Papers of John Adams, volume 16
Mr C. W. Schubert, de Rawitz, in Poland, proposes to embark in march for New York, and there to establish himself, in Trade, chiefly in German Linnens He proposes to remove with him his Wife & Child. I have been desired to give him a Letter of Introduction, a favour which is very often asked and I dont know how to refuse.1 Upon these occasions however I only mean to request ordinary Civilities to Strangers, Advice upon Occasion and the Protection of the Laws.
I beg Leave, now I am writing, to mention to your Excellency a Report, which has given me some Concern vizt that Sir James Jay was So much Suspected in the State of New York as to have Occasioned the Confiscation of his Land there.— I Sincerely hope the Report is not true, and I interest myself in it, the more because I am under a Personal Obligation to him for his masterly skill and faithful Attendence, as a Physician, in a dangerous Sickness I had last Fall at Paris and Auteuil. No Feelings of my own, however, of Personal Gratitude, ought to influence me to write a Word in his favour, if I thought him, unfaithfull to the Publick, but from all the Knowledge I have had of him, and from all his Conversation with the People in France and in Holland, he has invariably maintained
3
the Character of a zealous American. It is true, there is not a perfect Understanding between him and his Brother, who is one of the best of Men as well as one of the best Americans. The Grounds of this Coolness, I never understood from either Side but I am perswaded, nevertheless that his Brother thinks him an honest American.2 You will pardon the Liberty I take, sir / and believe me to be with great Respect & Esteem, your / Excellencies most obedient sert
LbC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency George Clinton Esq / Governor of New York.”; APM Reel 107.
Nothing further is known of C. W. Schubert, and no other letters of introduction for him, other than this letter to Clinton, have been found.
Sir James Jay had been knighted for his efforts to raise money in England for King’s College, later Columbia College. As an ardent New York patriot he supported harsh measures against the loyalists in the state’s senate, but by 1782 his thoughts had turned to Anglo-American reconciliation. Then, by prearrangement, he was captured by the British and, to advance his plan, sailed for England. His undertaking came to nothing, and in July 1782 he wrote to JA from London to explain his situation and deflect criticism stemming from London newspaper reports that he had “arrived express from Congress with proposals of preliminaries for an accommodation.” It was largely Sir James’ oscillation between political extremes that alienated him from his brother John. In a letter dated April 1785, Clinton, governor of New York, replied that “I am happy to have it in my Power to refute the unfavourable accounts you had received respecting Sir James Jay. It is true there were some unlucky Circumstances attending his Capture which were so represented as to have excited Jealousies and Suspicions in the minds of some rather Injurious to him; but they never made such Impression as to become matter of Public discus̃ion” (Adams Papers; vol. 13:187–188;
DAB
; Morris, Peacemakers
, p. 298–299).
o18 Fludyer Street Westminster 3
dFebry 1784.
The Packet accompanying this, was put into my hands by Mr. Reid formerly President of Pennsylvania, with a request that it might be forwarded by my Son who is going to France.1
After you had left Bath, two or three Letters or small Packets under your direction were presented to me by the Post Man, these I advised should be sent to you at Mr. Stockdale’s, to one of them I added the necessary address, in every case disdaining a Reprisal which your example would have warranted.2
Upon this occasion I cannot forbear, & if an apology is necessary, I must appeal to your own feelings, once more demanding those two Letters of mine, which you thought proper to open. I have already received three promises from you to put them into my possession, but hitherto without effect. the first Act was in every view indelicate & unjustifiable, in one, unmanly & cruel; but the long neglect, amounting to a refusal, to deliver them, is a high aggravation 4 containing an insufferable degree of contempt. Possibly Sir, the patience extended on my part under this & other injurios treatment on yours, may have led you to mistake forbearance for tameness which you might play with; nor can I in any other manner reconcile your conduct with the hazard attending it.
It is long since I declared to a friend, I will submit to this behavior of Mr. Adams, in preference to a resentment which, tho’ strongly provoked, might interrupt public business, but our connexion as Servants to the United States of America being now at an end, ’tis incumbent upon me to do myself Justice, at least to attempt it, trusting that upon recollection your own good sense & knowledge of propriety will save further trouble to / Sir / Your humble servant
RC (Adams Papers); internal addresses: “John Adams Esquire.” and “His Excellency / John Adams Esquire / Minister Plenipotentiary from / the United States of America / a Hague.”; endorsed: “Mr Laurens— 3. of Feb. / ansd. 11. 1784.”
Henry Laurens Jr. carried his father’s letter to JA and the packet that presumably consisted of Joseph Reed’s letter of 30 Jan. and Elbridge Gerry’s letter of 23 Nov. 1783, which Reed had carried to England to be forwarded to JA (vol. 15:369–376, 472–473). See also JA’s reply to Reed of 11 Feb. 1784, below.
The letters or packets that Laurens sent to John Stockdale to be forwarded to JA have not been identified. JA visited Bath in late Dec. 1783, but he left there for London on the 27th to begin his arduous journey to the Netherlands in order to deal with the crisis that had erupted over the Dutch-American loan and the lack of funds to pay Robert Morris’ bills of exchange (vol. 15:416).
This is Henry Laurens’ final letter to JA, and
JA’s reply of 11 Feb. 1784, below, is his last letter to Laurens. It is unclear what “injurios treatment,” beyond the unreturned letters mentioned in the second paragraph, provoked Laurens’ anger. In his reply JA wrote that he was unaware of anything he had done to injure Laurens. One can only speculate that Laurens’ outrage may have stemmed from JA’s assumption of Laurens’ position as minister to the Netherlands while the South Carolinian was jailed in the Tower of London and his refusal to relinquish it upon Laurens’ release; JA’s continued friendship for Edmund Jenings despite Laurens’ bitter and public dispute with Jenings over several anonymous letters; or Laurens’ absence from the 3 Sept. 1783 signing of the definitive treaty, a slight he later blamed on JA, “the malicious contriver” (Laurens, Papers
, 15:403). See also Laurens’ account of a conversation he had with JA on 19 Dec. 1782 in which he indicates some dissatisfaction with his colleague, vol. 14:140–142.