Papers of John Adams, volume 2
1774-06-28
We yesterday received your Letter directed to us, with those for Braintree,1 immediately on the Receipt of it, I went to Mr Cranch's to seek a Conveyance for them but no Opportunity offered there or at the Markets. After my return to the Office, I thought it probable that we might send them from Edes and Gill's Shop. Accordingly I run in, I very luckily met with Mr Allens Servant who promised to deliver them as soon as he got home.
Yesterday a town meeting was held in the Morng at the Hall, but it being a very warm day, and many People just idle enough to attend, the Room was much crowded; those People at the farther End of the Room were continually crying out a little louder, and the Speakers finding themselves fatigued by heat, and obliged to exert themselves to be heard, thought best to adjourn, and a Motion was made for an adjournment to the Old South, which after a faint opposition was carried. J Quincy moved to adjourn to one o clock and then observed, in his flourishing way, that Some might think this wou'd interfear with their Dinners, but he thought the present alarming 103state was of too great importance, to think of dinners, however they cou'd not be perswaded to adjourn to one notwithstanding the importance of the day. At three in the Afternoon there was a very respectable Meeting. There was nigh a
I am sensible this ought to be transcribed, but I expect your Client will call immediately.
The letter to his law clerks has not been found, but one to AA of 23 June is in
Adams Family Correspondence
, 1:108–109.
Richard Lechmere (1727–1814), John (1727–1816) or George (1738–1806) Erving, Thomas (1722–1784) and John (1728–1805) Amory, Francis (1742–1809) and Joseph (1706–1780) Green, and probably Daniel Hubbard, who signed the protest against the Solemn League and Covenant (Sabine, Loyalists
, 1:162–163, 2:8; Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates
, 8:42–53, 11:4–7, 12:152–156, 14:151–157, 610–617; MHS, Procs.
, 1st ser., 11 [1869–1870]: 394–395)
The two-day town meeting climaxed the intense controversy over the actions taken and proposed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence in regard to the Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, and the Administration of Justice Act. In reacting to the first, the committee had proposed, after seeking support from the committees of other towns, a cutting off of trade with Great Britain; but the town meeting favored such action only if supported by similar action in other colonies. When the news arrived in June of the other acts passed by Parliament, the Committee of Correspondence felt Boston had to take the leadership and declare not only non-104importation, but nonconsumption and a boycott of those who continued importation and purchasing of any British goods. The furthest the town had been willing to go was nonconsumption of such British goods as could be “obtained among Ourselves.” In advocating unilateral action, the Committee had moved faster than the town wished, and opposition was particularly strong among merchants, whether loyalist or whig in sympathy. Thus, the stage was set for the meetings of 27 and 28 June. Although in his letter Williams shows some doubt about the outcome and the future of the Committee of Correspondence in the face of a motion of “censure and annihilation,” he need not have worried: the committee won an overwhelming vote of confidence. Nevertheless, the town did refuse to approve the Solemn League and Covenant. Clearly, for the moment, the Committee had gone too far. (See Boston Record Commissioners, 18th Report
, p. 177–178, and Brown, Revolutionary Politics
, p. 185–199.)
Although JA wrote him the next day (see next document), no known record of William Tudor's account of the meeting of 28 June is extant.
Diary and Autobiography
, 2:228, note.
1774-06-29
I am determined to amuse my self with my Pen, whenever I am at Leisure, that I may not rust, upon the Circuit, and I dont know, who I can write to with more Pleasure, than to you.
General Brattle has lately made a Jaunt to Portsmouth and the Country round about it, and has made a most Shining figure in the political Way. A Gentleman of Portsmouth informs me, that he intimates to the Piscataqua People, that he undertook this Excursion at the Instigation of Governor Gage, in order to acquaint them with the State of Things, with the Views of Administration, &c in order to quiet their fears, and remove their Apprehensions. Grievances they had none, he said. Ld D——h
This is the Man who in the Year 1765 declared in a Cambridge Town Meeting as it is said, that every Word of the Constitutional Courant,2 in which it is expressly averred that the British Parliament have no Authority over Us, was as true as St. Johns Gospell. This is the Man who quarrelled for Years with Governor Bernard, upon American Principles, and this is the Man who placed himself on a Foot with Captn. McIntosh,3 and led the Horse in the Cart, with the Effigies of the Stamp Master tho he was the Secretary of the Province.
This Man has now the Modesty to expect a Mandamus, and to be cherrished as a favourite Friend of Government.
Proteus4 flowed like Water, burnt like fire, mewed like a Cat and barked like a Dog &c: Yet Proteus would be distinguished for his Constancy and self Consistency in Comparison.
Colls.
, 2d ser., 8 [1826]:285–325; Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates
, 17:252–265).
The Constitutional Courant, printed by Andrew Marvel, appeared only once, in Sept. 1765, and attacked the Stamp Act and its supporters so vigorously that it had to be printed secretly. Brought from New Jersey to New York and sold on the streets there, it was carried to the other colonies by post for reprinting (Merrill Jensen, The Founding of a Nation, N.Y., 1968, p. 130–131).
Stamp Act
, p. 138, 190–191; George P. Anderson, “Ebenezer Mackintosh: Stamp Act Rioter and Patriot,” and “A Note on Ebenezer Mackintosh,” Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns.
, 26 [1927]:15–64, 348–361).
Proteus became the name for Brattle in Mrs. Warren's farce The Group (Worthington C. Ford, “Mrs. Warren's 'The Group'” MHS, Procs.
, 62 [1928–1929]:17).