John Adams to John Quincy Adams, 25 February 1804
John Adams to John Quincy Adams
Quincy Feb. 25. 18034
My dear Son
I will write to you, if it be only for the Pleasure of giving you a Proof under my hand, that I am alive.— We have had no Topicks this Winter but Banks, Insurance offices, Toll Bridges and Turnpike Roads, till lately a Manifesto has appeared of the Republican Democrats against Governer Strong, made up partly from Dallas’s and partly from the Connecticutt one which Mr Tracy answered.1 Your quondam Brother Senator Mr Bidwell has the Reputation of the Composition, and if We may judge by the internal Evidence of dispassionate and deliberate Sophistry and Misrepresentation, not without reason. Mr Sullivan for Governor instead of Mr Strong. Mr Heath for Lt. Govr against Mr Robbins. As my Master Gridley used to Say, Non vult fac.2
I leave the national affairs to The Administration and to Congress. Shall We have Such a declaration from the Republicans in Congress, concerning the future Election of President And Vice President?
The Inquiry into Mr Chace’s Candor and Frankness proceeds but Slowly.3 So do the Louisiana Bills and the Seamans Bills. The latter is a more difficult matter to manage than the former. The Right of the English to impress British Seamen on board of our Ships in their own Ports Harbours and Rivers, is difficult to deny, unless We deny the Right of impressing their own Seamen in any Case, which We perhaps have no business with. But upon the high Seas, I never could comprehend their right to impress any Seamen, even Deserters from their own Navy. Upon what Law of Nations, upon what Treaty, upon what Law of Great Britain can Such a Claim be founded.? I had, when any thing depended upon me, great difficulties upon this Subject. None of the English Writers not even Judge Foster, has asserted a Right of impressing Seamen, from their own Merchant Ship in any of the Ports of their own Colonies, or any where upon the high Seas.4 Considering the Relations between the U.S. and the British Dominions, this is a Subject of great delicacy and Importance: and there is more danger from irritations of temper, than from the Magnitude and Intricacy of the Subject. More is to be dreaded too, from the Same Source, in Mr Munroes negotiations of a new Treaty, than from any other cause.5
Our Countrymen will find Ettiquette a more important Subject than they ever thought it. No People under Heaven have quicker feelings of this kind than our Men and Women. They never knew themselves till now. If Briton Should Send their Dukes as Ambassadors as they ought to do, I Suppose, Ministers of State and Senators too would give Way. Perhaps the Vice President too.6 But the President ought not, tho the Prince of orange does, or did. To be Sure, there is Some difficulty in keeping up the Reverence in the Minds of our own People for their Secretary of State and his Lady, living upon 5000 dollars a year and a foreign Minister living on 4 or 5000 Sterling with a Service of Plate of 3000 Guineas. But this will be remedied in time. Our People have as much Pride as English or French, and when this pride takes a turn as it will whenever the ruling Party becomes strong enough to banish its fears, Provision will be made for Pomp enough to Satiate the Hauteur of a Virginian Democrat which is little less than that of a polish Palatine. My Love to Your Wife and Children to Mrs Johnson and hers, and Mr Helen and his.
Do the President and Mr Madison preserve their health under all their fatigues. Mr Gallatins pale face will never be made paler by any application to Business or Study. His Constitution is hardened to both by habit,
The entire Confidence I have in your Candor and Integrity, and the certain knowledge I have of your Talents and Information, place me at much ease on your Account. I do not disapprove of your Conduct in the Business of Louissiana. I think you have been right, though I know it will become a very unpopular Subject in the Northern States, especially when they See the accounts of Expences which must be occasioned by it.7
In the Supream Court I know you have Some Business and I hope you have more than I know of.8 My kindest regards to the Judges if you have a natural oppertunity.
Your Brother has been taken Notice of by the Government without any Solicitation of any kind, and he is the means of a more agreable soicety than We could have without him.9 He is close to his Studies and will do very well.
I am, my dear son, with my best Wishes and / Prayers for Blessings on you and yours, your / affectionate Father
J. Adams
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Honb J. Q. Adams / S. U. S.”; endorsed: “My Father. 25. Feby: 1804. / March 1804 recd: / Do: Ansd:.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 118. Tr (Adams Papers).
1. On 30 Aug. 1803 a committee of Connecticut Democratic-Republicans published an address to local voters, urging them to elect party candidates in the upcoming election. Connecticut should turn away from the federalism of JA and Alexander Hamilton, the pamphlet argued, accusing both men of advocating the abolition of state governments and working to subvert the U.S. Constitution. Uriah Tracy responded with a pamphlet dated 6 Sept., labeling the address a “barren scene of fake premises and false conclusions.” Tracy called JA’s “the best defence of true elective republican principles, that there is extant” and argued that Hamilton not only supported the tenets of the Constitution but “did more towards effecting its adoption than most, perhaps than any one man” (Democratic-Republican General Committee, Republican Address to the Freemen of Connecticut, [Hartford?, 1803], p. 3, 4, 5, 15, , No. 4068; Uriah Tracy, To the Freeman of Connecticut, [Litchfield, Conn., 1803], p. 5, 6, 10, , No. 5180).
2. Boston attorney Jeremiah Gridley mentored JA during his early years as a lawyer. The phrase JA quoted roughly translates to “He does not wish to do anything” (vols. 1:62, 9:116; Ronald B. McKerrow, ed., The Works of Thomas Nashe, 5 vols., London, 1904, 4:348).
3. On 5 Jan. 1804 Virginia Democratic-Republican John Randolph introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for a committee to consider drafting articles of impeachment against U.S. Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase. Chase’s partisan comments from the bench, dating back to 1800, constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, Randolph argued. Debate over three days fell largely along party lines. On 7 Jan. 1804 the House voted 81 to 40 in favor of appointing a committee of inquiry. The resulting panel reported on 12 March with a recommendation to impeach, and the full House concurred the same day by a vote of 73 to 32. Seven articles of impeachment were presented on 26 March, charging that Chase “in his judicial capacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust.” An eighth article was added when the full slate was approved in November, paving the way for Chase’s trial and ultimate acquittal by the Senate in February and March 1805 (Adam A. Perlin, “The Impeachment of Samuel Chase: Redefining Judicial Independence,” Rutgers Law Review, 62:732–748, 780 [Spring 2010]; , 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 805, 806, 824–825, 875–876, 1237–1241).
4. English jurist Sir Michael Foster (1689–1763) in the 1743 case of Rex v. Broadfoot and an ensuing essay, The Case of the King against Alexander Broadfoot, Oxford, 1758, presented a foundational argument for the right of the Crown to impress sailors into the British Navy ().
5. Thomas Jefferson nominated James Monroe as minister to Great Britain on 11 Nov. 1803, and the Senate confirmed the nomination four days later. Monroe, who was already in Europe on a mission to France to negotiate access to the Mississippi River, was instructed in a 5 Jan. 1804 letter from James Madison to seek a maritime convention with Britain. Madison provided Monroe with a proposed convention that would focus on impressment, blockades, and contraband. Madison wrote that although Britain had the right to impress its own subjects, the impossibility of accurately distinguishing those subjects from American citizens meant that the most just practice was to end all impressment from U.S. vessels. Monroe failed to obtain concessions during extended negotiations, and the ensuing Monroe-Pinkney Treaty of 1806 made no mention of impressment. Jefferson therefore refused to submit it to the Senate and it was never ratified (, 40:227–228, 229, 230–231; , 452–453, 455; , 6:282–308; Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson, N.Y., 1990, p. 211).
6. CFA underlined the previous two sentences and added a marginal note: “Quere de hoc. (Note of transcriber).” Quere de hoc is a legal term meaning to “examine this further” (, 9:373).
7. An essay by “An Observer” in the Boston Repertory, 10 Feb. 1804, lamented that the United States had “recently thrown fifteen millions into the treasury of his Bonapartean Majesty” that could have financed the construction of sixty naval vessels. If the nation needed to draw on its military, the article claimed, “she may then have cause to regret, that the money paid for the wilderness of Louisiana, and which will probably be reclaimed by France, had not been applied to the increase of her naval force.”
8. For JQA’s appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Head & Amory v. Providence Insurance Company, see his letter to JA of 25 Feb., and note 3, below.
9. Even before TBA’s 6 March admission to the Massachusetts bar, Gov. Caleb Strong informed the young lawyer that he would be appointed a justice of the peace for Norfolk County. After learning of the news from TBA, JQA on 17 Feb. (private owner, 1956) wrote that he was “very glad to find you have received a Commission of the Peace.” He also updated TBA on Senate business and characterized the Louisiana government bill as “such a piece of patch-work as perhaps was never before put together, for a frame of Government, or Constitution.” As a justice of the peace, TBA adjudicated minor civil and criminal cases (TBA to William Meredith, 8 Feb., and note 2, above; to Meredith, 22 April, below; D/JQA/27, 9 July, APM Reel 30; W. M. Seavey, Powers and Duties of Notaries Public and Justices of the Peace in Massachusetts, Boston, 1894, p. 51–52).