Adams Family Correspondence, volume 14
th:August 1800
Yesterday I received the newspapers which you enclosed
with my Mother’s letter of the instt:—&
which by accident was sent on to Washington instead of Philadelphia—1 Moreover not having had time
to read the papers yesterday, they were laid aside and I did not, until this
morning, discover my Mothers letter, which was concealed in one of the
papers. You will easily believe that the letter was more valuable to me,
than all the Gazettes, though I am not the less obliged to you for sending
them. This morning also brought me your favor of the 21st: instt: with more
papers.2 I am thus
supplied with an abundance of unprofitable
reading, from which however I find it difficult to refrain— Upon an average,
I read, or rather, look over, between 30 & 40 Diaries pr week, and it
seems to me, whatever some of my friends may think to the contrary that I
cannot be fairly accused of apathy or indifference to the political concerns
of my Country—
Your’s & my Mother’s letters some times give me information, which is not to be collected from the public prints— I learn with regret, the political Schism, which many gentlemen of talents, influence & fortune have too readily & too lightly given in to. They have not been & never can be so materially affected by the measures, which seem to have incurred their censure, as to authorize their present cool & Sullen behaviour towards the Chief Magistrate. There is something foul & rotten at the bottom of this systematic distance, observed by certain distinguished characters. The public cannot readily fathom it, because a veil is drawn before it, which conceals the cloven foot under plausible professions, necessary to carry on the delusion.
I hope the depth & wickedness of the plot will be
seasonably laid open, and defeated. Junius Americanus, is the only writer I
have seen, who knows the Actors thoroughly— His No 3, which you point out to
me, is the Key to the whole Cypher— The composition is nervous, spiritual & intelligent. It strikes at the
root & every blow is felt by the faction against whom it is aimed.3 His vindication under the
signature of “Truth” is not so able as it might
be, for his opponents expose themselves at all points. I have not read with
so much attention the two first numbers, but I will look them up again— Our
friend J. G. is struck at as the Author— He is the most probable man 388 I can fix it on & I should not be
at fault, in the least, if his
father-in-law, did not rank with the Junto.4 Our friend J. Q. how is he? I am
afraid of his connections too—though, if he had a good adviser, and his
ambition should not too much interfere he would try to be right. There are
very few of Mr: Adams’s advocates in this State—
We are all Jacobins or Hamiltonians— But the high toned federalists, would
not risk the experiment of a change in the Administration, for the sake of
securing Mr: Pinckney— At least, they say so.
Boston folks say the same. Believe them who
may.
On the subject of Our Envoys to France—Plutarch to which I referred you, in the Gazette of the U.
S. was inserted at my request, in reply to some stupid remarks of the
Aurora, upon the intelligence or rumor, that the negociation was broken off.
Something I knew, would be said, and as I had undertaken, (under the
auspices of D——e, who shows a good disposition to co-operate), to effect a
regeneration of that paper—it struck me as a good opportunity for beginning
the work— The paper had so bad a name, when Fenno left it, and the public
were so thoroughly disgusted with it, that the labor seems Herculean to
redeem it from perdition. D—— has not an unlimited controul over it, &
the proprietor is less refined in his taste & more deficient in
Education, than could be wished; I think the paper improves by degrees,
& I think nothing outrageously indecorous will hereafter find admittance
into it.
Have you seen the pamphlet published by Fenno? It out
does the Aurora in extravagance & scurrility & blasphemy, against the Government & the
President. I think “it will do the State good service.”5
The long threatened letter,
has at length come out, in the Aurora of to day—with remarks—6 I send the paper, but you must return it, with all the rest I have sent.
The file is invaluable to me—
Here is a dish of politics for you, which I would not take the trouble to set before any other than yourself—
I am sorry to hear of your excellent Mothers violent & serious indisposition; but it is grateful to hear that she had so far recovered, as you represent. I do not despair of seeing her once more, in this world, though my lot is cast in a corner so remote from all my tenderest connections.
Remember me kindly to all friends, particularly to my Cousin Boylston, of whom you say less in your letters than heretofore. Your anecdote of Job Bass is pithy, I mean to put in the newspaper, for the benefit of Duane—7
Good night, I am weary of scribling / Your’s sincerely—
389P S. You have ably vindicated your metaphor; though I must still think it
rather an heavy one. Atlas & Hercules
together in the same sentence are too strong for any single undertaking, whether they pull together,
or in different directions.
RC (MWA:Adams Family Letters); addressed:
“William S. Shaw / Quincy”; endorsed: “Philadelphia Aug. / T. B. Adams /
rec 4 Sept / Ansd 29th.”
AA to TBA, 15 Aug., above. The enclosures have not been found.
Not found.
The Boston Russell’s
Gazette, 21, 31 July, 7, 25 Aug., 25 Sept., published a series
of essays by Junius Americanus defending JA against attacks
by Democratic-Republicans and Hamiltonian Federalists. The essays were
the work of David Everett (1770–1813), Dartmouth 1795, a Princeton,
Mass., attorney and journalist who founded the Boston Patriot in 1809. The third installment, published on 7
Aug. 1800, reflected on partisanship in the United States and suggested
there were three factions: “high federalists,” “jacobins,” and “luke
warm federalists.” Everett outlined the high, or Hamiltonian,
Federalists’ strategy of mobilizing support for Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney in the presidential election (
DAB
).
A defense of Junius Americanus by Truth appeared in
the Boston Russell’s Gazette, 18 Aug., and
argued that writers who purported to support Junius were actually
distorting his positions. TBA suggested the author was John
Gardner of Boston, whose father-in-law, Jonathan Jackson, was a member
of the Essex Junto (Elizabeth Cabot Putnam and James Jackson Putnam,
eds., The Hon. Jonathan Jackson and Hannah
(Tracy) Jackson: Their Ancestors and Descendants, [Boston?],
1907, p. 28, 30–31; David H. Fischer, “The Myth of the Essex Junto,”
WMQ
, 21:195 [April 1964]).
John Ward Fenno in Desultory
Reflections suggested that JA degraded the nation
by engaging in a “make believe fight, in
order to keep peace.” Fenno argued that “the principle of Federalism
must be abolished or it will very soon destroy the principle of union”
and proposed that the United States declare war on France, Spain, and
the Netherlands (p. 13, 54–55). TBA was quoting Herodotus,
The Persian Wars, Book III, sect.
82.
In the Philadelphia Aurora
General Advertiser, 28 Aug., William Duane followed through on
his longstanding threat to publish JA’s May 1792 letter to
Tench Coxe, for which see vol. 13:535. The letter had been extracted in the Aurora on 24 July and 9 Aug. 1799 and 23
May 1800, and it was printed in full on 29 Aug., 9 Sept., and 3, 21, 30
Oct. (Hamilton, Papers
, 25:110).
Job Bass (b. 1793) was a grandson of former Adams
farmhand Samuel Tertius Bass (Sprague, Braintree
Families
).
th:Aug: 1800.
I have received your favor of the 23d: instt: I
hesitated for some days, whether I should enclose the paper containing the
Number of Horatius, which was so ridiculously headed as that you refer to,
but I finally concluded that the intention of
the Author was good, and that an honest though deluded zeal, had transported
him, like so many others, whom we have seen, to bolster up a cause,
certainly capable of sustaining itself or not worthy to be supported at all,
with the charm of a name. It is a mortification
to me also, that so few men in this Country, are wise or honest enough to
discover & to avow, that the Administration of the last four years,
& the measures 390 that
have been carried into effect during that period, have exalted this nation,
in her own esteem & in the consideration of foreign powers, infinitely
beyond the attainments of the eight preceeding years. Has this been, because
Washington approved? But it is useless to dwell upon this subject.
“Popularity is” I am well persuaded, “more arbitrary than despotism.” It is
in this State always a matter of calculation, how far it may be necessary to
bend to it for the sake of interest. This will be illustrated by a recent
example. It is usual for the two great political parties here to assemble in
separate meetings some time prior to any election of considerable
consequence, for the purpose of fixing upon such candidates as may be
necessary to fill the different offices, whom they can recommend to the
support of their friends & adherents— Such meetings have lately been
held here, by both parties, and tickets agreed upon to run at the
approaching election— It is a considerable object with the federalists to
secure a majority of their number in the City Councils; but a very unpopular
measure, that of taxing the Citizens for supplying the City with water, has
been pursued by the present members at the instigation of a very numerous
list of petitioners, among their Constituents— The labor is yet incomplete,
more money must probably be raised; a great clamor has been excited against
the present Councils & in order to appease the wrath of the Sovereign
people—the federalists have consented, under an idea of necessity, to
abandon the principal number of their servants of last year, who have
conducted entirely to their satisfaction, discharged their duty with zeal,
& fidelity, would have deserved to be censured & turned out of
office with disgrace if they had not conducted as they have; and yet—they
are unpopular & we must not run the risk of running their names again,
but assure them how highly we value their former services, by substituting
an entirely new set of members to take their places, because, the democrats
will carry the day, if we do not thus accommodate— I was present at several
of these meetings, & grieved at such irrational, unjust &
dishonorable behavior— I said nothing, but gave
a silent vote against the sense of the majority— A motion was made to
reconsider at the last meeting, what had been done at a preceeding
respecting the City Councils. It was lost by a majority of two to one— I was
again in the minority—went from the meeting with disagreeable reflections
but never expected to hear any thing more of the business— It seems however
that even my silent vote was narrowly watched by somebody present— It
disgusted & vexed the leaders of the majority & they cast some
illnatured & 391 hasty
remarks upon my motives—this was heard by some of the minority, who had
resolved upon having a separate meeting in another place, for the purpose of
proposing obtaining an alteration
in the ticket proposed. I received an invitation to attend—went, and the
meeting, which though small was respectable, agreed to appoint a committee
of conference to endeavour to obtain from the other meeting’s committee, an
alteration in favor of the old & tried servants. I am named as one of
the Committee to confer, but we have not yet met on the business.1
This seems to me to be an epitome of the State of parties
on the great political scale. The object in this instance is small, but
human passions are often developed in very trifling concerns, so as to
afford lessons of wisdom— The real cause of dispute, which I might never
have known, but for the schism, is whether the City shall be supplied with
water, by Latrobe’s Engines, or whether the Canal
Company, which sunk so much property in leveling rocks &
mountains to no purpose, shall have a chance to make a market for their
stock, by bringing their scheme once more into view.2 I never can agree in opinion with
a majority of these people.
Your letter to Tench Coxe, which he so obligingly & honorably gave over to “the Aurora,” has appeared, twice already; the remarks & comments must afford you amusement— I hope the types will never be unset, until the electioneering campaign is closed— It is an excellent standing dish for all palates—
I am, dear Sir / Your Son
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “The President.”
Philadelphia’s political parties convened separately
between June and September to endorse candidates for upcoming state and
local elections. A meeting of Democratic-Republicans took place on 14
June, while Federalists convened at Dunwoody’s Tavern on 29 July and 6
and 25 August. The ticket for the city council was not made final until
an 18 Sept. meeting at which TBA acted as secretary.
Ultimately, nineteen of twenty seats on the city council went to
Federalists (Philadelphia Gazette, 25, 28
July; Philadelphia American Daily
Advertiser, 30 July, 20 Sept.; Philadelphia Gazette of the United States, 7, 27 Aug.,
19 Sept.; A New Nation
Votes).
In 1798 Benjamin Henry Latrobe proposed using steam
engines to pump water through a tunnel from the Schuylkill River to
Philadelphia. Latrobe’s plan conflicted with that of the Delaware and
Schuylkill Canal Navigation Company, which since 1792 had advanced a
plan to build a canal to the city from the Schuylkill. Latrobe’s plan
was approved on 7 Feb. 1799, and Philadelphia’s city council took out a
6 percent loan of $150,000 in shares of $100 each. A further $50,000 was
raised through direct taxation, and work began on the waterworks on 12
March. Despite cost overruns the waterworks began delivering water on 27
Jan. 1801 and remained in use until 1811. The canal was not completed,
and the canal company was dormant until 1836 when it began construction
of a waterway to a city suburb (vol. 12:xv; Talbot Hamlin, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, N.Y., 1955, p. 157–162, 165; John C.
Van Horne and others, eds., Correspondence
and
392
Miscellaneous Papers of Benjamin Henry
Latrobe, 3 vols., New Haven, 1984–1988, 1:143; Martin V.
Melosi, Precious Commodity: Providing Water for
America’s Cities, Pittsburgh, Penn., 2011, p. 44).