Adams Family Correspondence, volume 10
Your letter of the 21st of March, has lain by me some time.1 * * * *
The prospect of a war alarms me much; many persons express their apprehensions respecting the safety of this town in particular— supposing that in case of a war, it would be of great consequence 157 for the British to have possession of it, and presuming they will attempt to invade it; but I hope they will find other objects to engage their attention, and that we shall be permitted to enjoy peace, however little we may merit its continuance.
Our fortifications do not proceed with much rapidity. I cannot but lament that the Baron Steuben has been wholly unnoticed; he would have considered it as complimentary, if he had been appointed to superintend the buildings, and I believe would be allowed by the best judges, to be as capable of the business as those who are honoured with the attentions of the President.2
I hope Congress will not continue in session until the approach of the hot weather, or, if they are obliged to, that they will adjourn out of that uncomfortable city. I shall be distressed from an apprehension of the return of the fever.
Do you, my dear sir, flatter yourself with the idea, that the mission of Mr. Jay will secure to us the blessings of peace? He is to carry the olive branch in one hand, and the sword of defence in the other. I wish the former may soothe, and the latter strike them with terror; but I fear that we are too incapable of exciting their apprehensions on the subject of self-interest; and until they find us necessary to their prosperity, they will not pay us much respect. I not only wish the cause prosperity, but I wish Mr. Jay, individually, success. I confess I do not feel very sanguine upon the subject.
From the debates in the British Parliament, we find that the opposition make honourable mention of our government, and of the President’s measures; but the opposition does not gain much strength or many numbers, and there are so many persons interested in the support of their government, that the minister is generally sure of carrying his points.3
Will you be so good as to let me know when you think it probable that you shall return?
Yours, affectionately,
MS not found. Printed from AA2, Jour. and Corr.,
2:131–132.
Not found.
In early March a committee submitted a report to the House of Representatives listing those ports and harbors that “ought to be put in a state of defence,” including New York City. On 20 March Congress approved “An act to provide for the defence of certain ports and harbors in the United States,” which authorized money for the fortification of those ports under the president’s direction. Several French engineers were appointed to oversee this work. Baron von Steuben, who had written around the same time an “Opinion on a Proper System of Defense of the City and Harbour of New York,” was instead appointed by the New
158
York State legislature to supervise the building of forts in the western part of the state (
Annals of Congress,
3d Cong., 1st sess., p. 479–480, 1423–1424; J. E. Kaufmann and H. W. Kaufmann, Fortress America: The Forts That Defended America 1600 to the Present, Cambridge, 2004, p. 142–143; Young, Democratic Republicans,
p. 379, 391).
On 21 Jan. King George III gave his address at the opening of Parliament justifying the necessity of war with France. In response, John Henry Petty, Earl Wycombe, suggested that the British, “so far from rushing on with avidity to the contest, we might have, like America, avoided, and like her enjoyed in its stead, all the benefits of a neutral situation against contending powers.” Wycombe, however, was in the minority. A proposed amendment by Charles James Fox in the Commons encouraging the king to open negotiations for peace with the French as soon as possible was defeated by a vote of 277 to 59; a similar amendment in the Lords likewise failed by a wide margin (
Parliamentary Hist.,
30:1045–1047, 1062–1286; New York Daily Advertiser, 26 April; Clive Emsley, Britain and the French Revolution, Harlow, Eng., 2000, p. 25–26).
Your favours of 18th. and 19th instant are so full of your Plans and Labours in Agriculture, that I begin to be jealous you will acquire a Reputation as a Farmer that will quite eclypse my own.
I rejoice at length that all Tenants are dispossessed and that Land stock and Utensils are now at our own Disposal.— I am glad you have bought a Yoke of oxen and hope you will buy a farm horse.
Our Thomas is fitted off with Horses saddle Bridle and Saddle Bags and on Monday last sett off upon the Circuit with Mr Ingersol— He will be absent Six Weeks. He goes to Chester Lancaster York Carlisle &c
Mr Trumbull our Friend the Painter goes with Mr Jay as his private Secretary.1
I send you an illiberal Party Pamphlet or two2 and am tenderly
Has Mr Cranch opend his Post office?3
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Mrs A.”
John Jay particularly requested that artist John Trumbull serve as his private secretary on Jay’s mission to Britain. He believed that Trumbull’s “acquaintance with the characters and things of London” would be of greater use to him than the skills of a lawyer or trained clerk. They sailed together in May (Stahr, John Jay,
p. 317–319).
The pamphlets have not been found but were possibly John Taylor, A Definition of Parties; or, The Political Effects of the Paper System Considered, Phila., 1794, Evans, No. 26861; and William Findley, A Review of the Revenue System Adopted by the First Congress under the Federal Constitution … In Thirteen Letters to a Friend, Phila. 1794, Evans, No. 26973; see
AA to JA, 10 May, below.
Richard Cranch was appointed the first postmaster for the town of Quincy in 1793 (
Sibley’s Harvard Graduates,
11:374).