Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 19 Jan. 1792: TO A RECLUSE MAN. - The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799)

Return to Title Page for The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

19 Jan. 1792: TO “A RECLUSE MAN.” - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799) [1853]

Edition used:

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856). 10 volumes. Vol. 8.

Part of: The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


TO “A RECLUSE MAN.”

Philadelphia, 19 January, 1792.

Sir,—

I received by the last post a sheet subscribed “A Recluse Man,” inclosed with another in print, and have read both with feelings and reflections, some of which I should not choose to commit to paper. The printed one I had read with much pleasure in its season, and felt myself obliged to the writer, although I had no knowledge or suspicion of the author.1 I have sometimes thought of collecting together, and printing in volumes, all that has been written at me since my return from Europe to my native country. If I had more regard for my own glory in the eyes of posterity than for that of my fellow-citizens, I should esteem such a monument far preferable to Mr. Ceracchi’s marble. Such a torrent could flow only from the foul source of secret enmity to the Constitution of the United States, united with another stream of ill will to the present constitution of Pennsylvania; both mingled with foreign politics and domestic envy, jealousy, and disappointment. And all these parties and individuals have done me the choice honor to give to the world and to posterity, in the bitterness and agony of their hearts, the fullest proofs that they consider me as the first obstacle in their way. It gives me pain, however, to perceive that all their endeavors were ever able to impose for a moment on a man of letters, of so much candor, sagacity, and information as the “recluse man.” The writers in opposition to me have founded their speculations on my Defence of the Constitutions. These volumes will answer for themselves to any one who will inquire of them, and will prove that no other books that ever were written, except the Bible, were ever so much belied. If you will do me the favor to accept a set of them, and the greater favor to read them, I will order them to be presented to you.

The history of my “passion for titles” is briefly this. In 1788 and 1789, there was much inquiry, in conversation in Boston and its neighborhood, concerning the titles which were to be given to the representatives, senators, and president, in the new government. Many were for “Majesty” to the latter; others for “Highness,” some for “Excellency,” and others for no title at all. The title of “most honorable” was constantly given to the senators in one of the Boston papers at least, Russell’s Centinel, and it seemed to be a general opinion that some title or other must be given to the president and senators. When I took my seat in Senate at New York, a committee of both Houses reported a plan of receiving the President, when he should arrive, one part of which was, that the Vice-President should receive him at the door of the senate chamber, and conduct him to the chair, and afterwards address him, to inform him that both Houses were ready to attend him while he took the oath. This report was accepted by the Senate, after having been accepted by the House. Upon this I arose in my place, and asked the advice of the senate, in what form I should address him; whether I should say, “Mr. Washington,” “Mr. President,” “Sir,” “May it please your Excellency,” or what else? I observed that it had been common while he commanded the army to call him “His Excellency,” but I was free to own it would appear to me better to give him no title but “Sir,” or “Mr. President,” than to put him on a level with a governor of Bermuda, or one of his own ambassadors, or a governor of any one of our States. After I had made my observations, a senator arose and said it was an important point, and this was the precise moment to settle it. He therefore moved for a committee of both Houses to consider and report upon it. This is the substance of the charge against me for a possion for titles. For my own part, I freely own that I think decent and moderate titles, as distinctions of offices, are not only harmless, but useful in society, and that in this country, where I know them to be prized by the people as well as their magistrates as highly as by any people or any magistrates in the world, I should think some distinction between the magistrates of the national government and those of the State governments proper. There is not, however, in the United States, personally, a citizen more indifferent upon the subject, or more willing to conform to the public will or wish concerning it. If the proofs that have been given me in the newspapers of a deep malice against a man who has spent a life of anxiety, hazard, and labor in the service of his country, have given me pain, it has been in some measure compensated by bringing me to the knowledge of the “recluse man,” whose goodness of heart, and elegance of composition, I shall not soon or easily forget.1

John Adams.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO JOHN ADAMS.

Philadelphia, 25 June, 1792.

My dear Sir,—

You will find inclosed your account, which I take the liberty to send, lest by not adverting to the state of it some inconvenience might ensue.

You are, I presume, aware that Mr. Clinton is to be your competitor at the next election. I trust he could not have succeeded in any event, but the issue of his late election will not help his cause.1 Alas! Alas!

If you have seen some of the last numbers of the National Gazette,2 you will have perceived that the plot thickens, and that something very like a serious design to subvert the government discloses itself.

With sincere respect and attachment, I am, dear Sir,

Alexander Hamilton.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO JOHN ADAMS.

Philadelphia, 9 September, 1792.

My dear Sir,—

I trust you are sufficiently convinced of my respect for and attachment to you, to render an apology for the liberty I am going to take unnecessary. I learn with pain that you may not probably be here till late in the session. I fear that this will give some handle to your enemies to misrepresent, and though I am persuaded you are very indifferent, personally, to the event of a certain election, yet I hope you are not so as regards the cause of good government. The difference in that view is, in my conception, immense, between the success of Mr. Clinton or yourself, and some sacrifices of feeling are to be made. But this is not the only relation in which I deem your early presence here desirable. Permit me to say it best suits the firmness and elevation of your character to meet all events, whether auspicious or otherwise, on the ground where station and duty call you. One would not give the ill-disposed the triumph of supposing that an anticipation of want of success had kept you from your post.

You observe, my dear Sir, I speak without much ménagement. You will ascribe it to my confidence and esteem. It is not necessary in any view to multiply words—I forbear it—but allow me to add that it is the universal wish of your friends you should be as soon as possible at Philadelphia.1

I have the honor to be, with great respect,

Alexander Hamilton.

[1 ]This was a New York gentleman, who subsequently disclosed his name to Mr. Adams, and furnished him some information as to the sources of the attacks made upon him.

[1 ]The uneasiness created by this question of titles is singularly characteristic of the disturbed condition of the times. In Virginia, an addition had been made to the charges against Mr. Adams on this subject, in the report, currently believed, that he never appeared in public except with a coach and six. See Sparks’s Washington, vol. x. p. 20, note. Yet in Massachusetts, the social system in which had been far more democratic than that in Virginia, the titles to be given to the two chief officers were fixed by the constitution of 1780, and have been continued down to the present day. The public estimation of the dignity of the offices has, nevertheless, been steadily declining under the effect of more powerful causes than mere titles can counteract.

[1 ]The election for Governor of the State of New York, which took place in April of this year. It had been so closely contested that the majority for Mr. Jay depended on the decision of the board of canvassers upon the validity of the votes of three counties in which there had been an informality in the return. They rejected them, which brought in George Clinton by a majority of 108 votes. But, like all attempts to do violence to the public opinion, this reacted upon the authors of it. Hammond’s History of Political Parties in New York, vol. i. p. 62. Life of John Jay, by W. Jay, vol. i. p. 287.

[2 ]The newspaper lately set up by P. Freneau, as the organ of Mr. Jefferson’s friends.

[1 ]It does not appear that this letter was ever answered.