John Adams, a distinguished patriot of the revolution, was born at
Braintree, Massachusetts, October 19, 1735. The ancestors of Mr. A.
had left England for the wilds of America, in order to enjoy their
religious opinions unmolested. They were among the first settlers of
Massachusetts, Henry Adams, the great-great-grandfather of John, and
one of the original proprietors of the town of Braintree, having fled
from England, with other Puritans, in the year 1630. Their condition
was that of substantial yeomen, who possessed the fee simple of their
lands, and maintained themselves and families by manual labor. Mr. A.
having, when yet a boy, evinced great fondness for books, and
readiness in learning, his father determined to give him a collegiate
education, and placed him, in consequence, under the care of Mr. Marsh
(who was afterwards the preceptor of the celebrated Josiah Quincy),
that he might be prepared for entrance into the university of
Cambridge. He remained in that institution until the year 1755, when
he received his bachelor’s degree, and in 1758 that of master of arts.
Whilst at college, he is said to have been distinguished by intense
application, retentiveness of memory, acuteness of reasoning, boldness
and originality of thought, strength of language, and an honesty of
character which could neither assume nor tolerate disguise. After he
had left college, he commenced the study of law, at Worcester, with
colonel James Putnam, and, during the period he was so engaged,
instructed pupils in the Latin and Greek languages, in order to be
able to defray his expenses himself. Before proceeding farther, it may
not be amiss to notice the posture of affairs in Massachusetts at that
epoch. For a long time past, that province had been disturbed by
almost unremitted contentions between its inhabitants and the
parliament of Great Britain, on various important subjects. The
English legislature had, in fact, nothing to do with the colonies, as
all dominion acquired by conquest or discovery invariably accrued to
the king. To him alone the emigrants paid allegiance and applied for
protection, and, although parliament always affected to believe itself
entitled to regulate their concerns, they received very little
interruption from it in the exercise of the privilege granted them by
the king of governing and legislating for themselves. In the course of
time, however, parliament became jealous of the power, approaching to
independence, which they enjoyed, and began to impose unconstitutional
restraints upon their commerce, to violate their charters, and, in
short, to treat them so arbitrarily, that their spirit was completely
roused, and a vigorous resistance called forth. Massachusetts,
especially, had become a theatre of perpetual struggle for power on
the one side, and for freedom on the other. But it was hitherto only
an intellectual warfare, no idea of a separation from the mother
country having been entertained. In 1758, Mr. A. left the office of
colonel Putnam, and entered that of Jeremiah Gridley, then
attorney-general of the province, and of the highest eminence at the
bar. Gridley had, some years previously, superintended also the legal
studies of James Otis, and, proud of his two pupils, used often to
say, that ‘he had raised two young eagles, who were, one day or other,
to peck out his eyes.’ In 1759, Mr. A. was admitted, at his
recommendation, a member of the bar of Suffolk. Mr. A. commenced the
practice of his profession in that part of his native town now called
_Quincy_, but first brought himself into notice by his defense of a
prisoner in the county of Plymouth, from which time a sufficiency of
lucrative business generally occupied his attention. In 1761, he was
admitted to the degree of barrister at law, and shortly afterwards was
placed in the possession of a small landed estate by his father’s
decease. In February of this year, an incident occurred, which
inflamed his enthusiasm in the cause of his country’s rights to the
highest pitch. The British cabinet had long shown a desire to assert
the sovereign authority of parliament over the colonies in all cases
of taxation and internal policy; but the first evidence of its having
determined to do so was an order in council, issued this year,
enjoining the officers of the customs in Massachusetts Bay to execute
the _acts of trade_, and make application for _writs of assistance_,
to the supreme judicature of the province. These writs were a species
of general search-warrants, authorizing those who were empowered to
carry them into effect to enter all houses, warehouses, etc., for the
purpose of discovering and seizing such goods as were not discharged
from the taxes imposed upon them by the acts. The officers of the
customs applied for them, in pursuance of their instructions, to the
court at Salem, but the demand was refused, on account of doubts
concerning their constitutionality. It was then determined to have the
affair argued by counsel in Boston. Great alarm now pervaded the whole
community. Mr. Otis was engaged, by the merchants of Salem and Boston,
to oppose the concession of so formidable an instrument of arbitrary
power. In order to do so with entire freedom, he resigned the
lucrative station of advocate-general in the court of admiralty, which
he then enjoyed. Of the masterly manner in which he performed his
duty, Mr. A., who was present at the discussion, has transmitted a
vivid account. ‘Otis,’ says he, ‘was a flame of fire! With a
promptitude of classical allusion, a depth of research, a rapid
summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal
authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid
torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him.
_American Independence was then and there born._’ He afterwards adds,
‘Every man of an immensely crowded audience appeared to me to go away,
as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.’ Speaking of
this discourse on another occasion, he said, ‘that James Otis, then
and there, first breathed into this nation the breath of life.’ In
1764, he married Abigail Smith, second daughter of the Rev. William
Smith, of Weymouth, and grand-daughter of colonel Quincy, of Mount
Wollaston, a lady every way worthy of her husband, endowed by nature
with a countenance singularly noble and lovely, and with a mind whose
fine powers were improved by an excellent education. Her ardor in the
cause of her country was as elevated as his own, and her piety
unaffected and exemplary. About a year afterwards, Mr. A. published in
the Boston Gazette several pieces, under the title of ‘An Essay on
Canon and Feudal Law,’ which were reprinted in London, in 1768, and
called ‘A Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law.’ It is, perhaps, not
the smallest proof of its merit, that it was there attributed to
Gridley, who at that time enjoyed the highest reputation for ability.
The friends of the colonies in England termed it ‘one of the very best
productions ever seen from North America.’ The name of the real author
was afterwards divulged, in 1783, when it was published in
Philadelphia, by Robert Bell, in a pamphlet form, with lord
Sheffield’s observations on the commerce of the American States, and
entitled ‘An Essay on Canon and Feudal Law, by John Adams, Esq.’ It
seems to have been the principal object of the author to extinguish,
as far as possible, the blind and almost superstitious veneration of
his countrymen for the institutions of the parent country, by holding
up to their abhorrence the principles of the canon and feudal law, and
showing to them the conspiracy which existed between church and state,
for the purpose of oppressing the people. He inculcates the sentiments
of genuine liberty, as well as the necessity of correct information on
the part of his fellow-citizens, in order that they might be prepared
to assert and maintain their rights by force, if force should ever
become necessary. It was indeed a work eminently calculated to excite
the people of America to resist, at all hazards, any infringement of
their liberties. In December, 1765, Mr. A. was engaged, as counsel
with Mr. Gridley and Mr. Otis, to support, before the governor and
council, a memorial presented to the former, from the town of Boston,
praying that the courts, which had been closed on account of the
opposition to the stamp act, might again be opened. Through their
united exertions, the petition was successful. In the same year, he
removed to Boston, where he continued in the practice of his
profession on a very extensive scale. After he had resided there about
two years, the crown officers of the province, thinking, perhaps, that
his patriotism was not without its price, made him an offer, through
Mr. Sewall (between whom and himself an intimate friendship subsisted,
formed at the time when he was studying with colonel Putnam), of the
office of advocate-general in the court of admiralty, the most
lucrative post in the gift of the governor. This office also was one
which conducted its incumbents directly to the highest provincial
honors. He refused it, however, as he says in his preface to the late
edition of _Novanglus_, ‘decidedly and peremptorily, though
respectfully.’ In 1769, he was appointed chairman of the committee
chosen by the town of Boston, for the purpose of drawing up
instructions to their representatives, to resist the encroachments of
the British government. His colleagues were R. Dana and Jos. Warren.
At the time they were thus employed, the metropolis was invested by an
armed force, both by sea and land, and the state-house surrounded by a
military guard, with cannon pointed at the door. Large majorities of
both houses of parliament had signified their approval of the measures
adopted by the king; had promised him their support, and besought him
to prosecute, _within the realm_, all those who had been guilty of
treasonable acts, in Massachusetts, since the year 1767, in accordance
with the decree of parliament of the 35th of Henry VIII. Nevertheless,
the committee performed their task with undaunted firmness, and
reported the instructions which, no doubt, contributed to produce the
strong resolutions subsequently adopted by the legislature of
Massachusetts. It was on account of these instructions and
resolutions, that the _provincial_ garrison was withdrawn, by order of
the governor, from the castle, and _regular troops_, in the pay of the
crown, substituted. The instructions also formed one of the specific
charges made against the colony by the committee of the lords of
council for plantation affairs, to the lords of council, July 6, 1770.
A striking example of the firmness and uprightness of Mr. A. occurred
during the course of that year. He had, hitherto, been very active in
stimulating the people of his province to the strenuous maintenance of
their rights, and had thereby aided in producing an excitement greater
than he could have wished, and which he found it necessary to
counteract. The people of Boston had become exasperated at the idea of
a garrison placed in their city, and were extremely hostile to the
soldiers composing it. These feelings led to an attack upon a party of
them under the command of captain Preston, March 5. They fired on the
assailants in self-defense, and killed several of them. The soldiers
were immediately arraigned before the civil authority, and Mr. Adams,
in conjunction with Josiah Quincy and Mr. Sampson S. Blowers, was
requested to aid them upon their trial. Although the minds of the
people were inflamed almost to madness, and the defense of the accused
seemed to involve a certain loss of popularity, Mr. A. immediately
undertook to act as their advocate. Mr. A. was no demagogue; he saw
that the honor of his country was at stake, and he rejoiced, as has
been well said, in the opportunity of showing to the world, that the
cause of America did not depend upon a temporary excitement, which
could stifle the voice of justice, but upon the sober, steady,
persevering determination of the people to support their rights. The
cause was conducted by him and his colleagues with great ability, and
the soldiers were all acquitted save two, who were found guilty of
manslaughter, received a slight branding as a punishment, and were
then discharged. Scarcely any thing which occurred during the
revolution confers more honor upon the national character, and did
more service to the cause of America, than this triumph of justice.
Mr. A. soon received a proof that the public confidence in him was not
diminished, by his election, in May, 1770, to the legislature of his
state, as one of the representatives of the town of Boston. His
conduct in this new situation displayed the same patriotism, courage
and hostility to the despotism of the mother country, by which he had
always been distinguished. He took a prominent part in every public
measure, and served on several committees, who reported some of the
most important state papers of the time; among which were the address
and protest to the governor against the removal of the general court
from Boston to Cambridge. In Bradford’s History of Massachusetts, we
find the following account of a controversy in which Mr. A. was
engaged in the year 1773. ‘The ministerial regulation for paying the
salary of the judges, which rendered them wholly dependent on the
crown, was the occasion of a learned and able discussion in the public
papers, by William Brattle, senior member of the council, and John
Adams. The essays of the latter were written with great learning and
ability, and had a happy effect in enlightening the public mind on a
question of very great importance. It subjected him, indeed, to the
displeasure of governor Hutchinson and the ministerial party; and at
the next election in May, when chosen by the assembly into the
council, the governor gave his negative to the choice. These essays
were published in the Boston Gazette of February, 1773, under Mr.
Adams’ proper signature, and would make a pamphlet of 50 or 60 pages.’
In 1774, he was again rejected by governor Gage, and soon afterwards
he was appointed one of the committee of the town of Boston, who
prepared the celebrated resolutions on the Boston port-bill. June 17,
of this year, governor Gage, having dissolved the assembly, this body,
before separating, passed a resolution to appoint a committee to meet
other committees from other colonies, for the purpose of consulting
upon their common interests, and, in consequence, Mr. Thomas Cushing,
Mr. Samuel Adams, Mr. John Adams and Mr. Robert Treat Paine were
elected to the first continental congress, which met at Philadelphia
in the following September. Soon after Mr. A. was chosen, an incident
occurred which gives an idea of his feelings on contemplating this
great and daring national movement. His friend Sewall, who had taken
the ministerial side in politics, and was at that time attorney-general
of the province, hearing of his election, invited him to a morning
walk, in the course of which he endeavored to dissuade him from his
purpose of assuming the seat in congress to which he had been
appointed. He told him that the determination of Great Britain to
pursue her system was fixed; that her power was irresistible, and
would involve him in destruction, as well as all his associates who
persevered in opposition to her designs. ‘I know,’ replied he,
‘that Great Britain has determined on her system, and that very
determination determines me on mine. You know that I have been
constant and uniform in opposition to her designs. The die is now
cast. I have passed the Rubicon. Sink or swum, live or die, survive or
perish with my country, is my fixed, unalterable determination.’ On
bidding him adieu, Mr. A. said to his friend, ‘I see we must part, and
with a bleeding heart I say, I fear forever. But, you may depend upon
it, this adieu is the sharpest thorn on which I ever set my foot.’ Mr.
A. took his seat in congress, September 5, 1774, the first day of
their session, and was soon chosen a member of some of the most
important committees, such as that which drew up the statement of the
rights of the colonies, and that which prepared the address to the
king. He and his colleagues carried with them the character of being
so thoroughly desirous of independence, that, before they arrived at
Philadelphia, warning had been given to them, by many of the most
respectable inhabitants of the Middle States, not to utter a word on
that subject, as it was as unpopular as the stamp act itself. Almost
all the delegates from the other colonies were impressed with the idea
that England could be brought to terms, without resorting to a
declaration of independence. Washington alone, of the Virginia
delegation, was doubtful whether the measures adopted by congress
would be efficacious in attaining the object for which they were
designed. In one of his letters, Mr. A. says, that Richard Henry Lee
used the following language to him, when they parted: ‘We shall
infallibly carry all our points; you will be completely relieved; all
the offensive acts will be repealed; the army and fleet will be
recalled, and Britain will give up her foolish project.’ On his return
to Massachusetts, he became engaged in a controversy with his friend
Sewall, who was writing a series of essays under the appellation of
_Massachusettensis_, for the purpose of vindicating the cause of the
government party. Mr. A.’s papers were published in the Boston
Gazette, with the signature of _Novanglus_, and exhibit the cause of
America in the most triumphant and favorable light. When Mr. A.
resumed his seat in congress the following year, hostilities had in
reality commenced between Great Britain and the colonists, though as
yet not openly declared, and the blood of numbers of brave men had
stained the plains of Lexington and Concord. On receiving the account
of this battle, congress determined upon war. It was necessary to fix
upon some one for the post of commander-in-chief of the troops which
were ordered to be raised. The eyes of all the New England delegation
were turned upon General Ward, then at the head of the army in
Massachusetts. At a meeting of them, when that officer was proposed
for nomination, Mr. A. alone dissented, and urged the selection of
George Washington, one of the representatives from Virginia. He was
resisted, and left the meeting with the declaration that Washington on
the next day should be nominated. He was accordingly nominated, at the
instigation of Mr. A., by governor Johnstone of Maryland, and chosen
without an opposing voice. Five days after the appointment of General
Washington, Mr. Jefferson made his first appearance on the floor of
congress, having been chosen by the people of Virginia to fill the
place of Patrick Henry, who had lately been elected the governor of
that province. Between this distinguished man and Mr. A. a friendship
speedily arose, which subsisted, with a short interruption, during the
remainder of their lives. When Mr. A. returned to Massachusetts, after
the dissolution of the congress of 1775, the post of chief justice of
the state was offered to him, which he declined, on account of his
belief that he should be able to render more effectual service to the
cause of his country in its national councils. At the time that he
resumed his seat in them in 1776, hostilities were active between
Great Britain and the colonies. But the object of the latter was as
yet merely to resist the authority assumed by the parent country to
impose taxes upon them at pleasure. Few persons entertained the idea
of a dissolution of connexion; very few, even of the delegates in
congress, seemed to desire it; but among those few John Adams was the
foremost. We have already mentioned its unpopularity. As soon as Mr.
A. was suspected in Philadelphia of being an advocate of that measure,
he was represented constantly in the most odious light, and even
pointed at and avoided on appearing in the streets. Still, however, he
persevered, made every day proselytes, and, May 6, 1776, moved in
congress a resolution, which was, in fact, a virtual declaration of
independence, recommending to the colonies ‘to adopt such a government
as would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best
conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents and of
America.’ This passed, after a hard struggle, on the 15th of the same
month, and was the prelude to the glorious and daring resolution,
moved by Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, on the 7th of June following,
and seconded by Mr. A., ‘that these united colonies are, and of right
ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from
all allegiance to the British crown; and that all political connexion
between them and the state of Great Britain is, and of right ought to
be, totally dissolved.’ The debate upon this motion was of the most
animated character. It continued from the 7th to the 10th, when the
further discussion of the measure was postponed to the 1st of July. A
committee of five was also appointed to prepare a provisional draft of
a declaration of independence. The members of it were chosen by
ballot, and were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. A. were
deputed a sub-committee to prepare the instrument, the former of whom,
at the earnest solicitation of the latter, became its author.
On the 1st of July, Mr. Lee’s resolution was again considered, and
debated during that and the following day, when it was finally
adopted. The draft of the declaration was then submitted for the
purpose of undergoing an examination in detail. It was passed on the
4th of the same month, as prepared by Mr. Jefferson, with only a few
alterations, which were made through a prudent deference to the views
of some of the states. Mr. A. always preferred the draft as it
originally stood. The declaration was not adopted without serious
opposition from many members of the congress, including John
Dickinson, one of the ablest men in that assembly. But their arguments
were completely overthrown by the force and eloquence of Mr. A., whose
speech on the subject of independence is said to have been unrivaled.
Mr. Jefferson himself has affirmed, ‘that the great pillar of support
to the declaration of independence, and its ablest advocate and
champion on the floor of the house, was John Adams.’ Speaking of his
general character as an orator, the same illustrious man observed,
that he was ‘the Colossus of that congress: not graceful, not elegant,
not always fluent in his public addresses, he yet came out with a
power, both of thought and expression, which moved his hearers from
their seats.’ Mr. Silas Deane, who was a commissioner with Dr.
Franklin and Mr. Arthur Lee, at the court of Versailles, having been
recalled, Mr. A. was chosen, Nov. 28, 1777, to fill his place. By this
appointment, he was released from the laborious and important duties
of chairman of the board of war, which post he had filled since June
13, 1776. It is stated that he was a member of ninety committees,
twice as many as any other representative, except Richard Henry Lee
and Samuel Adams, of twenty-five of which he was chairman, though it
was the policy to put Virginia generally at the head. Among these
committees were several of the greatest consequence; one of them was
that which was sent to Staten Island at the request of lord Howe, who
had solicited an interview with some of the members of congress,
which, however, produced no effect, on account of the refusal of his
lordship to consider them as commissioners from congress, and the
declaration of Mr. A., that ‘he might view him in any light he
pleased, except in that of a British subject.’ About two months after
his appointment, Mr. A. embarked in the Boston frigate, and arrived
safely at his place of destination, though an English fleet had been
despatched to intercept him. The treaties of commerce and alliance
with France were signed before he reached that country, and, after
remaining there until the following August, he returned to the United
States, the nomination of Dr. Franklin as minister plenipotentiary to
the court of Versailles having superseded the powers of the
commissioners. Immediately on his arrival, he was elected a member of
the convention to prepare a form of government for the state of
Massachusetts, and placed upon the sub-committee chosen to draft the
project of a constitution, to be laid before that body. The general
frame of the constitution, particularly the manner of dividing and
distributing power, and the clause respecting the duty incumbent upon
government with regard to the patronage of literature and the arts and
sciences, were the work of his pen. Three months after his return,
congress again sent him abroad with two commissions, one as minister
plenipotentiary to negotiate a peace, the other to form a commercial
treaty with Great Britain. He embarked in the French frigate Sensible,
Nov. 17, and was forced to land at Corunna, in Spain, from which place
he traveled over the mountains to Paris, where he arrived in Feb,
1780. After remaining a short time in that city, having found the
French court jealous of his commission to form a treaty of commerce
with Great Britain, he repaired to Holland in Aug. 1780, the same year
in which congress passed a vote of approbation of his conduct, instead
of recalling him, as the French minister, count de Vergennes, had
solicited them to do, on account of his refusal to communicate to him
his instructions about the treaty of commerce, and his opposition to a
claim set up by France, that, when congress called in the old
continental money at forty for one, a discrimination ought to have
been made, in favor of the French holders of that paper. The June
previous to his journey to Amsterdam, Mr. A. was appointed in the room
of Mr. Laurens to obtain loans in Holland, and, in December of the
same year, was invested with full powers to negotiate a treaty of
amity and commerce with that country. Mr. A. at first had to contend
with great difficulties in Holland. He was opposed by the whole
influence of the British government, as well as by the power of the
prince of Orange, and even, strange as it may appear, by the intrigues
of France herself, the professed friend and avowed ally of the United
States. He found the people of Holland entirely unacquainted with the
affairs of his country, and immediately began to impart to them
information concerning that subject, using, for this purpose,
principally, two newspapers, one called the _Leyden Gazette_, and the
other _Le Politique Hollandois_, in which he wrote various political
articles. He also published a series of twenty-six letters, in answer
to a set of queries proposed to him by Mr. Kalkoen, an eminent jurist
of Amsterdam, containing an account of the rise and progress of the
dispute with Great Britain, and of the resources, spirit and prospects
of the United States. These epistles, together with some essays
written by Mr. Kalkoen, drawing a comparison between the struggles of
the United States for their liberty, and those formerly made by the
seven United Provinces, which eventuated in their independence, had a
great effect in enlightening the people of Holland, and inspired them
with sentiments highly favorable to the American cause. Shortly
afterwards, Dec. 21, 1780, a rupture took place between England and
Holland, occasioned by the accession of the latter to the armed
neutrality, and the discovery of a negotiation between Mr. Lee, the
American commissioner at Berlin, and Mr. Van Berckel the pensionary of
Amsterdam, for a treaty of amity and commerce. Even at this early
period, he had formed an opinion decidedly in favor of the
establishment of a navy, and expressed it in almost all his letters
home. In July, 1781, he was summoned to Paris for the purpose of
consulting upon the offer of mediation made by the courts of Austria
and Russia, and suggested an answer adopted by the French court, which
put an end to the negotiation on that subject; the mediating powers
refusing to acknowledge the independence of the United States without
the consent of Great Britain.
Oct. 19, 1781, Mr. A., in opposition to the advice of the duke de la
Vauguion, the French minister at the Hague, and on his own
responsibility, communicated to their high mightinesses his letters of
credence, presenting to their president also, at the same time, a
memorial, dated April 19th, in which he justified the declaration of
independence, and endeavored to convince the people of Holland that it
was for their interest to form a connection with the United States and
to give them support in their difficulties. As he had not yet been
acknowledged by the States General as the minister of a sovereign and
independent nation, the president could not receive the memorial in
form, but he engaged to make a report of the substance of what had
been communicated to him by Mr. A. In the August previous, Mr. A. had
received instructions to propose a triple alliance between France, the
United Provinces and the United States, to exist as long as
hostilities were carried on by the latter against Great Britain, one
of the indispensable conditions of which, on the part of Holland, was
the recognition of American independence. The alliance never was
effected, but the latter object Mr. Adams accomplished. Jan. 9, 1782,
not having received a reply to his memorial, he waited upon the
president, and demanded a categorical answer. The States General then
took the subject immediately into consideration, and Mr. A. was
acknowledged, April 19, as ambassador of the United States to their
high mightinesses, and three days afterwards was received as such.
Having obtained assurance that Great Britain would recognize the
independence of the United States, he repaired, in Oct. 1782, to
Paris, whither he had refused to go before such assurance was given,
to commence the negotiation for peace, and there met Dr. Franklin, Mr.
Jay and Mr. Laurens, who, as well as Mr. Jefferson, had been appointed
his colleagues. Their instructions, a part of which was ‘to undertake
nothing without the knowledge and concurrence of the ministers of
France, and ultimately to govern themselves by their advice and
opinion,’ placed them almost entirely under the control of the French
court. They were greatly displeased at being thus shackled, and, after
a short time, finding themselves in a very embarrassing situation,
they boldly determined to disobey their instructions, and act for
themselves and for their country, without consulting the ministers of
a supposed treacherous ally. The definitive treaty of peace was
ratified Jan. 14, 1783.
After serving on two or three commissions to form treaties of amity
and commerce with foreign powers, Mr. Adams, in 1785, was appointed
the first minister to London. It is related that, upon his
introduction to the king, the latter, knowing his disgust at the
intrigues of the French court, and wishing to compliment him,
expressed his pleasure at seeing a minister who had no prejudices in
favor of France, the natural enemy of his crown. The reply of Mr.
Adams evinced his patriotism and honesty of character. ‘May it please
your majesty,’ said he, ‘I have no prejudices but for my own country.’
In 1787, whilst in London, he published his Defense of the American
Constitutions against the attacks which they had sustained, and in
October of that year, by his own request, he was allowed to return to
the United States. Congress, at the same time that they gave him such
permission, passed a resolution of thanks to be presented to him for
his able and faithful discharge of the various important commissions
with which he had been entrusted. Immediately after his return, Mr.
Adams was elected the first vice-president of the United States under
the new constitution, and reëlected as such in 1793. He discharged the
duties of his office until March 4, 1797, when he succeeded to the
presidency, vacated by the resignation of General Washington. This
great man’s confidence he possessed in an eminent degree, and was
consulted by him as often as any member of the cabinet. As the two
parties in the senate were nearly balanced, Mr. Adams, while acting,
_ex officio_, as president of that body, had often to decide
questions, by his casting vote, of the highest importance, and which
had excited a great deal of party feeling. One instance of this
occurred, when Mr. Clarke’s resolution prohibiting all intercourse
with Great Britain on account of the capture of several American
vessels by British ships, and other grievances, was brought before the
senate, after having been adopted by the house of representatives,
April 18, 1794. Upon this bill the senators were equally divided, and
Mr. Adams decided against it, thinking that it would have no good
effect upon the policy of England, would injure us as much as her, and
perhaps occasion a war.
In 1797, he became, we have said, president of the United States. It
will not be necessary to enter into a detail of the events of his
administration, as they belong rather to the department of the
historian than of the biographer. It will be sufficient to mention a
few important circumstances. When he commenced the discharge of the
duties of his office, he found the government embroiled in a dispute
with France, and, in one of his earliest communications to congress,
complained, in dignified and eloquent language, of a grievous insult
offered by the government of that country to the ambassador of the
United States. Wishing still to preserve peace, he despatched a
commission consisting of three envoys, Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall and
Gerry, to France. The French government treated them in the most
contumelious manner. Such, however, was the violence of party spirit,
and so large a portion of the American people entertained an
enthusiastic admiration of France, that even the measures which Mr.
Adams then took for sustaining the national dignity had no
inconsiderable effect in diminishing his popularity.
Mr. Adams was the founder of the American navy. Before his
administration, scarcely an American ship of war was to be seen upon
the ocean; but, during this period, by his strenuous exertions,
mainly, a very respectable naval force was created. His administration,
however, was not of long continuance, having pleased neither of the
two great parties which divided the country (the greatest praise,
perhaps, that it could receive), his measures being too strong for the
democrats and too weak for the federalists. In consequence of this,
after his term of four years had expired, March 4, 1801, it was found
that his adversary, Mr. Jefferson, had succeeded by a majority of one
vote. After his retirement to his farm in Quincy, Mr. Adams occupied
himself with agricultural pursuits, obtaining amusement from the
literature and politics of the day. He was nominated as governor of
Massachusetts, but declined being a candidate, wishing only for
repose. During the disputes with England, which occurred while Mr.
Jefferson was in office, Mr. Adams published a series of letters, in a
Boston paper, supporting the policy of the administration. His
published writings, besides those which we have already mentioned, are
‘Discourses on Davila,’ composed in 1790, while he was vice-president,
and printed in June and July of that year, in the Gazette of the
United States. In 1816, Mr. Adams was chosen member of the electoral
college, which voted for the elevation of Mr. Monroe to the
presidency; and, the following year, sustained the greatest affliction
he had ever been called upon to endure, by the loss of his wife. On
this occasion, he received a beautiful letter of condolence from Mr.
Jefferson, between whom and himself their former friendship,
interrupted for a time by the animosities of party, had been revived.
In 1820, he was elected a member of the convention to revise the
constitution of his state, and chosen its president. This honor he was
constrained to decline, on account of his infirmities and great age,
being then 85 years old; but he attended the convention as a member,
and fulfilled the duty incumbent upon him as such. After that, his
life glided away in uninterrupted tranquillity, until the 4th of July,
1826, when he breathed his last with the same hallowed sentiment on
his lips, which on that glorious day, fifty years before, he had
uttered on the floor of congress――‘Independence forever.’ On the
morning of the jubilee, he was roused by the ringing of the bells and
the firing of cannon, and, on being asked by the servant who attended
him, whether he knew what day it was, he replied, ‘O yes! it is the
glorious 4th of July――God bless it――God bless you all.’ In the course
of the day, he said, ‘It is a great and glorious day,’ and, just
before he expired, exclaimed, ‘Jefferson survives.’ But Jefferson had
already, at one o’clock, that same day, rendered his spirit into the
hands of its Creator.