Diary of Charles Francis Adams, volume 5
1833-10-18
Morning fine and tolerably warm. I read some of the first book of Virgil’s Aeneid and went to the Office. Mr. Peabody called in and 195asked me to take a walk with him. We went over Craigie’s bridge to Charlestown and home again. Nothing particular—Conversation about politics and general subjects.
On my return found Kirke in with the Carriage and my Mother. I started to see her, but as I wished to call for a moment at the Advocate office, Mr. Hallet stopped me to talk upon several points of importance. The consequence that on reaching home I found her just starting. She informed me of the death of Thomas J. Hellen, in Fairfax County Virginia, of brain fever after two days illness.1 Poor fellow—His life was thrown away in nothings. His mind was constituted so peculiarly that the ordinary considerations which act upon men very feebly influenced him. The world will bear no traces of his existence and his friends will feel no grief at his loss. He had been in life a cipher.
I took a ride in the afternoon to improve my digestion. On my return, sat down and put the finish to my Article upon Hutchinson. I then commenced a series of political papers for the present election. Mr. Hallet wished me to take up some subject and I selected the one of Antimasonic Proscription.2 Wrote till midnight.
Thomas Johnson Hellen, a nephew of LCA and a brother of Mrs. JA2, died at twenty-four. Along with his brother and sister, he had for a number of years after the death of their parents lived in the JQA family in Washington. He had attended Phillips Exeter Academy and had been a student at Harvard for two years, but seems never to have been able to overcome the extreme indolence that characterized others of his family. The fullest account of JQA’s efforts, long expended and unappreciated, on behalf of Thomas and his elder brother Johnson is in JQA, Diary, 20, 23 March 1830. See also Adams Genealogy.
In anticipation of the state election on 11 Nov., the Boston Daily Advocate published CFA’s four unsigned articles “The Proscription of Antimasonry” (22 Oct., p. 2, cols. 3–4; 25 Oct., p. 2, cols. 2-3; 30 Oct., p. 2, cols. 2-3; 1 Nov., p. 2, cols. 3–4), defending Antimasons against the charge of blacklisting candidates from the simple fact of their being Freemasons. A promised fifth and concluding article was never finished (entry for 6 Nov., below).
1833-10-19
Morning clear and cool. My Wife took advantage of it and rode out for the first time. Our course hitherto has been exceedingly prosperous, she having recovered very gradually and without any material drawback.
Finished my first number upon Proscription and a little specimen of a skit about which I have my doubts. At the Office engaged all the morning with visitors. First, Mr. Ladd who is the Tenant of the house 103. Tremont Street and wants repairs done. He sat a great while, Conant from Weston coming in and after him Judge Hall, the latter 196about nothing, the former about his lease. Conversation was kept up until the bell rung one, and my whole time appeared to have gone like a flash.
Rode to Quincy to dine. Found the family much as usual—My father perhaps in not quite so good spirits from the answer of Governor Lincoln to him.1 I think he has lost his diplomacy as he
Returned home after visiting the Tenants again uselessly. My Wife had a bad tooth ach.
Levi Lincoln to JQA, 14 Oct., Adams Papers. This lengthy reply to JQA’s request for confirmation that he had recommended John Brazer Davis in a letter of 6 April 1832 and that the Governor had received that letter (see above, entries for 3 and 11 Oct., notes
The passages which Lincoln quoted were from JQA’s letter to him of 18 Dec. 1831 (MHi:Levi Lincoln Papers): “A gang of two hundred thousand Masons from every nook and corner of the Union, are joining in one concerted yell of persecution! persecution! and certifying and swearing that they never took an Oath incompatible with their duty to their Religion or the Laws of the Land”; “The denial of the Royal Arch oath is a miserable prevarication. The entered Apprentice’s Oath and penalty is itself a violation of all Religions and of the Constitution of our Commonwealth. To say that such an Oath is not to affect Religion or Politics is to unite impossibilities”; and from another of 1 Feb. 1832 (same): “I do hold as disqualified for an impartial Juror, at least between a Mason and an Anti Mason, any man who has taken the Masonic Oaths and adheres to them.”
In replying to Lincoln, JQA reserved until later a full discussion of “my consistency with myself on the subject of Masons and Masonry,