented it because it may bee too chargeable with acrimony. If men were to rank high, or to be undervalued according as they are high or low on the size-stick, Maximin must have been the greatest, and Napoleone is the least of all adult Monarchs. I know that you had too much provocation in the gross incivility, I might say rudeness of Hamilton towards you, but would not your exposures of him had as much weight had you omitted an expression of contempt? It is possible that as nature has not given me indemnity against such a stroke, I may be too sensible to its wrong.
In the number dated May 29th. I have some doubt whether you have not too incautiously asserted of Mr. Ames that “despair of a reelection from the increase of the opposite party in his district, had induced him to decline to stand a candidate.” At the election which next ensued after his speech on the British Treaty, I know that he had not the most distant thoughts of expectation of being rechosen. This appears by his Letters to Dr. Clarke, and others.  Boston, was in a ferment against the Treaty, and forwarded their Resolutions to Philadelphia by the wood-chuck Revere. At the election referred to, Ames did not suffer his doubts, or his despair of a reelection to influence him to decline being a candidate. “The delicacy of his health, and the despondency of his disposition”, are very correctly assigned as causes of his refusal to be a candidate; and were not these enough to mention? In this paper you have unfolded many of the particulars which you disclosed to me at an interview I had the honour to have with you at your House in August 1804, and which I took preserved to assist me in the composition of some essays. Comparing its contents with my minutes, I cannot but think you are more courteous than I am, in being willing to bestow so much unqualified praise upon Mr. Jefferson. You strengthen an encomium on this gentleman, by founding it on “an intimate friendship of five and twenty years,” and by a fellowship, perhaps as long, in public business. According to my memorandums, you mentioned, at the interview in 1804, that Mr. Jefferson, while a Member of the old Congress, frequently vented severe sarcasms upon Religion, and once in debate, spoke sneeringly of the Scriptures, which drew you from your seat. The strength and severity of your observations, in reply, procured you acknowledgements from R. H. Lee, and two others. You acknowleded Jefferson to have been a student in some branches of learning, but thought him superficially acquainted with the science of civil rule. You gave me a minute account of the framing of the Declaration of Independence, and why, and to what extent, he had a hand in it. And you told me, that when Mr. Jefferson was appointed Ambassador to France, he informed you, that he would not embark without his family, and that he would not be exposed to a British-man-of-war for all this world. All these particulars, but without the most distant allusion to the source whence I derived them, have been incorporated into my political speculations, and I have reposed upon you for my authority. In addition to this, in a Letter, dated Jan. 16th. 1804, after enumerating the various stations in his political life, you speak thus of Mr. Jefferson:—“Anecdotes from my memory would certainly be known. There are some there known only to him and me. But they would not be believed, at least they would be said not to be believed, and would be imputed to envy, revenge or vanity. I wish him no ill. I envy him not. I shudder at the calamities which I fear his conduct is preparing for his Country, from a mean thirst of popularity, an inordinate ambition, and a want of sincerity.” If you have written and spoken in this manner to others, and it should become public, would it not palsey your pangyrie? I know that this enquiry can be very properly pursued by an “analysis of investigation,” and after all, if your candour and generosity towards Mr. Jefferson have been too great, it cannot be called “a blameable excess.”
Again. In the third column, you say, Hamilton’s “friends among the Heads of Departments, and their correspondents in Boston, New-York & Philadelphia, sympathised with him very cordially in his hatred of Gerry, and of every other man who had laboured and suffered early in the Revolution.” Have you not gone too far here? Were not Washington, Knox, Pinckney, and many more, “who had laboured and suffered early in the Revolution,” in the confidence of Hamilton and his friends?
Respecting Hamilton’s synopsis, handed to you by Mr. Tracy, I recurred to my notes. I find the Army was to be 100,000 instead of 50,000.
In the Patriot of last Saturday, you say, that a majority in the States south of the Hudson, would have confederated under Burr, and a majority, north of that river, under Hamilton—that Burr would have beaten Hamilton to pieces—what would have followed, you say, let the prophets foretell.” Is not the mastery of the Chiefs as much a matter of prediction as any of the consequences? Is it not the main question. I must, on your account, as well as my own, defer a farther examination.
You have noticed the batch of Representatives for Boston. Two are of the cornuted kind, and if a just portrait was drawn of many of them, a Calf, as in the picture of the Butcher created an Esquire, would be seen peeping over their shoulders. I wonder that the notional Bostonians, in their whimsies of equality, had omitted a representation of the gentlemen of the brush and scraper. It is fortunate that the powers of this host are neither seigurial nor sempiternal. If there were no greater adepts in the art of entrapping than are to be found in this list, we should be unexposed to deep Machiavelianism—but those who are not allowed the tactility of the keys, may be employed to blow the bellows.
We are taught by Mr. Gore’s precepts, but we have been moved by his example. The conciliatory temper he has inculcated in his Speech, if it does not carry some fatal concealment, like the Arpega of Nabis, may have a happy effect in tranquilizing the Commonwealth. But if his shew of moderation is like a fad-iron, which carries to the eye the outward sign of coldness, while it is full and relentive of a pressing heat, we shall be but the more convulsed—When a boat goes down with the current against the apparent effort of her oars, we know there is an influence at bottom which will not be counteracted.
Is not the “Review of the Works of Fisher Ames,” written by the Younger Pliny?
With veneration and affection, / I am, Dear Sir, / Your most obliged Friend

Wm. Cunningham. Jr.I must entreat you to pardon the haste in which I have written.


Title: To John Adams from Benjamin Rush, 14 June 1809
From: Rush, Benjamin
To: Adams, John

My Dear sir
Philadelphia June 14. 1809.

My son Richard who has been a customer for the Aurora ever since he lived at the Jersey College, after reading your last letter, brought the enclosed papers from his office, and requested me to forward them to you.
I have lately met with an account of the brain of Voltaire being preserved by a Lady in a France, and showed to her friends as an object of affection and adoration. The author of this anecdote (a physician in a treatise upon the gout) says it is much larger than Common brains, & that it was made so by his Uncommon exercise of it in study, and that this increase in the size of his brain had added to the duration of his life by affording a larger manufactory for animal Spirits with which life is so intimately connected. If the exercise of your mind in the “Diversions of Quincy” should have the same effect upon your health and life, I shall rejoice in it. Your publications are universally read, and admired, or objected to according to the nature of the Spirit that actuates the readers of them. It was because I knew you possessed the fund of facts and anecdotes you have lately poured upon the public, that I advised you so often to write the memoirs of your life.—
yrs yrs-yrs

Benjn: Rush


Title: To John Adams from Pseudonym: "76", 15 June 1809
From: Pseudonym: “76”
To: Adams, John

Maryd. 15 June 1809. Anne Arundel Co.

“Oh Shame, Shame! where is thy blush” that thou shouldst thus dare prophane the manes of the immortal Hamilton “a Spirit pure as the unsullied light of Heaven & incorruptible as Heaven itself—” Why weak old fool wage war with the dead? A cannibal could not more—Why not publish those impious falsehoods during his existence? Oh, how lost how degraded view’d  with digust by one party, & pitiful contempt by the other.
Stop! beware the fate that awaits you the impious accuser of Hamilton shall not live!
‘76Old Polonius! Your Son Shall be dissappointed, & thou once respected shalt die in abhorrence—


Title: From John Adams to Samuel Perley, 19 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Perley, Samuel

Sir
Quincy June 19th 1809

I received your favour of the 12th. You propose to me an abridgement of my works. Some fifty five years ago I learned from Lord Coke that Abridgements were chiefly useful to the makers of them. It would be of no use to me to abridge my poor productions. Besides I had rather write as many new ones than undertake to abridge the old ones.
You say that our ungovernable News-Papers have published something concerning my works to my disadvantage. I thank you for this Epithet “ungovernable.” It is so fine an expression and at the same time so simple, natural, and exact that I wonder it has never occurred before. A great minister of State in the estimation of the world the Comte De Vergennes once said to me, Mr Adams, the News-Papers Govern the world. Let me ask you Mr Perley whether this Apophthegm has not been verified in our own country sometimes to her profit and sometimes to her loss? Let me ask you again, if the world, is governed by ungovernable News-Papers, whether it does not follow, by necessary logical consequence that the world is ungovernable?
The News-Papers have represented my writings as Monarchical as having a Monarchical tendency; as Aristocratical, and having an Aristocratical tendency. In answer to these charges, I only ask that they may be read.
I have represented the British Constitution as the most perfect model that has as yet, been discovered or invented by human Genius and Experience for the Government of the Great Nations of Europe. It is a master piece. It is the only System that has preserved or can preserve the Shadow, the Colour, the Semblance of Liberty to the People in any of the great Nations of Europe. Consider the Republicks. Venice, Holland, Switzerland not a particle of liberty to the People was preserved in any of them more than there was in France, nor so much neither. Our own Constitutions I have represented as the best for us in our peculiar situation, and while, we preserve ourselves independent and unallied to any of the great powers of Europe. An alliance with either France or England would in my humble opinion soon put an end to our fine System of Liberty.
Let me give you a few hints of the history of my “defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States.”
In 1775 and 1776 there had been great disputes in Congress and in the several States concerning a proper constitution for the several States to adopt for their Government. A convention in Pensylvania had adopted a Government in one Representative Assembly and Dr Franklin was the President of that Convention. The Dr when he went to France in 1776 carried with him the printed Copy of that Constitution and it was immediately propagated through France that this was the plan of Government of Mr Franklin. In truth it was not Franklin but Timothy Matlock James Cannon, Thomas Young and Thomas Paine were the Authors of it., Mr Turgot the Duke de la Rochefaucault, Mr Condorcet and many others became enamoured with the Constitution of Mr Franklin. And in my opinion the two last owed thier final and fatal Catastrophe to this blind love.
In 1780 when I arrived in France I carried a printed Copy of the Report of the grand Committee of the Massachusetts Convention which I had drawn up, And this became an object of Speculation. Mr Turgot, the Duke de la Rochefaucault and Mr Condorcet and others admired Mr Franklin’s Constitution and reprobated mine. Mr Turgot in a letter to Dr Price, which Dr Price printed in London censured the American Constitutions as adopting three Branches in imitation of the Constitution of Great Britain. The intention was to celebrate Franklin’s Constitution and condemn mine. I understood it. And undertook to defend my Constitution and it Cost me three volumes.
In Justice to myself however I ought to say that it was not the miserable Vanity of justifying my own work or eclipsing the Glory of Mr Franklins that induced me to write. I never thought of writing till the Assembly of Notables in France had commenced a Revolution with the Duke de la Rochefaucault and Mr Condorcet at their head who I knew would establish a Government in one Assembly and that I knew would involve France and all Europe in all the horror we have seen; Carnage and desolation for forty perhaps for a hundred years.
At the same time every Western wind brought in News of Town and Country meetings in Massachusetts adopting Mr Turgots Ideas, condemning my Constitution, reprobating the office of Governor and the assembly of the Senate as expensive, useless and pernicious branches and not only proposing to toss them of but rising in rebellion against them.
In this situation I was determined to wash my hands of the blood that was about to be shed in France Europe and America, and shew to the world that neither my sentiments nor actions should have any share in countenancing or encouraging any such pernicious destructive and fatal schemes. In this view I wrote my defence of the American Constitution. I had only the Massachusetts constitution in view and such others as agreed with it in the distribution of the Legislative power into three branches in seperating the execetive from the Legislative power and the judiciary power from both.
These three volumes had no relation to the Constitution of the United States. That was not in existance: and I scarcely knew that such a thing was in Contemplation till I received it at the moment my third volume was about to issue from the press I had hardly time to annex it at the end.
I was personally acquainted with Mr Turgot the Duke de la Rochefaucault and Mr Condorcet. They were as amiable as learned and as honest men as any in France. But such was their inexperience in all that relates to free government: So superficial their reading in the science of Government, and so obstinate in thier Confidence in thier own great Characters for Science and Literature that I would trust the most ignorant of our honest town meeting orators to make a Constitution of Government sooner than any or all of them.
And now Sir give my Compliments to Mr Simon Greenleaf your Lawyer and tell him that he is welcome to publish this letter if he pleases provided he publishes your before it: not otherwise. I am Sir though an entire Stranger your Friend and Humble Servant
John Adams


Title: From John Adams to Benjamin Rush, 22 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Rush, Benjamin

Dear Sir,—
Quincy June 22. 1809.

A thousand thanks to Richard for his Auroras and ten thousand to you for your Letter of the 14th.
I am not subject to low spirits, but if I was one of your Letters would cure me at any time for a Month.
Voltaires Brain I shall never get out of mine. It will make me laugh whenever I think of it. The Jews and Nonotte have pickled his Brain in a more durable Manner and kept it in a more perfect state of Preservation than his Niece. I cannot help respecting in some degree however the wretch and his Brains too. There is something so fine and so wonderful about him. Why may we not believe that he and Hamilton too were converted in Articulo Mortis and admitted into Celestial Mansions? If so they will both be now thanking us for exposing the Turpitude of their Hearts and the Perversion of their Intellects in the state of their high health.
If “the Diversions of Quincy” were as scientifick and as useful as “the Diversions of Perley” I should never be ashamed of them. But
Pretty in amber to observe the Forms Of Flies and Wasps and Scrubs and Dirt and Worms;
The Things themselves are neither rich nor rare
But wonder! How the Devil they came there.
I am in a fair way to be examined upon Interrogatories by all the Lawyers and Politicians. But I must not be diverted from my Course by Wandering Lights.
John Adams.


Title: From John Adams to Boston Patriot, 22 June 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Boston Patriot

					Sirs,
					Quincy, June 22, 1809.

				In a former letter, it was suggested that I found myself obliged to say something of the peace of 1783.Mr. Hamilton, in his pamphlet, page 7, says, "The principal merit of the negociation with Great Britain, in some quarters, has been bestowed on Mr. Adams; but it is certainly the right of Mr. Jay, who took a lead in the several steps of the transaction, no less honorable to his talents than to his firmness. The merit, nevertheless, of a full and decisive co-operation, is justly due to Mr. Adams."This invidious paragraph, I am charitably disposed to believe, was owing partly to want of information, and not altogether to malice, or a desire to excite a misunderstanding between me and Mr. Jay. As I shall be obliged to take a course somewhat circuitous, in order to shew it in its true light, I request the candid attention of the reader to some documents that may at first appear tedious, but which in the end will be found important, if not essential.God forbid that I should attempt to diminish a ray of the solid glory of Mr. Jay, in this or any other transaction of his life. A man and his commission were never better united than Mr. Jay and the commission for peace. No man ever fulfilled the duties of a trust, with more integrity, constancy, fortitude, intelligence or address.—I have constantly said this in all companies and upon all occasions, for six and twenty years, and now rejoice in an opportunity of transmitting it to posterity.As the negociation of the peace of 1783, was a transaction pregnant of events which are full of instruction to the people of America, to future Presidents and Congresses, and ought to be so to the French nation and their government, and the English too, I hope I shall be pardoned if some things should appear at first sight to be the effect of ostentation or vanity. The subject is too serious tor any considerations of this kind to have any influence upon me. In the autumn of 1779, I attended my duty in Cambridge, as a member of the convention, while it was forming a constitution for the state of Massachusetts. Returning home to my family in Braintree, on a Saturday night, the 4th of November, I found a packet from the President of Congress, containing two commissions, accompanied with instructions, and the orders of Congress, to embark as soon as possible for Europe, on board the French frigate Le Sensible, under the command of Captain De Chavanne.The first of these commissions constituted me a minister plenipotentiary to negociate and conclude a peace with Great Britain; the second, to negociate a treaty of commerce with that power. The first was in these words:The delegates of the United States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia,To all who shall see these presents, send greeting:It being probable that a negociation will soon be commenced for putting an end to the hostilities between his Most Christian Majesty and these United States on the one part, and his Britannic Majesty on the other part, and it being the sincere desire of the United States, that they may be terminated by a peace, founded on such solid and equitable principles, as reasonably to promise a permanency of the blessings of tranquillity, know ye, therefore that we, confiding in the integrity, prudence and ability of the Honorable John Adams, Esq. late commissioner of the United States of America, at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts Bay, and Chief Justice of the said State, have nominated and constituted, and by these presents do nominate and constitute, him, the said John Adams, our minister plenipotentiary, giving him full power, general and special, to act in that quality, to confer, treat, agree and conclude with the ambassadors or plenipoteniaries of his Most Christian Majesty, and those of his Britannic Majesty, and of any other princes or states whom it may concern, vested with equal powers, relating to the re-establishment of peace and friendship, and whatever shall be so agreed and concluded for us, and in our name, to sign, and thereupon make a treaty or treaties, and to transact every thing that may be necessary for completing, securing and strengthening the great work of pacification, in as ample form, and with the same effect, as if we were personally present, and acted therein, hereby promising in good faith, that we will accept, ratify, fulfil and execute whatever shall be agreed, concluded and signed by our said minister plenipotentiary, and that we will never act, nor suffer any person to act, contrary to the same, in the whole or in any part.In witness whereof, we have caused these presents to be given in Congress at Philadelphia, the twenty-ninth day if September, in the year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred and seventy-nine, and in the fourth year of the independence of the United States of America.Signed by the President and sealed with his seal.Samuel Huntington, President, and a seal.Attest, Charles Thomson, Sec’ry.The commission for making a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, was in these words:The delegates of the United States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, in Congress assembled,To all who shall see these presents, send Greeting:It being the desire of the United States, that the peace which may be established between them and his Britannic Majesty may be permanent and accompanied with the mutual benefits derived from commerce,

Know ye, therefore, that we confiding in the integrity, prudence and ability of the hon. John Adams, Esq. late Commissioner of the United States of America, at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts Bay, and Chief Justice of that state, have nominated and constituted, and by these presents do nominate and constitute, him, the said John Adams, our Minister Plenipotentiary, giving him full power general and special, to act in that quality, to confer, agree, and conclude with the Ambassador or Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty vested with equal powers, of and concerning a treaty of commerce, and to transact every thing that may be necessary for completing, securing and strengthening the same, in as ample form and with the same effect as if we were personally present and acted therein; hereby promising in good faith, that we will accept, ratify, fulfil and execute, whatever shall be agreed, concluded and signed by our said Minister Plenipotentiary, and that we will never act, nor suffer any person to act, contrary to the same, in the whole nor in any part.In witness whereof, we have caused these presents to be given in Congress, at Philadelphia, the twenty ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and seventy nine, and in the fourth year of the independence of the United States of America.Signed by the President, and sealed with his Seal.Samuel Huntington, President,

and a Seal.Attest, Charles Thomson, Sec’ry.With these two commissions I received special instructions in detail. I had been scarcely three months at home,

since my return from a former mission to the Court of Versailles, in which I had twice run the gauntlet across the Atlantic, among storms and British men of war, neither of which were delectable objects, nor encouraging temptations to a second embarkation on the ocean.My family attachments were as strong and as well founded as those of any man living, having a wife and four children, then young, whom I must either abandon in a country engaged in all the horrors of war, or commit them with myself to the dangers of the ocean, and the hazard of captivity.Nevertheless, when I considered the perilous situation of my country, which I then had experience enough to know, was in as much danger abroad as at home; the confidence reposed in me by these important commissions, which I was alone to execute, I considered the voice of my country as the command of Heaven; and held it my duty to resign all personal considerations, and as Luther said upon another occasion, I determined to go, though there were as many devils in the way, as there were tiles on the houses in London.

					John Adams.


Title: To John Adams from Joseph Ward, 23 June 1809
From: Ward, Joseph
To: Adams, John

Sir
Boston June 23d. 1809.

Your letter of the 6th Inst. I had the honor to receive the next day, just before I commenced a journey; I read it repeatedly and with great attention—and feel the importance of all your remarks. I wish every mind was duly impressed with the sentiments. The longer I live the more I am convinced that truth makes slow progress in the world; and to reform public errors is an arduous task. But this Country must be reformed, or Liberty, & Virtue, will decay. I have read all the Letters bearing your Signature, which have been published in the Patriot, with equal attention & pleasure. If universally read, they would I conceive do more to correct the public mind than all the other publications of every name & description. But they will not be generally read, as most of the people read but one paper, & the papers are under the direction of the warm & active partizans of the two great parties which divide our Country, neither of which love to see the whole truth told. Your impartiality, so essential to the public welfare, & which ought to give universal currency to your writings, prevents their publication in the papers of both parties. They do not like to see the errors of their favorites exposed. “Buy the truth, & sell it not,”—is not their maxim. Preferring man, & parties, to principle, is the bane of our Country; and will, if not corrected, end in ruin. And I sincerely believe, Sir, that there is no man in the world who can do so much to correct this evil, as yourself. Although your writings are not universally read, yet they are read I believe by most of inquiring politicians & men of Science, & may be diffused by verbal communications; And the different parties publish extracts, to aid their principles. By these various means your sentiments may be disseminated and greatly benefit our Nation. The attempt, if unsuccessful, will be meritorious—and I feel a persuasion of its success. You may perhaps have seen in some of the papers a squint at your “enfeebling age”; but they fear to make an open or real attack. They feel your strength. I am not alone in thinking that you never wrote with greater perspicuity & vigour. The silence of those who feel most prirced, is a proof that they think so too. Your communication of the 8 June, in last wednesday’s, Patriot, contains principles which ought to be written in Capitals on the walls of every Hall where Courts or Legislatures meet.—The truths are so obvious, supported by indisputable facts, that they must I think produce some effect. As your extensive experience & observation, Sir, give you a full view of our national situation, and as your communications will finally be read by men of the greatest influence, your labours to enlighten & reform, may be attended with the most beneficial & lasting effects.
It has long appeared to me that the greatest source of errors & corruptions in our Governments, in this State in particular, is a departure from the Constitution. Whilst the Legislature exercises judicial powers, (as it every year does) “A govt. of Laws, & not of men,” cannot exist. It opens the way to all evils, and prostrates all principles. By violating the Oath to support the Constitution, an example is given to all persons to disregard moral ties & every sacred obligation. When it is notorious that the Legislatures constantly do what the Constitution declares they never shall do—if there be a road to ruin we seem to be in it. I think, Sir, in your Defence of the Constitutions of the U.S. the idea is suggested that ‘the most depraved people, might, with a well balanced govt., preserve order & protect their legal rights.’ It is high time to reduce this theory to practice in our Country; if not done, as you remarked to the funding & banking Systems, our course “threatens a total destruction of all distinction between vice & virtue.”—If correct principles cannot be supported in “Good old Massachusetts,” I confess I shall despair of the Nation: If supported here, they might be diffused; and this State become the pillar & ornament of the Union—
I despair of any amendments, to the Constitution; the alterations under that name, have I conceive impaired it. Instead of strengthening the Executive, & Judiciary, they have been weakened. I want to see those Departments, as independent of the Legislature, as the Legislature is independent of them. Until this is effected, the prevailing party in the Legislature will trample on the Laws and play the tyrant. Perhaps the present may be the best time to effect some reformation, as the parties are so nearly equal, that neither can feel an assurance for any years to come, & therefore may more readily agree to establish permanent principles. To induce the people to give due powers to the Executive & Judiciary, they must elect the Judges to try impeachments; (instead of the Senate) the idea of retaining this power, might be popular. I drop this “travelling opinion,” for the consideration of the wise. But the utmost I hope for, is to support the Constitution as it is. To do this will require all our public virtue & political wisdom—I fear that all may be too little, unless your writings should arouse a spirit of inquiry & reflection;—The great truth that “Corruption in almost all free govts. was begun & been first introduced in the Legislature,” is not known or suspected by the people in general; nor even by a great part of their representatives. Could this important truth be fixed in the public mind, I should hope for a speedy cure for most of our political evils. It would lay the ax to the root of faction, and lead to a Govt. of Laws, & not of men—If any human hand can effect it, I think, Sir, it must be yours. None other can draw public attention to any subject that is not immediately interesting.
With ardent wishes for your health & every / felicity, I am, Sir, most respectfully, / your Obedient humble Servant

Joseph Ward


Title: From John Adams to Boston Patriot, 3 July 1809
From: Adams, John
To: Boston Patriot

					Sirs,
					Quincy, July 3, 1809.

				On the 13th of July I wrote to the Comte De Vergennes the following letter:Paris July 13, 1781.Sir,I have the honor to inclose to your excellency, some remarks upon the articles to serve as a basis of the negociation for the re-establishment of peace, which you did me the honor to communicate to me.As I am unacquainted, whether you desired my sentiments upon these articles, merely for your own government, or with a design to communicate them to the Imperial Courts, I should be glad of your excellency’s advice concerning them. If your excellency is of opinion there is any thing exceptionable, or which ought to be altered, I should be glad to correct it. Or if I have not perceived the points or questions, upon which you desired my opinion, I shall be ready to give any farther answers.

I have the honor to be, with great respect your excellency’s most obedient and most humble servant,J. Adams.His excellency the Comte De Vergennes.Answer of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America, to the articles to serve as a basis to the negociation, for the re-establishment of peace.Articles pour servir de base á la négociation du rétablissement de la paix.ARTICLE I.Il sera traité entre la Grande Bretagne et les Colonies Américaines, du retablissement de la paix en Amerique;
mais sans l’intervention d’aucunes des autres parties belligerentes, ni même celle des deux Cours Impériales, à
moins que leur mediation n’ait eté formellement démandée et accorde sur cet objet.ANSWER.The United States of America, have no objection, provided their allies have none, to a treaty with Great Britain, concerning the re-establishment of peace in America,
or to another concerning the re-establishment of commerce
between the two nations, consistent with their obligations
to France and Spain, without the intervention of any of
the other belligerent parties, and even without that of the two Imperial Courts, at least unless their mediation should
be formally demanded and granted upon this object, according to the first article communicated to me.ARTICLE II.Cette paix particuliére ne pourra cependant être signée que conjointement, et en même temps avec celle des puissances dont les intêrêts auront êté traitées par les Cours
mediatrices. Les deux Paix, moiennant cela, quoiqu’elles pourront être traitées separément ne devant point pouvoir être conclües, l’une sans l’autre; on aura soin d’informer constamment les Mediateurs de la marche et de
l’etat de celle qui regarde la Grande Bretagne et les Colonies á fin que la médiation soit a même de pouvoir se
régler pour la marche de celle qui lui est confiée d’apres l’etat de la negociation relative aux Colonies; et l’une et
l’autre des deux pacifications qui auront êté conclües en
même tems quoique séparément devront être solemnellement garanties par les Cours médiatrices et toute autre
puissance neutre, dont les parties belligerentes pourront
juger á propos de reclamer la garantie.ANSWER.The United States have nothing to say, provided their
allies have not, against the second article.ARTICLE III.Pour rendre les negociations pacifiques indépendantes
des événemens toujours incertains de la guerre, qui pourroient en arreter, ou, au moins, en retarder les progrés,
il y aura un armistice général entre toutes les parties pendant le terme d’une année á compter du  du mois
de de la presente, on de années a compter
du du mois de de l’année 1782. S’il
arrivoit que la paix générale ne fût point retablie dans le
cours du premier terme, Et pendant la durée de l’un on
de l’autre de ces deux termes toutes choses devront rester
dans l’etat ou elles se trouveront avoir êté au jour de la
signature des presents articles préliminaires.ANSWER.To the armistice and the statu quo in the third article,
the United States have very great objections, which indeed are so numerous and decisive, and at the same time
so obvious, as to make it necessary to state them in detail.The idea of a truce is not suggested in these articles; but as it is mentioned in some observations shewn me by
his excellency the Comte De Vergennes, it may be necessary for me to add, that the United States are so deeply
impressed with an apprehension that any truce whatsoever would not fail to be productive of another long and
bloody war, at the termination of it, and that a short truce
would be, in many ways, highly dangerous to them, that
it would be with great reluctance, that they should enter
into any discussion, at all, upon such a subject. Two express conditions would be indispensable preliminaries to
their taking into consideration the subject of a truce at all.
The first is, that their allies agree, that the treaties now
subsisting remain in full force, during and after the truce,
until the final acknowledgment of their independence by
Great Britain. The second is, the antecedent removal
of the British land and naval armaments from every part
of the United States. Upon these two express conditions,
as preliminaries, if a truce should be proposed for so long
a period, or for an indefinite period, requiring so long
notice, previous to a renewal of hostilities, as to evince
that it is, on the part of Great Britain, a virtual relinquishment of the object of the war, and expedient only
to avoid the mortification of an express acknowledgment
of the independence and sovereignty of the United States,
they, with the concurrence of their allies, might accede
to it. It is requisite, however, to add—1. That the
United States cannot consider themselves bound by this
declaration unless it should be agreed to before the opening of another campaign. 2. That it is not in the power of the crown of Great Britain, by the constitution of that kingdom, to establish any truce or even armistice,
with the United States, which would not be illusory without the intervention of an act of Parliament, repealing or
suspending all their statutes which have any relation to
the United States or any of them. Without this, every
Officer of the navy would be bound by the laws, according to the maxims of their constitution to seize every
American vessel that he should find, whose papers and
destination should not be found conformable to those
statutes, and every French, Spanish, Dutch or other foreign vessel, which he should find going to or coming from
America, notwithstanding any convention that it is in the
power of the crown to make.After all, the greatest difficulty does not lie in any thing
as yet mentioned. The great question is, in what character are the United States to be considered? They
know themselves to be a free, sovereign and independent
State, of right and in fact. They are considered and acknowledged as such by France. They cannot be represented in a Congress of Ministers from the several powers of Europe, whether their representative is called ambassador, minister, or agent, without an acknowledgment
of their independence, of which the very admission of a
representative from them, is an avowal. Great Britain
cannot agree with their representative upon a truce, or
even an armistice, without admitting their freedom and
independence.As there is upon earth, no judge of a sovereign State
but the nation that composes it, the United States can
never consent that their independence shall be discussed
or called in question, by any sovereign or sovereigns,
however respectable, nor can their interests be made a
question in any Congress in which their character is not
acknowledged, and their minister admitted; if therefore,
the two Imperial Courts would acknowledge and lay
down as a preliminary the sovereignty of the United
States, and admit their minister to a Congress; after
this, a treaty might be commenced between the minister
of Great Britain and the minister of the United States,
relative to a truce or peace and commerce, in the manner
proposed, without any express acknowledgment of their
sovereignty by Great Britain, until the treaty should be
concluded.The sovereigns of Europe have a right to negociate
concerning their own interests, and to deliberate concerning the question whether it is consistent with their dignity
and interests to acknowledge expressly the sovereignty of
the United States, and to make treaties with them, by
their ministers, in a congress or otherwise; and America
could make no objection to it. But neither the United
States nor France can ever consent that the existence of
their sovereignty shall be made a question in such congress, because, let that congress determine as it might, their sovereignty, with submission only to divine Providence never can, and never will be given up.As the British Court, in first suggesting the idea of a Congress to the Imperial Courts, insisted upon the annihilation of the League, as they were pleased to call it, and
their rebel subjects, as they were pleased again to phraze
it, and upon the return of these to their allegiance and
obedience, as preliminaries to any Congress or mediation,
there is too much reason to fear that the British ministry
have no serious intentions or sincere dispositions for peace,
and that they mean nothing but amusement.—Because
the support of the sovereignty of the United States was
the primary object of the war on the part of France and
America; the destruction of it, that of Great Britain;
if therefore the treaty between France and America were
annulled, and the Americans returned to the domination
and monopoly of Great Britain, there would be no need
of troubling all Europe with a Congress to make peace.
All points between France, Spain and Great Britain
might be easily adjusted among themselves. Surely the
affairs of Great Britain are in no part of the world so
triumphant, nor those of any of their enemies so adverse
as to give this ministry any serious hopes that France and
America will renounce the object of the war. There must
therefore be some other views.It is not difficult to penetrate the design of the British
ministry upon this, any more than upon former occasions.
They think that a distrust of them and a jealousy that
they would not adhere, with good faith, to the propositions of reconciliation which they have made, from time
to time, were, in the minds of the Americans, the true
cause why those propositions were not accepted. They
now think, that, by prevailing on the two Imperial
Courts, and other Courts, to warranty to the Americans
any similar terms they may propose to them, they shall
remove this obstacle, and by this means, although they
know that no public authority in America will agree to
such terms, they think they shall be able to represent things in such a light as to induce many desertions from,
the American army and many apostacies from the American Independence and alliance. In this way they would
pursue their long practised arts of seduction, deception
and division. In these again, as in so many former attempts, they would find themselves disappointed, and
would make very few deserters or apostates. But it is to
be hoped, that the powers of Europe will not give to
these superficial artifices, with which that ministry have
so long destroyed the repose of the United States, and
of the British dominions at home and abroad, and disturbed the tranquility of Europe, so much attention as
to enable them to continue, much longer, such evils to
mankind.J. Adams.Paris, July 13, 1781.My next letter will contain a continuation of the correspondence with the French minister.

					John Adams.


Title: To John Adams from Oliver Whipple, 7 July 1809
From: Whipple, Oliver
To: Adams, John

Most respected Sr.
Hallowill Maine July 7th. 1809

Allwise Providence has most ierally decreed, That there should be born for the Benefit of Mankind, Patrons & Lovers of Friendship; Under this auspicious & benevolent order of Things has eventuated rare & singular Blessings To mankind, but from no Persons or Characters have the sweet Dropings of pure Benevolence been poured, with more Judicious Gratuity, than from your fostering hand: To solicit Favours, often bears the Cast of Indigence, but the Giver in Return, is compensated in Part, by the noblest Incentives, that can inspire the Mind, and is often an emense Gainer, by having awakned, the nicest Sensibilities of the Heart. If I did not know you, I would say more; but I shall not be heard for my much Speaking. My Prediction, communicated to you, is at Length fullfilled, I foresaw the Plan unfolding itself, Your Son is appointed Embassador to the Russian Court (here respected Friend,) or is a Sphere of Action;, There must be a Clerk; an Emanuensis, or Secretary, (call it what you please) to this Embassy; Shall I not indulge a Hope, That through your Agency, or Your Son’s, I may be successfull in Obtaining this office under the honble. J. Q. Adams; I know Sr. you, & your Son have Influence with Mr Maddison, You have toiled together, in the Field of Politicks, have received only partially of the promised Rewards, that await you, and yet will receive more abundant applause for Your inflexible Justice, and steady Medium of Politicks, untainted with the Virulence of party Rancour; This Just Principle Medium of Principle & action (never too highly appreciated) in which you have seduously persevered, will eventually be the Salvation of our Country.—If then, uniform Principle & attachment to your Person, Character&d Family; If in Imitation of you The Sylla & Charebdis of Party Spirit, have been avoided, and the middle Course pursued; If your personal Enemies have been attacked with Success, & battered down; if on at all Times & on all Occassions the Honour, Dignity and Fame of President Adams, have been openly & avowedly vindicated & maintained; or if any Merit can result from the frequent public Addresses, I have had the Honour to dictate in legislature Committees to blazon your Character & illustrious Deeds, can avail or deserve anything The Prospect before me is not unpleasant, or unpromising; Pray dear Sr. Interest your Son in my Favor You maybe assured he will find me, not Ignorant of the Politicks of the day; either foreign or domestic, my Confidence & hope is on you; and be assured that I ever have been, & still am your faithfull Friend & humble Servant;—
Oliver Whipple