Papers of John Adams, volume 20
th.1789
Among the Candidates for the Honour of public Employment, under the
New Government there is one, whose connection in my family, and public relation to me,
in the late legation to St. James’s would render my total
silence on his account, liable to misinterpretation, as proceeding, either from a want
of esteem, confidence, or affection for him on the one hand, or to a failure of respect
to The President on the other,
The Gentleman, I mean is Colonel Smith whose original, education and Services, during the late War are all better known to you, Sir, than to me, He was indeed so much a stranger to me, that, to my recollection I never heared his name, ’till he was announced as the secretary, of my Legation to Great Britain1
During the three Years that he resided with me in England, his Conduct was to my satisfaction—and his Character was much esteemed in England, France, spain, Portugal through all which Countries he had occasion to travel—
As his Qualifications, are as well known to you, sir, as to me, and the situations that require to be filled, and the merit of other Candidates, much better: it is not my intention to solicit any particular place for him. his inclination, as well as mine, would no doubt prefer something at home,—but if the public service require a minister to go abroad, and he should be thought a proper person, I presume he would have no objection
In England he has served three Years; is known at Court, and in the Nation, and is as much esteemed and would be as well recieved, as any other faithfull American. As all my Dispatches passed through his hands, he is well acquainted, with the rise, progress and present state, of the negotiations of the United states at that Court. I shall not however dissemble my opinion, that it would not consist with the dignity of this Nation, or Her Chief Majistrate, to send to 38 that Country, any Character higher than a Consul, before an explicit agreement shall be made on their part, to return to your Court a Minister of equal rank—
In Portugal Mr. Smith has already
executed one Commission, to the satisfaction of that Court as well as of his
Constituents. With the Present Prime Minister, The Chevelier De Pinto, he has had a
personal Acquaintance in London for several years, and to my knowledge is much esteemed
by that wise, able, and amiable Nobleman, one of whose most earnest Wishes, it is, to
form a Treaty with this Country—2
In Holland Mr. Smith is known to many:
and I flatter myself, that, from my long residence and numerous Acquaintances in that
Republic; especially among the Capitalists, Stock-Brokers, Loan-Undertakers and money
Lenders who have now in their possession, obligations under my hands, for more than nine
Millions of Guilders.
And from his known Connection with me, he would be, as well received, both at the Prince of Orange’s Court, by their High Mightinesses, by the Corps Diplomatique, and the Nation, as any other Person—
While on one hand I shall hold myself under Obligation for whatever appointment The President may judge fit for him, I shall cheerfully acquiesse, on the other, in whatever may be the determination—
With every sentiment of Respect / and affection, I have the Honor
to be / Dear sir. / Your most Obedt— / & most Humble
servt—
LbC in WSS’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “To / The President / of The United States—”; APM Reel 114.
Despite rumors of a diplomatic assignment, WSS was
nominated on 25 Sept. to serve as marshal for the district of New York, and the Senate
confirmed the appointment on the same day (vol. 19:201, 202;
AFC
, 9:93, 149).
For WSS’s goodwill mission to Lisbon and the [25 April 1786] proposed Portuguese-American Treaty of Amity
and Commerce, see vols. 18:256–271; 19:46,
153.
I thank you for correcting my careless Appellation of federal
Republic as applied to the National Government. We are so used to Absurdities &
indefinite Terms when speaking of the great Constitution, that I am now to ask your
Indulgence in future for sometimes 39 hastily adopting
Expressions which are so often improperly used by our Massachusetts Politicians. And yet
notwithstanding your just Idea of the sole Sovereignty of the national Government, was a
Man to tell our general Court that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was not a sovereign
& independent State they would charge him with talking Treason. They admit that
Congress now is sovereign, quoad certain Purposes, and this State alone sovereign for
others. This Error & nonsense they will persist in, untill the full Operation of the
National Statutes, & the new Officers get into Play. And give me leave to ask if
Congress is not in a Degree countinancing this Delusion? Are they not, I mean the lower
House, encouraging those extreme democratic Notions which have hitherto impeded the
Advancement of that full Respectability that our Country is intitled to, by refusing to
admit of those Distinctions & Titles which effect so much in European Governments?
The News Papers inform that even the Title of Esquire is become an Abomination in their
Ears.1 And on the same Principle so
ought the Addition of Mr. to be. To act thoroughly
consistent they ought to turn Quakers in Politicks, if not in Religion. This Silliness
pleases Mr. Han. Mr. S. A. &
Dr. J.2 I
most heartily wish all the Fools of the same Stamp throughout the Union would unite
& colonize. There is Land enough upon the Banks of the Ohio for all the democratic
Simpletons in the united States. There let them found a Utopia & crack Acorns with
the equal Commoners of the Woods.
It is owing to Envy & a contemptible Pride, that our chief Magistrates are to be denied those Titles which would be expressive of their Posts, because two only can possess them. and because thirteen Excellencies would be then out titled.
I inclose You the Copy of a Petition presented to the General Court
in their May session of 1788.3 If it
should not furnish an argument in favour of a national Bankrupt Act, it may furnish a
very extraordinary & interesting Peice of private an
Individual’s History. The Facts alledged in the Petition were fully substantiated before
a Committee of both Houses, & a Bill in favour of the Petitioner was reported, but
miscarried, for various local Reasons, of no Importance now to relate.
I most sincerely thank You for your two last Letters, & for
your promised Care of the one I inclosed.4 That Letter occasioned me some Mortification. But a Wife & six Children with a
sinking Profession, forbid me being the Dupe of Feelings, which, perhaps, all the
Seekers & would be Devourers “of the Loaves & Fishes,” are not 40 troubled with. I hope before this Letter reaches New York You will have had the
Pleasure of Meeting Mrs. Adams; that Friend of your Heart so
well calculated to mitigate the Cares of your Station. Pray make my most affectionate
Compliments to that Lady, & be assured of my unalterable & perfect
Attachment.
mTudor
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “President Adams”; endorsed: “Mr Tudor. 21. June / ansd. 28.
1789.”
A piece in the Boston Independent
Chronicle, 2 April, observed that Americans’ choice of titles for government
officials was evidence of “a propensity . . . to monarchy” and that
“Honourable and Esquire have become as common in America, as Captain is in
France,—Count in Germany,—or any Lord in Italy.” For the controversy over titles,
including a form of address for the president, see vol. 19:445.
Anonymous correspondents in several Boston newspapers identified
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Charles Jarvis as champions of republican principles
and opponents of aristocracy. Jarvis (1748–1807), Harvard 1766, of Boston, trained as
a physician and served in the Mass. General Court from 1788 to 1797 (Boston Gazette, 9 Feb. 1789; Boston Herald of Freedom, 15 May;
Sibley’s Harvard Graduates
, 16:378, 379, 382;
AFC
, 8:413).
The enclosure has not been found, but Newburyport merchant
Nathaniel Tracy submitted a similar request to Congress on 5 March 1790, recounting
his service as a financier during the Revolutionary War and asking Congress to enact a
bankruptcy law. Tracy indicated that he had presented the same query to the Mass.
General Court, but that it had not ruled on his petition, because drafting a uniform
law for bankruptcy lay within federal jurisdiction (vol. 3:327;
First Fed. Cong.
,
8:86–89).
Tudor referred to JA’s letters of 28 May 1789 (vol. 19:479–480) and 12 June, above. For the “inclosed letter,” see Tudor’s letter of 6 June, and note 1, above.