Papers of John Adams, volume 18

To John Adams from James Bowdoin, 11 July 1786 Bowdoin, James Adams, John
From James Bowdoin
sir, Boston July 11th. 1786

In addition to the papers I sometime ago sent you, relative to the encroachments made upon our Eastern boundary by our Neighbours of New Brunswick, I have the honor of transmitting to your Excellency copies of other Letters & papers upon the same subject—1

By Messrs. Smith & Bowles’s Deposition it appears, that the Province of New Brunswick is by its Charter bounded on the Western shore of Passamaquoddy; & that the seventh Town or Parish, besides other islands, includes Moose, Fred[k]: & Dudley Islands, which lie on the West side of Passamaquoddy bay, & are & have been for some time possessed by our people.—

The proceedings of the Sheriff of the County of Charlotte, relative to these Islands & some of the people upon them, you have already been informed of.—

The Papers now sent, respecting the seizure of the two Vessels mentioned in them, shew that it is the intention of the Government of New Brunswick, said to be founded on Letters or Instructions from Lord Sidney, to exclude us from the Navigation of that Bay: on the Western shore of which, & of the River Schooduck, running into that bay, a number of Townships have been by order of this Government laid out, & some of them sold. These Townships must for a long time be inaccessible, & of no value, if we are to be excluded from navigating that Bay: to the use of which, if the territory of the two nations bounds upon it, they have each, by the Treaty of peace, an equal right: the seizure of those Vessels must therefore be considered as a violation of the Treaty: especially as they were when seized on the Western side of the Bay.

You will observe by the Deposition & by Colo Allan’s Letter2 it is said, that Lord Sydney had wrote to the Governor of New Brunswick, that Mr. Adams in April last had not mentioned any thing to the British Ministry, respecting the boundary lines of that territory or our claims to it: from whence the people there concluded, though very erroneously, that the territory or themselves were to be abandoned.3 It is hoped your Excellency has by this time had instructions from Congress to remonstrate to the British Ministry on 385 that head; & that you will be able at least to procure orders to the Governor of New Brunswick, that our people on these Islands be not in future molested; & that no interruption be given to our vessels with regard to the navigation of that bay—

You will also observe by one of Mr. Delesdernier’s letters, that the seizure of the vessels was in retaliation for a vessel taken at the Westward. If this respects a vessel lately seized at Martha’s Vineyard, & I do not know of any other it can relate to, she was seized in the breach of our navigation Act, & the trial I am informed will be had at the next Court for that County.4 This however can be no justification of their seizures within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth—

At the late Session of the General Court that Act was suspended until the other States should adopt similar ones: Rhode Island & New Hampshire having suspended or repealed their Navigation Acts.5

I lately received your Letter with the Enclosures relative to the Whalefishery &c & this day had the honor of your Letter of the   of May—6 The former I have communicated to a number of Gentlemen in the mercantile line; & hope they will profit by the communication: & the latter will be shewn to confidential friends only— The Vessel being on the point of departure, I have only time to acknowledge the receiving of them, & to thank you for the information contained in them—

With real & the most respectful regard, / I have the honor to be / Sir, / Your Excellency’s / Most obt. hb̃le Servt.

James Bowdoin

Papers enclosed

1 Message to the Court about seizure of Vessels at Passamaquoddy—

2 Messrs. Avery & Jones’s Letter about ditto

3 Messrs. Delesdernier & Allan’s Letters to do. about do.

4 Resolve of the General Court about do:

5 Proceedings of Council about do:

6 Messrs. Jones & Avery’s 2d letter about do: enclosing

7 Messrs. Smith & Bowles’s deposition about do:

8 Messrs. Cochran & Tuttle’s Deposition about Sheriff Wier—

RC (PRO:FO 4, State Papers, vol. 4, f. 487–489); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esqr.—”

1.

The earlier “papers” concerning the Massachusetts–Nova Scotia (New Brunswick) boundary dispute were enclosed with Bowdoin’s 10 April letter, above. The remainder of this letter is a recapitulation of the governor’s 7 July message to the Mass. General 386 Court. The following day the General Court ordered the message and supporting documents sent to Congress, but there is no indication that it was done (Mass., Acts and Laws , 1786–1787, p. 341, 924–925). Bowdoin’s 7 July account indicated that the two vessels were seized on 26 June, that the first letter from James Avery and Stephen Jones was dated 29 June at Machias, and that the depositions sent by Avery and Jones were dated 12 May at Moose Island. Other than Bowdoin’s address to the General Court, none of the documents enclosed with this letter have been found. For the submission of the documents enclosed with this letter to the Marquis of Carmarthen, see JA’s 2 June letter to Bowdoin, and note 2, above.

2.

Not found. This was John Allan (1747–1805), who was born in Scotland and resident in Nova Scotia prior to the Revolution. In mid-1776 he fled Nova Scotia for Massachusetts and provided intelligence on British military activities. In early 1777 Congress appointed him the Indian agent for the Eastern Department and Nova Scotia, a position he held for the remainder of the war, during which he assisted in keeping Native Americans from rendering any substantive assistance to the British. Following the war he operated a trading post on Dudley (later Allan’s, now Treat) Island, Maine (Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 15 vols. to date, Toronto, 1966– , vol. 5).

3.

In fact, JA had written to Carmarthen on 18 May 1786 regarding the Massachusetts–Nova Scotia boundary dispute, above. He was acting in response to Congress’ 13 Oct. 1785 resolution requiring him to make representations on the subject and empowering him to propose an Anglo-American boundary commission to settle the dispute (vol. 17:559–561).

4.

For the circumstances of the seizure of a British ship commanded by Capt. Stanton Hazard at Edgartown, Mass., on Martha’s Vineyard, see Stephen Higginson’s undated July 1786 letter, and note 6, below.

5.

See comments on the act’s suspension by Tristram Dalton in his 11 July letter, and by Higginson in his undated July letter, both below.

6.

The first was JA’s 24 March letter, above. Its enclosures, which have not been found, also concerned the sugar trade. The second letter was of 9 May, above.

To John Adams from Tristram Dalton, 11 July 1786 Dalton, Tristram Adams, John
From Tristram Dalton
Dear Sir Boston July: 11th: 1786

This morning has honored me with your most esteemed favors1 of the 26th May—for which be pleased to accept my sincere thank[s—]

All on this side of the Atlantic, who speak of the affairs of these United States, joyn in the Opinion you express, “that they must soon take a turn for the better or become much worse—[]

Most of our Citizens appear too unconcerned, falsely supposing that they now sit, in safety, under their own vines—and that there are none to make them afraid— No People ever had a fairer opportunity to be what they have anxiously wished to be— None ever neglected their interests more— Jealousy—Pride & Luxury—an unbounded Thirst for baneful Commerce—want of attention to the internal resources of their Country—an insensibility of our truly independent Situation—with a great disregard to the importance of establishing a fair national Character—seems to pervade the Continent— From the seeds of division among us, much is to be dreaded— The popular disposition to reduce the payment of our domestic 387 Debt to nothing is a fruitful Subject for those, who wish us ill, to work upon—while Men of Honor and Friends to their Country execrate the Idea of such public Injustice— You presume that the Impost of 5 per Cent is granted to Congress— considering that our political Salvation so much depended upon it, there was the utmost reason to expect it— This Commonwealth has freely granted it agreeably to the requisitions made by Congress— all the States have passed grants thereof, but some with one restriction & some with others, that prevent its operation— New York is the farthest from their duty—even to an Absurdity for that State—well known for regarding their own particular interest— Congress have rejected their Bill that lately passed— This Commonwealth has, in the late session of their General Court, granted to Congress the supplementary Aid required by them— We anxiously wait the Completion of these measures—the consequence of neglecting which Congress has pointed out very fully, in their resolves of the past year2

The G Court of this State, in their late session, which ended on Saturday Evening being adjourned to the 31st of Jany. discarded, by a great majority, a proposal to emit a paper currency—and another for making real & personal Estate a tender in payment of Debts—3

A bill passed, to suspend totally the Navigation Act untill the other States adopt similar measures— This Act was a favorite one of mine—and the suspension of it, altho’ the few neighbouring States who had passed like laws had repealed theirs, gives me much uneasiness— I even fancied good effects began to flow from it— our large Vessells, lain by for a long time, were hired & hiring to freight Timber and other bulky articles to Ireland &c. our smaller ones enjoyed, uninterrupted, a snug business— Our importations from G Britain greatly lessened, and our trade become more safe, if not more extensive— indeed I had formed an idea that the Government was, in fact, bettered by this restraint—and that the continuance of it might be a considerable mean of saving us from ourselves— Now the door is again open’d for British Factors—British GewGaws British Manners & Customs—of all which our fellow Citizens are too fond—& from which, I thought, we were, in some degree, weaned— My Sentiments on this head are unpopular— The Country people are lead into a belief that their produce will fetch more money—and that Silver will be plenty in our Streets— May they not see the contrary— it may be expected that our importations, which began to be moderate, will encrease—and that the little remaining specie among us will 388 be drained in payment for necessaries that we could furnish ourselves with—or for trifles that a people, situated as we are, are better without—

From the Treaty of Peace being laid before the General Court I have, uniformly, opposed the Measures taken to prevent the admission of Tories—and the last year had the Success, in the House of Representatives, to obtain a bill repealing these obnoxious Laws— This was stopped at the Senate— tired with my endeavours, I have not called up the bill in the late session—but have charged myself to do it the beginning of the next— I do not know of any law to prevent the recovery, in our Courts, of British Debts— The interest due upon those recovered is to be calculated and entered on record—and, if a negotiation of this article between the Courts of the U States & of G Britain, which was expected, should determine the payment thereof, an execution may be taken out to the amount without a new trial—

That the British Merchants should be cautious of such as are connected with America may be a point of prudence—but it is unreasonable to stamp a Nation’s Character with infamy because a few, otherwise unnoticed, persons have been imprudently credited to large amounts— Any American who shewed his face in England immediately after the peace took place, and asked for goods, was entrusted— As might have been expected, most of them failed, and brought ruin on their Creditors— what is this to a nation?— To speak confidentially my opinion, this Nation must be in a much worse condition than even her enemies wish her, whenever her Character depends upon the conduct, of, not only a few paltry traders, but, even the whole commercial Line— Great & valuable I esteem this part of the community—but by no means the most considerable. Among many respected Characters who differ from me in the Act against the Tories—and in the Navigation Act, I am sorry to find our Friends—Tufts and Cranch, of the Senate— Even their Authority does not induce me to alter my opinion— I confess it ought to create a diffidence—

Pardon my detaining you so long on Subjects that you are infinitely better informed of—and be pleased to accept of my sincerest wishes for success in your public negotiations—and for happiness in your private life—for with the highest regards, I am, / Dear Sir— / Your obliged Friend / And most hble Servant

Tristram Dalton
389

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams”; endorsed: “Mr Dalton / July 11. 1786”; and by WSS: “Boston.” Some loss of text due to wear at the edge.

1.

Presumably an inadvertence. Only one 26 May letter from JA to Dalton, above, has been found.

2.

In March the Mass. General Court approved payment of Congress’ 27 Sept. 1785 requisition for the current year, for which see Stephen Higginson’s 30 Dec. letter, and note 6, above. On 5 July 1786 the General Court approved “An Act for Granting to the United States, a Tax upon the Polls and Estates within this Commonwealth, to Operate as a Supplementary Fund to the Continental Impost” (Mass., Acts and Laws , 1786–1787, p. 37–53). The act responded to Congress’ resolution of 18 April 1783 regarding the payment of the national debt, of which Massachusetts’ share was $224,427 ( JCC , 24:258–259), but it also contributed to the grievances of the Shaysite protesters over the burden of taxation, for which see note 3.

3.

On 8 July 1786 the Mass. General Court adjourned until 31 Jan. 1787, although it was called back into session on 27 Sept. 1786 to deal with the disorders cumulatively known as Shays’ Rebellion. The session thus completed was notable for the General Court’s failure to act on the grievances presented to it, most notably by the western counties of Massachusetts where the rebellion was centered. Indeed, if there was a catalyst for the rebellion it was the General Court’s adjournment. This letter from Dalton, merchant and former speaker of the Mass. house of representatives, is therefore of particular interest, because the views he expresses are almost precisely those that the Shaysites were protesting against.

Dalton applauds the General Court’s defeat of legislation to issue paper money and make real and personal property legal tender. But the protesters saw those two measures, in addition to the reform of the judicial system, as panaceas, for it was the lack of resources to pay either taxes or private debts and the use of the court system to coerce the indigent that placed so many western farmers in dire straits (Boston Independent Chronicle, 6, 13 July, 14 Sept.; Richards, Shays’s Rebellion , p. 8–9).

For the progress of the rebellion, from the first convention in Bristol County, and the commonwealth’s initial response, see letters from Charles Storer of 19 Aug., 16 and 26 Sept.; Richard Cranch of 3 Oct.; and James Warren of 22 Oct., all below. Cranch’s letter is noteworthy, for although his and Dalton’s attitudes toward the protesters are much the same, Cranch provides a more detailed account of the issues underlying the rebellion, probably because by the time he wrote, the uprising had become critical. For a discussion of the legitimacy of calling the 1786–1787 Massachusetts insurrection “Shays’ Rebellion,” see Taylor, Western Massachusetts in the Revolution , p. 156–157, and Samuel Osgood’s 14 Nov. letter, and note 3, below.