Papers of John Adams, volume 15

From Cotton Tufts, 5 July 1783 Tufts, Cotton Adams, John
From Cotton Tufts
Boston July 5. 1783

Yesterday Our Independance was celebrated in a decent yet joyful Manner—a solid Joy possessed every Heart, none of those Wildnesses which are often seen even in high Life and too often mark the Rabble on such occasions were any where seen on this Day— The Genl Court had previously agreed to meet and render publick Thanks to the supreme Disposer of all Events, not only for the Blessing of Independance but for the Cessation of Hostilities & the Advantageous Peace held out in the Prelimy Articles and a definitive Treaty of which we have Reason shortly to expect—. Dr. Cooper our present Chaplain was requested to lead in the Devotions of the Day, We repaired to his Church preceded by the Artillery Company of this Town with a Band of Musick the Genl Court followed in procession to the Church where seats were assigned the Members— The Meeting was opened by a Short Address from the Doctor., a Psalm was sung after which he made an Excellent Prayer An Anthem closed the Solemnity—after which1 an Oration was delivered by Dr. Warren on the Principles of our Revolution and of Commonwealths the of Republics—shewing that Virtue is the actuating Spirit—that must move & animate the whole and without wch. 85Republics must fall— After the Performancs were ended The Genl Court were escorted by the Artillery Co. to the Senate Chamber, where a Cold Collation was provided, where the Citizen & the Legislator mixed, regaled themselves Drank their Toasts and so Retired— The Senate returned to their Deliberations at 4°C PM— And the Day ended with Peace & Joy2

RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “His Excellency John Adams / Minister for the / United States of America.”

1.

An asterisk at this point directs the reader to the following note at the bottom of the page: “This oration would have done Honour to any of the greatest orators of Antiquity.” For the oration by Dr. John Warren, younger brother of Dr. Joseph Warren who had died at Bunker Hill, see An Oration, Delivered July 4th, 1783, at the Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, Boston, 1783, Evans, No. 18292.

2.

Tufts’ account of the festivities on 4 July is similar to those published in the Boston newspapers, but included less detail. The Independent Chronicle of 10 July, for example, indicated that upon the General Court’s return to the senate chamber thirteen toasts were offered, the sixth of which was to “the American Ministers at the Courts of Europe,” while the seventh expressed the hope that it would be “a long and happy peace.”

To Robert R. Livingston, 7 July 1783 Adams, John Livingston, Robert R.
To Robert R. Livingston
Sir, Paris. 7th. July. 1783.1

We cannot as yet obtain from Mr: Hartley or his Principals an explicit consent to any one proposition whatever: Yet England & France, & England & Spain are probably agreed, and Holland I suppose must comply. Our last resource must be to say we are ready to sign the Provisional Treaty, totidem verbis, as the Definitive Treaty. I think it is plain that the British Ministry do not intend to sign any Treaty till Parliament rises. There are such dissentions in the Cabinet, that they apprehend a Treaty laid before Parliament, if it did not obtain advantages, of which they have no hopes, would furnish materials to overthrow them. A new Administration is talked of under Lord Temple.—2

The West-India Commerce is now the Object wh: interests us the most nearly. At dinner with the Duc de la Vauguyon, on Saturday last, he told me, that he believed the Commerce between the French West-India Islands & the United-States, wd. be confined to Ships built in France & navigated by French Seamen. So then, Monsieur le duc, said I laughing, you have adopted the ideas of the British Navigation Act. But what if the United-States shd. adopt them too, and make a law, that no Commerce shd. be carrd. on with any West-India Islands, French, English, Spanish, Dutch, or Danish, but in Ships built in America & navigated with American 86Seamen? We can import Sugar from Europe . . . But give me leave to tell you, that this Trade can never be carrd. on by the French: Their vessells are all large and navigated by a great number of Seamen, & your navigators are too slow. The Trade itself was only proffitable to us as a System—and little vessells, with a few hands, run away, at any season of the year, from any Creek or River, with a multitude of little Articles collected in haste.— Your Merchants & Mariners have neither the patience to content themselves with much & long labor, & dangerous voyages for small proffit—nor have they the œconomy, nor can they navigate vessells with so few hands.— “Aye, but we think,” says the Duke, “if we don’t try, we shall never learn to do these things as well & as cheap as you.” The Duke told me, some days before, that he had had a great deal of Conversation with the Comte de Vergennes, & he found he had a great many good ideas of Commerce. The Comte himself told me a few weeks ago, “in our regulations of the Commerce, between our Islands & you, we must have regard to our Shipping & our nurseries of Seamen for our Marine, for, smiling politely enough, without a Marine,” says he, “we cannot go to your Succour”— In short, France begins to grow, for a moment, avaritious of Navigation & Seamen: But it is certain, that neither the form of Government, nor the national Character, can possibly admit of great Success in it . . . Navigation is so dangerous a business & requires so much patience, & produces so little proffit, (among nations who understand it best, & have the best advantages for it, where Property is most secure, Lawsuits soonest & cheapest ended, & by fixed certain laws,) that the French can never interfere much, with the Dutch or Americans, in Ship-building or Carrying-Trade. If any French Merchants ever begin to carry on this Commerce, between America & the Islands, they will break to peices very soon, and then some new plan must be adopted . . . The English, for aught I know, will make a similar law, that the Communication, between us & their Islands, shall be carried on in British-built Ships, or Ships built in Canada & Nova-Scotia, & navigated by British Seamen. In this case we must try what we can do with the Dutch & Danes— But the French & English will endeavor to persuade them to the same policy, for the Duc de la Vauguyon told me, he tho’t it a common Tie, (Lien commun.) In this they will not succeed, & we must make the most we can of the Dutch friendship, for luckily the Merchants and Regency of Amsterdam had too much wit to exclude us from their Islands by the Treaty. Happily Congress will have a Dutch Minister, with whom they may consult upon this 87matter, as well as any others—but I should think it would not be convenient to invite an English or a French Minister to be present at the Consultation.—

I am at a loss, Sir, to guess what propositions, made to us, Congress have been informed of, which they had not learned from us. None have been made to us. The Dutch Ambassadors did once propose a meeting to us, & had it at my house. Dr: Franklin came, but Mr. Jay did not, and Mr: Laurens was absent. The Ambassadors desired to know, whether we had power to enter into any engagements, provided France, Spain, & Holland should agree to any, in support of the Armed-Neutrality.3 We shewed them the Resolution of Congress of the 5th: October 1780. and told them that Mr: Dana had been since vested with a particular Commission to the same effect. We never heard any thing further about it. Not seeing, at the time, any probability that any thing would come of this, nor intending to do any thing of any Consequence in it, if we should hear further of it, without the further orders of Congress, we did not think it necessary to write any thing about it, at least till it should put on a more serious appearance.— If the Comte de Mercy’s dinner, to which we are to be invited with the Comte de Vergennes, should produce any Insinuations on this Subject, (which I do not however expect,) we shall inform you, & request the orders of Congress.—4

With great respect, I have the honor to be, Sir, / Your Most Obedient / huml: Servt:

John Adams.5

RC in Charles Storer’s hand (PCC, No. 84, IV, f. 444–447); internal address: “Robert. R. Livingston Esqr: / Secretary of State for Foreign-Affairs.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 108.

1.

In the Letterbook is the notation by John Thaxter: “July 11th. delivered to Capt. Barney.”

2.

George Nugent Temple Grenville, the 2d Earl Temple, recently had served as lord lieutenant of Ireland and would play a significant role in the downfall of the Fox-North coalition in December ( DNB ; to the president of Congress, 14 Dec., note 4, below). However, neither the source nor the nature of the rumors that JA mentions has been found.

3.

JA refers to Livingston’s 31 May letter to the commissioners. There Livingston wrote that he had learned “that important Propositions have been made you from Holland.” The proposal was that to advance Anglo-Dutch peace negotiations the United States should accede to the Armed Neutrality and sign either a quadrilateral treaty supporting neutral rights with France, Spain, and the Netherlands or, alternatively, a bilateral agreement with the Netherlands. JA was mystified by Livingston’s reference to the proposal, which had originated with Engelbert François van Berckel, because neither the Dutch request nor a subsequent meeting with the Dutch peace negotiators regarding it had been mentioned in any letter from JA or his colleagues. In fact, Livingston had learned of the Dutch initiative from extracts of letters written by C. W. F. Dumas to a number of correspondents, including JA, that Dumas sent to Livingston in March. For the initial proposal, the commissioners’ response to it, and Congress’ decision on 12 June to revoke the power of its ministers in Europe to accede to the Armed Neutrality, 88see vol. 14:208–211, 217–219, 512–514. In a letter written to Livingston on 27 July, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Henry Laurens said essentially the same thing about the Dutch proposals that JA does here (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 6:600).

4.

For the dinner meeting on 9 Aug., attended by neither the American commissioners nor the Dutch peace negotiators, see JA’s letters to Livingston of 3 July, and note 10, above, and his first letter of 13 Aug., below.

5.

In JA’s hand.