Papers of John Adams, volume 14

From Mercy Otis Warren, 4 May 1783 Warren, Mercy Otis Adams, John

From Mercy Otis Warren

Sir Milton May 4th 17831

Did not the stronger motive of friendship Excite, I think the Gratitude due from Each individual of Your Country would be a stimulus sufficient to set the pen in motion. urged by such laudable principles an apology for calling asside your Attention from objects of greater Magnitude is unnecessary. And if I am the last to Congratulate you on the success of your Negotiations I will Venture to say I am not the least sensible of their importance, and among the Multitude of your friends you have few who Enjoy more pleasure in your Triumph over your Enemies, or in that firmness, Intrepidity & perseverence that at once obtained it & secured the Claims of America on a Basis that promisses Wealth and Honour, (& if not incompatible) I will add Happiness to posterity.

And do you think now sir to Retire to sit down Quietly & Enjoy the sweets of Domestic life—No.—Never.—till Weary Nature 467diminishes your capacity for acting in the sphere of Dignified difficulty you was not made for the purpose of Resting in the cool sequestered shade of life. it is yours to tread the bold & craggy path of Politics, to Counteract the Intrigues of statsmen & princes, to settle the Boundaries of Nations, & Mark the line of Empire, and what is yet more Difficult to Atchive, to Convince Mankind that probity is the surest Road to Honour.

A people Destitute of public or private Virtue Cannot be long Happy by the Exertions of a few of the best or Wisest of her Citizens. Yet I beleive the Example of one Good Man unawed by threats—uncorrupted by Gold, & unmoved by the Machinations Refinements & Duplicity of systematical Villany, has a Greater tendency to keep alive the Respect due to Real Merit than Either Judiciary Restraints, or the best digested Code of Moral injunction—

I feel myself disposed to loquacity (Nothing Novel in my sex) but least the subject before me should betray me into some Expressions that might bear the semblance of Flattery, instead of that just mean of applause, due to Distinguished Worth. I leave all panegirick to the Historian & the poet— And in the simple Familiar style of unadorned friendship, inquire Whether the American Minister at the Hague Received several letters under the signature of Marcia2—and if the Cold phlegmatic Dutchman, more Honest than polite Delayed a return. surely the influance of a Milder Clime will soften to Condesention, and the Ettequete of Varsellies & paris forbid such an affront to a Lady.

Therefore I shall peep as Eagerly into the next paket, as an inspector to a plenipo’—for a letter Directed to one who asks not forgivness for those short interruptions— the little interludes of common life give fresh Exhiliration to the spirits, & fill up the Vacant Moment, when the mind is Worn down by the Higher Avocations to Bussiness, or fatigued by the parade of Courts & the pomp & Glare of Grandeur—

political Connextions, the state of parties, & the Internal Feuds in your Beloved Country You doubtless have Through the hands of more Interested Observers— And if Through the Inattention of public or the Negligence of private Men, You have not all the Intelligence You might Expect, You have Every thing Worthy of your Notice from a quarter that Enhaunces the Value of the Communication—3

I therefore only add that your American Friends Wish most Ardently to see, that the Friends of America Wish your Residence in 468Europe—and that wherever you Reside, or what Ever is your Mode of life an affectionate prayer for your Happiness will be Breathed from the lips of, sir Your / assured Friend & Humbl sert

M Warren

PS Please to make perticular Complements to the American Gentlemen of my acquaintance— a letter from Mr J in the high style of Russian politeness, would be very pleasing to his young Friends on Milton Hill

May 9th

Mr Warren Expecting a more direct opportunity soon will write you largly4 this will be handed you by a Mr Watsen of Marblehead formerly of Plimouth who Wishes for an opportunity to wait on you

RC (Adams Papers); endorsed: “Mr Warren May 4. 1783.”

JA received this letter in early Sept. and replied on the 10th ( Warren-Adams Letters , 2:223–224).

Mercy Otis Warren. The last extant letters to JA signed “Marcia” or “Marcia Warren” were of 24 July and 15 Nov. 1780 (vol. 10:28–30, 348–350).

Presumably a reference to AA, whose last letter was of 28 April and who would next write on 7 May ( AFC , 5:141–145, 151–155).

James Warren's next letter was of 24 June, to which JA replied on 10 Sept. ( Warren-Adams Letters , 2:217–220, 221–223).

From Francis Dana, 9 May 1783 Dana, Francis Adams, John

From Francis Dana

Dear Sir St: Petersbourg April 28th. 1783. OS [9 May N.S.]

The post of the 21st. inst: brôt Mr: Thaxter's Letters of the 31st. of March, and 3d. of April; by which I find you had received mine of the 24th. of Feby: informing you that I had that day communicated my Mission to the Vice Chancr: and the reason why I did it.1 The Contents of this packet will therefore much surprise you. You will be ready to ask what has since taken place. I only answer the first ~~objection~~ Cause assigned, at present. Hereafter I may attempt to account for so unexpected an Event— I have only to pray you if Mr: T. has leisure, to desire him to make out a copy of the Memorial, and of my Letter to the Vice-Chancellor accompanying it.2 You will be pleased to forward this packet, which you are desired to read, by the first occasion. From your Friend & humble Servant.

P. S. Send no more Letters on to me here, unless I shortly request you to do it.

469

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency J. Adams Esqr: &c”; endorsed: “Mr Dana / April 28th 1783.” Filmed at 28 April.

Thaxter's 31 March letter had a postscript dated 3 April (MHi:Dana Family Papers). Thaxter noted in the postscript that when Dana's [7 March] letter, above, arrived “several of our Countrymen were present when our Friend opened your Letter, & altho’ he did not read it to Us, yet he dropped a Hint which spread genuine Joy on each Countenance, followed with a cordial Battement des Mains [applause].”

On the previous day, 8 May, Dana sent a memorial to Ivan A. Osterman, vice chancellor of Russia. In it he challenged the arguments used by Osterman during his conference with Dana on 23 April, at which Osterman attempted to justify Russia's refusal to immediately recognize the United States. This letter is the first of three, the others dated [12] and [15 May], both below, dealing with the conference and the memorial. The packet enclosed with this letter included a brief covering letter to Robert R. Livingston of [9 May] and the [8 May] memorial with its letter of transmittal to Osterman. It did not include a second, longer, and more analytical letter to Livingston of [9 May], due to Dana's certainty that this letter would be opened and its enclosures read by Russian agents (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 6:411–415, 416–418).

The 23 April conference climaxed Dana's efforts to obtain Russian recognition and, as his [8 May] memorial indicates, it was profoundly disappointing because Russia was clearly unwilling to recognize the United States. Dana's memorial summarized then rebutted Osterman's arguments. According to Dana, Osterman offered three obstacles to immediate recognition. First, the revived Austro-Russian mediation required Russia to maintain its neutrality, which would be compromised if it recognized the United States before a definitive treaty was concluded. Second, Dana would need a new commission dated after the conclusion of the definitive treaty, since to accept a commission with a prior date would also compromise Russian neutrality. Finally, and again with reference to Russian neutrality, an American minister could not be received at St. Petersburg before Great Britain had received a minister in London. Regarding the first point, Dana noted that Britain had already recognized the United States as sovereign and independent by agreeing to negotiate with its commissioners and by concluding the provisional peace treaty. Therefore, Dana argued, Russian recognition could not compromise its neutrality. As to the third obstacle to recognition, Dana argued that other nations had received American ministers and that if British reception of a minister was to be the criteria for receiving a minister from the United States, then the new nation's ability to exercise its sovereignty with regard to the nations of Europe would be seriously compromised. But it was Osterman's second point that elicited Dana's most passionate response. Dana interpreted Osterman's comment to mean that Russia would recognize the sovereignty and independence of the United States as dating from the conclusion of the definitive treaty rather than, as his commission of 19 Dec. 1780 indicated, from 4 July 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was officially proclaimed. Dana noted that for the United States to accept Osterman's view would be “to strike off near seven years of their existence as free, sovereign, and independent States” (same, p. 411–415).

In a Russian account of the 23 April conference ( U.S. and Russia , p. 181–183), Osterman's remarks appear more ambiguous and conditional than Dana's account indicates, but generally it supports Dana's version. In his [14 June] response to the [8 May] memorial, Osterman indicated that Dana had misinterpreted Russia's position, particularly with regard to the date of his commission. The vice chancellor implied that he had merely meant that Dana's commission should bear a date later than 19 Dec. 1780. In a conversation with Dana shortly thereafter, Osterman indicated that the “demand did not touch on the question of when American independence was established” and that “so delicate a matter ought not to have been brought up” (same, p. 190–192). For additional comments by Dana concerning this issue, see Dana's letters of [ 12 ] and [ 15 May ], below.