Adams Family Correspondence, volume 13
th.1798.—
I should have answer’d your kind letter of 16th. ulto. before this time, but I have only this
morning return’d from the General Court at Annapolis.1 I thank you most sincerely for the interest you
take in my affairs, and for the parental advice you have given. I have already suffer’d
enough by becoming surety for others, to know how to prize that advice, but it requires
a kind of hardness of heart, which mine had not yet fully acquired, to keep myself
totally free from every kind of responsibility for others. But the Considerations which
you have suggested, will tend to give fortitude to the Resolutions I have made on that
subject, and I hope will render me obstinately inexorable in my determination.—
Upon the whole I am satisfied with the propriety of my fathers
selling his farm; but I agree with you, that not one farthing ought to be spent of the
Principal, and I pray God that I may have it in my power, to lend them such assistence
as may prevent it, which I have no doubt of doing if I could once get clear of the
Consequences of Mr. Morris’s delinquencies.— I have engaged
a house just on the other side of the bridge which seperates this town from the City of
Washington, and is about half a mile from my office—the Rent 275 dols. per Ann The house is large and airy with a good stable
&c Mr. Thos. Peter who
married Miss Custis lives in the adjoining house, & it is also near Mrs. Dalton.2 I
expect to move my family into it in about a week.—
My Richard has had the small pox finely, although he was cuting teeth at the same time, & is perfectly recover’d.— William has recover’d his health & spirits & begins to look quite ruddy again.— Nancy & myself seem to enjoy perfect health.—
88The true American Spirit seems now to be perfectly rouzed. Not a
single french Cockade is to be seen in our neighbourhood. I am told that in
Fredericksburgh Colo. J. F. Mercer has opposed the Address,
and has actually carried through a set of resolutions in direct opposition to the
prevailing sentiments of the Nation.—3
Please to thank the President for his letter to Mr. Carroll— Unfortunately Mr. C.
had left Annapolis again before I recd. it, & is gone to
spend the summer at his Country seat at Elk-ridge—
Mr. & Mrs. Johnson are mortified that you should disapprove of their taking their son
from Cambridge, but I imagine you will justify them upon the Reasons they give.— Young
Mr. Johnson is now 18 years old, he would have to spend 18
months more at the University before he could get a degree—which when obtain’d is never
heard of afterwards in this Country. It is necessary by the practise here that a student
in Law should have read law 4 or 5 years before he is consider’d as qualified to be
admited into the Genl. Court, or indeed into any of the
Courts— this would have made him nearly 25 years old before he could begin business; and
the name of an Education at the University is nothing here. It is the wish of his
Parents that he should live in this state, and indeed the Interest of the family Estate,
would absolutely demand it, in Case of his father’s death. Mr. Johnson has a great many old concerns yet to wind up, and much of his Estate
depends upon a proper settlement of his old partnership affairs in this Country. It was
an object therefore with Mr. Johnson, that his son should
become acquainted with People here, & accustomed to their manners. He has therefore
sent him to a lawyers office in Annapolis, where he has been pursueing the study of the
Law for some time past; But Mr. Johnson had no Idea of
sending him to the College there—for it is not more
respectable than our Country accademies in New England. Mr.
Johnson entertain’d no Disrespect for the President or Government of Harvard University,
but acted simply on the grounds I have mentioned, which added to Parental fondness,
appear to me a sufficient apology for taking his son home.—
I thank you for the Copy of the last Dispaches from our Envoys—
& feel alarm’d at your fears for their safety.— It is the general opinion that three
vessels were dispatched by the President to order them home, before the late first Dispatches were disclosed to Congress; and
under that Idea I felt easy.
It is said that some officious person had informed Mrs. Marshall 89 that her husband had
been arrested by the Directory & thrown into prison—& that this information had
such an Effect on her as to deprive her of her senses, and that she has remained
delirious ever since. I do not know what reliance to place on this report, but I have
heard it often repeated and never denied— It is now a month or 6 weeks since I first
heard it.—4
Mrs. Johnson has been for some days
much troubled with bilious Complaints— I shall dine with them to day. With my
affectionate Respects to the President & Love to Louisa, I am most affectionately
your grateful Nephew—
RC (Adams Papers); endorsed: “Mr W Cranch 4 June / 1798.”
Cranch attended the Md. General Court to represent William Smith
in the case of Smith v. Greenleaf, in which Smith
attempted to attach the Maryland property of James Greenleaf, who owed him $18,000.
The attachment was quashed as being improperly issued. It was reissued on 2 June by
General Court judge Gabriel Duvall, and the case was heard during the May 1799
session. The attachment was again set aside, however, because the property had been
previously conveyed to others, including George Simpson, cashier of the Bank of the
United States (Thomas Harris, Maryland Reports, Being a Series
of the Most Important Law Cases Argued and Determined in the General Court and Court
of Appeals of the State of Maryland, 4 vols., Annapolis, Md., 1809–1818, 4:162,
291–294, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 17989;
Clark, Greenleaf and Law
, p. 73).
That is, Thomas and Martha Parke Custis Peter, who lived on K
Street. Cranch likely rented one of the row houses built around 1795 by Thomas’
father, Robert Peter (Commission of Fine Arts and Historic American Buildings Survey,
Georgetown Architecture—The Waterfront: Northwest
Washington, District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., 1968, p. 16–17).
At a town meeting in Fredericksburg, Va., on 14 May 1798, which
had been called to prepare an address in support of the Adams administration, former
Maryland congressman Col. John Francis Mercer spoke against the proposal. The town
meeting ultimately passed a series of resolutions suggested by Dr. David Corbin Ker
that were critical of JA’s policies with regard to France. In particular,
one resolution alleged that under JA’s administration, “We have been led,
oppressed with heavy public debts, enormous taxes, a ruined commerce and depreciated
produce, in hostility with a nation who aided to secure our independence by their own
blood and treasure … and that it is equally absurd to found confidence on our
disasters, or to pursue that line or to support those men, who have already reduced us
to the verge of destruction” (Alexandria Times, 18 May;
Biog.
Dir. Cong.
).
John Marshall and Mary Willis Ambler (1766–1831) married in Jan.
1783. In the spring of 1798, after the death of her father and the recent birth of her
son John Marshall Jr., and in the midst of her husband’s long absence, Mary Marshall
retreated to the home of her brother-in-law, James Markham Marshall (
Doc. Hist.
Supreme Court
, 1:148; Marshall, Papers
,
1:93; 3:468, 487).