A website from the Massachusetts Historical Society; founded 1791.
close
-
The Adams Papers Digital Edition is undergoing active maintenance while we work on improvements to the system. You may experience slow performance or the inability to access content. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We will endeavor to return to full capabilities as soon as possible.

Browsing: Papers of John Adams, Volume 1


Search for a response to this letter.

Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0009

Author: Adams, John
Author: U.
Recipient: Boston Gazette (newspaper)
Date: 1763-09-05

VIII. “U” to the Boston Gazette

To the PRINTERS.

[epigraph]

Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer

Jura neget sibi nata; nihil non arrogat Armis.

Hor.1
[epigraph]

Rebuke the Spearmen, and the Troops

Of Bulls that mighty be.—

Novang.2
It seems to be necessary for me, (notwithstanding the declaration in my last)3 once more to digress from the road of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts; and to enter the list of disputation with a Brace of writers in the Evening Post, one of whom has subscribed himself, X, and the other, W. 4—I shall agree with the first of these Gentlemen, that “to preach up non resistance, with the zeal of a Fanatick,” would be as extraordinary as to employ a Bastile in support of the freedom of speech or the Press; or an inquisition, in favour of Liberty of conscience: But if he will leave his own imagination, and recur to what I have written he will not find a syllable against resistance—Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature, which I never surrendered to the public by the compact of society; and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there any thing in the common law of England (for which Mr. X supposes I have so great a fondness) inconsistent with that right—On the contrary, the dogmas of Plato, the maxims of the Law, and the precepts of Christianity, are precisely coincident, in relation to this subject.
Plato taught that revenge was unlawful, altho' he allowed of self-defence. The divine Author of our religion has taught us, that trivial provocations are to be over look'd; and that if a man should offer you an insult by boxing one Ear rather than indulge a furious passion, and return blow for blow, you ought even to turn the other also. This expression however, tho' it inculcates strongly the duty of moderation and self-government upon sudden provocations, imports nothing against the right of resistance or of self-defence. The sense of it seems { 85 } to be no more than this: that little injuries and insults ought to be born patiently for the present rather than run the risque of violent consequences by retaliation.
Now the common law seems to me, to be founded on the same great principle of philosophy and religion.—It will allow of nothing as a justification of blows, but blows—Nor will it justify a furious beating, bruising and wounding, upon the provocation of a fillip of the finger, or a kick upon the shins: But if I am assaulted, I can justify nothing but laying my hands lightly upon the aggressor for my own defence; nothing but what was absolutely necessary for my preservation. I may parry, or ward off, any blow: But a blow received is no sufficient provocation for fifty times so severe a blow, in return.—When life, which is one of the three favourites of the law, comes into consideration we find a wise and humane provision is made for its preservation. If I am assaulted by another, sword in hand, and if I am even certain of his intention to murder me, the common law will not suffer me to defend myself by killing him, if I can avoid it—Nay, my behaviour must absolutely be what would be called cowardice, perhaps, by Messirs X and W, tho' it would be thought the truest bravery, not only by the greatest philosophers and legislators, but by the best generals of the world: I must run away from such an assailant, and avoid him, if I have room, rather than stand my ground and defend myself: But if I have no room to escape, or if I run and am pursued to the wall or into a corner, where I cannot elude his fury, and have no other way to preserve my own Life from his violence but by taking his, there, I have an indisputable right to do it, and should be justified in warding thro' the blood of an whole army, if I had power to shed it and had no other way to make my escape.
What is said by Mr. W, that “if a gentleman should be hurried by his Passions, so far as to take the life of another, the common law5 will not adjudge it murder or manslaughter, but justifiable homicide only,” by which he must mean, if in truth he had any meaning at all, that killing upon a sudden Provocation, is justifiable homicide, is a Position in comparison of which the observations of the grave-digger upon the death of the young lady in Shakespear's Hamlet ought to be ranked among the responsa prudentum.
Every chatechumen in law, nay every common man, and even every porter upon the dock, that ever attended a trial for murder, knows, that a sudden provocation, raising a violent passion, where there is no precedent malice, is in consideration of human frailty, allowed to { 86 } soften killing, from murder down to manslaughter; but manslaughter is an heinous crime, and subjected to heavy Punishments.
Such is the wisdom and humanity of English law; upon so thorough a knowledge of human nature is it founded; and so well is it calculated to preserve the lives and limbs of men, and the interior tranquility of societies!—I shall not dispute with Mr. X. my affection for this law, in preference to all other systems of law, that have ever yet appeared in the world.—I have no connection with parishioners, nor patients, nor clients, nor any dependance upon either for business or bread; I study law as I do divinity and physick; and all of them as I do husbandry and mechanic arts, or the motions and revolutions of the heavenly bodies; or as I do magistracy and legislation, viz. as means and instruments of human happiness. It has been my amusement for many years past, as far as I have had leisure, to examine the systems of all the legislators, ancient and modern, fantastical and real, and to trace their effects in history upon the felicity of mankind: And the result of this long examination is a settled opinion that the liberty, the unalienable, indefeasable rights of men, the honor and dignity of human nature, the grandeur and glory of the public, and the universal happiness of individuals, was never so skilfully and successfully consulted, as in that most excellent monument of human art, the common law of England. A law that maintains a great superiority, not only to every other system of laws, martial, or cannon, or civil, but to all officers, and magistrates civil and military, even to majesty itself—It has a never sleeping jealousy of the cannon law, which in many countries, Spain in particular, has subjected all officers and orders, civil and military, to the avarice and ambition, the caprice and cruelty of a Clergy—And it is not less watchful over the martial law which in many cases, and in many countries, France in particular, is able to rescue men from the justice of the municipal laws of the kingdom.—And I will own that to revive in the minds of my countrymen a reverence for this law, and to prevent the growth of sentiments that seemed to me to be in their tendency destructive of it, especially to revive a jealousy of martial laws and cavelier like tempers, was the turn which I designed to serve for myself and my friends, in that Piece which has given offence to X and W.
A certain set of sentiments have been lately so fashionable, that you could go into few companies without hearing such smart sayings as these: “If a man should insult me, by kicking my shins, and I had a sword by my side, I would make the sun shine thro' him.”—“If any man, let him be as big as Goliah, shou'd take me by the nose, I would { 87 } let his bowels out with my sword, if I had one; and if I had none, I would beat his brains out with the first club I could find.”—And such tempers have been animated by some inadvertent expressions that have fallen from persons of higher rank and better sentiments, some of these have been heard to say, that “should a man offer a sudden insult to them, they could not answer for themselves, but they should lay him prostrate at their feet in his own blood.”—Such expressions as these, which are to be supposed but modest expressions of the Speaker's diffidence of his own presence of mind and government of his passions, when suddenly assaulted, have been taken for a justification of such returns to an insult, and a determination to practice them, upon occasion. But such persons as are watching the lips of others for wise speeches, in order to utter them afterwards as their own sentiments, have generally as little of understanding, as they have of spirit, and most miserably spoil, in reporting, a good reflection.—Now what I have written upon this subject was intended to shew the inhumanity of taking away the life of a man, only for pulling my nose, or boxing my ear; and the folly of it too, because I should be guilty of an high crime, that of manslaughter at least, and forfeit all my goods, besides receiving a brand of infamy.
But I have not yet finished my history of sentiments. It has been said by others, that “no man ought to receive a blow, without returning it.”—“A man ought to be despised that receives a cuff, without giving another in return.”—This I have heard declared for a sober opinion by some men of figure, and office, and importance.—But I beg leave to repeat it; this is the tenet of a coxcomb, and the sentiment of a brute; and the horse, the bull and the cock, that I mentioned before, daily discover precisely the same temper and the same sense of honor and decency.—If in walking the streets of this town, I should be met by a negro, and that negro should lay me over the head, with his cudgell should I think myself bound in honor, or regard to reputation, to return the blow with another cudgell? to put myself on a level with that negro, and join with him in a competition which was most expert and skilful at cudgells?—If a mad dog shou'd meet me and bite me, should I think my self bound in honor (I mean before the poison had worked upon me enough to make me as mad as the dog himself) to fall down upon that dog and bite him again?—It is not possible for me to express that depth of contempt that I feel for such sentiments, and for every mortal that entertains them. And I should chuse to be “the butt, the jest, and contempt” of all companies that entertain such opinions, rather than to be in their admiration or esteem.—I would take some { 88 } other way to preserve myself and other men from such insolence and violence for the future; but I would never place myself upon a level with such an animal for the present.
Far from aiming at a reputation for such qualities and accomplishments as those of boxing or cuffing, a man of sense would hold even the true martial qualities, courage, strength and skill in war, in a much lower estimation than the attributes of wisdom and virtue, skill in arts and sciences, and a true taste to what is right, what is fit, what is true, generous, manly, and noble in civil life. The competition between Ajax and Ulysses is well known:

Tu vires sine mente geris, mihi cura futuri.

Tu pugnare potes:

Tu tantum corpore prodes;

Nos animo.

Pectora sunt potiora manu. Vigor omnis in illis.6

[signed] Ovid Met.
and we know in whose favour the prize was deem'd.
I shall not be at the pains of remarking upon all the Rhodomontade, in the two pieces under consideration, and Mr. X and Mr. W. and the whole Alphabet of Writers may scribble as many volumes as the twenty-four letters are capable of variations, without the least further notice from me unless more reasoning and merit appears, in proportion to the quantity of lines, than is to be found in those two pieces.—But since I have made some remarks upon them it will perhaps, before I conclude be worth my while to mention one thing more in each.—Mr. X tells us “that cases frequently occur where a man's person or reputation suffer to the greatest degree, and yet 'tis impossible for the Law to make him any satisfaction.”
This is not strictly true, such cases but seldom occur; tho' it must be confessed, they sometimes do.—But it seldom happens very seldom indeed, where you know the man who has done you the injury, that you can get no satisfaction by law—And if such a case should happen nothing can be clearer than that you ought to sit down and bear it.—And for this plain reason, because it is necessary, and you cannot get satisfaction in any way.—The law by the supposition cannot redress you—And you cannot, if you consider it by any means redress yourself—A flagilation in the dark would be no reparation of the injury, no example to others, nor have any tendency to reform the subject of it, but rather a provocation to him to contrive some other way to injure you again; and of consequence would be no satisfaction at all to a man even of that false honour and delicacy of which I have been speaking; { 89 } unless he will avow an appetite for mere revenge, which is not only worse than brutal, but the attribute of Devils—And to take satisfaction by a flagilation in public, would be only, in other words, taking a severe revenge upon yourself.— For this would be a trespass and a violation of the peace, for which you would expose yourself to the resentment of the magistrate, and the action of the party: and would be like running your sword thro' your own body, to revenge yourself on another for boxing your ears; or like the behaviour of the rattlesnake, that will snap and leap and bite at every stick that you put near him, and at last when provoked beyond all honourable bearing, will fix his sharp and poisonous teeth into his own body.
I have nothing more to add, excepting one word of advice to Mr. W, and all his readers, to have a care how they believe or practice his rule about “passion and killing” lest the halter and the gibbet should become their portion: for a killing that should happen by the hurry of passion would be much more likely to be adjudged murder, than justifiable homicide only.—Let me conclude by advising all men to look into their own hearts, which they will find to be deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Let them consider how extreamly addicted they are to magnify, and exaggerate the injuries that are offered to themselves, and to diminish and extenuate the wrongs that they offer to others.—They ought therefore to be too modest and diffident of their own judgment, when their own passions, and prejudices, and interests are concerned, to desire to judge for themselves in their own causes, and to take their own satisfactions for wrongs and injuries of any kind.
[signed] U.
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Gazette, 5 Sept. 1763).
1. Tireless, quick to anger, inexorable, fierce, / Let him deny that laws are made for him; / Let him think that everything must yield to force of arms. (Horace, Ars Poetica, I. 121–122.)
2. The author of these lines has not been identified.
3. “U” letter, 29 Aug., above.
4. “X” and “W” were two otherwise unidentified writers who emphatically disagreed with JA 's veiled criticism of Murray's attack on Brattle (see Editorial Note, above). “X” sneered that “U” wanted “to convince the world, that an injured person ought never to demand satisfaction but by a law-suit—a doctrine truly serviceable to lawyers, but not always so comfortable to the injured person,” and pointed to “the many and various salutary effects club-logick has produced in the world in every period of life” (Boston Evening-Post, 22 Aug.). “W,” on the other hand, argued that even if “U” were correct in saying that the law afforded a remedy for every wrong, nevertheless men of honor were not obliged to obtain satisfaction for personal insult or injury through legal channels, because “there are those of a different character, who know how to resent, and to punish men for ill usage, without troubling a magistrate or a court of justice” (Boston Evening-Post, 29 Aug.).
{ 90 }
5. Following “the common law,” JA omitted the qualifying phrase used by “W”: “as I am inform'd.”
6. You have strength without intelligence; I have concern for the future. / You are able to fight: / You are outstanding only in body; I am outstanding in intellect. / My mind is superior to my hand. All my force is in my mind. (Ovid, Metamorphoses, 13:363–369, with some lines and parts of lines omitted.)

Docno: ADMS-06-01-02-0045-0010

Author: Adams, John
Author: Ploughjogger, Humphrey
Recipient: Boston Evening Post (newspaper)
Date: 1763-09-05

IX. Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Evening-Post

[salute] To the Publishers of the Boston Evening-Post.

Plese to print this in your next,
[signed] Humphry Ploughjogger.
It is a pleasant Thing to see ones Works in print.—When I see the news, with my letter int about Hemp, I do say it made me feel as glad, as a glass full of West India rum, sweetned with loaf shugar, would.—But yet, even then I want so presumptious, as to hope hardly, that such a fine ellokent gentleman, as Mr. U. would stoop to take so much notice of me.—He is a noble, high flown riter, like Mr. Harvey, amost. I've red Mr. Harvey's meditations, our minister lent it to me.1—But tho' I will own Mr. U. is a wonderful, lofty, sublyme riter, yet I cant join with him, in a good many things. I hope his honor, wont be offended, if I tell him what they be.
1st. I dont like his advice to leeve off studying the decrees, and original sin.—for tho I cant hardly beleeve, that heathens and infants are all lost, for Adams first transgreshon, yet them doctrines are great misterees, that we ought to pry into, as far as the word can guide us.—I do declare I would not leeve off reeding Mr. Willard, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Taylor, and Dr. Whitby2 about them points, for all my knowledge in farming, added to Mr. U's knowledge too.
2dly. Next comes one thing that I do like, that is the line of latin. I love to see, now and then, some latin, in the books I reed. I amost think I understand it sumtimes, especially when I see it in Mr. Flavels works,3 it comes in so natural.—I ask our ministur to conster it to me, and our schoolmaster sumtimes. But I find they dont understand every thing, they get plunged, now and then. I got our school-master to conster that line in Mr. U's piece. He made bungling work ont, but as well as I cou'd pick out it ment “that a man could not swim above water, that had poverty pulling him downwards at his heels.”—This is a queer picture, it made me laff, tho I tho't it was hard-hearted too for poverty to keep pulling a man down under water that try'd to keep { 91 } up.—And I dont know, since my ritings have been taken so much notice off, but I should have been a great larnt man if it had not been for this cruel jade poverty, that has allways been striving mite and main to drown me.—Nevertheless it put me in mind of a rogue's trick, I used to play when I was a boy.—I used to catch a grate pout, and put a wyth in his gills, and then put him in the water.—He would swim and struggle about the top of the water, but could not dive down deep. Now seems to me, we mite as well conster that latin thus. “The pout can't dive to the bottom that has a wyth in his gills.”—Poverty can be signify'd by a wyth in his gills, keeping the pout at the top of the water, as well as by an old rinkled hagg at a man's heels, pulling him under. But conster it which way you will there is a deel of sense int.—Seems to me there's more sense in sum of these latin skraps, that I get our larnt men to conster, than in so much Inglish any where.—I wonder how tis! I allways rite best about what I dont understand.—Ive rit a deel about this latin, and it sounds very well too, seems to me, considering.
3dly. Next comes one thing that I cant bare, i.e. advising ministurs to study farming and work at it too.—Our ministurs are wordly-minded enuff, aready, and they dont give themselves haff enuff to reeding and study now—I'm sure, many of um dont make so good sarmons, as I could with my poor abilities, thof I say't.—But if they should take to farming they would not reed at all hardly.—they would not reed their bibles enuff, I'm afeard, and they would leeve off reeding of Mr. Dodridge's works, and Mr. Harvey's, and Sandyman's4 and such like wonderful works, and would do nothing but grind sarmons, in that sarmon-mill a Concordance.—Their duty is to provide food and cloathing for our souls not our bodies, to feed the spiritual sheep and lambs, not to spend time in taking care of the herds and flocks of the field—to sow the seed of the word, and pray for the preparation of the spiritual soil in mans hart to receeve it, not to till the carnal ground.—I do avouch it, this tho't of Mr. U's is worse than poperee, and I had rather ministurs should be as lazey as they do say monks are in other countries and unmarried like them, that they mite give themselves wholly to reeding and study and prayer, than have um careful about farming.
4thly. But I do like his advice to doctors wonderful well. I wonder how Mr. U. could think of all them sensible remarks he made about the doctors. They mite do a world of good by taking his advice. Yet I'm afeard they wont, for if they should they would cure or prevent a grate many destempurs, that now fetch um good fees,—Yet I do raly beleeve { 92 } they would do more good to mens health, by making um drink good, cleer, well-made, well-kept cydur, and good currunt wine, and cherry wine, and such like, insteed of rum and brandy and wine made of haff rum and haff cydur, as they do now, than they can by all their pills and drops and rubub. And yet I beleeve they do a grate deel of good with these things, too.—Mr. U. does but just mention Lawyers, and indeed I dont know what bisness he had to mention them at all when riting about farming, or any thing else that is good, unless theyre grown better than they were when I was a young man. My great grandfather was one of Oliver Cromwell's men, and I've heard it, in our family by tradishon, that good, pious, larnt Mr. Hugh Peters5 us'd to say, it would never be good times, till the nation got rid of 150.—Sumbody asked what he ment by 150?—He said three L's.—and when he was asked what he ment by three L's? he said, the Lords, the Levites and the Lawyers.—About 30 years ago, when I us'd to go to court sumtimes, I used to be of Mr. Peters's mind amost about Lawyers, sumtimes.—But they do say, Lawyers are grown much better now, and stand up stoutly for liberty.—Indeed I've heard my grandfather say, his father told him, there was abundance of lawyers, that bawled out for liberty, and fought for it too, in his day, tho most of um went over o' t'other side to that calf the holy martir.
5thly. The next thing I dont altogether like.—Mr. U seems to run quite out of his way, to pick a quarrel with Mr. J.—I cant devise what his reason was.—I guess several things.—Sumtimes I think he has studied oratary, and oratary, our ministur says, is the art of gaining attenshon. And he mite think there was no way of gaining attenshon so shure, as to make fokes think him a party-man. For he would get the attenshon of one haff the world thro love, and of tother thro hatred.—Sumtimes I think he made a pass at Mr. J. to let fokes know his reason for signing himself U.—But upon the whole, I beleeve it most likely Mr. U. has been a deputy for sum town, and been made a justice by the Governor and then was dropt by his town, and so forsooth tho't his town was angry with him for taking a favour from the Governor, and now is turning about to tother side in order to get in again.—But I beleeve he is out in his pollyticks, for country fokes love to have their deputys in good understanding with the Governor, and I guess Mr. U's town turn'd him out for sumthing else.—Nevertheless I dont know but Mr. U is rite to quarrel a little, for there is sumthing in man that delites in fighting.—When I was a boy, I used to love to see boys box it, and cocks fight, and rams too.—I see two rams fight once, they would run back two or three rod, and then run head to { 93 } head, till one of them split the skull rite in two, and down he dropp'd, as dead as a herring.—This was a dredful cruel fight, yet I do say, I lov'd to see it.—And they do say, that in other countries, grate gentelfokes keep dogs, and bares, and bulls, a purpose to see um fight. Now just so our grate fokes do seem to love to see newspaper fighting among us, deerly. And Mr. U. by fighting a little this way, might hope to make fokes take more notice about our fine plant Hemp.—So that his quarrelling may do sum good.—But if he rites again I hope he'll go farther—For I've alter'd my mind since I rit my tother letter, and I amost think, he and I may rite, in a good natur'd way, to all itarnity, about any thing to do good, and our works will never be read twice.—But there is one sartain way of making fokes reed and study our works as larnt men do latin books, and that is by drawing plaguy, black, ugly pictures of sum grate men, as the Governor, Lt. Governor, sum Counsellors or Judges, or of Bluster and Whackum,6 and Gamuts and Chaplains.—Let us pick out sum rite down clever man, no matter what side he is of, and tell a parcel of rouzing lies about him, and our ritings will be got by heart, and by this meens we may slide into mens minds sum knolledge about hemp.—My mind is alter'd by what I since see in good Mr. Flavell's works, that “man is more wrathful than grateful.”
6thly. I dont know what bissness he had to suspect me of bad designs in what I rote.—I'le take my corporal oath, I never went to meeting of a sabbath day, nor never followed a corps to the grave in my life, with less mallice in my heart, and less designs of doing hurt, than I had when I rote that lettur, let U, or J, or he, or they suspect or beleeve what they will.
But I dont never know when to stop, hardly, matter comes in to my noddle so fast.—I've read abundance in my day, but I did not begin to read a grate deel till I was matter of 35, and I cant larn to spell nicely. But since I married this second wife, that is a young woman, I dont love to go to bed so soon as she does, so I reed and rite a world now, and I do spell better and better.
I've rambled about so long that I've no room hardly to say any thing about hemp, and I'm resolved I wont never rite a piece without sum stroke or other about hemp.—Mr. U has convinced me more than ever of the worth ont, and I'm resolved to sow an acre or two out next May, and if I make it do pritty well I'le send you an account ont, for I do desine to reed and rite and study and work about hemp, till I get it into fashon.—Our deputy tells me that a ropemaker told him, the best hemp he uses all the year round, grows in this country. I wish { 94 } I knew where it grows.—When I go to Boston I'le ask the ropemakers what town it is raised in, and then rite a lettur (not to be printed tho) to sumbody in that town, and ask him a few more questions about it, for Mr. U hant made every thing quite cleer to me.—I want to know whether they sow it in rows, and so plough amongst it, or whether they sprinkle it over all the land.—Whether they plough the land at first deep or shallow.—And how they brake and swingle and hatchel it.—It is such grate long trade I cant devise how they handle it. And I want to know whether they use such brakes and swingle boards and knives as we do about flax.—As for beeting with beetles or hammers I dont understand that very well.
They do say, they raise abundance ont, at Phyladelphy. I wish sum of our rich men would send there and hire a man that knows about it, and could do the labour to come here and teech us.—He would find his account int, and prove himself a grate paytrot.—But sum how or other I will find out how to manage it, if I spend a month in a year every year about it.—For it is a thing of grate value.—One thing I know, if we'd rais'd a little more ont for 20 years past, and made a proper use ont, I'll be hang'd with the first hemp I can raise, if we should have had so big rates to pay.
So no more at present, Cousin Fleets,7 from your lofing kinsman
[signed] Humphry Ploughjogger
MS not found. Reprinted from the (Boston Evening-Post, 5 Sept. 1763).
1. JA 's library included the posthumous edition of A Collection of Letters of James Hervey, London, 1760, but the catalogue does not list that English devotional writer's more popular Meditations and Contemplations, London, 1746–1747 ( Catalogue of JA 's Library ).
2. Samuel Willard (1640–1707), A Compleat Body of Divinity, Boston, 1726 ( Catalogue of JA 's Library ); probably John Taylor (1694–1761), A Scheme of Scripture-Divinity, London, 1762 (a 1785 edn. in Catalogue of JA 's Library ). Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Daniel Whitby (1638–1726), English divine who gained fame for anti-Catholic writings and notoriety for arguing in favor of concessions to nonconformists; author of A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, London, 1703 ( DNB ).
3. John Flavel (1630?–1691), a Presbyterian minister, author of many popular writings of evangelical character ( DNB ).
4. Philip Doddridge (1702–1751), English minister noted for his ability to unite nonconformists in common beliefs, author of On the Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, London, 1745, his most popular work, and a writer of hymns ( DNB ). Robert Sandeman (1718–1771), a follower of the independent Presbyterian preacher John Glas and a founder of Glassite churches in New England ( DNB ). See also Williston Walker, “The Sandemanians of New England,” Amer. Hist. Assoc., Ann. Rpt. for 1901, 1:131–162.
5. Or Hugh Peter (1598–1660) ( DNB ).
6. “Bluster” and “Whackum” were names “J” used for James Otis Jr. and Oxenbridge Thacher. JA himself appropriated “Bluster”; see JA, Diary and Autobiography , 1:243.
7. Thomas and John Fleet, publishers of the Boston Evening-Post after their father's death in 1758 (Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns. , 9 [1907]:475).