REPORT ON THE RESOLVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS PROPOSING AN
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN EFFECT TO ABOLISH
A REPRESENTATION FOR SLAVES.--FOURTH REPORT ON JAMES SMITHSON'S BEQUEST.
--INFLUENCE OF MR. ADAMS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL OBSERVATORY
AND THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.--GENERAL JACKSON'S CHARGE THAT THE RIO
GRANDE MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, UNDER THE SPANISH TREATY, AS A BOUNDARY
FOR THE UNITED STATES, REFUTED.--ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS AT WEYMOUTH.
--REMARKS ON THE RETROCESSION OF ALEXANDRIA TO VIRGINIA.--HIS PARALYSIS.
--RECEPTION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.--HIS DEATH.--FUNERAL HONORS.
--TRIBUTE TO HIS MEMORY.
In April, 1844, certain resolves of the Legislature of Massachusetts,
proposing to Congress to recommend, according to the provisions of the
fifth article of the constitution of the United States, an amendment to
the said constitution, in effect abolishing the representation for
slaves, being under consideration, and a report adverse to such
amendment having been made by a majority of the committee, Mr. Adams,
and Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, being a minority, united in a report, in
which, concurring in the opinion of the majority so far as to believe
that it was not, at that time, expedient to recommend the amendment
proposed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, they were compelled to
dissent from the views and the reasons which had actuated them in coming
to that conclusion.
"The subscribers are under a deep and solemn conviction that the
provision in the constitution of the United States, as it has been
and yet is construed, and which the resolves of the Legislature of
Massachusetts propose to discard and erase therefrom, is repugnant
to the first and vital principles of republican popular
representation; to the self-evident truths proclaimed in the
Declaration of Independence; to the letter and spirit of the
constitution of the United States itself; to the letter and spirit
of the constitutions of almost all the states in the Union; to the
liberties of the whole people of all the free states, and of all
that portion of the people of the states where domestic slavery is
established, other than owners of the slaves themselves; that this
is its essential and unextinguishable character in principle, and
that its fruits, in its practical operation upon the government of
the land, as felt with daily increasing aggravation by the people,
correspond with that character. To place these truths in the
clearest light of demonstration, and beyond the reach of
contradiction, the subscribers proceed, in the order of these
averments, to adduce the facts and the arguments by which they will
be maintained."
The report then proceeds, in reply to the reasoning of the majority of
the committee, to maintain that "the principle of republican popular
representation is that the terms of representative and constituent are
correlative;" that "democracy admits no representation of property;"
that "the slave representation is repugnant to the self-evident truths
proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence." The truths in that
Declaration the report illustrates from history, from Scripture, and
from the teachings of Jesus Christ; who was aware that wars, and their
attendant, slavery, would continue among men, and that the destiny of
his Gospel itself was often to be indebted for its progressive
advancement to war.
"'I came not,' said he, 'to send peace upon earth, but a sword;'
meaning, not that this was the object of his mission, but that, in
the purposes of the Divine nature, war itself should be made
instrumental to promote the final consummation of universal peace.
Slavery has not ceased upon the earth; but the impression upon the
human heart and mind that slavery is a wrong,--a crime against the
laws of nature and of nature's God,--has been deepening and
widening, till it may now be pronounced universal upon every soul
in Christendom not warped by personal interest, or tainted with
disbelief in Christianity. The owner of ten slaves believes that
slavery is not an evil. The owner of a hundred believes it a
blessing. The philosophical infidel has no faith in Hebrew
prophecies, or in the Gospel of Jesus. He says in his heart, though
he will not tell you to your face, that the proclamation of the
natural equality of mankind, in the Declaration of Independence, is
untrue; that the African race are physically, morally, and
intellectually, _inferior_ to the white European man; that they are
not of one blood, nor descendants of the same stock; that the
African is born to be a slave, and the white man to be his master.
The worshipper of mammon and the philosophical atheist hold no
communion with the signers of the declaration that all men are
created equal, and endowed by their Creator with unalienable
rights. But, with these exceptions, poll the whole mass of
Christian men, of every name, sect, or denomination, throughout the
globe, and you will not hear a solitary voice deny that slavery is
a wrong, a crime, and a curse."
This report then proceeds to maintain that the representation of slaves
as persons, conferred not upon themselves but their owners, is repugnant
to the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence,
and equally repugnant both to the spirit and letter of the constitution
of the United States, and to the constitution of almost every state of
the Union; that it is deceptive, and inconsistent with the principle of
popular representation;--all which is supported by reference to the
writings of Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, concerning the relations of
master and slave. It is shown how, by the effect of that article in the
constitution, all political power in the states is absorbed and
engrossed by the owners of slaves, and the cunning by which this has
been effected is explained. The report then enters into the history of
slavery, declaring that "the resolves of the Legislature of
Massachusetts speak the unanimous opinions and sentiments of the
people--unanimous, with the exception of the sordid souls linked to the
cause of slavery by the hopes and expectations of patronage."
In June, 1844, Mr. Adams, as chairman of a select committee on the
Smithsonian fund, reported a bill, in which he referred to its actual
state, and proposed measures tending to give immediate operation to that
bequest. In support of its provisions, he stated that, on the first day
of September, 1838, there had been deposited in the mint of the United
States, in gold, half a million of dollars,--the full amount of the
bequest of Mr. Smithson,--which, on the same day, under the authority of
an act of Congress, and with the approbation of the President, had been
vested by the Secretary of the Treasury in bonds of the States of
Arkansas, Michigan, and Illinois; that the payment of the interest on
these bonds had been almost entirely neglected; that the principal and
arrears of interest then accumulating amounted to upwards of six hundred
and ninety-nine thousand dollars; that the payment of these bonds was
remote, and unavailable by Congress for application to the objects of
this bequest.
In accepting this legacy, the faith of the United States had been
pledged that all money received from it should be applied to the humane
and generous purpose prescribed by the testator; and he contended that,
for the redemption of this pledge, it was indispensably requisite that
the funds thus locked up in the treasury, in bonds of these states, with
the accruing and suspended interest thereon, should be made available
for the disposal of Congress, to enable them to execute the sacred trust
they had assumed.
The committee then reported a bill providing, in effect, for the
assumption by Congress of the whole sum and interest, as a loan to the
United States, invested in their stock, bearing an annual interest of
six per cent., payable half-yearly, and redeemable at the pleasure of
Congress by the substitution of other funds of equal value. In
connection with this purpose they reported a bill making appropriations
to enable Congress to proceed immediately to the execution of the trust
committed to them by the testator, and for the fulfilment of which the
faith of the nation had been pledged.
In specifying the objects to which it should be applied, that of the
establishment of an Astronomical Observatory was not omitted. This
recommendation decided the fate of the bill; for there was no purpose on
which the predominating party were more fixed than to prevent the
gratification of Mr. Adams in this well-known cherished wish of his
heart.
In October, 1823, Mr. Adams, being then Secretary of State, had
addressed a letter to a member of the corporation of Harvard University,
urging the erection of an Astronomical Observatory in connection with
that institution, and tendering a subscription, on his own account, of
one thousand dollars, on condition a requisite sum should be raised, for
that purpose, within two years. His proposal not meeting correspondent
spirit among the friends of science at that time, in October, 1825, he
renewed the offer, on the same condition and limitation. In both cases a
concealment of his name was made imperative.[1]
[1] Quincy's History of Harvard University, vol. II., p. 567.
The establishment of an Astronomical Observatory was recommended in his
first message to Congress, as President of the United States; but the
proposition fell on a political soil glowing with a red heat, enkindled
by disappointed ambition. Opposition to the design became identified
with party spirit, and to defeat it no language of contempt or of
ridicule was omitted by the partisans of General Jackson. In every
appropriation which it was apprehended might be converted to its
accomplishment, the restriction "_and to no other_" was carefully
inserted. In the second section of an act passed on the 10th of July,
1832, providing for the survey of the coasts of the United States, the
following limitation was inserted: "_Provided that nothing in this act,
or in the act hereby revived, shall be construed to authorize the
construction or maintenance of a permanent Astronomical Observatory_."
Yet, at the time of passing this act, it was well understood that the
appropriation it contained was to be applied to that object; and
subsequently, in direct defiance of this prohibition, Congress
permitted that and other appropriations to be applied to the erection
of an Astronomical Observatory in the city of Washington, to which
annual appropriations were successively granted in the bill providing
for the navy department; the authors of the proviso being aware of the
uses to which the fund would be applied, but causing its insertion for
the purpose of preventing its erection from being attributed to the
influence of Mr. Adams. To such disreputable subterfuges party spirit
can condescend, to gratify malignity, or to obscure merit from the
knowledge of the world, to the power of which it is itself compelled to
yield.
Nothing was effectually done, on the subject of the Smithsonian fund,
until the 22d of April, 1846, when a bill to carry into effect that
bequest was reported by Mr. Owen, of Indiana, and earnestly supported by
him and others. In its important general features it coïncided with the
views of Mr. Adams, except only that it made no provision for an
Astronomical Observatory. After various amendments, it received the
sanction of both houses of Congress, Mr. Adams voting in its favor. On
the 10th of August, 1846, it received the signature of the President of
the United States.
During the debate upon this bill, its supporters acknowledged "that Mr.
Adams had labored in this good cause with more zeal and perseverance
than any other man."
In the course of the same debate it was said by one member that,
"inasmuch as the views of Mr. Adams had been carried out in respect of
an Astronomical Observatory, by the government, in the District of
Columbia,"--and by another, that, "as building light-houses in the
skies had grown into popular favor,"--it was hoped he would find no
difficulty in giving his vote for the bill. On which Mr. Adams observed,
that "he was very glad to hear that the 'building light-houses in the
skies had grown into popular favor.' The appropriation for this
Astronomical Observatory had been clandestinely smuggled into the law,
under the head of a _dépôt_ for charts, when, a short time before, a
provision had been inserted in a bill passed that _no appropriation
should be applied to an Astronomical Observatory_. He claimed no
merit for the erection of an Astronomical Observatory, but, in the
course of his whole life, no conferring of honor, of interest, or of
office, had given him more delight than the belief that he had
contributed, in some small degree, to produce these Astronomical
Observatories both here and elsewhere.[2] He no longer wished any
portion of the Smithsonian fund to be applied to an Astronomical
Observatory."
[2] _Congressional Globe_, vol. XV., p. 738.
Notwithstanding this disclaimer, the four reports of Mr. Adams, on the
Smithsonian fund, in 1836, 1840, 1842, and 1844, which were neither
coïncident with the views nor within the comprehension of his opponents,
will remain imperishable monuments of the extent and elevation of his
mind on this subject. When the continued and strenuous exertions with
which Mr. Adams opposed, at every step, the efforts to convert that fund
to projects of personal interest or ambition are appreciated, it will be
evident that the people of the United States owe to him whatever benefit
may result from the munificence of James Smithson. History will be just
to his memory, and will not fail to record his early interest and
strenuous zeal for the advancement of astronomical science, and the
influence his eloquence and untiring perseverance, in illustrating its
importance with an unsurpassed array of appropriate learning, exerted on
the public mind in the United States, not only in effecting the
establishment of other Astronomical Observatories, but absolutely
compelling party spirit, notwithstanding its open, bitter animosity, to
lay the foundation of that Observatory which now bears the name of
"National."
In February, 1843, Andrew Jackson addressed a letter to Aaron Vail
Brown, a member of Congress, strongly recommending the annexation of
Texas, and giving his reasons for that measure, which he commenced by
stating the following facts:
"Soon after my election, in 1829, it was made known to me by Mr.
Erwin, formerly our minister at the court of Madrid, that whilst at
that court he had laid the foundation of a treaty with Spain for the
cession of the Floridas, and the settlement of the boundary of
Louisiana, fixing the western limit of the latter at the Rio Grande,
agreeably to the understanding of France; that he had written home
to our government for power to complete and sign this negotiation;
but that, instead of receiving such authority, the negotiation was
taken out of his hands, and transferred to Washington, and a new
treaty was there concluded, by which the Sabine, and not the Rio
Grande, was recognized and established as the boundary of Louisiana.
Finding that these statements were true, and that our government did
really give up that important territory, when it was at its option
to retain it, I was filled with astonishment. The right to the
territory was obtained from France, Spain stood ready to acknowledge
it to the Rio Grande, and yet the authority asked by our minister to
insert the true boundary was not only withheld, but, in lieu of it,
a limit was adopted which stripped us of the whole vast country
lying between the two rivers."
The letter containing this statement Aaron Vail Brown kept concealed
from the public until March, 1844, when he gave it publicity to
counteract a letter from Mr. Webster against the annexation of Texas to
the United States. This statement of Andrew Jackson having thus been
brought to the knowledge of Mr. Adams, he took occasion, on the 7th of
October in that year, in an address to a political society of young men
in Boston, to contradict and expose it in the following terms:
"I have read the whole of this letter to you, for I intend to
prolong its existence for the benefit of posterity." [After reading
the above extract from the letter of Andrew Jackson, Mr. Adams
proceeds.] "He was filled with astonishment, fellow-citizens! I am
repeating to you the words of a man who has been eight years
President of the United States; words deliberately written, and
published to the world more than a year after they were written;
words importing a statement of his conduct in his office as chief
magistrate of this Union; words impeaching of treason the government
of his predecessor, James Monroe, and in an especial manner, though
without daring to name him, the Secretary of State,--a government to
which he (Andrew Jackson) was under deep obligations of gratitude.
"In what language of composure or of decency can I say to you that
there is in this bitter and venomous charge not one single word of
truth; that it is from beginning to end grossly, glaringly, wilfully
false?--false even in the name of the man from whom he pretends to
have derived his information. There never was a minister of the
United States in Spain by the name of Erwin. The name of the man who
went to him on this honorable errand, soon after his election in
1829, was George W. Erving, of whom and of whose revelations I shall
also have something to say. I do not charge this distortion of the
name as wilfully made; but it shows how carelessly and loosely all
his relations and intercourse with him hung upon his memory, and how
little he cared for the man.
"The blunder of the name, however, is in itself a matter of little
moment. Mr. George W. Erving never did make to Mr. Jackson any such
communication as he pretends to have found true, and to have filled
him with astonishment. Mr. Erving never did pretend, nor will he
dare to affirm, that he had laid the foundation of a treaty with
Spain for the cession of the Floridas, and the settlement of the
boundary of Louisiana, fixing the western limit at the Rio Grande.
The charge, therefore, that our government did really give up that
important territory, when it was at its option to retain it, is
purely and unqualifiedly untrue; and I now charge that it was known
by Mr. Brown to be so when he published General Jackson's letter;
for, in the postscript to Jackson's letter, he says 'the papers
furnished by Mr. Erwin, to which he had referred in it, could be
placed in Mr. Brown's possession, if desired.'
"They were accordingly placed in Mr. Brown's possession, who, when
he published Jackson's letter to the _Globe_, alluding to this
passage asserting that Erving had laid the foundation of a treaty
with Spain, fixing the western limit at the Rio Grande, otherwise
called the Rio del Norte, subjoined the following note: 'That this
boundary could have been obtained was doubtless the belief of our
minister; _but the offer of the Spanish government was probably to
the Colorado--certainly a line far west of the Sabine_.'
"This is the note of Aaron Vail Brown, and my fellow-citizens will
please to observe,--
"First, That it blows to atoms the whole statement of Andrew Jackson
that Erving had laid the foundation of a treaty by which our western
bounds upon the Spanish possessions should be at the Rio Grande;
and, of course, grinds to impalpable powder his charge that our
government did give up that important territory when it was at its
option to retain it.
"Secondly, That this note of Aaron Vail Brown, while it so
effectually demolishes Jackson's fable of Erving's treaty with Spain
for the boundary of the Rio del Norte, and his libellous charge
against our government for surrendering the territory which they had
the option to retain, is, with this exception, as wide and as wilful
a departure from the truth as the calumny of Jackson itself, which
it indirectly contradicts."
Mr. Adams then enters into a lucid and elaborate statement of Erving's
connection with this negotiation with the Spanish government, with
minute and important illustrations, highly interesting and conclusive;
severely animadverting upon the conduct of General Jackson and Mr.
Brown. He says:
"The object of the publication of that letter of Andrew Jackson was
to trump up a shadow of argument for a pretended reännexation of
Texas to the United States, by a fabulous pretension that it had
been treacherously surrendered to Spain, in the Florida treaty of
1819, by our government,--meaning thereby the Secretary of State of
that day, John Quincy Adams,--in return for greater obligations than
any one public servant of this nation was ever indebted for to
another. The argument for the annexation, or reännexation, of Texas
is as gross an imposture as ever was palmed upon the credulity of an
honest people."
In conclusion Mr. Adams addresses in a serious and exciting strain of
eloquence the young men of Boston; and, after recapitulating part of an
oration which he delivered on the 4th of July, 1793, before their
fathers and forefathers, in that city, he closes thus:
"Young men of Boston, the generations of men to whom fifty-one years
bygone I gave this solemn pledge have passed entirely away. They in
whose name I gave it are, like him who addresses you, dropping into
the grave. But they have redeemed their and my pledge. They were
your fathers, and they have maintained the freedom transmitted to
them by their sires of the war of independence. They have
transmitted that freedom to you; and upon you now devolves the duty
of transmitting it unimpaired to your posterity. Your trial is
approaching. The spirit of freedom and the spirit of slavery are
drawing together for the deadly conflict of arms. The annexation of
Texas to this Union is the blast of a trumpet for a foreign, civil,
servile, and Indian war, of which the government of your country,
fallen into faithless hands, have already twice given the signal:
first by a shameless treaty, rejected by a virtuous Senate; and
again by the glove of defiance hurled by the apostle of
nullification at the avowed policy of the British empire peacefully
to promote the extinction of slavery throughout the world. Young men
of Boston, burnish your armor--prepare for the conflict; and I say
to you, in the language of Galgacus to the ancient Britons, 'Think
of your forefathers! think of your posterity!'"[3]
[3] _Niles' National Register_, Second Series, vol. XVII.,
pp. 105-111.
On the 30th of the same month Mr. Adams delivered to his constituents at
Weymouth an address equally elaborate, comprehensive, and historical, in
a like fervid and characteristic spirit,[4] which thus concludes:
[4] _Niles' National Register_, Second Series, vol. XVII., pp.
154-159.
"Texas and slavery are interwoven in every banner floating on the
Democratic breeze. 'Freedom or death' should be inscribed on ours. A
war for slavery! Can you enlist under such a standard? May the Ruler
of the universe preserve you from such degradation! 'Freedom! Peace!
Union!' be this the watchword of your camp; and if Ate, hot from
hell, will come and cry 'Havoc!' fight--fight and conquer, under the
banner of universal freedom."
In February, 1845, our title to Oregon being the subject of debate in
Congress, Mr. Adams joined in it, displaying his full knowledge of the
subject, and declaring that it was time to give notice to Great Britain
that the affair must be settled. He was desirous as any man to bring
this subject to an issue, but he did not wish to enter upon the
discussion of this matter before the world until we could show that we
had the best of the argument. He wished to have the reasons given to
the world for our taking possession of seven degrees of latitude, and
perhaps more; and whenever we took it, too, he hoped we should have it
defined geographically, defined politically, and, more than all the
rest, defined _morally_; and then, if we came to question with Great
Britain, we should say, "Come on, Macduff!" In answer to the inquiry
who had been the means of giving this country a title to Oregon, Mr.
Adams answered, it was a citizen of Massachusetts that discovered the
Columbia River; and that he (Mr. Adams) had the credit of inserting the
clause in the treaty on which our right was based. If it had not been
for the attacks which had been made upon him, the fact would have gone
with him to the grave.
In February, 1845, in a speech on the army bill, he treated ironically
the spirit of conquest then manifesting itself towards Mexico, Oregon,
and California. He said, at some future day we might hear the Speaker
not only announce on this floor "the gentleman from the Rocky
Mountains," or "the gentleman from the Pacific," or "the gentleman from
Patagonia," but "the gentleman from the North Pole," and also "the
gentleman from the South Pole;" and the poor original thirteen states
would dwindle into comparative insignificance as parts of this mighty
republic.
In November, 1845, in answer to a letter soliciting his opinion on the
constitutionality of the law of Congress retroceding Alexandria to
Virginia, Mr. Adams replied: "I have no hesitation to say I hold that
act unconstitutional and void. How the Supreme Court of the United
States would consider it I cannot undertake to judge, nor how they
would carry it into execution, should they determine the act
unconstitutional. The constitution of the United States '_Stat magna
nominis umbra_.'"
In the great debate on the Oregon question, which commenced in January,
1846, the intellectual power of Mr. Adams, and the extent and accuracy
of his acquaintance with the facts connected with that subject, were
preëminently manifested. Though conscious, being then in his
seventy-eighth year, that he stood on the threshold of human life, he
sought no relaxation from duty, no exemption from its performance. To
counteract the effect of a nervous tremor, to which he was
constitutionally subject, he used for many years an instrument to steady
his hand when writing, on the ivory label of which he inscribed the
motto "Toil and trust," indicative of the determined will, which had
characterized his whole life, "to scorn delights and live laborious
days." His step, however, now became more feeble, and his voice less
audible, but his indomitable spirit never failed to uplift him in
defence of liberty and the constitution of his country, when assailed.
In a debate on the Oregon question, in August, 1846, when Mr. Adams
arose to speak, the hall was found too extensive for the state of his
voice, and the members rushed to hear him, filling the area in front of
the Speaker. That officer, in behalf of the few who remained in their
seats, called the house to order, and Mr. Adams continued his remarks
with his accustomed clearness and energy.
At the close of the session, in 1846, he returned to his seat in Quincy,
with unimpaired intellectual powers, and with no perceptible symptom of
immediately declining health, until the 19th of November, when, walking
in the streets of Boston, an attack of paralysis deprived him of the
power of speech, and affected his right side. In the course of three
months, however, he was sufficiently recovered to resume his official
duties at Washington.
On the 16th of February, 1847, as he entered the Hall of the House of
Representatives for the first time since his illness, the house rose as
one man, business was at once suspended, his usual seat surrendered to
him by the gentleman to whom it had been assigned, and he was formally
conducted to it by two members. After resuming it, Mr. Adams expressed
his thanks to the member who had voluntarily relinquished his right in
his favor, and said: "Had I a more powerful voice, I might respond to
the congratulations of my friends, and the members of this house, for
the honor which has been done me. But, enfeebled as I am by disease, I
beg you will excuse me."
After this period, on one occasion alone he addressed the house. On the
refusal of President Polk to give information, on their demand, as to
the objects of the then existing war with Mexico, and the instructions
given by the Executive relative to negotiations for peace, Mr. Adams
rose, and maintained the constitutional power of the house to call for
that information; denying that in this case the refusal was justified by
that of President Washington on a similar demand; and declaring that the
house ought to sustain, in the strongest manner, their right to call for
information upon questions in which war and peace were concerned.
From this time, though daily in his seat in the House of
Representatives, he took no part in debate. On the 21st of February,
1848, he answered to the call of his name in a voice clear and emphatic.
Soon after, he rose, with a paper in his hand, and addressed the
Speaker, when paralysis returned, and, uttering the words, "This is the
last of earth; I am content," he fell into the arms of the occupant of
an adjoining seat, who sprang to his aid. The house immediately
adjourned. The members, greatly agitated, closed around him, until
dispersed by their associates of the medical faculty, who conveyed him
to a sofa in the rotundo, and from thence, at the request of the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, Robert C. Winthrop, he was removed to
the Speaker's apartment in the capitol. There Mrs. Adams and his family
were summoned to his side, and he continued, sedulously watched and
attended, in a state of almost entire insensibility, until the evening
of the 23d of February, when his spirit peacefully departed.
The gate of fear and envy was now shut; that of honor and fame opened.
Men of all parties united in just tributes to the memory of John Quincy
Adams. The halls of Congress resounded with voices of apt eulogy. After
a pathetic discourse by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives,
the remains of the departed statesman were followed by his family and
immediate friends, and by the senators and representatives of the State
of Massachusetts, as chief mourners. The President of the United States,
the heads of departments, both branches of the national legislature, the
members of the executive, judicial, and diplomatic corps, the officers
of the army and navy, the corporations of all the literary and public
societies in the District of Columbia, also joined the procession, which
proceeded with a military escort to the Congressional cemetery. From
thence his remains were removed, attended by thirty members of the House
of Representatives,--one from each state in the Union,--to
Massachusetts.
Every token of honor and respect was manifested in the cities and
villages through which they passed. In Boston they were received by a
committee appointed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, and by the
municipal government; and, passing through the principal streets, were
deposited, under care of the mayor of the city, in Faneuil Hall, which
was appropriately draped in mourning. Here they lay in state until the
next day, when, attended by the representatives of the nation, the
Executive and Legislature of Massachusetts, and the municipal
authorities of Boston, they were removed to Quincy, the birthplace of
Mr. Adams. There, in its Congregational church, after an eloquent
address,[5] these national tributes to the departed patriot closed,
beside the sepulchre of his parents, amidst the scenes most familiar and
dear to his heart.
[5] By William P. Lunt, minister of the First Congregational
Church in Quincy.
* * * *
The life of a statesman second to none in diligent and effective
preparation for public service, and faithful and fearless fulfilment of
public duty, has now been sketched, chiefly from materials taken from
his published works. The light of his own mind has been thrown on his
labors, motives, principles, and spirit. In times better adapted to
appreciate his worth, his merits and virtues will receive a more
enduring memorial. The present is not a moment propitious to weigh them
in a true balance. He knew how little a majority of the men of his own
time were disposed or qualified to estimate his character with justice.
To a future age he was accustomed to look with confidence. "_Alteri
sæculo_" was the appeal made by him through his whole life, and is
now engraven on his monument.
The basis of his moral character was the religious principle. His spirit
of liberty was fostered and inspired by the writings of Milton, Sydney,
and Locke, of which the American Declaration of Independence was an
emanation, and the constitution of the United States, with the exception
of the clauses conceded to slavery, an embodiment. He was the associate
of statesmen and diplomatists at a crisis when war and desolation swept
over Europe, when monarchs were perplexed with fear of change, and the
welfare of the United States was involved in the common danger. After
leading the councils which restored peace to conflicting nations, he
returned to support the administration of a veteran statesman, and then
wielded the chief powers of the republic with unsurpassed purity and
steadiness of purpose, energy, and wisdom. Removed by faction from the
helm of state, he re-entered the national councils, and, in his old age,
stood panoplied in the principles of Washington and his associates, the
ablest and most dreaded champion of freedom, until, from the station
assigned him by his country, he departed, happy in a life devoted to
duty, in a death crowned with every honor his country could bestow, and
blessed with the hope which inspires those who defend the rights, and
uphold, when menaced, momentous interests of mankind.