Adams Family Correspondence, volume 12
we reachd here yesterday being thursday the 7th day from leaving home. we had very bad Roads, the Rains having washd all the
stones bare, and the ruts were very deep I was much fatigued; Brisler and Family went on
to N york mrs Brisler much mended in her Health by her journey. I hope when we get over
our fatigue we shall all be able to say so. Betsy does not seem the worse for it, tho I
think I have run a risk in taking so feeble a Being, but I hope it may be a means of
restoreing a Good Girl to Health— I found mrs Smith and her Children in good Health. mrs
smith grows very fleshy as much so I think as before she first went abroad, tho being
older and more moulded into the form of woman, she does not look so burdend. the col has
been gone, a journey for a fortnight up to his New Lands—1 tomorrow I go into New york and on Monday
proceed for Philadelphia. I think it a very fortunate circumstance that mr smith 105 accompanied us. it has renderd the journey much
pleasenter, and he has taken a good deal of care and anxiety from my mind, which I
should have felt if he had not been with me.
I want to hear how you all are, and how my Farming buisness goes on. I would wish you to go & look at them sometimes. my Love to all Friends and Neighbours Mrs smith joins me in a kind remembrance.
your affectionate Sister
RC (MWA:Abigail Adams Letters); addressed: “Mrs Mary Cranch / Quincy”; endorsed
by Richard Cranch: “Letter from Mrs / A: Adams (E Chester)
/ May 5th. 1797.”
WSS departed Eastchester, N.Y., in April 1797 and
did not return until late Jan. 1798. He first visited his lands in what would become
Chenango County, N.Y., and from there traveled to Detroit in the Northwest Territory
then to Fort Stanwix, N.Y., before returning home. During the months he was gone,
WSS rarely wrote to AA2 (there are no extant letters), and
the Adamses presumed he had abandoned his family. The lands in central New York were
part of a land speculation scheme WSS had undertaken in 1791, when he
applied to purchase six townships in the future Chenango and Madison Counties.
Comprising 150,000 acres and costing £24,375, WSS received the patent to
these lands on 16 April 1794, retaining two of the townships and entering into an
agreement to be the agent for Englishmen Sir William Pulteney and William Hornby for
the other four. WSS allegedly failed to pay Pulteney and Hornby for lands
that were sold and failed to report advances amounting to £60,000, and in March 1796
Pulteney dismissed WSS. Patrick Colquhoun, another land agent, wrote on 6
May about WSS’s financial problems, “it was impossible that such a career
of folly could end in anything but ruin,” and that Pulteney “could not be easily
persuaded that Mr Smith’s intentions were not from the beginning very impure.” By 4
Oct. WSS owed Pulteney and Hornby nearly $231,000, a debt that remained
unpaid in 1805 when Pulteney was informed that WSS was “totally bankrupt
in fortune” and continually “pressed by his numerous creditors” (James H. Smith, History of Chenango and Madison Counties, New York,
Syracuse, 1880, p. 68; Luna M. Hammond, History of Madison
County, State of New York, Syracuse, 1872, p. 545; The
Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton: Documents and Commentary, ed. Julius Goebel
Jr. and others, 5 vols., N.Y., 1964–1981, 5:54, 55, 107, 110).
Upon receiving this morning your Letter of the 21st: of last month, I recurred to mine of the 7th: in answer to which it was written. I was not conscious of
being displeased at your reading Chesterfield’s Letters, or at your having mentioned it
to me.— But in reading over my own letter again, I am not surprized at your having taken
it in that light.—1 No, my ever dear, and
valued friend, I am not displeased that you should have read the book, because it
contains many good [observ]ations, and many useful precepts: and your purity of heart
and discernment of [mind will] easily distinguish 106 them from the base
and corrupted lessons with which they [are] mingled. It was the author and the work with
which I was displeased, not with you for reading them.— Chesterfield by his own story
was a great scoundrel; a principled villain, and he gives as precepts, many rules which
strike at the very foundation of human society.— Perhaps besides all this, I have a
prejudice against him, even beyond what he deserves— Perhaps that in reading even his
just and reasonable instructions, I feel as if he was personally satyrising myself.—
Perhaps the interest I have that his doctrine about the extreme importance of the Graces
should be false, may have some share in forming my conviction that it is so.— If however
you wish to know the more immediate reason, which might render my letter so apparently
acrimonious, consult the book itself and read his Letter 300.— You will find in it a
certain anecdote about Lord Shaftesbury, which Chesterfield highly approves and
recommends as an example for imitation.— It so happened that just before I wrote my
letter to you that passage of the book fell in my way.— Now the conduct of Shaftesbury
as thus related appeared to me to form such a combination of meanness, of servility, of
falsehood and of profligacy, that I could not repress a sentiment of contempt and
indignation for a Man, who could mention it with applause, and hold it out as a lesson,
to his own son.—2 I am not indeed
altogether singular in my opinion of Chesterfields book, as you will perceive by an
epigram which I somewhere read several years ago,
If there was as much foundation for the second of these couplets as there certainly was for the first, it may serve as the best possible comment upon the Chesterfieldian system of education. The lessons of vice were successful; those of elegance were ineffectual. The serpent was able to instill his venom, but could not impart his power of fascination.
My brother is still at Paris and I am alone. I have not yet finally fixed upon the mode of my voyage, but believe I shall go by a 107 Danish vessel, directly from Amsterdam to Lisbon. I cannot express how much anxiety I suffer at the necessity of thus protracting the period of our union. I am engaged in a situation from which in the present state of things I cannot retreat. I can only hope for a Time of more tranquility, when I shall be at liberty to indulge my inclination for retirement, and the happiness which you only can bestow. My disappointment is aggravated by the sentiment of your’s, and the persuasion that our separation is no less distressing to you than to myself gives the keenest edge to my affliction.
The negotiation for Peace between France and Portugal, is broken off, and the Minister who conducted it has left France.4 What the next summer may produce cannot easily be conjectured. You have told me that you would not hesitate in any Event to accompany me to Lisbon, and in this determination I recognize with pleasure and gratitude the Spirit, that dictated it. I do not apprehend there would be any personal danger to you in that residence, but there may be circumstances which would subject you to inconveniences, and might render a removal at once difficult and necessary.
We have accounts from America to the 24th: of March. The news of the refusal to receive Mr:
Pinckney, and the prospect of a rupture with France, had occasioned considerable alarm.
I suppose however that there will be in England intelligence of a yet later date before
you receive this Letter.
Farewell, my best friend. Remember [me affection]ately to your Parents and Sisters. Present my respects to Miss Holling, and believe me ever tenderly your’s.
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “Miss Louisa C. Johnson / London.” FC-Pr (Adams Papers); APM Reel 131. Tr (Adams Papers). Text lost where the seal was removed has been supplied from the FC-Pr.
In her letter to JQA of 21 April, LCA
apologized for reading Lord Chesterfield’s Letters … to His
Son, adding, “I shall certainly read the books you recommend with attention,
and endeavor to improve myself, that I may become a fit companion for my beloved
friend.” Her letter also reported that her family’s departure for the United States
had been delayed until July (Adams
Papers).
Chesterfield’s “Letter 300” argues that to gain social acceptance
men must employ “a ready conformity to whatever is neither criminal nor
dishonourable.” To demonstrate his point, Chesterfield relates a story about Anthony
Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury (1621–1683) and lord chancellor from 1672 to
1673, who curried favor with King Charles II by adopting the same interests—women.
Shaftesbury began keeping a prostitute and once he drew the king’s attention claimed
that “though he kept that one woman, he had several others besides,” leading the king
to characterize the earl as the “greatest whore-master in England” (Chesterfield, Letters … to His Son, 4 vols., London, 1787, 4:24–25;
DNB
).
This epigram was published in the Morning
Chronicle and London Advertiser, 30 Dec. 108 1784, and was
reprinted in New England in 1790; see, for example, the Windsor Spooner’s Vermont Journal, 12 May 1790, and Pittsfield,
Mass., Berkshire Chronicle, 3 June.
In Sept. 1796 JQA noted in his Diary that Antonio de
Araujo de Azevedo, the Portuguese minister to the Netherlands, was going to Paris as a
peace negotiator and would depart in early October. By April 1797 the negotiations had
stalled because Portugal refused to meet France’s conditions, namely an indemnity of
30 million francs, the cession of part of Brazil to Spain, and the closure of all
Portuguese ports to England. Having been given an ultimatum to agree to the conditions
or leave France, Araujo de Azevedo refused and departed Paris by 2 May. In July he
would be appointed a special envoy to France to again negotiate peace for Portugal,
for which see
TBA to AA, 17 Aug., and note 1, below
(D/JQA/24, 7, 30 Sept. 1796, APM Reel 27; Nouvelles
politiques, nationales et étrangères, 15, 30 April, 2 May 1797;
Repertorium
, 3:317).