Adams Family Correspondence, volume 14
d:Oct
r:1800
I have your favor of the 26th: ulto: with an enclosure; with what
I paid for the servant’s trunk & the cask of wine, the account is just
balanced. I have not been called on for any more charges & imagine none
are due— The wine I suppose to be a present from Our Consul Mr: Willis.1
I am extremely grieved at the disaster, which has befallen my Cousin Boylston, & which, according to your prediction, may be followed by such fatal consequences. I felt an unusual degree of friendship for him, independent of any relationship, & I believe none 409 of his family would more sincerely mourn his untimely loss, than I should. “When sorrows come,” (says the poet) “they come not single spies, but by battalion’s.”2 How often do we find occasion for the application of this remark! The experience of our immediate family connections is replete with such instances.
Within ten days past I have received five letters from my brother at Berlin—one of which I sent you yesterday—tomorrow I will forward another; the others are upon private business.3 He has now attoned in some degree for former omission’s.
I send the Aurora again because of its contents— The use
which they will try to make of that letter, will be to excite animosity on
the side of the pinckney’s. If it be true that Mr: Thomas Pinckney did call on the President with Mr: Rutledge and received the explanation which
the Aurora refers to—he had no occasion to have written exactly such a
letter as he has—4 I have
read so many palpable lies in the Aurora, about the President’s letters
& conversations, that I ought always to distrust what I read; but some
times a contradiction from good authority would have a good effect—
Your Boston writers have borne the palm in the
Electioneering warfare— Our printers will do as
they like, and although they have never refused to insert any thing original
from me, they will not make the selections from other prints, which I
should— I have written nothing of a formal series, of late, unless the
pieces published in the Gaz. of the US. under the signature of Mutius Scavola, be entitled to this
denomination. They seem to have attracted no notice at all—not even from my
own family, & therefore I conclude they were not intrinsically entitled
to any; & yet, a few gross errors of the press excepted, I thought
pretty well of them myself. They came out in
July or August & the provocation which produced them was a piece of British insolence & bull-ism, that appeared
in the Aurora—
I thank William for his letter & the newspapers, which I shall read at leisure—5
With great affection I am / Your Son
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “Mrs: A Adams / Quincy”; internal address:
“Mrs: A Adams”; endorsed: “T B Adams 3 /
October 1800.”
New Bedford, Mass., merchant William Willis
(1754–1853) was nominated by JA to be U.S. consul at
Barcelona on 28 Dec. 1797. Willis was confirmed by the Senate on the
29th and served until 1803 (Charleston
Courier, 12 Feb. 1853; Walter B. Smith II, America’s Diplomats and Consuls of
1776–1865, Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 235; U.S. Senate, Exec. Jour.
, 5th Cong., 2d sess.,
p. 256).
Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act
IV, scene v, lines 78–79.
In his letter to AA of 2 Oct. 1800 (Adams Papers),
TBA enclosed the Philadelphia Gazette of the United States, 1 Oct., and 410 discussed the publication of
JA’s May 1792 letter to Tench Coxe, noting that he,
Coxe, and Joseph Dennie Jr. were residents of the same Philadelphia
boardinghouse and frequently dined together. “Well may it be said that
the golden age is come,” he wrote, “the Lion & the tyger are playing
with the lamb.” He also probably enclosed JQA’s 23 July
1800 letter to him, for which see
TBA to Joseph Pitcairn, 30
Sept., and note 1, above.
The Philadelphia Aurora
General Advertiser, 3 Oct., printed a 15 Sept. letter from
Thomas Pinckney, which alleged that JA’s May 1792 letter to
Coxe was either a forgery or “founded on a misapprehension of persons.” The newspaper also claimed that
Pinckney and former South Carolina governor John Rutledge (1739–1800)
had met with JA and that JA did not deny the
authenticity of the letter but told them the subject was Charles
Pinckney rather than Thomas (vol. 8:15;
Biog. Dir. Cong.
).
Not found.