Home

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.

Author: John Adams
Editor: Charles Francis Adams

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.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

JOHN JAY TO JOHN ADAMS.

Albany, 3 January, 1799.

Dear Sir,—

I this morning laid before the legislature of this State your answer to their address. For the kind and honorable mention made of me in it, be pleased to accept my warmest acknowledgments. To be thus laudari a viro laudato, and to receive such spontaneous and decided manifestations of sincere and cordial esteem and friendship, are events too interesting and pleasing not to excite correspondent emotions.

Our affairs in relation to France are by too many thought to have assumed a less menacing aspect. Such and similar errors are and will be encouraged. When the Directory refused to receive, and ungraciously dismissed General Pinckney, that singular measure, viewed in all its relations, led me to apprehend that the continuance of existing differences, by putting them in capacity to elect war or peace with us, according to future circumstances, was deemed necessary to some of their meditated plans. They must have foreseen that improper conduct towards our minister would impair their interest in the affections of this country; and therefore I conclude that the object for which it was done, must in their opinion have been of more importance than that sacrifice.

I presume that the rejection of our three envoys is imputable to the same motives; and that the unexpected degree of indignation and irritation which it produced, induced the Directory to endeavor to moderate and restrain our resentments by pacific and delusory professions, in order still to keep things in a state of perplexing uncertainty.

Various circumstances and considerations incline me to think it not improbable that their views of domination comprehend all America, both north and south; and that they wish to place the United States in a situation favorable and auxiliary to those views. Considering the state of Spain and even of Portugal, I ascribe the forbearance of France, in not attempting to conquer and disorganize them, to the obvious difficulty of embracing their American territories, until she shall, by war or by peace, have withdrawn the British fleets from the ocean, and, if possible, have rendered the United States compliant.

From the representations of their agents and partisans in this country, the Directory have doubtless entertained too sanguine expectations; and from the firmness of our government and the general declarations of our people, they may perceive that their calculations have not been accurate. I nevertheless think it probable that they will continue to be in many respects deceived, and that their efforts to deceive and seduce will continue unremitted. While they persist in multiplying difficulties and complaints and aggressions, and in repelling the negotiations necessary to settle differences amicably, it is impossible that their real designs can be otherwise than hostile.

You are called, my dear Sir, to the government of this nation at a time when our peculiar circumstances and dangers demand the combined efforts of great talents, great fortitude, and great prudence. Your measures have hitherto afforded matter for brilliant pages in our history, and they have inspired a confidence which will greatly facilitate the operation and success of your future ones. With great and sincere respect, esteem, and affectionate regard, &c.

John Jay.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

15 January, 1799.

The President of the United States requests the Secretary of State to prepare the draught of a project of a treaty and a consular convention, such as in his opinion might at this day be acceded to by the United States, if proposed by France. It is his desire that the Secretary of State would avail himself of the advice and assistance of all the heads of department in the formation of this composition, to be completed as soon as the pressure of other business of more immediate necessity will permit. The necessity of inviolable confidence will be obvious.1

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS.

(Private.)

18 January, 1799.

Sir,—

On examining the alterations you have directed in the report on Mr. Gerry’s communications, one appears to me to leave unfounded and unconnected many of my observations, and on a very important point.

Mr. Gerry, in his letter of October 1st, has expressed an opinion of most mischievous tendency. He says: “Before the arrival of the despatches of the envoys, the minister appeared to me sincere, and anxious to obtain a reconciliation.” This strange opinion, so repugnant to the whole tenor of his own communications, will nevertheless be quoted by the enemies of our country, in France as well as America, in proof of the sincerity of the French government; and lead many to propagate the idea that, but for the imprudent act, as they will call it, of publishing the despatches, a reconciliation might have taken place. Mr. Gerry’s opinion, as above expressed, is also a reflection on the President, on Congress, and on all who had any agency directly or indirectly in causing that publication, as manifesting a want of prudence and foresight, and hazarding a war between the two countries.

Mr. Gerry’s opinion is of so pernicious a tendency, I conceived it to be my duty to combat it and demonstrate that it was unfounded; not by an allusion, but by a direct reference to it. I therefore beg leave to submit this matter once more to your consideration, before the new copy is completed. His feelings and consequence in the community are of no moment in competion with the public interest; and but for the latter, I would gladly keep out of sight every thing indicating any error in his proceedings.

The passage in question I have thus expressed in the report: “5. Because Mr. Gerry, after all the demonstrative proofs of which he was possessed to the contrary, says, in his letter of 1st October, 1798: ‘Before the arrival of the despatches of the envoys, the minister appeared to me sincere, and anxious to obtain a reconciliation.’ This very extraordinary opinion is opposed not only by the whole detail of facts exhibited in the despatches of the envoys, but by Mr. Gerry’s own correspondence.”

Several pages then follow, contrasting the evidences of Talleyrand’s sincerity,before and after the publication of the despatches, and having a direct reference to the passage in question.

The language may perhaps be softened; but the substance seems to me very important to retain. It might have this form: “5. Because Mr. Gerry, in his letter of 1st October, 1798, has expressed his opinion, that ‘before the arrival of the despatches of the envoys the minister appeared to him sincere, and anxious to obtain a reconciliation;’ an opinion which a candid examination of the despatches of the envoys and of Mr. Gerry’s own correspondence will show to be erroneous.”

The President will see that three motives urge me to submit these thoughts to his attention. One, To counteract a mischievous opinion that has no foundation. 2dly. To vindicate his honor and that of Congress from the imputation of rashness or indiscretion in the publication of the despatches, and 3dly, a desire that the Secretary’s report may appear connected, and the train of reasoning through several pages have some relation to their proper object.1

I am, &c.

Timothy Pickering.

RUFUS KING TO JOHN ADAMS.

London, 26 January, 1799.

Dear Sir,—

Some weeks past, I had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 16th of October;2 the inclosure was immediately forwarded, though, from the obstructions which interupted the passage to Hamburgh, I fear it was a long time on its way to Berlin.

We are still uncertain what is likely to be the situation of Europe during the approaching summer, and on this topic I can only refer to my despatches to Colonel Pickering. It would be hardly decent to express what I think of the weakness, corruption, and indecision of most of the continental governments. The aristocracies are as unwise and as base as their princes, and if Europe shall be rescued from the barbarism with which philosophy is about to overwhelm it, it will be effected by the moderation and the virtues of the people, who, in Spain, Italy, and throughout Germany, are less guilty, and more meritorious, than their magistrates and rulers. This is a melancholy prospect, and one that may appall, though it ought not to discourage, the boldest minds. The firmness, courage, and the resources of England, joined to the docility of the people, and to the wonderful ease with which the laws are adapted to the new and dangerous condition of surrounding circumstances, are the highest eulogium of its constitution, afford a rational hope of ultimate security, and confirm what has been so well proved in the best work that has been written upon the intricate subject of government. Amidst this mighty storm, it is my greatest pleasure, and the source of the most gratifying pride, to mark the increasing attention with which Europe continues to observe and to applaud the able and dignified administration of the American government, which, in its open and manly proceedings towards France, has not only done much for its own security, but more for that of Europe than many portions of it have had the courage to do themselves. This homage is involuntary; for everywhere throughout Europe, strong, though ill-founded, prejudices existed against us and our institutions.

With unfeigned respect and attachment, I am, &c.

Rufus King.

TO GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Philadelphia, 19 February, 1799.

Dear Sir,—

Although I received the honor of your letter of the 1st of this month,1 in its season, I determined to postpone my answer to it till I had deliberated on it, and the letter from Barlow, inclosed in it, as well as a multitude of other letters and documents, official and inofficial, which relate to the same subject, and determined what part to act.

I yesterday determined to nominate Mr. Murray to be minister plenipotentiary to the French republic. This I ventured to do upon the strength of a letter from Talleyrand himself, giving declarations, in the name of his government, that any minister plenipotentiary from the United States shall be received according to the condition at the close of my message to Congress, of the 21st of June last. As there may be some reserves for chicane, however, Murray is not to remove from his station at the Hague until he shall have received formal assurances that he shall be received and treated in character.

Barlow’s letter had, I assure you, very little weight in determining me to this measure. I shall make few observations upon it. But, in my opinion, it is not often that we meet with a composition which betrays so many and so unequivocal symptoms of blackness of heart. The wretch has destroyed his own character to such a degree, that I think it would be derogatory to yours to give any answer at all to his letter. Tom Paine is not a more worthless fellow. The infamous threat which he has debased himself to transmit to his country to intimidate you and your country, “that certain conduct will be followed by war, and that it will be a war of the most terrible and vindictive kind,” ought to be answered by a Mohawk. If I had an Indian chief that I could converse with freely, I would ask him what answer he would give to such a gasconade. I fancy he would answer that he would, if they began their cruelties, cut up every Frenchman joint by joint, roast him by a fire, pinch off his flesh with hot pincers, &c. I blush to think that such ideas should be started in this age.1

Tranquillity upon just and honorable terms, is undoubtedly the ardent desire of the friends of this country, and I wish the babyish and womanly blubbering for peace may not necessitate the conclusion of a treaty that will not be just nor very honorable. I do not intend, however, that they shall. There is not much sincerity in the cant about peace; those who snivel for it now, were hot for war against Britain a few months ago, and would be now, if they saw a chance. In elective governments, peace or war are alike embraced by parties, when they think they can employ either for electioneering purposes.1

With great respect and regard to you and your good lady, and late Miss Custis, I have the honor to be, Sir, &c.

John Adams.

HENRY KNOX TO JOHN ADAMS.

(Secret and confidential.)

Boston, 5 March, 1799.

My Dear Sir—

Although I have often entertained the intention of writing to you, yet as I had nothing more to communicate than assurance of my sincere attachment, and the warm approbation which appeared to possess the best mind of the great majority of the people, I could not bring myself to intrude upon time so precious to your country.

But when your recent nominations to France seem for a moment to have divided, in a degree, the federal opinions, and when sentiments are uttered by some, subversive of the confidence which ought to be placed in our President, I can no longer be silent.

I have no doubt (uninformed as the public are) that their entire reliance on your superior knowledge of the state of Europe, and wisdom to embrace every proper occasion, will be perfectly satisfactory to ninety-nine persons out of a hundred, who are attached to the happiness, glory, and freedom of their country. But the hundredth part, or rather certain persons who have an influence over the mind of that part, and who affect to suggest to, correspond with, and even to influence the conduct of certain characters in the executive departments, loudly fault the measure of the nomination. They say the most confidential persons in the executive departments, and in the legislature, were not consulted, and therefore the propriety of the measure may be questioned, and they doubtless derive their information from the said persons, who are in Philadelphia. The persons here, who are mostly dissatisfied, are the same (styling themselves federalists) who in the first instance expressed themselves with equal virulence against the British treaty. They have had some influence, but in the present case will find it more limited than formerly. Your knowledge of characters will readily suggest who they are. The main object in writing this letter is to assure you, with all possible sincerity, of my perfect conviction that the great body of the federal interest, confide implicitly in your knowledge and virtue; that those qualities are fully adequate to the important existing crisis; and that in every division of opinion they will adhere and cling to you in preference to all others.

In addition to this general opinion, I may with humility say, that the measure itself, for many obvious reasons, is one of the most dignified, decisive, and beneficial ever adopted by the Chief Magistrate of any nation, soaring above all prejudice, and regarding the happiness of the nation as the primary object of his administration, and in the pursuit of which he nobly hazards his reputation, until the mists of ignorance or party shall subside.

I am, with sincere respect, &c.

Henry Knox.

Points

which, on the 11th of March, 1799, received the President’s assent, as ultimata.

1. That France should stipulate to indemnify the citizens of the United States for the spoliations committed on their commerce by the armed vessels and citizens of France, and by the adjudication of her courts in prize causes.

2. That as the vessels of the United States were not bound by treaty to have on board what the French call a rôle d’équipage, all captures and condemnations of American vessels and property for want of a rôle d’équipage, be considered as unlawful and null; and that in submitting to a board of commissioners, who may be appointed to adjust mutual claims, all those arising from captures and condemnations for want of the rôled’équipage, be expressly excepted, as not admitting of any dispute, but for which compensation shall be made by France, the only question concerning them being the amount of the damages sustained by American citizens, to be ascertained in the manner to be agreed on.

3. That the United States will not stipulate to guarantee any part of the dominions of France.

C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Philadelphia, 14 March, 1799.

Dear Sir—

The inclosed from my friend Marshall, on Wednesday last was received by me, and it is with no small pleasure I find his opinion correspondent with my own respecting the appointment of Murray. You will perceive from the date, that the subsequent modification of the embassy was not known to him when he wrote. His letter being entirely of a private nature, I should not have sent it to you, but that I presume it will afford you satisfaction to know that a measure which excited so much agitation here, has met the approbation of so good a judge as Mr. Marshall.1

Nothing new has been heard concerning the insurgents since you left the city. The report of the marshal agrees substantially with the letters and affidavit which were shown to you by the Secretary of State on Monday evening.

Wishing you a safe journey, &c.

Charles Lee.

TO C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

(Private.)

Quincy, 29 March, 1799.

Sir,—

Esteeming very highly the opinion and character of your friend General Marshall, I thank you for inclosing his letter of the 3d of March in yours of the 14th, which I have received.

The nomination of Murray has had one good effect, at least. It has shown to every observing and thinking man the real strength or weakness of the Constitution, and where one part of that weakness resides. It has also produced a display of the real spirit of the parties in this country, and the objects they have in view. To me, it has laid open characters. Some of these will do well to study a little more maturely the spirit of their stations. But vanity has no limits; arrogance shall be made to feel a curb. If any one entertains the idea, that, because I am a President of three votes only, I am in the power of a party, they shall find that I am no more so than the Constitution forces upon me. If combinations of senators, generals, and heads of department shall be formed, such as I cannot resist, and measures are demanded of me that I cannot adopt, my remedy is plain and certain. I will try my own strength at resistance first, however. This is free, and entre nous.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 29 March, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received, in your favor of the 16th, Major General Pinckney’s list, arranged in concert with Governor Davie. This list has my approbation, and you may announce as soon as possible to the persons their appointments.

I expect that all the vacancies in the army be first communicated to me, and the candidates, with their recommendations, be transmitted to me, before commissions are sent them, or appointments announced to them.

Inclosed is a letter from Benjamin Beale, Jr., which I request you to consider. He cannot accept a lieutenancy, and I cannot blame him. His age, education, travels, manners, and irreproachable character merit a captaincy, if any one is vacant.

Mr. Hastings has been with me. I wish you to examine his recommendations, and weigh his pretensions. He is a warlike-looking officer, and served the whole revolutionary war.

Major Lillie also has been here. His merits must be attended to. There is also a Mr. Burbeck, who must be provided for in the artillery. He has talents, and experience which no other man in the United States possesses, in compositions which are important in that line of service. A soldier from his birth, he shall be so till his death, if it depends on, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

John Adams.

P. S. I return General Pinckney’s letter and list. I desire, too, that Mr. Barron’s commission as captain of artillery be sent him immediately. The New England officers, I am told, are impatient for their commissions. I desire that all the commissions may be sent to the officers throughout the States, without loss of time.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 7 April, 1799.

I have received your favor of the 28th ultimo, and have signed the commission to Lieutenant Haswell, and sent it on with the letter to Mr. J. C. Jones.

I return you the copies of Captain Truxtun’s correspondence with General Desfourneaux, which is conducted on our part with dignity and propriety; excepting perhaps that the respect to French property on board neutral vessels, and to unarmed French vessels, might as well have been concealed.

I thank you for your comfortable opinion that the insurrection in Northampton will be suppressed without bloodshed. No intelligence could be so agreeable to me.1

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 13 April, 1799.

I regret that I cannot have an opportunity of receiving General Maitland and Colonel Grant, and conversing with them on several subjects of importance.2 They will, I hope and presume, communicate to you all that will be necessary for us to know relative to a certain topic; but I wish to know their sentiments concerning Surinam, Curaçao, &c., and the neutral ports that harbor privateers. Cayenne, too, and even Cuba, are subjects of speculation in certain cases that are very supposable.

I hope Mr. King’s public despatches to you were written in better spirits than his private letter to me. You will please to return it to me. Mr. King was, you know, at times a little subject to croaking. I fear, however, in this case he has too much reason. The people in Europe see little difference between the new and the old state of things. The highest and the lowest of mankind are desperately corrupt and wicked, and the middling people are almost destroyed.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 13 April, 1799.

Sir,—

Last night I received your favor of the 5th. The proceedings detailed in it, appear to have been well considered and prudently pursued. But the sordid spirit which produced this as well as the former insurrection in Pennsylvania, and which has given so much trouble to the government, anxiety to the nation, and burden on the treasury, ought to excite more general indignation than it has done. I return all the papers, and pray you to keep me informed of the progress of the business.1

Inclosed is a letter from Major Badlam and Mr. H. G. Otis, recommending Mr. Benjamin Bass Leeds to be a lieutenant, for which I believe he is well qualified.

I wish that a plan may be considered for numbering the regiments and arranging the rank of the lieutenant-colonels commandants, and sent to me for my consideration. I think the best way will be to determine the rank of the lieutenant-colonels, and number the regiments at first according to the number which designates the rank of their commanding officer. This will be a good precedent to get rid of the practice, which has too long prevailed, of beginning at one extremity of the Union and proceeding to the other.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 16 April, 1799.

Sir,—

I received yesterday your favor of the 8th. If there is no room for Mr. Hastings as a Major, which I believe there is not, you may consider whether there is place for him as a Captain. If there are not candidates of superior claims, he may be offered a captaincy, and if he declines that, another may be appointed.

It is not upon the act of the 3d of March ultimo, that I ground the claim of an authority to appoint the officers in question, but upon the Constitution itself.2 Whenever there is an office that is not full, there is a vacancy, as I have ever understood the Constitution. To suppose that the President has power to appoint judges and ambassadors, in the recess of the Senate, and not officers of the army, is to me a distinction without a difference, and a Constitution not founded in law or sense, and very embarrassing to the public service. All such appointments, to be sure, must be nominated to the Senate at their next session, and subject to their ultimate decision. I have no doubt that it is my right and my duty to make the provisional appointments.

Major Lillie has made me a visit, and I was well pleased with his appearance and conversation. He did not appear to me to be an altered man. I learn from others that he has been, like many worthy men, extremely unfortunate in trade, and his misfortunes have sometimes affected his spirits; but an appointment in the army, upon which his heart is set, it is believed by Colonel Rice, will restore him completely to himself. There is some weight, however, in your objection, that two majors are more than the proportion of one State. With a view to this objection, I wish to be informed of the candidates for his office from other States.

I wish to know whether the Jonathan Williams, you mention, is the gentleman who lived in France when I was there, and now in Macpherson’s house on the Schuylkill. If it is the same, although I have not known much of his military character, his other qualifications are respectable.

Perkins’s lieutenancy for Burbeck, I presume, was on the supposition that himself should be captain, and both stationary for life on the castle. By all that I can learn, Burbeck is well qualified for a captaincy, and has merited it, if very long services without reproach are merit.

It is my intention that all the commissions shall be dated on the same day, and that neither the officers from the Carolinas and Georgia, nor any other officers, shall lose any advantage in rank, by the circumstance of others receiving their commissions sooner. I do not intend, however, that any regulation of rank shall be made, until it has been laid before me. Let especial care be taken that no directions concerning rank be given out by general officers, until I shall have an opportunity to consider and approve them.

I congratulate you on General Macpherson’s good conduct and success.

I have the honor, &c.

John Adams.

Inclosed is a letter from Oliver Whipple, requesting to be a Colonel, which you will please to note among the applications.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 17 April, 1799.

Sir,—

I received yesterday your favor of the 8th with Mr. King’s letters of the 10th and 16th of January, with the inclosure in the former.

These papers I have read with more than common interest and anxiety; and, however sanguine I may be in my disposition, or prone to determine my judgment on the first view of a subject, in this case I must own myself puzzled and in doubt. The whole affair leads to the independence of the West India Islands; and although I may be mistaken, it appears to me that independence is the worst and most dangerous condition they can be in, for the United States. They would be less dangerous under the government of England, France, Spain, or Holland all together, and least of all under the same powers in parcels or divisions, as they are now. This opinion, however, is liable to so much uncertainty, that no great dependence can be placed upon it.1

Upon the projects proposed by the British ministry, a great number of questions arise.2 Will not the projected, partial, limited, and restrained independence of St. Domingo, excite alarms and jealousies in Spain and Holland, such as will attach them and subject them entirely to France; and in Denmark and Sweden, so as to make them more timid, if not more complaisant to France? Will it not involve us in a more inveterate and durable hostility with France, Spain, and Holland, and subject us more to the policy of Britain than will be consistent with our interest or honor? These questions may all be useless, because the independence of St. Domingo, and consequently of all the other islands in the West Indies, and of the Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese possessions on the continent, may be brought about without our interference, and indeed in opposition to all we can do to prevent it.

The project of a joint company is certainly liable to all the objections which occurred to Mr. King, and although the English government would meet with no difficulty, we should certainly find it very difficult to manage.

My own ideas are these. 1st. That it would be most prudent for us to have nothing to do in the business. 2d. That if we should meddle, we had better leave the independence of the island complete and total, in commerce as well as legislation, to the people who assert it, the inhabitants of the island. 3d. That if this is not the sense of the English, we had better leave the whole management of the affair to them. 4th. That if they think fit, they may stipulate that we shall have a right to accede to the treaty they make, when we can, within a certain period of one, two, or three years. 5th. That we should accede to it, provided the Senate advise and consent, as soon as it shall be determined that no negotiation with France is likely to take place with effect. 6th. That we remain faithful to our promise, to open our commerce with the island as soon as privateering shall cease. 7th. Although these are my prevailing opinions and inclinations, I am by no means fixed in them or bigoted to them. 8th. I wish you to consult the heads of department upon all these points, and if any other principles are more agreeable to them and you, I shall be disposed to concur in any rational expedient, which can be reconciled to justice and sound policy, which may be concerted with Mr. Liston.1

TO BENJAMIN ADAMS.

Quincy, 22 April, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your favor of the 15th. Our kinsman must apply to the senators and representatives of his own State for recommendations. You know it is impossible for me to appoint my own relations to any thing, without drawing forth a torrent of obloquy. If I were to nominate him without previous recommendations from the senators and representatives from your State, the Senate would probably negative him. I must, moreover, be informed what office he wishes or expects, and is fit for. I do not appoint officers because they want bread.

The Samuel Adams appointed a custom-house officer, was named by the senators and representatives of New Hampshire. I know him not.1

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 22 April, 1799.

Sir,—

I return you the correspondence between Truxtun and Desfourneaux, inclosed in yours of the 11th, which I received on the 20th. I wish all the other officers had as much zeal as Truxtun. What has become of them? We hear nothing of any but Decatur, Truxtun, and Murray.

If you correct Truxtun’s ardor a little, as you ought to do, I pray you to do it very gently and with great delicacy. I would not have it damped for the world.

The weather has for three days been so cold as to retard the circulation of the blood.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 27 April, 1799.

Sir,—

I have signed the commission for Lieutenant Parker, which was inclosed in your favor of the 19th, and sent it to him with your letter and its inclosures.

Your other favor of the 19th contains matter of more importance. I own that the navy has not afforded to our commerce that complete protection which might have been expected from it, considering the vast inferiority of all the French force, both of public and private ships, in the West Indies. Although I would never hurt the feelings of officers, or excite questions which might affect their reputations, or move suspicions without necessity, yet I am prepared to agree to your arrangement about Nicholson.1 I am not yet prepared to say whether Talbot, or Sever, or some other, ought to be appointed to command the Constitution. Talbot, I am told, was not bred a seaman, though an excellent officer. I apprehend that ship wants an officer of complete nautical skill.

URIAH FORREST TO JOHN ADAMS.

Georgetown, 28 April, 1799.

Dear Sir,—

I feel how improper it is, in so inconsiderable an individual as I am, to be intruding on your time, much more, obtruding opinions and advice. I shall, however, hazard your censure, and be guilty of the impropriety which stares me in the face.

I feel how much the happiness of this country depends on the confidence the people have in the government, and I feel that yourself must be the rallying point of confidence. The public sentiment is very much against your being so much away from the seat of government, from a conviction that, when you are there, the public vessel will be properly steered; and that these critical times require an experienced pilot. The people elected you to administer the government. They did not elect your officers, nor do they (however much they respect them) think them equal to govern, without your presence and control. In a country like ours, when the people get divided into parties, as we have become, there will always be found men on the governing side, not satisfied with their proper share of power, and who, getting yielded to them more than is their due, increase in their own consequence and claims, until they fancy themselves exclusively entitled to direct. Are we free from such characters? Are there not, even in the soundest States in the Union, men (of influence and fair fame, not at all tinctured with jacobinism, but filled with a certain kind of ambition), who believe that with some other person as chief magistrate, they would have more power than with the present? I hope the influence of such men has not reached any of the departments of government. I speak the truth, when I say that your real friends wish you to be with your officers, because the public impression is, that the government will be better conducted.

I have sincerely regretted Mrs. Adams’s indisposition, and now as sincerely rejoice to learn that she has recovered. You will not think of bringing her into Philadelphia, though it would give me great pleasure to hear you were about going to take her to some healthy situation in the neighborhood of it. I wish the time had arrived for you to remove here, where I am sure Mrs. Adams would be very much benefited by the healthiness of the situation. I hope you will pardon this liberty; I can have no motive that is personal to myself; I feel as every man ought to feel for the public happiness. I believe that the seeds of more than two parties in this country have been scattered; but I trust they will not sprout. I am sure it is in your power alone to prevent their growth, and I must add, that you owe it to the public to prevent it. In thus adding, I am not unmindful of the great debt which the public owe to you.1

I have the honor to be, &c.

Uriah Forrest.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 1 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I received your favor of the 23d, and have read all the papers inclosed with attention and much satisfaction. With the No. 3, “Observations,” &c., I was particularly pleased.1

I can see no rational objection to any of the seven articles ultimately signed by all the heads of department, unless it be the 6th.2

When I first read this, I was apprehensive that some embarrassment might soon arise in consequence of it. We have given our word that the commerce should be open by proclamation as soon as privateering should be suppressed in the island, and the fulfilment of our promise may be claimed. But, on further consideration, I hope and presume that General Maitland will settle this point, without any difficulty to us. I am very glad that you did not detain General Maitland till you could hear from me. Upon the whole, I think the negotiation has been conducted with caution and prudence, and the result has my fullest approbation.1

TO J. MCHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 7 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your favor of the 29th of April, and have considered the subject of it with as much attention as will be necessary to agree in general to your principles.2 Merit I consider, however, as the only true scale of graduation in the army. Services and rank in the last war, or in any other war, are only to be taken into consideration as presumptive evidence of merit, and may at any time be set aside by contrary proof. Services and rank in civil life, and in time of peace, I think, ought not to be forgotten or neglected, for they are often of more utility and consequence to the public than military services. The officers, I think, ought not to be flattered with any positive assurance of rising in succession. The right, authority, and duty of government to depart from the line of succession, in clear cases of unusual merit, of extraordinary services, or uncommon talent, ought always to be asserted and maintained, and constantly to be held up to the view of the army.

Inclosed is a letter from Joseph Woodward, recommending Baldwin and Brown to be lieutenants. Another from Josiah Waters, soliciting some appointment. Another from Daniel Tillotson, soliciting a captaincy of infantry. Another from General Brooks, recommending Samuel Fowle. Another from Major Lillie. I own I am not able to read such histories without strong emotions. As this, however, might be intended to be confidential with me, I pray you to return it to me.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 8 May, 1799.

I have received, in your letter of the 30th April, the very handsome apology of Mr. Henry, and the letter of Chief Justice Ellsworth, from Halifax, of March 21st. In several conversations with Judge Ellsworth, I mentioned to him Governor Davie, as one among several whom I had in contemplation to appoint in the place of Governor Henry, if he should decline, as was apprehended by many. The character of this gentleman for abilities, integrity, and sound political principles, inclined my judgment in his favor, although personally a stranger to me. I am very glad the Chief Justice communicated the idea to him, and that he has not rejected it. I pray you to make out his commission and send it to him, and communicate the intelligence to Mr. Murray as soon as possible. I return you the letters of the Chief Justice and Mr. Henry, the latter of which I think you would do well to publish.

(Inclosed.)

PATRICK HENRY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Charlotte City, Virginia, 16 April, 1799.

Sir,—

Your favor of the 25th ultimo did not reach me till two days ago. I have been confined for several weeks by a severe indisposition, and am still so sick as to be scarcely able to write this.

My advanced age and increasing debility compel me to abandon every idea of serving my country, where the scene of operation is far distant and her interests call for incessant and long continued exertion. Conscious as I am of my inability to discharge the duties of envoy, &c., to France, to which, by the commission you send me, I am called, I herewith return it.

I cannot, however, forbear expressing, on this occasion, the high sense I entertain of the honor done me by the President and Senate in the appointment. And I beg you, Sir, to present me to them in terms of the most dutiful regard, assuring them that this mark of their confidence in me, at a crisis so eventful, is an agreeable and flattering proof of their consideration towards me, and that nothing short of an absolute necessity could induce me to withhold my little aid from an administration, whose ability, patriotism, and virtue, deserve the gratitude and reverence of all their fellow-citizens.

With sentiments of very high regard, &c.,

P. Henry.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 8 May, 1799.

The combination of a very few ideas has been sufficient to excite apprehensions that the West India Islands would soon become a scene of piracy. The dissolution of all principles of morals, government, and religion, the formal repeal of the ten commandments, by which it is become as lawful to covet, steal, kill, as it is to profane the Sabbath or commit adultery, the proclamation of liberty to the negroes in the West India Islands, and the policy of one or more nations of Europe to erect predatory powers in the West Indies, to be employed against the United States, as the Barbary powers in Europe have long been supported and encouraged against the small maritime states, have long ago raised suspicions and forebodings, that the most desperate wretches in Europe would be allured to the Islands, and give direction to the mass of African bones and sinews which is now in liberty and idleness, or trained to military discipline.

The buccaneering establishment on the Key near Matanzas must be broken up. I wish the Secretary of State to represent this intelligence to the Spanish minister at Philadelphia, and to our minister at Madrid. I am glad the Secretary of State intends to write to the Governor of the Havana.

I am heartily disposed to concur with you in the most spirited counsels, and active exertions, which the laws will authorize, to check and to punish this execrable establishment.1

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Philadelphia, 10 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I have the honor to inclose Mr. Liston’s note of the 8th, requesting the usual exequatur for Thomas Barclay, Esq., and Benjamin Moodie, Esq., whom his Britannic majesty has appointed, the former Consul-General for the Eastern States, and the latter Consul for North and South Carolina, and Georgia.

Mr. Barclay is the gentleman who was the British commissioner for settling the question of the St. Croix boundary.

Regularly, the commissions of those gentlemen should be produced; the allowance of the exequaturs being predicated on the inspection of the consuls’ commissions.

After a very indulgent but fatiguing trial of nine days, during which the jury were kept together, of John Fries, on a charge of high treason, the jury, at ten o’clock last evening, brought in their verdict, Guilty.

I have just learned that the jury decided without debate, or the least difference in sentiment. I before knew that the two judges were perfectly agreed as to the treasonable matter, and the guilt of the prisoner. The prompt verdict of the jury is the more remarkable, as there were two or three of them in the party in opposition to the government. But the nature of Fries’s offence, and the evidence of his guilt, were so clear as to remove or prevent doubt in the mind of every impartial man. Thus the case is represented to me, for I was not present at the trial. The length of the trial was owing chiefly to the examinations of many witnesses, a number of whom being Germans, interpreters were necessary.

This conviction is of the highest importance to vindicate the violated laws, and support the government. It was, therefore, anxiously expected by the real friends to the order and tranquillity of the country, and to the stability of its government. Among such men I have heard of but one opinion, that an example or examples of conviction and punishment of such high handed offenders were essential, to ensure future obedience to the laws, or the exertions of our best citizens to suppress future insurrections. The examples appear singularly important in Pennsylvania, where treason and rebellion have so repeatedly reared their heads. And painful as is the idea of taking the life of a man, I feel a calm and solid satisfaction that an opportunity is now presented, in executing the just sentence of the law, to crush that spirit, which, if not overthrown and destroyed, may proceed in its career, and overturn the government.

With great respect, &c. &c.

Timothy Pickering.

O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Philadelphia, 11 May, 1799.

Sir,—

After a very labored trial, Fries, who led the armed party at Bethlehem, has been convicted of treason; he continued tranquil until the verdict of the jury was returned, when, and since, he has been much affected. His composure during the trial was not owing to stupidity, for, though an illiterate man, he is not deficient in sagacity. He confidently expected to be acquitted, and his hopes are supposed to have been founded on the opinion of Mr. Lewis, who, on all occasions since the commencement of the trial, has declared that the offence did not amount to treason. Both of the judges were decided in their definitions of the crime, and the evidence was complete, both as to the acts done, and of the intention to prevent the execution of the law. It is admitted on all hands that the trial has been fair and impartial; the jury was respectable, and two of them were persons upon the bias of whose political sentiments calculations favorable to the prisoner were made. The jury received the charge at about six o’clock in the evening, when the court adjourned till ten; at the time appointed the verdict was returned, guilty.

I am told this morning of a circumstance which proves that the jury were governed by humane, delicate, and honorable sentiments. When they retired, it was agreed that, without previous argument among themselves, the opinion of each person should be given by ballot; by this trial it was found that the jury were unanimous.

Thus has ended a trial which has excited the greatest attention, and upon the issue of which the tranquillity of this part of the country has greatly depended. Fries said, after the trial, to Mr. Wood (one of the chief clerks of my office, who is also a clerk of the prison), that great men were at the bottom of this business. I do not know his meaning. B. McClenachan, of the House of Representatives, was certainly an agitator among the insurgents, but I do not know nor do I believe that the insurgents had any general views, other than to defeat the execution of the act of assessment. In general, the people are ignorant, strongly prejudiced against the measures of government, vindictive in their resentments, and I fear incapable of being influenced, except by their fears of punishment.

I have the honor, &c.

Oliver Wolcott.

TO URIAH FORREST.

Quincy, 13 May, 1799.

I received on Saturday your friendly letter of 28 April, and I thank you for it, and should be very happy if it were in my power to comply with your advice, not so much on account of any real public utility, as in compliance with what you call the public sentiment. I have reason to believe, however, that this sentiment is chiefly in Philadelphia and Georgetown. “The people elected me to administer the government,” it is true, and I do administer it here at Quincy, as really as I could do at Philadelphia. The Secretaries of State, Treasury, War, Navy, and the Attorney-General, transmit me daily by the post all the business of consequence, and nothing is done without my advice and direction, when I am here, more than when I am in the same city with them. The post goes very rapidly, and I answer by the return of it, so that nothing suffers or is lost.

Your speculative conjectures concerning the views of parties on the chief seat of the synagogue, are founded in human nature, in attentive observation of life, and on actual facts. What then? They give me no anxiety.

Mrs. Adams, it is true, is better; but she is still in a state so delicate, and has such returns of that dreadful disorder, which kept her on the brink of the grave almost all the last summer, that it would be a presumptuous imprudence, little less criminal than deliberate suicide, for her to attempt to go one hundred miles south of this latitude, before the violent heat of summer shall be passed.1

John Adams.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 13 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your favor of the 6th, and considered the copy of instructions to Mr. King,2 which have been examined and unanimously approved by the heads of department. I am very well satisfied with them, on the whole, though I wish that in the tenth article you would introduce another idea in corroboration.3 As “a principal means of annoying a maritime nation would be our privateers,” so our strongest motive, and fullest justification for using it, would be that our extensive commerce, spreading and branching all over the seas, is more exposed than that of any other nation to depredations, both of pirates and maritime powers.

I pray you to send a copy of these instructions to Mr. Adams at Berlin, and give him fresh instructions to agree with Prussia and Sweden both, in this instruction relative to the article of contraband of war, or to agree to the old article of contraband in our former treaties with those powers. I am determined to make no farther difficulty with either of these powers about the article of contraband, provided they will agree to the old one.

As I presume you have a copy of your draught of instructions to Mr. King, I shall keep the one you inclosed to me.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 16 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your letter of the 7th May, and since there appears a difference of opinion concerning the construction of the constitution and the law,1 and as I see no necessity for an immediate appointment, I am content to suspend it for the present, perhaps till the meeting of the Senate.

I think well of Mr. Williams as a gentleman of science and literature, as a good citizen, and brave man. But his military knowledge is new to me. I wish to know if in early life he was one of Paddock’s artillery company. At present, I am much inclined to appoint him, or rather nominate him as major, and the others as captains, as you have proposed. I am happy in an opportunity to appoint Mr. Izard, as well as Mr. Barron; my sentiments of Lillie you know, and Ragsdale’s recommendations are of the first and best kind. Inclosed are all the papers returned.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 16 May, 1799.

I have received your favor of the 10th, and have read the letter of Brigadier-General Macpherson to you of the 3d, and the letters of Mr. Chapman and Mr. Eyerly to him, with great pleasure.

I pray you to present to General Macpherson, and the officers and troops under his command in the late expedition,1 my thanks for the prudence, caution, fortitude, and perseverance with which they have conducted this service, so necessary to their country, although undoubtedly disagreeable, to a happy and successful conclusion. This you will do in any manner, and at any time, which you shall judge most proper and convenient. I return you all the papers, as proper to be lodged in your office.

TO C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Quincy, 17 May, 1799.

I thank you for your favor of the 10th. I am told that Mr. Lewis is of opinion that Fries’s crime amounts not to treason. Can you give me a minute of his reasons?2

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 17 May, 1799.

I last night received your favor of the 10th. Mr. Liston’s note of the 8th was not inclosed as you intended. Mr. Barclay I know, and his exequatur will be ready. Mr. Moodie I know not, nor do I know or suspect any objection to him.

I thank you for the account of the trial of Fries, which, if it was attended to by as numerous a concourse of people in Philadelphia as it would have been in some other parts of the United States, must have made a deep and lasting and extensive impression on the public mind.

The issue of this investigation has opened a train of very serious contemplations to me, which will require the closest attention of my best understanding, and will prove a severe trial to my heart. The “Motifs des Guerres,” &c., are received.

TO A. ST. CLAIR, GOVERNOR OF THE N. W. TERRITORY.

Quincy, 17 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I thank you for your favor of April 8th, and especially for the pamphlet inclosed with it. I have read it with great pleasure, as a masterly refutation of its antagonist, in the style and manner of a gentleman, and seasoned with no more than was useful and agreeable of Attic salt. Happy am I to find such just sentiments countenanced, encouraged, and prevailing in the North-Western Territory. Although your wish, that my writings were more generally read, is very flattering to me, I am nevertheless not very confident that they will do much good. Mankind will not learn wisdom by experience in matters of government. They get rid of all such systems by slight sarcasms, and say that theory is in favor of democracy. I say that theory is altogether in favor of mixed governments, as well as experience. But I am not about to write a lecture.

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Quincy, 17 May, 1799.

I thank you, Sir, for your favor of the 11th, which I received last night. The termination of the trial of Fries is an important, an interesting, and an affecting event. I am unable to conjecture the grounds of Mr. Lewis’s opinion, and wish I had a sketch of them. Is Fries a native or a foreigner? Is he a man of property and independent, or is he in debt? What has been his previous life? industrious or idle, sober or intemperate? It is of importance to discover, if possible, the great men alluded to by Fries, in his observation to Mr. Wood, as at the bottom of this business; and the evidence of any agitation among the insurgents ought to be collected. It is of moment, also, to ascertain whether the insurgents had any general views or extensive communication with others of similar dispositions in other counties, or correspondence with other States. We ought, also, to inquire whether Fries is the most culpable among the guilty, if that can be known. It highly concerns the people of the United States, and especially the federal government, that, in the whole progress and ultimate conclusion of this affair, neither humanity be unnecessarily afflicted, nor public justice essentially violated, nor the public safety endangered.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 19 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your favor of the 10th, and read Mr. Sewall’s latter of 25th April and your answer.1 The reasoning in the latter is so satisfactory that I have determined to send it on to Mr. Sewall to-morrow. Nevertheless, I think with you that some of our fast sailing vessels might be employed to advantage in a cruise on the coasts of Spain and France during the hurricane season in the West Indies. Nor do I think we ought to wait a moment to know whether the French mean to give us any proofs of their desire to conciliate with us. I am for pursuing all the measure of defence which the laws authorize us to adopt, especially at sea, with as much zeal and to as great an extent as if we knew the first vessels would bring a declaration of war against us from Paris.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 21 May, 1799.

Sir,—

Your favor of the 15th is received. I have no doubt that an offence, committed on board a public ship of war, on the high seas, is committed within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the ship belongs. How far the President of the United States would be justifiable in directing the judge to deliver up the offender, is not clear.1 I have no objection to advise and request him to do it.

I am quite of your opinion of the prudence of withholding from the public Mr. Henry’s letter, and not insisting on Governor Davie’s formal acceptance at present, for the reason you adduce.2 I think, however, we ought to be informed that he will accept, when his acceptance shall become indispensable.

TO WILLIAM S. SMITH.

Quincy, 22 May, 1799.

I have received your letter of the 16th, and the bundle of papers inclosed, with a great deal of pain. The thing has not a good appearance. Mr. Shieflin would have done better to have addressed his letter and papers to me than to you, who are not the Secretary of War.1 You are suspected and have been accused of improper speculations in the neighborhood of Detroit, and in connection with characters whose friendship does you no honor. These Indian pretensions are suspected to have been excited by you and your associates.

I send you back all the papers. If you will take upon yourself to send them to the Secretary of War, you may; I will not. If you desire the command of Detroit, you must solicit it of the Secretary at War, the Commander-in-chief of the army, or Major-General Hamilton. I will not interfere with the discipline and order of the army, because you are my son-in-law.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 25 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I received last night your favor of the 18th. The misfortune of the Hero is much to be regretted.2 The necessary orders, I presume, will be despatched to her at Jamaica; but I am not sufficiently informed of her situation to be able to judge what those orders ought to be.

The anonymous letter you inclosed is curious enough. If it is required of me to procure satisfaction for every family ruined by the French, upon pain of assassination, I believe Mr. Assassin may do his work.3

C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Philadelphia, 28 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I had the honor to receive your letter of the 17th; but, not having been present at the trial of Fries, it was not in my power to give you a minute of Mr. Lewis’s reasons for the opinion that the crime of Fries was not treason, without applying to Mr. Rawle on the subject, who has given me a short note, of which a copy is inclosed.1 The reasons were thought by the court insufficient, and so they seem also to me.

You have no doubt been informed that a new trial has been granted to Fries. I understand that, after the conviction, it became known to the prisoner’s counsel, that one of the jury had on several occasions expressed that he thought Fries and all concerned with him deserved to be hanged. This Judge Iredell conceived to be enough to show that the juror was disqualified to pass upon the prisoner. Judge Peters was of a different opinion, but ultimately concurred in it, rather than to allow the condemnation to rest on his own judgment.2 Mr. Carpenter, who takes the debates of Congress in short hand, has taken all the proceedings on this trial, which are in the press and will speedily be published. A copy shall be transmitted for your more particular information, so soon as it shall be in my power.

With perfect respect, I am, Sir, &c.

Charles Lee.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 28 May, 1799.

Sir,—

I received yesterday your favor of the 21st. I thank you for the intelligence, and rejoice that our affairs with Algiers are no worse.

Your other letter of the same date arrived at the same time. I have read the papers relative to Mr. Daniel Hawley, and agree with you in opinion that there is evidence of unskilfulness in business, at least enough to justify us in looking for a more adroit consul, or agent, or both, in Havana, a place of great importance to us. I return all the papers. I also return the paper relative to Ferdinand Stevenson and his pardon. The judgment of Judge Griffin, and the Secretary of the Treasury, acquiesced in by you, will be sufficient to justify me in this kind of work,1 which is always so easy and pleasant that we may be sometimes in danger of doing too much of it.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 5 June, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your favor of the 27th May, and have read the inclosures. The discipline of the army will require the punishment of death for desertion in many cases, and none perhaps will deserve it more than that of Richard Hunt; and I should not hesitate to sign the warrant for his execution, serious as is the act of depriving a fellow of his life, but I wish to know, whether the officers who composed the court-martial were commissioned, and if not, what evidence we shall rely upon of the appointments, in case the legality of this business should be examined by a grand jury.2

I wish the members of courts-martial would consider themselves counsel for the prisoner, and admonish him against the plea of guilty, and even assert that, if he persists in it, they would still examine witnesses to the fact of desertion.1

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 7 June, 1799.

I thank you for the details in your favor of the 29th May. Captain Truxtun has deserved well of his country, and will, as he ought, have their thanks, as well as yours and mine. But I should have been much easier on account of the safety of our commerce, if he had remained longer in the West Indies. The Merrimac has been detained by contrary winds, but I believe is now gone. Talbot has arrived, and came up in his boat to see me. I was rejoiced at the sight of him, and have full confidence in his capacity and activity. His appointment to the command gives good satisfaction as, I am informed.

We shall do nothing with St. Domingo until we hear again from Stevens. The annihilation of privateering in the island, must be an indispensable condition of future intercourse. We can do nothing but in concert with Maitland, and what his reception may be is uncertain. The English, in my opinion, have made much mischief for themselves as well as for us in that island. The hopes of our merchants, of great profit from the trade, will be found too sanguine, and the evils in store seem not to be foreseen.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 7 June, 1799.

Sir,—

I return you all the letters of Mr. King and Mr. Humphreys which were inclosed with your letter of May 30th. Encourage Mr. King, I pray you, in your letters and instructions to him, to persevere, with all the decision which may be consistent with decency and politeness, in denying the right of British men-of-war to take from our ships of war any men whatever, and from our merchant vessels any Americans, or foreigners, or even Englishmen. There is no principle under heaven, by which they can justify taking by force, even from an American merchant vessel, even a deserter from their army or navy, much less private seamen. If they have a right, we have the same. I know not whether the exercise of it would not be most useful to us. Their merchant ships are more numerous than ours, and they have more foreigners, Swedes, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Danes, Dutch, &c., than we have. If our men-of-war had a right to take them, we might easily man our navy; but the thing has no principle.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 13 June, 1799.

I return you the papers inclosed in your letter of the 1st. I have carefully read the proceedings of the court-martial on Ensign David Fero.

It will be necessary for the legislature, at their next session, to make some provisions for cases of standing mute. The best possible jurisprudence in this case in my opinion is, to order the refusal to plead to be recorded, and then proceed to trial in all respects as if the defendant had pleaded not guilty. I would not even refuse to hear him in his own defence, or by counsel, and would swear and examine all witnesses, and admit every species of evidence in his favor, offered by himself or any of his friends, as freely and fully, as upon the general issue. I should have been better pleased if the court-martial had extended all this patience and candor to Mr. Fero. The result would, I believe, have been the same, however, and although I do not see my way clear to confirm the sentence of the court-martial,1 I have no scruple to conform to your opinion and dismiss Ensign David Fero from the service.

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Quincy, 15 June, 1799.

Sir,—

Inclosed is a petition from John Sylvester for a pardon, a copy of the record of his conviction, a petition which he presented to Governor Sumner, and a certificate and request signed by a large number of respectable and worthy citizens of Plymouth in his favor. My answer to his relation, who brought me the petition, was, that the crime was of so serious a nature, that, whatever might be my disposition, I dared not to pardon it, without serious deliberation and the best advice. I promised him, however, to transmit the papers to the Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney-General, and request their opinions. This promise I now perform by praying you to take the opinion of the heads of department if you think it necessary, or at least of the Attorney-General, and transmit to me the result of your and their deliberations. If you should recommend a pardon, I request you to send one on for signature to, Sir, &c.1

John Adams.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 15 June, 1799.

Sir,—

I received yesterday your important letter of the 7th. The form of a proclamation is sufficient, I believe, for the purpose, and I have signed it, that it may be completed and published at a proper season without loss of time.

I am glad the heads of department did not form a definitive opinion on the very important question whether it will be expedient to renew the commerce, without a concurrence of the British.2 My judgment inclines the same way at present with theirs; but we had better wait for further information. I am afraid that the jealousy and avidity of the English will do an injury to themselves, as well as to us; but we cannot help it. My opinion is that, if the powers of St. Domingo will not admit British ships of war or commerce into their ports, the British government ought to be contented with sufficient assurances of the neutrality of that island, during the war between England and France, and not insist on defeating the connection between the United States and St. Domingo. It is my earnest desire, however, to do nothing without the consent, concert, and coöperation of the British government in this case. They are so deeply interested that they ought to be consulted, and the commerce of the island is not worth to us the risk of any dispute with them. No time ought to be lost in transmitting to Dr. Stevens instructions concerning the part he is to act, and the language he ought to hold. I fully agree with you and the heads of department, in the opinion of the propriety of the sentiments suggested by you to be communicated to him. Dr. Stevens’s letters, public and private, have opened the politics of St. Domingo in a very intelligible manner. The whole is so natural that it is easily to be believed.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 19 June, 1799.

Sir,—

I received last night your favor of the 12th, which, with all its inclosures, shall be sent to the attorney of the district, that he may investigate the facts and make report to me. Every complaint of the kind from the British minister shall be treated with great respect, and examined with the utmost candor,1 being from inclination as well as a sense of duty, disposed to cultivate the best understanding, as well as to do ample justice in all cases to his nation.

TO JOHN DAVIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Quincy, 19 June, 1799.

Sir,—

Inclosed is a letter from the Secretary of State, of the 12th of June, a note of the British minister to him of the 11th, a copy of instructions for the private armed vessels of the United States, and of the act, further to protect the commerce of the United States, and a blank copy of a bond. I pray you, Sir, to make inquiry into this transaction, and to inform the owners of the ships complained of, and make report to me, and also to return me the papers, when you have made the use of them you may have occasion for.

As it is my determination to demand of the British government satisfaction for all insults and injuries, committed by British subjects on American citizens, natural equity as well as sound policy requires that I should do all in my power to give satisfaction when insults and injuries are committed by American citizens on British subjects, by punishing the authors of them.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 19 June, 1799.

Sir,—

I return you the selection of two Majors from North Carolina, and that of officers for South Carolina and Georgia, with the letters of Generals Pinckney and Washington, with that of Mr. Steele. I am satisfied with these recommendations, and approve the selections. I return the proceedings of the court-martial in the cases of the deserters. The absolute necessity of examples in such cases as that of Richard Hunt, is very deeply impressed on my mind, and I should not dare to pardon him, if the proceedings are all regular. By the Constitution the President has power, by and with the advice of the Senate, to appoint officers, and by the same Constitution the President shall commission all the officers of the United States. A question occurred to me whether the signature of the commission is not the act of appointment, and whether any other evidence of appointment will be admitted by the courts of law; in short, whether there can be an officer without a commission. I pray you to lay the proceedings of the court-martial and the foregoing constitutional questions before the heads of department, and request their opinions. If they are unanimous, I shall order the execution. I have interlined six words in the form of the warrant, which I return. I should be sorry that such an instrument should go out of my hands, with my signature to it, with any interlineations. If you return a fair copy to me, with the advice of your colleagues, I shall sign it.

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Quincy, 21 June, 1799.

Sir,—

In your letter of the 13th you hint that “attempts are making to draw into question the solidity of the public credit;” but you have not explained the particulars, and I am at a loss to conjecture the facts which you may allude to.1

Public credit can never be steady and really solid without a fixed medium of commerce. That we have not such a medium, you know has been my opinion for several years. The fluctuations of our circulating medium have committed greater depredations upon the property of honest men, than all the French piracies. To what greater lengths this evil may be carried, I know not. The Massachusetts legislature are authorizing a number of new banks. The cry is, the immense advantage to agriculture. Credit cannot be solid, where a man is liable to be paid a debt, contracted to-day, by one half the value a year hence.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY AT WAR.

Quincy, 24 June, 1799.

Sir,—

I have received your letter of the 18th, and have read Count Rumford’s letter to Mr. King. For five or six years past I have been attentive to the character of this gentleman, and have read some of his essays. From these I have formed an esteem for his genius, talents, enterprise, and benevolence, which will secure him from me, in case of his return to his native country, a reception as kind and civil as it may be in my power to give him. But you know the difficulties those gentlemen have, who left the country as he did, either to give or receive entire satisfaction. I should not scruple, however, to give him any of the appointments you mention,1 and leave it with you to make such proposals to him, through Mr. King, within the limits you have drawn in your letter, as you should think fit. I return Mr. King’s letter, and inclose one from Mr. William Williams, a very respectable personage, recommending Rufus Tyler to be an officer in the army.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 2 July, 1799.

Sir,—

I thank you for the favor of your letter of 24th June, and the copies inclosed of despatches from Stevens and Maitland, which I suppose it is unnecessary for me to return. The necessary alterations in the proclamation1 will, of course, be made by you, with the advice of the heads of department. Harmony with the English, in all this business with St. Domingo, is the thing I have most at heart. The result of the whole is, in my mind, problematical and precarious. Toussaint has evidently puzzled himself, the French government, the English cabinet, and the administration of the United States. All the rest of the world know as little what to do with him as he knows what to do with himself. His example may be followed by all the islands, French, English, Dutch, and Spanish; and all will be one day played off against the United States by European powers. I think we have committed one great mistake in exchanging prisoners with Guadaloupe. We have lent a thousand men to that island, some of whom have been taken three times by our cruisers. We should soon exhaust the islands of seamen, if we brought all to America.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 3 July, 1799.

Inclosed is a letter from the president and professor of divinity of our university, recommending William Frothingham to be a chaplain on board of some frigate. I know not whether the commanders of our ships have given much attention to this subject; but in my humble opinion we shall be very unskilful politicians, as well as bad Christians and unwise men, if we neglect this important office in our infant navy.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 7 July, 1799.

Sir,—

As it is an excellent principle for every man in public life to magnify his office, and make it honorable, I admire the dexterity with which you dignify yours, by representing an army, and means adequate to its support, as the first thing necessary to make the nation respected. Genius in a general is oftener an instrument of divine vengeance than a guardian angel. Stoddert, I warrant you, instead of representing the navy as the fourth and last article necessary for national respectability, would have felt the importance of his office enough to have stated a navy as the first and most indispensable. It would not be necessary for me to decide the controversy between you; if it should be, I should be at no loss. My answer would be ready.

I have read the plan for providing and issuing of military supplies, inclosed in your favor of the 29th of June. I suppose I may keep it, in order to recur to it upon occasion. I wish to be informed whether this is proposed to be adopted by Congress into a law. I presume the President’s authority alone is not adequate to the establishment of it. I wish it to be considered by the Secretary of the Treasury and by yourself, as closely as possible, before it is recommended. The discipline of the army, and the national economy, are deeply interested in it. The Secretary of State has had experience which ought to be consulted upon this occasion.1

TO SILAS TALBOT.

Quincy, 8 July, 1799.

Sir,—

I have this moment received your favor of this day’s date by Mr. Tarbell, and had before received your note. I can give no answer to any of your propositions, nor determine any thing concerning officers or men, until I know who is to command the Constitution. Your refusal to accept the commission has ruined all my designs. It was altogether unexpected to me. I know not the facts at present with precision enough to decide between your pretensions and those of Captain Truxtun. If I must appoint Captain Little, I must appoint all his officers, or at least consult him which of them to take with him, and which to remove from the Constitution. If I should appoint Sever. I must do the same. I know of no other captain at hand. In short, I see no possibility of getting the Constitution to sea, unless you go in her, under a fortnight or three weeks, if so soon. If she must remain in harbor so long, it will be better to send the Boston to sea, and complete her crew out of the Constitution. But in this case I cannot appoint Little to the command of the Constitution. It will be impossible for me to arrange any thing without a personal conference with you. If you would accept the commission, altered so as to leave the question of rank undecided, to be determined hereafter by a council of officers, this should be done. Assurances have been given you, as I understand, by Mr. Stoddert, that you should not be ordered to serve with Truxtun without absolute necessity. These assurances I am willing to confirm. I am, however, fully of opinion that I must see you before I can do any thing. If you cannot come here, I would meet you anywhere; but it will take time and trouble to concert time and place, so that I believe you had better come here, if you can, to-morrow morning as early as possible, or next day, or leave it till Thursday.

I have this day forwarded to Captain Little his sailing orders and instructions, received only this morning from the Secretary of the Navy. If he is completely ready in all other respects, I am willing to fill up his complement from the Constitution. But the service on which the Constitution is ordered, is at least as pressing, as the other, and perhaps more so.

I have the honor to be, with great esteem,

John Adams.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 8 July, 1799.

Sir,—

The Constitution1 employs my thoughts by day and my dreams by night. Captain Talbot has written to you in his letter of the 7th of June, which I return, his candid and impartial opinions, according to the information he received. But Beale was absent by the advice of his physicians, and Hull was present. I mean no insinuation by this against Mr. Hull, whose character is in my mind fair, and his conduct irreproachable. No lieutenant in the service stands fairer in my mind.2 But I see no reason for discouraging Beale, by turning him out of the ship, for I believe him to be equal to Hull in every respect, even in age. I believe Beale to have had great injustice done him by little passions and a miserable caprice, which I will not explain at present, because I shall probably, though not certainly, consent to his removal, more because he, and his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, have been my neighbors, and to avoid suspicion of partiality for that cause, than for any other reason.3 Mr. Knox I have made a lieutenant, with an express condition, that he should not serve on board this ship. Mr. Pitt’s resignation I have requested Captain Talbot to accept, so that the midshipmen will now be according to his mind. I would have no great difficulty with midshipmen or lieutenants. There is not one among them I would not instantly remove, if the service could be benefited by it. But the refusal of Talbot to accept his commission is a serious affair. It was wholly unexpected to me. I supposed he had his commission before, and that all was settled. You have not laid the papers before me. I can only judge of the pretensions of Truxtun and Talbot, or Talbot and Truxtun, by the general idea I have of the times and circumstances of their appointments, in some of which I may be mistaken. Talbot says, there are captains at hand. I know not to whom he alludes, unless they are Sever and Little. But the devil has been at work with his malignant whispers about Sever as well as about Beale, and the merchants of Boston expect that Little will be the Nelson of the United States, and they will be very loth to release him. Pardon the impunity1 of the expression. Talbot is very satisfactory to officers and men, to the merchants and politicians of Boston and the State, and the loss of him will occasion a very serious alarm. I would go on board the ship every day and converse with Talbot, but custom requires that the welkin must be rended, and the world alarmed, if I set my foot on board; and Talbot cannot leave the ship. As to Dobel, I have not yet found one human being who reports in his favor. I have employed as independent and impartial men as the world affords, to sound the opinions of merchants and others, and not one word of approbation of his appointment has yet reached me. Talman, although he has his appointment of lieutenant, shall not go on board of this ship against the judgment of the officers. His character is respectable, but his talent for command is doubted by others, as well as those who spoke of him to Talbot.

With great anxiety on account of this ship, I am, &c.

John Adams.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 13 July, 1799.

I have received your letter of the 8th of this month, and have read the letter from Major-General Hamilton, and the proceedings of the court-martial in the case of Joseph Perkins. All circumstances considered, I think this instance the least capable of a pardon of any which has been laid before me. I have thought it my duty to sign the warrant for his execution, and return it inclosed with all the other papers. My own opinion is, that a commission is not the exclusive evidence of appointments to office; but as chicanery may start popular objections, if the heads of department have any serious doubt in the case of Richard Hunt, you may submit this to them also.1

TO J. MCHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 19 July, 1799.

I agree with you in your opinion, expressed in your favor of the 12th, that both an army and navy establishment are essential to the present and future interests and greatness of the United States, and that we must run the risks which other nations have run. It appeared to me that offices were created, and salaries made necessary, in the plan for supplying the army, which would require the interposition of Congress. But if the powers already given to administration are sufficient, I am satisfied.2 I wish only that the heads of department may be satisfied, and that no embarrassments may be brought upon them, which they are not previously apprised of.

TO THOMAS MIFFLIN.

Quincy, 19 July, 1799.

I have received the letter your Excellency did me the honor to write me on the 5th of this month, with the copy of Chief Justice McKean’s letter to your Excellency, and two letters of Mr. Liston. These last I shall transmit to the Secretary of State, to be restored to the writer of them, according to the idea of your Excellency, with the best apology that the subject will admit of, for the freedom which has been improperly taken with his correspondence by opening the letters. The safety and honor of nations is so much concerned in the universal respect that is, or ought to be shown to the despatches of ambassadors, that it is to be regretted that any of our citizens should have been guilty of the fault of opening these.1

TO J. MCHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 19 July, 1799.

I have received your favor of the 12th, and have considered the opinions of the heads of department.2 I wish that courtsmartial may be advised to be as cautious as possible, in all their proceedings, especially in cases of life, because the discipline of the army will depend much upon this habit. But the crime of Richard Hunt is of so deep a die, that I have not seen my way clear to avoid the signature of the warrant for his execution, which is here returned. Yet if you and General Hamilton think that one example may suffice for the purposes of public justice, the execution of Hunt or Pierce may be respited.3

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 19 July, 1799.

I have received your favor of the 11th, and have read Mr. Davis’s1 letter inclosed in it, of June 29. My own opinion coinciding with yours and his, I have signed, and now inclose the pardon of John Scotchler, not however without some serious apprehensions of the consequences of tenderness, for cases of such dangerous example.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 20 July, 1799.

Sir,—

I have your favor of the 13th, received only last night. I sent you lately Mr. Liston’s two letters, with one from Governor Mifflin, and a copy from Chief Justice McKean. I will not comment on the letters of Mr. Liston, nor examine whether all his sentiments are just or politic.2 But I heartily reprobate the outrage on the British government, in violating the seals of its accredited minister to the United States, and am desirous of taking such notice of it, as the respect we owe, not only to the government of Great Britain, but to ourselves, demands. I pray you, therefore, to refer this business to the attorney of the district, in the absence of the Attorney-General, with instructions to make a diligent inquiry, and strictly to prosecute the persons he may find guilty of any breach of the law of nations, or the land. The publication of these letters is a crime in somebody, I know not whom.3

I am, &c.

John Adams.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 23 July, 1799.

Sir,—

It always gives me pain, when I find myself obliged to differ in opinion from any of the heads of department;1 but, as our understandings are not always in our own power, every man must judge for himself. In the case of Captain Talbot, I am perfectly clear, in my own mind, that he has been a captain in the navy of the United States from the time of his appointment, in 1794, to this hour; that a legal title, and an estate in his office, was then vested in him; and that he has never been divested of either. The suspension of his pay and subsistence was no deprivation of his office, any more than shaking off the apples is cutting down the tree. The principle is well known, and established in a multitude of cases. Sequestration of the uses and profits of lands or tenements, by the acts of the legislature, is not a destruction of the title, or a divestment of the estate. Suspensions of the functions, are no deprivation of the offices. The Dukes of Norfolk, for ages, were disqualified to discharge their functions on account of their Catholic religion, yet they remained Dukes of Norfolk, and their titles and offices descended from generation to generation without any degradation of rank. President Washington made the distinction at the time, and, instead of discharging or dismissing Captain Talbot from his office, or annulling his appointment, only informed him that, in consequence of an act of Congress, his pay and subsistence must be suspended, or must cease for the present; but, at the same time, expressed his desire that he would still stand ready to engage again in the service when he should be called. Had President Washington continued in office, he might have given Talbot the command of a ship, and ordered him his pay and subsistence, without a fresh nomination to the Senate, and so might the successor to the office of President. Nothing can be inferred from my nomination of him, but my desire to give satisfaction to the Senate and the public. Had the Senate refused their advice and consent, I might have desisted from my intention of employing him; but the repetition of their consent is certainly no diminution of his title. But had Talbot been expressly dismissed, and his appointment annulled, for no fault, by President Washington, it would have made no alteration in my opinion. Talbot, upon being called into service again, ought to have his former rank, which he held under the same constitution of government, and in the same department of the public service.

Far be it from me to depreciate the merits, services, or talents of Captain Truxtun. I respect, I esteem, and, especially since his late glorious action, I love the man. His gallant behavior and splendid conquest of the Insurgente have won him laurels, which I hope he will live to wear for many years after I shall be no more. But this meritorious conduct makes no alteration in my judgment in the state of this question. It is no more an argument for promoting him over Talbot, than it is for promoting him over the heads of Nicholson and Barry, which no man will advocate or propose. If he is to be promoted, as a reward for a great action, his promotion ought to be as impartial as possible to all other officers. One ought not to be singled out, as a victim to be slighted and wounded alone.

It is impossible to finish this letter, without saying something of talents, services, and general merit. In all these points, in my opinion, Talbot will not suffer by a comparison with any naval officer in the service. Delicate as this subject is, I must hint at a few particulars, which appear not to be sufficiently known. Exploits of twenty years’ age in history are little attended to by the present generation. Talbot’s talents and services in civil life, as a representative in Congress, as an agent for the liberation of our seamen in the West Indies, and even in fitting out our ships lately, are of very respectable character; but his services, last war, far outweigh all the services which were ever performed by Truxtun, to the United States, during his whole life. I should regret sincerely and extremely the loss of Captain Truxtun to the navy, and to the United States, and I confidently hope and believe he will not think of a resignation. But, if it must come to such a crisis, that I should be compelled to say which officer I would retain in the service, I should not hesitate a moment to say, it must be Talbot. Truxtun is a new man in the service of the United States. Talbot has served them very long.

There are two principles which produce a tenaciousness of rank. One is a sense of honor and consciousness of dignity, which cannot bear disgrace or degradation; the other is a selfish vanity and aspiring ambition, which is desirous of rising at any rate, and leaping over the heads of all others who are higher. Talbot is, in my opinion, undoubtedly in the first case, and I sincerely hope Truxtun will not prove himself in the last. Talbot cannot descend without disgrace, and loss of reputation, and confidence in the world. Truxtun stands on safe ground, and will lose no character or confidence by not rising. He has not even a colorable or plausible pretence for rising, whatever an unthinking, undiscriminating popularity may say. I will not be the dupe of that popularity.

I promised you some hints of Talbot’s services. In May, 1775, he was elected a captain of a company by the legislature of Rhode Island, when he raised a full company, and marched to the camp near Boston, where he continued until the enemy were driven away in 1776. He then marched with the army for New York; but upon his arrival at New London with the army, he was drafted with two hundred men to man Commodore Hopkins’s squadron, which had just arrived there from a cruise. The draft was made to help the fleet, bound from New London to Newport, the better to defend the ships, in case they should fall in, as was expected, with two British twenty gun ships, cruising off Newport. The squadron arrived without seeing an enemy at Newport, when he left the fleet and embarked in a small vessel, with his soldiers, and landed in the city of New York.

In the course of the campaign of 1776, some fire ships were equipped at New York with the view of endeavoring to destroy the British fleet and army, lying then at a particular place. When they were ready for service, the Commander-in-chief sent for Talbot, and requested him to take charge of a combustible brig, to which he readily consented, though it was considered so hazardous an undertaking that it was with great difficulty that others could be procured to command the rest. John Thomas, Talbot’s ensign, followed his example, and took charge of a second, and was burned to death in the flames of his vessel. Talbot did not receive orders to execute the design of his ship, until three of the British ships of war moved up the North River, seven miles above the city. In the night preceding the battle of Haerlem, he received directions to run down upon the ships of war in the North River, and destroy them, if possible, which were promptly attempted to be put in execution an hour before daylight, by getting the fire ship under way, and running down and boarding the Asia on her starboard bow, when he set fire to her, and, with the greatest difficulty, made his escape through the flames into the boat, where his men had been placed to take him off. The fire ship was grappled to the Asia for some time; but, at length, by the activity, address, and intrepidity of British seamen, was disengaged, so that the Asia was not burned. But the attempt threw the ship’s crew into such confusion, and alarmed them so much, that all the ships of war and their attendants in the North River cut and ran down to their old station, below the city. The morning after this, the battle of Haerlem was fought, and as the enemy had not those ships to cover their left flank, as had been intended, Washington gained the advantage of that day. After leaving the fire ship, Talbot made his escape to the Jersey shore in a boat, receiving the fire of all the ships as he passed them. In escaping through the flames, his clothes were all burned, and his body, too, to that degree that he did not see the light for fourteen days. Congress, on a representation of this service, thought proper to grant him a commission as major in the army of the United States, and to make him a grant of a sum of money as a compensation for the clothes which were burned on his back. Rapid promotions and splendid rewards were not so easily obtained in those days, you see, as they have been in some instances of late years.

At the latter end of the siege of Fort Mifflin, on Mud Island, which was always allowed to have been well defended, Talbot was second in command, and, in the afternoon previous to the evening of its evacuation, when the cannonade and fire of musketry were very severe, he received a musket ball through his left wrist, the pain of which must have been to most men insupportable; he bound it up, and continued at his post till sunset, when he was shot down by another ball, which entered near his left hip, and yet remains in his left groin.

In 1778, at the battle of Rhode Island, under General Sullivan, he commanded in the light advanced corps, and commenced the action of that day in person; and such was his conduct during the battle, and activity in procuring boats for landing the army on the island, previous to the battle, that Sullivan mentioned him very honorably to Congress in the communication of the events of that expedition.

In the same year, after the expedition before alluded to, the British stationed a large galley in the passage between Rhode Island and the main, mounting eight twelve-pounders, which cannon had been taken out of the Flora frigate, that was sunk in the harbor, and were marked with her name. As this galley totally stopped all supplies for the army by water, and prevented all our navigation from Providence and Taunton rivers, which was very considerable, and annoyed all vessels bound to those places, Talbot determined to remove her, if possible, and accordingly requested of General Sullivan, who commanded the army, fifty men to be drafted for the purpose. The General, after some hesitation, complied. Talbot embarked these on board a small sloop at Providence, called the Hawk, which mounted only two three-pounders, cut away the boarding nettings, drove the enemy from their quarters, and took possession, sword in hand, of the galley, which was commanded by a British lieutenant of the navy with forty-eight men. After this, Talbot weighed her anchors, ran out of the harbor, and carried her safe to Connecticut, where he landed the prisoners before dark the next day. For this service, the legislature of Rhode Island passed a law that a sword should be presented to him at the expense of that State, and Congress thought proper, as a reward for the same service, to promote him to the rank, and to give him a commission, of Lieutenant-Colonel in the service of the United States. The British never posted any other armed vessel in the passage, which remained open and free ever after.

Some time after this, Talbot made arrangements, and sailed twice from Providence with three hundred men, on board a large merchant ship, mounted on a stage above her deck, for the purpose of boarding a sixty-four gun ship, that lay in the bay. But the wind at both times failed him, and it became so calm that he was obliged to return without effecting his purpose. As the enemy always got information of his movements, they were, after this, so much afraid of being boarded, that they took a regiment on board from the Island, and kept them until they learned that his plan was laid aside.

In 1779, Congress directed General Gates, who succeeded General Sullivan, to provide an armed vessel for the protection of the bays and coast about Rhode Island. Accordingly, a sloop was equipped, named the Argo, mounting ten six-pounders; but as this sloop, when equipped, could not be manned, General Gates requested Talbot to take the command of her, as he was at that time popular with the seamen. At first he declined, because the command of a small sloop was not equal to that which a lieutenant-colonel ought to expect. But he was, at length, prevailed on by the General, as it was desirable to have the sloop manned. General Gates can certify the most important services performed by the Argo, while under his command. The number of cannon which he took in the several prizes, is said to have amounted to ninety-six, twenty of them twelve-pounders, the rest sixes and fours. Some of the privateers he took were double his own force, and all of them of superior force. In a battle fought with the privateer ship Dragon, of fourteen guns, which continued four hours and a half, with great vigor on both sides, the ship did not surrender until her mainmast was shot away just above the deck, and tumbled into the sea. In this battle he had twenty-one men killed and wounded, and, when the enemy surrendered, the Argo was on the point of sinking, the water in her hold being above the gun-room floor.

Congress, as a reward for his services in this action, and five others, fought in the Argo, some of them not much less severe, thought proper to appoint him a captain in the navy; for, while he commanded the Argo, he was furnished with no other than a lieutenant-colonel’s commission. Thus I have given some intimations of the principles and facts, which I have taken pains to collect, on which I have acted in giving Talbot a commission, to take rank from the day of his appointment as a captain in the navy, in 1794, which words, here underscored, I pray you to insert in his commission in your office, as they are the only alteration I have made in it.

After all, human events are all uncertain. Truxtun may resign, which I sincerely hope he will not, and, upon my honor, I think he ought not, and Talbot may be unfortunate; consequent censures will, probably, be freely cast upon me. I am prepared to meet them, let them come as thick as they may. However I may regret them, I shall never repent of the measure that produced them, because it has been the result of mature deliberation, impartial consideration of the whole subject, and conscientious opinion that it is right.

After a detention of nine days by contrary winds, the Constitution took the advantage of a brisk breeze, and went out of the harbor and out of sight this forenoon, making a beautiful and noble figure amidst the joy and good wishes of many thousands of good federalists.1

I have the honor, &c.

John Adams.

P. S. Although this letter is committed to your discretion, prudence will dictate that some parts of it be considered as confidential.

[1 ]This is dated more than a month before the nomination of Mr. Murray. It followed the refusal to cut off, in the message to Congress, all further opening for negotiation, as proposed by the cabinet in November preceding; and the letter of the 20th October, before that, suggesting the names of individuals who might in certain contingencies be nominated to negotiate. See page 609. Yet the cabinet officers professed complete surprise when Mr. Murray was nominated! The truth is, that the struggle of the three cabinet officers had been all the while, by every means, to prevent that act, and their disappointment at the failure, through the steadiness of Mr. Adams, was in proportion.

[1 ]The following indorsement is in Mr. Adams’s handwriting;

Answered orally, 19th, by refusal to comply.

In Colonel Pickering’s Review, printed in 1824, he gives what he affirms to be all the corrections made by Mr. Adams in his report. That pointed out in this letter is not among them. As no wilful misstatement was probably intended, the inference is that he examined the revised copy, to which he alludes. This is the more likely, as he himself admits that the parts he found “struck out were of much less consequence than at first sight he had supposed.” They certainly do not correspond to Mr. Adams’s recollections of what they had been, any more than to the tone of his own letter of November 5th, or to his later recollection of Mr. Adams’s reply to him at the time, which he has made so emphatic by his mode of printing. “I am not going to send to Congress a philippic against Mr. Gerry.” See page 616. Pickering’s Review, p. 140.

[2 ]See page 606. Also compare the conclusion of this letter with the two letters of 17th and 23d September, 1798, addressed by the same hand to Mr. Hamilton. Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. pp. 356-359.

[1 ]See this letter in Sparks’s Washington’s Writings, vol. xi. p. 398.

[1 ]There is a good deal of partisan harshness in this condemnation. But Mr. Barlow, however sincere his motives, had been very far from judicious in his mode of attempting to bring round a reconciliation between the two countries. He had written to his brother-in-law, Mr. Baldwin, in March, that “the election of Adams produced the order of the 2d of March, which was meant to be little short of a declaration of war,” thus making the President responsible for all the losses which took place under that decree, merely because he had been selected by the people, acting in their own legitimate sphere, for the chief executive office. And in a later letter of the 26th July to James Watson, which had been submitted to the President, even in stating the withdrawal by the French government of their most offensive acts, he had urged peace measures, not on their own merits, but under the menace, that “a refusal would be considered as a declaration of war, and it would be a war of the most terrible and vindictive kind.” These were not of the class of arguments likely to conciliate Mr. Adams. Wait’s State Papers, vol. iv. p. 269. Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 112.

[1 ]At about this same time, Mr. Pickering was transmitting to General Washington information that “the President was suffering the torments of the damned, at the consequences of his nomination.” The writer’s name is suppressed, but the context reveals it. Gibbs’s Memoirs of the Fed. Adm. vol. ii. p. 208.

[1 ]Mr. Marshall’s letter was returned. The act to which it alludes, saved the neutral policy of the country. And this evidence, as well as General Knox’s letter, shows that the sentiment of disapprobation was not even at the time quite so general among the federalists as Mr. Pickering assumes it in his confidential disclosure to Mr. Hamilton to have been. See Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 398. Mr. Jay’s tone and manner of treating the subject, even with the half light in which he saw it, contrast singularly with those of Mr. Pickering and Mr. Sedgwick. See Jay’s Life of Jay, vol. ii. p. 288, 296.

Patrick Henry’s letter to Mr. Pickering, 16th April, declining his appointment, speaks for itself.

Mr. Higginson also betrays his uneasiness at the approbation of the measure given by others whom he does not name, though General Lincoln is evidently one of them. He laments that “no use will be made of the powers given to the President by the alien and sedition acts, nor will the authority to raise an army, to organize and officer it, be exercised.” S. Higginson to O. Wolcott, Gibbs’s Mem. of the Fed. Adm. vol. ii. p. 230.

Lastly, General Lafayette, in a letter adressed to Mr. McHenry on the 18th of April, which has not been printed, says,

“I must express the happiness I have felt in hearing that plenipotentiary ministers are going from the United States, to bring about a reconciliation with France. I am persuaded, as I have formerly written, that the French government are in earnest.”

[1 ]Mr. Stoddert’s letter concluded thus:

“The city troops of horse marched towards Northampton, on Thursday last. We hear nothing to lead to an opinion that there will be any opposition.”

[2 ]They arrived in a sloop of war from England. Their business respected St. Domingo, the unsettled condition of which had excited great feeling both in Great Britain and the United States, and led to much negotiation between them.

[1 ]Mr. McHenry had written,

“Finding that the two companies of horse, whose services had been relied upon, could turn out about sixty men only, and that the opposition in Northampton, &c., had assumed a more threatening aspect, I conceived it necessary to submit to the heads of department and Attorney-General, the expediency of my calling upon the Governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, to hold in readiness to march against the insurgents a respectable body of militia.”

[2 ]Mr. McHenry had expressed a doubt whether, under the act referred to, the President had power to do more than fill vacancies in the army and navy, which had happened during that session of the Senate. See the issue in the note to the letter of 16 May, p. 647.

[1 ]Mr. King’s letters give an interesting account of his conferences, first with Lord Grenville, and afterwards with the same person, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Dundas, upon the difficulties and dangers growing out of the revolution of St. Domingo, and the decision of the British government to send General Maitland and Colonel Grant to negotiate with General Toussaint.

[2 ]The main feature of these projects was to agree to one port, viz. Port-au-Prince, as the sole port of entry for the trade of Great Britain and the United States, to be placed within the control of a joint commercial company, formed by the two governments.

[1 ]Mr. Liston was vested with full powers to concert with the government of the United States the arrangements which might be mutually advantageous. This joint action, proposed by Great Britain in the affairs of St. Domingo, seems at one time to have seriously threatened the dangers to the neutrality of the United States pointed out in the above letter. On the 9th of February, Mr Pickering had written to Mr. Hamilton for instructions what to do, but, his letter not having been published, its substance can only be gathered by inference from the reply. Whilst Mr. Hamilton promises a fuller answer the next day, he designates the policy to be pursued towards the revolutionary chief, Toussaint, to be; “No committal on the independence of St. Domingo, no guaranty, no formal treaty—nothing that can rise up in judgment. It will be enough to let Toussaint be assured verbally, but explicitly, that upon his declaration of independence a commercial intercourse will be opened, &c.” On the 20th of February, Mr. Pickering repeats his request for advice, as he is about to draft instructions to the Consul-General, Dr. Stevens, the brother-in-law of Mr. Hamilton, just appointed to go to St. Domingo. It does not appear that he ever received any answer. This may have been owing to the decision respecting Mr. Murray, which dissipated all prospect of executing through the President any of his policy. In a confidential letter, five days later, after lamenting what he calls the fatal nomination of Mr. Murray, Mr. Pickering goes on to say, that “the President will certainly do no act to encourage Toussaint to declare the island independent.” Mr. Liston, the British minister, however, had obtained a very different impression of the intentions of the American government, and was privately announcing an opposite system. In the mean time, Mr. Adams seems to have known nothing of these secret consultations. Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. pp. 395, 398, vol. vii. p. 686, article vi.

[1 ]It seems that a kinsman, Samuel Adams, of Newington, N. H., had written a letter inquiring whether there had not been some mistake, and he was not the person for whom this appointment had been designed. At the bottom of the sheet, Benjamin Adams had added a recommendation of the writer for some other situation, which occasioned the above reply.

[1 ]To superintend the construction of the frigates then building.

[1 ]In this letter, General Forrest spoke the genuine sense of probably not less than five sevenths of the federal party. Mr. Adams’s answer scarcely meets the argument. Yet, taking the cabinet as it was, the only effect of a change of practice must have been to hasten its dissolution, without giving time to establish a better one in the public confidence, before the end of his term.

[1 ]This was a production of Mr. Pickering’s, entitled by him “Observations on the ‘Sketch of proposed Regulations,’ for the trade of the Island of St. Domingo, received from the minister plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty to the United States of America.”

[2 ]This is a copy of the articles;

Points, on which there is an understanding between the governments of Great Britain and the United States of America, in consequence of the foregoing proposed regulations.

1. It is understood that Great Britain and the United States have a common interest in preventing the dissemination of dangerous principles among the slaves of their respective countries; and that they will mutually and sincerely attend to that interest, to guard both against the danger here alluded to in consequence of the proposed intercourse with St. Domingo.

2. That any infringement of the contemplated regulations which may be agreed upon with Toussaint, and which will constitute the basis of the determination of the two nations, respectively, to open a commercial intercourse with St. Domingo, or any hostility commenced, or manifestly intended, on his part, against either, shall lead to an immediate suspension of intercourse with that island, on the part of both nations, while the laws of the United States authorize such a suspension on their part.

3. That it is the interest of both nations to induce General Toussaint to refuse an asylum to any French armed vessels in the ports of St. Domingo; such an asylum being deemed incompatible with the safety of the proposed commercial intercourse.

4. That it is the positive object of both nations by pacific arrangements to put an end, in toto, or as nearly as possible, to all maritime operation or exertion of any kind in the island of St. Domingo.

5. That the American Consul-General in that island shall be instructed to assist in carrying into effect the proposed regulations.

6. That no commercial vessel of either nation shall be permitted to enter the port or ports to be opened, as before proposed, until the day to be fixed according to the fifth article of the regulations to be proposed to General Toussaint.

7. As the present political state of St. Domingo is subject to constant change and fluctuation, and as even its situation at the moment is not perfectly ascertained, it is understood that the whole of the present arrangement shall be open to such future discussion and decision as the nature of the case, in the opinion of the respective governments, may demand. Timothy Pickering.Oliver Wolcott.James McHenry.Ben. Stoddert.Charles Lee. 20 April, 1799.

[1 ]Owing to the immediate departure of General Maitland, the papers were drawn up by Mr. Pickering, with the assent of the other cabinet officers, and sent, without referring them to Mr. Adams, subject to his ultimate decision, however, to approve or reject the propositions made.

[2 ]Mr. McHenry recommended that the relative rank at the close of the revolutionary war, of all such officers as had served in that war, should govern, liable to exceptions in cases of extraordinary service or merit.

On the 23d of April, Mr. McHenry had addressed a letter to Mr. Hamilton, requesting his opinion on this subject. The reply does not appear, but it is fair to infer that it was the same as that presented by Mr. McHenry to the President as his own. Hamilton’s Works, vol. v. p. 250.

[1 ]Mr. Stoddert in furnishing the information that such an establishment as is here described was about to be formed at a spot about sixty miles from the Havana, and was threatening the trade to Spanish America, advised the equipment of one frigate and two or three smaller vessels, with a land force of three hundred men, to break it up, in case the Governor of the island should decline to act.

[1 ]In absenting himself from the seat of government during the recess of Congress, Mr. Adams did no more than his predecessor, General Washington. There can be little doubt that the habit of cabinet officers assuming responsibility, and consulting with persons outside, to counteract the action of the President, when not agreeable, grew out of this practice. A remarkable instance of it in Washington’s time is found in the case of the nomination of Mr. Rutledge to be Chief Justice. See Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. i. p. 219, 220.

[2 ]To negotiate a treaty with Russia.

[3 ]The tenth article stands as follows;

10. “The twenty-third article of our treaty with Prussia forbade the commissioning of privateers to take or destroy the trading vessels, or to interrupt the commerce of the contracting parties, in case a war should arise between them. But in the renewal of the Prussian treaty, if it should be renewed, this article is to be omitted. The lawfulness of privateering will not be questioned; but all possible precautions should be taken to prevent abuses. The policy of privateering is peculiarly applicable to the United States. Our public naval force is, and for some time to come will be, inconsiderable; but we are strong in the number of our seamen, in private wealth, and in the uncommon enterprise of our citizens. Hence, a principal means of annoying a maritime commercial enemy would be our privateers.”

[1 ]This was upon the question raised in the letter of the 16th of April. See page 632.

It now appears that Mr. McHenry consulted Mr. Hamilton, who confirmed him in his opinion. Hamilton’s Works, vol. v. p. 255.

He had also consulted the Attorney-General, Mr. Lee, who considered an office created during the session of the Senate, and not filled by appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as a vacancy happening during the session, which the President cannot fill, during the recess, by the powers vested in him by the constitution, without a legislative act of Congress, enabling him to do it. This legislative act was passed on the 3d of March, 1799, entitled “an act authorizing the President of the United States to fill certain vacancies in the army and navy.” He therefore thought the President had the power of appointment.

Mr. McHenry’s letter says nothing of his having consulted Mr. Hamilton.

[1 ]To quell the disturbances in Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

[2 ]The following abstract was sent by the Attorney-General in answer to this application.

Copy of Mr. Rawle’s note of Mr. Lewis’s reasons for the opinion that the crime of Fries was not treason.

United States v. Fries.

The substance of Mr. Lewis’s argument, as to the question of treason in this case, was as follows:

“Treason consists in resisting, by force or means of intimidation, the government and laws of the country.

To resist the execution of a single law is not treason, unless it is the militia law.

It is treason to resist the militia law, because the militia is the ultimate remedy to be employed by the executive authority to enforce all laws, and, therefore, if the militia law cannot be enforced, it may disable the executive from enforcing any of the laws.”

Mr. Adams afterwards obtained from Messrs. Lewis and Dallas a full statement of their argument. This has been already printed in Wharton’s State Trials, pp. 646-8.

[1 ]This was an application to know whether a convoy or any public protection would be afforded to the American commerce with Bilbao in Spain.

[1 ]The District Judge of South Carolina had declined to deliver up to Sir Hyde Parker, a seaman who had been engaged in a mutiny, and murder of the officers of the British frigate Hermione.

[2 ]Mr. Pickering says in his letter;

“I have this moment received your favor of the 8th instant, and will make out Governor Davie’s commission. But for the very reason that he is the Governor of North Carolina, and it is important to that State and to the Union that such a man should hold the reins of government there, I beg leave to suggest the expediency of not requiring his immediate acceptance of the commission, because it would vacate his office of Governor, while it remained uncertain whether he would be ever called to proceed on his mission to France. Perfect silence on the subject, at present, appearing to me most eligible, I further beg leave to ask whether it will not be eligible to suspend the publication of Governor Henry’s letter, until it shall be necessary to make public Governor Davie’s appointment.”

[1 ]Mr. Shieflin was an Indian agent; and the complaint was aimed at the Secretary of War, Mr. McHenry, for his treatment of the Indians.

[2 ]A ship of five or six hundred tons, laden with masts and timber, intended for the regency of Algiers.

[3 ]Of anonymous letters, in every variety of tone, there are numbers among the papers of the Adamses, both father and son. As the one above alluded to is brief, it may serve for a specimen of a class.

“President Adams. Myself and family are ruined by the French. If you do not procure satisfaction for my losses, when a treaty is made with them, I am undone forever, and you must be a villain to your country!!! Assassination shall be your lot, if restitution is lost to America through your means, or if ever you agree to a peace without it. The subsistence of thousands, who have lost their all, depends upon it.

A ruined merchant,alas! with ten children!!!made beggars by the French.”

[1 ]See page 648, note.

[2 ]On the same point Mr. Pickering writes on the 18th;

“To the surprise and chagrin of many, Mr. Lewis’s motion for a new trial in the case of John Fries has prevailed.”

[1 ]A pardon.

[2 ]See the letter of Mr. Hamilton to the Secretary of War, of the 20th of April, stating the case of Hunt, and urging a confirmation of the sentence. Hamilton’s Works, vol. v. p. 249. Another also at a later period urges upon Mr. McHenry to “bestow great pains upon satisfying the President that severity was indispensable.” It bears the same date with Mr. McHenry’s. Hamilton’s Works, vol. v. p. 263.

[1 ]In this case the man pleaded guilty, and but a single witness was examined. In a later letter of the 13th Mr. McHenry says;

“I think it probable that some of the officers composing the court, at least, were of the twelve new regiments, and consequently without commissions.”

The fact was that not a single officer had received a commission.

[1 ]An extremely moderate judgment of the proceedings. It would seem that this court was constituted by the sole authority of the captain commandant; that the prisoner, prior to the qualification of the members, was asked if he had objections to any of them; that he did object to the commandant and two members, and that, this objection having been overruled by them, he then refused to plead. In Great Britain a decision upon such premises would have subjected the members to severe penalties in the common-law courts. For an instance, see vol. ii. p. 102, note.

[1 ]On the fifth of July, a report was made upon this case, and signed by the four secretaries, concluding as follows;—

“As the crime is of a dangerous tendency, and as the tender of service in the navy cannot be accepted consistently with public policy, we are respectfully of opinion that a pardon ought not to be granted.”

[2 ]An elaborate paper was drawn up by Mr. Pickering upon the unfavorable aspect of General Maitland’s negotiation with Toussaint, which was concurred in by all the cabinet officers.

[1 ]A complaint against two American privateers, for stopping an English vessel and breaking the seals of British despatches on board.

[1 ]A part of Mr. Wolcott’s letter is printed in Mr. Gibbs’s work, vol. ii. p. 242.

[1 ]Mr. McHenry proposed to offer to Count Rumford a vacant commission of Lieutenant-Colonel and Inspector of Artillery, or to make him an Engineer and Superintendent of the proposed Military School.

[1 ]A mistake was made in the proclamation, as to the time of opening the ports of Cape François and Port-au-Prince, to vessels sailing from the United States.

[1 ]In transmitting the plan alluded to, which was the work of General Hamilton, Mr. McHenry had ended his letter in this way;—

“Being a nation, and not of the lowest order, there are three things essential to the maintenance of our proper grade among the powers of the earth. 1. An army and means adequate to its support. 2. A system calculated to keep its wants regularly supplied. 3. Genius in the general who commands it. If we can combine these three things with a navy, and I hope we can, we shall have nothing to fear from without or within.”

Herein is visible the germ of the difference of opinion between the President and three of his cabinet directed by Mr. Hamilton, which made itself visible at a later period. The former rested upon the navy, the latter upon the army, as the principal means of defence. Both favored a military school. Hamilton’s Works, Hamilton to McHenry, vol. v. p. 240. McHenry to Hamilton, p. 401. Hamilton to King, vol. vi. p. 417.

[1 ]Frigate.

[2 ]Isaac Hull, afterwards celebrated as the commander of this ship.

[3 ]Mr. Stoddert had recommended his removal to another vessel, on account of personal difficulties among the officers.

[1 ]So in the copy, but obviously an error.

[1 ]This question was submitted by Mr. McHenry in a long letter addressed to his colleagues.

Mr. Wolcott drew a distinction between civil and military commissions, and thought the members of this court were military officers, without commissions.

Mr. Pickering thought the appointment of an officer might be complete without a commission—this being only the best evidence of it.

Mr. Stoddert agreed with Mr. Pickering in his opinion, but objected to all the later proceedings in Hunt’s case on another account.

When the proceedings were first presented to Mr. McHenry, it did not appear on the face of them, that two thirds of the members present had concurred, as required, in a sentence of death, by the 8th article of the appendix to the rules of war. They were returned to General Hamilton, who caused the omission to be supplied by an interlineation in the sentence, and the President of the court, and the judge advocate, added their certificate that more than two thirds of the members did concur, and that the omission so to state it was accidental.

Mr. Stoddert thought that the President and judge advocate had no right by themselves to assume such an authority. But he thought that the original omission might not vitiate the proceeding, if it had not been the practice established in court-martials heretofore to insert the form.

The celebrated case of Marbury v. Madison, and the act of Mr. Jefferson in annulling the appointment of justices of the peace by withholding their commissions, will occur to the mind of every reader.

[2 ]See page 654 for Mr. Adams’s first letter on this subject. Mr. McHenry thought the powers amply sufficient, but he promised to submit the question to the members of the cabinet, for their mature opinions. None such are to be found among Mr. Adams’s papers.

[1 ]Mr. Liston’s messenger, Isaac Livesey, had been arrested in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on a well grounded charge of horse stealing. His trunks had been forced, and the letters of Mr. Liston opened by the officers, apparently without any ill intent.

[2 ]See page 656, note, for the substance of these opinions.

[3 ]This suggestion seems to have been adopted by General Hamilton, in the case of Hunt. Hamilton’s Works, vol. v. p. 289.

[1 ]John Davis, District Attorney of Massachusetts, afterwards for a long period judge of the district court.

[2 ]They were addressed to Mr. Russell, president of the British frontier in Upper Canada. They are curious as imputing to the administration a design to encourage the revolt of Toussaint against France, in St. Domingo, when Mr. Pickering expressly declares that the President would do no such thing. Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 399. See page 635, note. Wharton’s State Trials, p. 683.

[3 ]Two indictments were drawn, but the grounds being found insufficient, the prosecution was discontinued.

[1 ]The opinion of Mr. Stoddert, fortified by that of the Attorney-General, had been that, through the reduction of the navy in 1796, Silas Talbot, one of three officers discharged from service, had lost his right of precedence of Captain Truxtun who had been retained, so that, on his restoration to the service in 1798, he was to be considered as a junior captain.

[1 ]Mr. Stoddert replied to this letter;—

“The alteration directed shall be made in the register of Captain Talbot’s commission; and, I beg leave to add, without any regrets arising from my opinion on that subject being overruled. I never doubted that Talbot had merit equal to any man in our service, &c., &c. I believe the world will think the determination a proper one. It shall not be my fault, if any inconvenience to the service is produced by it.”

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

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

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

3 Jan. 1799: JOHN JAY TO JOHN ADAMS. - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799) [1853]

Edition used:

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

About Liberty Fund:

Copyright information:

Fair use statement:

JOHN JAY TO JOHN ADAMS.

Dear Sir,—

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS. (Private.)

Sir,—

I am, &c.

RUFUS KING TO JOHN ADAMS.

Dear Sir,—

With unfeigned respect and attachment, I am, &c.

TO GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Dear Sir,—

HENRY KNOX TO JOHN ADAMS. (Secret and confidential.)

My Dear Sir—

I am, with sincere respect, &c.

Points

C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Dear Sir—

Wishing you a safe journey, &c.

TO C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL. (Private.)

Sir,—

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Sir,—

Your most obedient servant,

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Sir,—

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Sir,—

I have the honor, &c.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Sir,—

TO BENJAMIN ADAMS.

Sir,—

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Sir,—

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Sir,—

URIAH FORREST TO JOHN ADAMS.

Dear Sir,—

I have the honor to be, &c.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Sir,—

TO J. MCHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Sir,—

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Inclosed.) PATRICK HENRY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Sir,—

With sentiments of very high regard, &c.,

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,—

With great respect, &c. &c.

O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,—

I have the honor, &c.

TO URIAH FORREST.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Sir,—

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Sir,—

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

TO C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS.

(Private.)

HENRY KNOX TO JOHN ADAMS.

(Secret and confidential.)

TO C. LEE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

(Private.)

(Inclosed.)

PATRICK HENRY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.