RC (DLC:Shaw Family Papers); endorsed: “Aunt Adams / received 4th March.”; docketed: “1799 Feby 21.”

That is, [11] Feb., above.

On 14 March 1794 during House debate of James Madison’s resolutions calling for commercial retaliation against the British, a pro-French statement prompted “a faint attempt to clap” by observers in the gallery. After the interruption Madison supported a call to clear the gallery: “Especially on important questions, the request of any member, who might conceive similar conduct as an attack on the independence of deliberation, would command his voice for clearing the galleries” (Madison, Papers, Congressional Series , 15:285; Philadelphia General Advertiser, 17, 18 March).

Maryland Federalist George Dent made only a brief comment during the House debate of the Logan Act. AA was probably 415 referring to the extended remarks of Dent’s fellow Federalist in the Maryland delegation, John Dennis, who on 17 Jan. 1799 said that “he believed there were many persons in the country who would join in any system of foreign or domestic combination, to subvert the Government; that, although this bill did not fully meet his ideas, as far as it went it would produce good, and narrow the present latitude of unofficial correspondence with a Government from which we had much to fear” ( Annals of Congress , 5th Cong., 3d sess., p. 2619, 2696–2702). Dennis’ comments were published in the Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser., 6 February.

See Elizabeth Smith Shaw Peabody to AA, 16 Feb., and note 2, above.

Mary Smith Gray Otis to AA, 20 Jan., above.

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Mrs A.”; docketed: “J A to A A Feb 22nd / 1799.”

Not found.

On the evening of 22 Feb. a ball in honor of George Washington was held at Ricketts’ Circus in Philadelphia, preceded by an artillery salute at the arsenal and a parade of military volunteers. The following day JA reported to AA (Adams Papers) his attendance, despite frigid weather, which he staved off by drinking three glasses of madeira at dinner and two more on arriving home (Philadelphia Gazette, 21, 23 Feb.).

After French overtures to William Vans Murray and Joel Barlow, JA on 18 Feb. nominated Murray to serve as minister plenipotentiary on a second peace mission to France. Many Federalists were shocked by JA’s decision, in part because he did not consult with anyone about it, including the members of his cabinet. Timothy Pickering described Federalists as being “thunderstruck” about the decision, and James McHenry later called the nomination “either doubted or condemned by most if not all of the federal members of Congress.” McHenry also alleged that JA’s decision to act without the knowledge of his cabinet broke with “established practice,” a view shared by both Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Sedgwick when they also voiced opposition to the move. Boston Federalist George Cabot branded its supporters “Federal hypocrites with Jacobin hearts.” However, not all Federalists opposed the nomination, including John Jay, Henry Knox, John Marshall, and Washington, all of whom felt that JA’s timely measure would avert war with France. The press response was also mixed. William Cobbett’s Philadelphia Porcupine’s Gazette, 20 Feb., satirized the nomination, labeling it “a most atrocious falshood.” The Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 20 Feb., supported JA’s decision, and so too did the Boston Independent Chronicle, 25–28 Feb., Boston Columbian Centinel, 27 Feb., and Massachusetts Mercury, 1 March. After members of Congress expressed a preference for a delegation over a single envoy, JA on 25 Feb. nominated Patrick Henry and Oliver Ellsworth to join Murray. The Senate confirmed the appointments on 27 Feb., and—after Henry declined and was replaced by William R. Davie on 1 June—the envoys departed for France on 3 Nov. (U.S. Senate, Exec. Jour. , 5th Cong., 3d sess., p. 313–314, 317–319; Hamilton, Papers , 22:487–490, 493, 500, 503–504; 24:24; 25:212–215, 220; Henry Cabot Lodge, Life and Letters of George Cabot, Boston, 1878, p. 224; Washington, Papers, Retirement Series , 3:389–390, 4:397; DeConde, The Quasi-War , p. 183; Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism , p. 617–620).

After the Porcupine’s Gazette expressed vociferous opposition to JA’s proposed second mission to France, the New York Mercantile Advertiser, 27 Feb., suggested that Cobbett would be deported under the Alien Act. Cobbett responded in Porcupine’s Gazette, 28 Feb., that despite such rumors he was confident that no deportation order was forthcoming because JA would not use the Alien Act “as the means of gratifying his own private revenge.” Cobbett was not prosecuted, but he later alleged that JA did indeed contemplate such an order: “I was afterwards informed, by those who knew the fact, that the Old Man really thought of sending me off, but was opposed in his project by the Attorney General” (William Cobbett, Porcupine’s Works; Containing Various Writings and Selections, Exhibiting a Faithful Picture of the United States of America, 12 vols., London, 1801, 10:153).

AA replied to this letter on 3 March, reporting that the news of Murray’s appointment had “universally Electrified the public,” because “it came so sudden Was a measure so unexpected, that the whole community were like a flock of frightned pigions; nobody had their Story ready: some call’d it a hasty measure; others condemnd it as an inconsistant one; some swore some cursd.” Observers marveled that JA had made the nomination without consulting advisers, AA said, and she congratulated him on his self-reliance: “The true Americans whose confidence is firm, and unshaken; believe & say, that the President acts an independant part, pinning his faith upon no Mans sleave.” Wagers were being made as to whether the Senate would confirm the nomination, she added, noting that she had discussed her views on the subject only with TBA. AA also expressed outrage at Cobbett’s “impudence” (Adams Papers).