Adams Family Correspondence, volume 15
ry
th23: 1802
Yours of the 10th Instant was presented
this morning—1 I am happy you again
experience the Utility of the pen— I began to apprehend you had Imbibed an aversion to
the little Implement—which I own was a source of regret to me for I am one of those
beings who delight in the sweets of participation—and experience a peculiar pleasure in
haveing my friends attached—to whatever I feel a partiallity for—
I wrote you the 5th of december—and
mentioned my Intended visit— but I perceive you are Indepted to Mrs Adams for this Information—2
163 I hope she is in better health then she appeared to
be while in new york— I feel anxious for her— your earsterly winds I fear will not prove
salutary to her constitution— our climate I am convinced is diffirent— If she should
expirience any Ill effects—I hope she will be Induced from the benefit that may arise
from exercise and change of air—to visit the southward— we have had a remarkable mild
winter—not one fall of snow since november—and I am as happily situated as you can
conceive—secluded from the busy world—void of expectation— I am Induced to fix my
contentment on a basis that will not be deranged by the malevolence of unrelenting
fortune— I view it as a duty to enjoy the blessings that are daily bestowed—and they are
bountifully presented to me— their is but one circumstance that Interferes with my
peace—that is—the seperation of my Dear child— I long to see her— I wish them to be with
me— thay will naturally Imbibe each others feelings—and time will cement that affection—
which has been Cherished in their early Infancy— I wish to know your futer Intentions as
it relates to her schooling You will make allowance for my anxiety—when you consider
three months has elapsed without hearing of her— I hope you will not be Induced to let
her pass a week in Boston—the season is a sufficient excuse to keep her at home— I do
not wish her out of your sight while seperate from me— Immagination ever ready to
torment—has presented scenes of sickness and grief— do write if it is only four lines— I
had the pleasure of seeing Thomas last week he looks very well—and promised to visit us
again— I have been here six weeks—daily expecting Elizas confinement—3 she still keeps up and I shall prolong my visit
untill the spring— It is Immeterial where I am while peace prevails— Abby is with me and
blessed with health— I have a room and fire to my self—and in the strict sence of the
word enjoy the sweets of solitude— this is a delightful situation— Eliza is surrounded
with all the comforts—and luxirys of this world—she is domestic and leads the life of a
recluse— her farm is her hobby horse—she sees to—and knows as much as any farmer in the
country— I received a few days since—a letter from Mama—enforming me that John and
William were on a visit to her.—4 I hope
their Parents may not regret the step thay have taken— the scene is diffirent and
alluring to then— I cannot close this without remarking that I had no Idea that you was
the auther of the letter alluded to—neither did I suppose a connection of mine—had a
thought bordering on partiality—5 If I
know myself— my mind is callos on this subgect—and when I lose sight of principle— and
virtue—I lose—what is dearer then life— be assured of this—I 164 respect and love your advice—and I shall never forget the ties of duty and gratitude
that are due to a tender Parent— You will remember me to all enquiring friends—your
domesticks likewise their enquiries are gratifying to me— give my love to my Dear Aunt
cranch—and kiss My Dear susan for me and her sister; who is a very good child— she is
sitting on my lap which must be an excuse for this carless writing— let me My Dear Madam
hear from you—and beleive [me your] affectiona[te] daughter—
RC (private owner, 1957); addressed: “Mrs Abigail Adams / Quincy”; endorsed: “Mrs S Adams / Jan’ry 23 1802.” Some loss of text due to wear at the fold.
Not found.
Not found.
SSA was at the home of her sister and brother-in-law, Elizabeth Smith Smith and John Smith Jr., in Kenderton, Penn., near Philadelphia. Elizabeth gave birth sometime before 2 Feb. when Margaret Stephens Smith wrote to SSA congratulating Elizabeth on the birth of a daughter (MHi:Adams Papers, All Generations).
Not found.
Not found.
th:January 1802
I have to acknowledge your favor of the 13th: ulto:.1 The principal subject in which you dwelt; viz:
the intention to destroy the main pillar of our political edifice, has since undergone a
very serious discussion; and you have doubtless listened with peculiar interest to the
spirited debates, which the motion of Mr: Brackenridge has
produced in the Senate of the United States.2 The speculations under the signature of “a
friend to the Constitution,” were republished in the Port Folio, and so far as I have
heard them spoken of, are much admired; but you have lived long enough to be thouroughly
aware, that a Sheriff or other ministerial office, is not to be reasoned out of an
house, against the owner of which he may have an Execution; or in other words, when
argument & interest come in competition, it is “frightful odds,” against the
former.3 The people of the South, look
upon an efficient judiciary as a permanent writ of execution against their persons and
estates; how can it be expected then that they will be open to conviction. If men will
differ on so essential & important points, as the dependence or independence of
judges, at this time of day, the dispute can be resolved into nothing but a contest for
power & an imperious call on the score of interest. There is no honesty in those who
pretend to doubt, on this subject.
I have been charmed with the energetic language, the manly
eloquence & the dignified style of Gouverneur Morris. I have seldom 165 seen a more finished specimen of parliamentary elocution. Yet what effect! He spoke
to men as callous, I might say calcined as the walls that surrounded them.4 They are in truth mere dust & clay; I mean
the majority of the majority. Our union has now no bond but the national debt; if the Genevan could pay it off in seventeen hours instead of as
many years, he would sooner lose his hand than do it. He knows better.5
A memorial has been drafted & signed by the principal members of our bar, on the subject of the projected repeal of the last judiciary law & recommending its continuance.6 I signed the first draft, but that being altered and a new one made less to my mind than the former, I did not sign the last. Other motives prevented my signing; the very name of Adams, would turn the stomach of every rascal in Congress and they would belch out their windy insolence against any thing to which that name was annexed. You see I am in no very coaxing mood. If I were a member of the State legislature of Massachusetts I would propose certain amendments to the Constitution, such as would meet the approbation, I think, of at least ten States in the Union. “The black cattle to the South, shall not be represented, after the year 1803,” should be the first amendment on my list. If Virginia is not gagged with something like this, there will be no end to her presumption & impudence.7
I should like to hear what reception our memorial meets—it will arrive too late to be laid before Senate.
I have never heard how Mr: Johnson is;
has he recovered his health?
With best regards to your wife & children / I am, dear Sir / your friend
RC (OCHP:William Cranch Papers); addressed: “William Cranch Esqr: / City of Washington”; internal address: “William Cranch
Esqr:”; endorsed: “T. B. Adams 30 Jany. 1802.”
Not found.
Thomas Jefferson and other Democratic-Republicans were bent on repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 from the time JA signed the legislation into law on 13 February. The effort began in earnest on 6 Jan. 1802 when Kentucky senator John Breckinridge introduced a motion to rescind the law, contending that the courts it created were “a wanton waste of the public treasure.” Breckinridge’s argument went to the core of the ideological differences between the two parties. In replacing the circuit riding of Supreme Court justices with the new U.S. Circuit Courts, Breckinridge argued that Federalists improperly expanded federal judicial oversight by absorbing cases that “could, with propriety, be left with the State courts.” Federalists responded that the added expense of the new courts was justified because the circuit duties put undue demands on Supreme Court justices. “It was a fact that three-fourths of the time of the judges had been taken up in travelling,” Jonathan Mason of Massachusetts claimed, while Simeon Olcott of New Hampshire believed the new system should be tested 166 before being considered for repeal. The Democratic-Republican majority in both chambers prevailed, framing the law as a partisan act of an outgoing Federalist president that should be discarded. “I admire the private character of Mr. Adams,” declared James Jackson of Georgia, “but I do believe the succession of his political acts tended ultimately to accumulate in, and attach all powers to, a particular person or favorite family.” On 19 Jan., a committee was appointed to draft a bill of repeal, which they did three days later. The Senate passed the bill by a single vote on 3 Feb., and the House followed on 3 March. Jefferson signed the repeal into law on 8 March.
Thirteen U.S. Circuit Court judges nominated by JA
were summarily removed from the bench, the courts over which they presided were
dissolved, and their cases were returned to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Democratic-Republicans in Congress attempted to make the reversion of duties upon the
justices more palatable by passing the Judiciary Act of 1802 on 29 April. In addition
to recodifying the old system, the act reduced the demands on the justices by
excluding Maine, Kentucky, and Tennessee from the circuit system and eliminating the
court’s summer session. The law also further reduced the reach of the federal
judiciary by stipulating that the president rather than federal district judges would
appoint bankruptcy commissioners in each state. U.S. Supreme Court chief justice John
Marshall and justice Samuel Chase both hinted that they might consider ruling that the
removal of sitting judges was unconstitutional and overturn the repeal, but the others
on the court were not inclined to do so and no action was taken (vol. 14:512–513; Jed Glickstein,
“After Midnight: The Circuit Judges and the Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801,” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 24:546–554 [Jan.
2012];
Annals of
Congress
, 7th Cong., 1st sess., p. 23, 25–41, 46–74, 75–145, 146, 147,
148–150, 154–184, 982;
Biog. Dir. Cong.
; Jefferson, Papers
, 36:619,
37:2, 210;
U.S.
Statutes at Large
, 2:132, 156–167).
For Cranch’s essays as “A Friend to the Constitution” opposing attempts to restructure the judiciary, see AA to TBA, 27 Dec. 1801, and note 2, above.
On 8 and 14 Jan. 1802 Gouverneur Morris addressed the Senate,
opposing the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 by arguing that repeal was
unnecessary and unconstitutional. Morris wrote in his diary that not only was his
first speech well-attended but it was also “much approv’d of by those who think with
me.” The speeches were printed in the Philadelphia
Gazette, 18, 28 Jan. 1802 (
Annals of Congress
, 7th Cong., 1st sess., p. 36–41,
76–88, 89–92; Morris, Diaries
, 2:207, 209). For AA’s
comments on the second speech, see
AA to TBA, 7 Feb., below.
On 1 Jan. 1801 the U.S. national debt stood at just over $83
million. Treasury secretary Albert Gallatin’s goal was to eliminate it within fifteen
and one-half years by reducing federal expenditures, implementing control over
appropriations, and limiting the growth of the army and navy. By 1 Jan. 1802 the debt
had been reduced to $80.7 million and the following year it stood at $77 million
(Thomas K. McCraw, The Founders and Finance: How Hamilton,
Gallatin, and Other Immigrants Forged a New Economy, Cambridge, 2012, p. 231,
233;
Amer. State
Papers, Finance
, 1:701–705; Annual Report of
the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances, Washington, D.C.,
1907, p. 73).
On 2 Feb. James Ross of Pennsylvania introduced in the Senate a
memorial signed by nearly forty Philadelphia lawyers opposing the repeal of the
Judiciary Act of 1801 owing to the “public inconvenience” that would arise if the
newly established circuit court system was abolished (
Annals of Congress
, 7th Cong.,
1st sess., p. 152–153; Philadelphia Aurora General
Advertiser, 6 Feb. 1802).
TBA was referring to northern resentment over the
1787 “three-fifths compromise” in Art. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which called for
three of every five enslaved people to be counted in the apportionment of federal
legislators and electors. The term used by TBA was employed often by
Federalist newspapers in attributing Jefferson’s success and JA’s defeat
to the clause, and it resurfaced in the press in late 1801 as Democratic-Republicans
contemplated the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, a move Federalists likewise
blamed on the three-fifths clause giving the opposition undue representation in
Congress. TBA proved prescient, as New England and other northern
congressmen threatened in March 1802 to propose a revision to the three-fifths clause
if Democratic-Republicans carried through with repealing the judiciary act (vol. 11:269–270; Philadelphia Gazette, 17 Sept. 1800; Boston Columbian Centinel, 7 Jan. 1801; Baltimore Federal Gazette, 17 Feb.; Concord 167
Courier of New Hampshire, 17 Dec.; Baltimore Republican, 2 Jan. 1802; Albert F. Simpson, “The Political
Significance of Slave Representation, 1787–1821,” Journal of
Southern History, 7:321–323 [Aug. 1941]).
TBA had also written to Cranch on 1 Dec. 1801 to
introduce Philadelphia lawyers Richard Peters Jr. and John B. Wallace (OCHP:William Cranch Papers;
Philadelphia
Directory
, 1801, p. 35, 93, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 1347).