Samuel Adams was one of the most remarkable men connected with the
American revolution. He was descended from a family that had been
among the early planters of New England, was born in Boston, September
27, 1722, was educated at Harvard college, and received its honors in
1740. When he took the degree of master, in 1743, he proposed the
following question: ‘Whether it be lawful to resist the supreme
magistrate, if the commonwealth cannot be otherwise preserved?’ He
maintained the affirmative, and this collegiate exercise furnished a
very significant index to his subsequent political career. On leaving
the university, he engaged in the study of divinity, with the
intention of becoming a clergyman, but did not pursue his design. From
his earliest youth, his attention was drawn to political affairs, and
he occupied himself, both in conversation and writing, with the
political concerns of the day. He was opposed to governor Shirley,
because he thought too much power was conferred upon him, and was the
friend of his successor, Pownal, as the latter assumed the popular
side. He became so entirely a public man, and discovered such a
jealous, watchful and unyielding regard for popular rights, that he
excited the general attention of the patriotic party, and they took
the opportunity, in the year 1766, to place him in the legislature.
From that period till the close of the revolutionary war, he was one
of the most unwearied, efficient, and disinterested assertors of
American freedom and independence. He grew conspicuous very soon after
his admission into the house, of which he was chosen clerk, it being
then the practice to take that officer from among the members. He
obtained the same kind of influence, and exercised the same
indefatigable activity in the affairs of the legislature, that he did
in those of his town. He was upon every committee, had a hand in
writing or revising every report, a share in the management of every
political meeting, private or public, and a voice in all the measures
that were proposed, to counteract the tyrannical plans of the
administration. The people soon found him to be one of the steadiest
of their supporters, and the government was convinced that he was one
of the most inveterate of its opponents. When his character was known
in England, and it was also understood that he was poor, the partisans
of the ministry, who felt annoyed by the ‘disturbances in America,’
resorted to the usual practice, when the clamorous grow too
troublesome, and proposed that he should be quieted by a participation
in some of the good things they were enjoying. Governor Hutchinson, in
answering the inquiry of a friend, why he was not silenced in this
manner, wrote, with an expression of impatient vexation――‘Such is the
obstinacy and inflexible disposition of the man, that he never can be
conciliated by any office or gift whatever.’
He continued in the legislature till 1774, when he was sent to the
first congress of the old confederation. He was subsequently chosen
secretary of Massachusetts in 1775, which office was performed by
deputy during his absence. He was one of the signers of the
declaration of 1776, which he labored most indefatigably and
unhesitatingly to bring forward. He was an active member of the
convention that formed the constitution of Massachusetts; and, after
it went into effect, he was placed in the senate of the state, and for
several years presided over that body. In 1789, he was elected
lieutenant-governor, and held that office till 1794, when, after the
death of Hancock, he was chosen governor, and was annually reëlected
till 1797. He then retired from public life, and died at his house in
Winter street, Boston, October 2d, 1803, in the 82d year of his age.
He was one of that class who saw very early, that, ‘after all, we must
fight;’ and, having come to that conclusion, there was no citizen more
prepared for the extremity, or who would have been more reluctant to
enter into any kind of compromise. After he had received warning at
Lexington, in the night of the 18th of April, of the intended British
expedition, as he proceeded to make his escape through the fields with
some friends, soon after the dawn of day, he exclaimed, ‘This is a
fine day!’ ‘Very pleasant, indeed,’ answered one of his companions,
supposing he alluded to the beauty of the sky and atmosphere. ‘I
mean,’ he replied, ‘this day is a glorious day for America!’ His
situation at that moment was full of peril and uncertainty, but,
throughout the contest, no damage to himself or to his country ever
discouraged or depressed him. The very faults of his character tended,
in some degree, to render his services more useful, by concentrating
his exertions, and preventing their being weakened by indulgence or
liberality towards different opinions. There was some tinge of bigotry
and narrowness both in his religion and politics. He was a strict
Calvinist; and, probably, no individual of his day had so much of the
feelings of the ancient Puritans as he possessed. In politics, he was
so jealous of delegated power, that he would not have given our
constitutions inherent force enough for their own preservation. He
attached an exclusive value to the habits and principles in which he
had been educated, and wished to adjust wide concerns too closely
after a particular model. One of his colleagues, who knew him well,
and estimated him highly, described him, with good-natured
exaggeration, in the following manner: ‘Samuel Adams would have the
state of Massachusetts govern the Union, the town of Boston govern
Massachusetts, and that he should govern the town of Boston, and then
the whole would not be intentionally ill-governed.’ It was a sad error
of judgment that caused him to undervalue, for a period at least, the
services of Washington during the revolutionary war, and to think that
his popularity, when president, might be dangerous. Still, these
unfounded prejudices were honestly entertained, and sprang naturally
from his disposition and doctrines. During the war, he was impatient
for some more decisive action than it was in the power of the
commander-in-chief, for a long time, to bring about; and when the new
constitution went into operation, its leaning towards aristocracy,
which was the absurd imputation of its enemies, and which his
anti-federal bias led him more readily to believe, derived all its
plausibility from the just, generous and universal confidence that was
reposed in the chief magistrate. These things influenced his conduct
in old age, when he was governor of Massachusetts, and while the
extreme heat of political feelings would have made it impossible for a
much less positive character to administer any public concerns,
without one of the parties of that day being dissatisfied. But all
these circumstances are to be disregarded, in making an estimate of
his services. He, in fact, was born for the revolutionary epoch; he
was trained and nurtured in it, and all his principles and views were
deeply imbued with the dislikes and partialities which were created
during that long struggle. He belonged to the revolution; all the
power and peculiarity of his character were developed in that career;
and his share in public life, under a subsequent state of things, must
be considered as subordinate and unimportant. His private habits were
simple, frugal and unostentatious. Notwithstanding the austerity of
his character, his aspect was mild, dignified and gentlemanly. He was
entirely superior to pecuniary considerations, and, after having been
so many years in the public service, must have been buried at the
public expense, if the afflicting death of an only son had not
remedied this honorable poverty.