Adams Family Correspondence, volume 9

John Adams to Charles Adams, 18 March 1793 Adams, John Adams, Charles
John Adams to Charles Adams
My son Quincy March 18. 1793

I had the Pleasure of receiving your favour of the 1st. on Saturday night:1 by your Brother, who has been admitted this Term at the Supreme Court and is rising in Practice as well as in litterary fame.

We cannot be too cautious in forming our Opinions of french affairs, and We ought to be still more Slow in discoursing on them. Our amiable and excellent Friend, the Baron is like many others, too Sanguine in his Expectations of irresistable Combinations against the French Republic, and in his Predictions of Partitions Famine, Civil War &c on the other hand our fellow Citizens in general, have too much Enthusiasm in their Applauses of the present Leaders and too sanguine hopes and assurances of Glory and Tryumph to the Jacobins. at least this is my impulse, who have however small Pretentions to better lights than others.

To me, it has ever been astonishing that The King La Fayette, Rochefaucault &c Should have had So little Penetration as to believe that the late Constitution could endure.

The Report of the late Case in the Supream national Court will soon be made public and the Arguments of the Judges weighed. If it Should be necessary for Congress to interfere by Submitting that part of the Constitution to the Revision of the State Legislatures, they have Authority to do it.2

I congratulate you on the national Complextion of the N. York Representatives, which justifies a hope that So material a part of the northern branch of the Union is not likely to become compleatly a Southern State. I regret with You that Mr Kent is not elected.3 My faith is very faint in the Story of 30 Spanish ships with English Jacks.4

420

Although I have no personal Obligations to the King of France, being the only American, accredited to his Court, whom he formally affronted, I do not less acknowledge his Friendship to my Country, nor less regret his unhappy fate. If it were in my Power I would restore him to his Crown and Dignity, well and faithfully limited by a senate and an adequate Representation of the People: for to such a form of Government the Nation must aspire or they will never establish their Liberty. In this opinion I am as Sanguine, as the Baron is in his Predictions, or a Boston Populace, in their civic Rejoicings. possibly as erroneous. The French national Convention, in their Letter to the President have reflected, an honour on me, and a disgrace on the Memory of Franklin, which I believe they never intended. “The United States of America will hardly credit it; the Support which the ancient French Court had afforded them to recover their Independence, was only the fruit of base Speculation; their Glory offended its ambitious Views, and the Ambassadors bore the criminal orders of Stopping the Career of their Prosperity.” Mr Madison and Franklins friends will understand and feel this: but they will prevent the American People from understanding it, if they can. It is a confirmation of my Representations and a Justification of my Conduct: but it is a Refutation of all Franklins corrupt Sychophancy and a severe Condemnation of his Conduct. The N. York News Writers will Suppress this Letter if they can, because it reflects an immortal Glory on Mr Jay.5

Your Mother is better but has had a severe Confinement of five Weeks.

I am &c

John Adams

RC (MHi:Seymour Coll.); internal address: “Mr Charles Adams.”; endorsed: “March 18 1793—”

1.

CA wrote briefly to JA on 1 March touching on a variety of topics, including Thomas Paine's trial, the Publicola writings, New York's election of congressional representatives, and a possible Anglo-Spanish alliance against the French (Adams Papers).

2.

See TBA to AA, 10 Aug., note 3, below.

3.

James Kent (1763–1847), Yale 1781, a Federalist lawyer, had assisted John Jay in the contested gubernatorial election. He was defeated by his brother-in-law Theodorus Bailey in the race to represent Dutchess County, N.Y., in Congress ( DAB ; New York Daily Advertiser, 28 Feb.).

4.

In his 1 March letter to JA, CA noted that “A vessel arrived yesterday from Cadiz which fell in with a fleet of thirty ships of the Line Spaniards. They carried the English Jack with the Flagg of Spain so that this has the appearance of an alliance” (Adams Papers). The Baring, Capt. Cooper, arrived in Philadelphia on 24 Feb., having left Cadiz on 5 January. It reported that at Cadiz “there were several Spanish ships of war sitting out there, and they had an English Jack flying at the top mast head.” Spain, however, did not join the growing European alliance against France until 7 March (New York Daily Advertiser, 28 Feb.; Bosher, French Rev. , p. 183).

5.

For the letter of the French National Convention to George Washington, dated 22 Dec. 1792, see Washington, Papers, Presidential Series , 11:538–540. A translation was printed in the New York Diary, 21 Feb. 1793.

Thomas Boylston Adams to John Adams, 7 April 1793 Adams, Thomas Boylston Adams, John
Thomas Boylston Adams to John Adams
My dear sir. Philadelphia 7th: April 1793—

I am requested by Mr: Dobson to enquire of you what disposition you desire to be made of your Book's of which he has a considerable supply of Coppies.1 Whether some of them should not be sent to Boston & New York, or whether you would wish them to remain where they are. He thinks you gave him no possitive directions about them before you left the City.

Various events have taken place in France since you left us; and tho’ not unexpected are not the less important. Since the Execution of the King & Queen nothing can be thought too mad or extravagant for the National Convention to commit, and the conjecture is not unfair that the Royal Family is e're this extinct. Every arrival since the death of the King has brought some rumor of war—but no authentic information has come to hand till by the arrival of the Packet at New York, Official Dispatches were received by Mr Hammond of a declaration of war on the part of France against England & Holland. There have been some speculations in our Newspapers relative to the Reception & acknowledgment of the expected Minister from the new Republic: If indeed that can be called a Republic, where no laws exist, or if they do, where there is no power Supreme to enforce obedience to them. The term as applied to France, must signify the actual state of the Country, not the form of its Government—Res-Publica, or the Public Afairs, in confusion. Under any other construction, nothing would be easier than to create a Republic in any Country, for they have only to destroy the existing Government—and they are at once resolved into a Frenchifyed system, which if they chose they may call a Republic.

The propriety of receiving the expected Minister in a public capacity has been doubted; indeed Bache's paper some time ago asserted that the President of the U,S, had resolved not to acknowledge him; but little credit I believe is to be given to this report, considering the quarter from whence it came.2 If there would be no impropriety in commiting your opinion upon this subject to a private letter, I will make a request that it may be directed to me.

I presume the Spring begins to show itself with you by this time, for the Fruit Trees have been in full bloom for some days in this 422City— I hope the warm weather will restore health to my Mother, to whom I present my best love and affection, and remain / your dutiful Son

Thomas B Adams

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Vice President of the U,S.”

1.

Thomas Dobson (d. 1823), a Philadelphia printer and bookseller, was selling copies of JA's Defence of the Const. (Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser, 30 Dec. 1791; Baltimore Patriot, 11 March 1823).

2.

Benjamin Franklin Bache's Philadelphia General Advertiser, 27 March 1793, announced, “A report has been prevalent for some days past, that our executive had come to a determination of not acknowledging the minister who is daily expected from France. This report from its nature is not entitled to much credit; we state it, however, as we heard it, leaving it to our readers to stamp its true character.” On the same day, the Philadelphia Federal Gazette chastised Bache for “the attempt . . . to injure the supreme executive. . . . The well-known prudence so characteristic of the president of the United States, would, with a candid mind, have been sufficient to deter the publication of the nature alluded to.”

George Washington and his advisors debated the appropriate reception for Edmond Genet: first, whether or not to receive him at all, and second, if he were received, with what qualifications. They eventually decided unanimously at a 19 April cabinet meeting to indeed receive him but left open the question of qualifications (Washington, Papers, Presidential Series , 12:392–393, 459).