Papers of John Adams, volume 20
th:1789
When you was last at Cambridge at my house, in consideration of the
weight of the business of my present office, and of the feeble state of my health, I was
induced to suggest to you, that if any office under the United States, which your
partiality for me might lead you to think me capable of filling, and the duties of which
wou’d be less burthensome than those of my present one, shou’d be open, it wou’d not be
disagreable to one to be honoured with your influence and interest as a candidate for
it— As nothing more particular upon 43 the subject then
passed between us, it is possible you might conceive I
wished again to enter into the Diplomatic corps; especially if it shou’d be thought
proper to send a Minister to the Court of St: Petersbourg my
former residence. However gratifying that appointment might be to my ambition, yet I do
assure you that nothing wou’d tempt me again to leave my Country and family. But there
is an office still open for which I presume, in confidence,
to offer myself to you only, as a candidate. I find there is a district Judge to be
appointed within each of the confederated States. That for
our State is the only office which I shou’d prefer to a seat upon our Supreme Judicial
Bench. A place in the Supreme Fœderal Court wou’d be more honourable; but on account of
the extent of their circuits, and of their sitting twice a year at the seat of the
Federal Government, that wou’d expose me to all the difficulties arising from my present
office: but for the consideration of which, I wou’d not quit it for any other in the
gift of the United States, or of this State.
While on the present circuit, I find from Mr: Parsons, that he has contemplated the appointment of Mr: Lowell to the office of our District Judge, and that in consequence of it he
is lead to expect Mr: Lowell wou’d appoint him the Attorney
or Advocate for the United States. Both those Gentlemen wou’d fill those offices
worthily. Mr: Parsons wou’d probably be the Advocate in
either case.
I have supposed from the above conversation between us (however it
may savour of vanity in me) that you might think of your friend for one of the Supreme
Fœderal Judges. Mr: Lowell has already been in that
capacity; and if the reasons I have given against accepting that office, did not exist,
I shou’d not choose to stand a candidate for it against him. Perhaps there may be no
impropriety in both appointments, as every State must have a district Judge, and, I
think, Massachusetts, cœteris paribus, may be entitled to one Judge of the six of the
Supreme Fœderal Court.
I wish now to trouble you with one declaration only viz that this is the first instance in my life of my offering myself a candidate for any office whatever, directly or indirectly: and none but the reasons abovementioned shou’d have induced me ever to have done it.
I beg you wou’d be pleased to present my sincere regards to your Lady, and to acquaint her I shall remember her request respecting Master Thomas. But to enable me the better to execute it, it might not be amiss for her to advise him to visit very frequently in our family. We shou’d be very happy to have him do it: to domesticate 44 himself in some sort with us. I will be his friend so long as he will permit me to be so: but he must not keep himself aloof from us.1
I am dear Sir, / Your much obliged Friend / & obedient humble Servant
P.S. please to advise me of the receipt of this as soon as may be convenient
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Honble John Adams / Vice President of the
United States”; endorsed: “Judge Dana June 26. / ansd July
10. 1789.”
TBA was entering his final year at Harvard, and
AA, writing to JQA on 30 May, asked her eldest son, “in my
absence to attend to your Brother Tom, to watch over his conduct & prevent by your
advice & kind admonitions, his falling a prey to vicious Company.” For their
involvement in the 29 Nov. 1787 student riot at Harvard, TBA and
CA were required to pay for damages to the college’s dining hall.
AA likely made a similar request of Dana when she visited him in late
May 1789 (
AFC
, 8:233,
360, 363).
I Shall not grant the Indulgence you request in yours of the 21st, most certainly: I mean that for hastily adopting
Expressions, which are So often improperly used by Massachusetts Politicians. Our Fellow
Citizens will never think alike nor act aright, untill they are habitually taught to Use
the Same Words in the Same Sense. Nations are governed by Words, as well as by Actions;
by Sounds as well as Sights.— You and I learned in our Youth from our great Masters, the
Civilians, that the Summa Imperii, is indivisible. That Imperium in Imperio, is a
Solecism, a Contradiction in Terms.— and We have been both taught, by History and
Experience, Since, that those Instructions of our Masters were infallible oracles.
The new Constitution, however, I fear will be found to be too nearly related to such a Solecism.— It is an avowed Attempt to make the national Government Sovereign in Some Cases and the State Governments in others. it is true that as the former, embraces the whole, and the latter but Parts; as the former has the greatest Objects as War and Peace &c and a general Superintendence over all the rest, the Superiority of Rank and Dignity is allowed to it. But I nevertheless, own, that it is too clear that in a course of Time, the little fishes will eat up the Great one unless the great one Should devour all the little ones.
It is contended by Some that our new Constitution, is partly national and partly federal. but it Seems to me, that as far as it is 45 fœderal, it is wholly national: as far as it is not national it is not fœderal but consists of individual, Seperate, independent and inconnected States. but in this View, it is improper to talk of the fœderal Commonwealth and the independent Republicks that compose it—because that the new Constitution, which is the only League by which they are connected together, is not a Confederation of independent Republicks, but is a monarchical Republick, or if you will a limited Monarchy. Though Names are of Importance, they cannot alter the nature of Things. The Name of President, does not alter the Nature of his office nor diminish the Regal Authorities and Powers which appear clearly in the Writing. The Prince of Orange Said to me “Monseiur, Vous allez avoir un Roi, Sous le titre de President,”1 and his Judgment would be confirmed by every Civilian in Europe, who should read our Constitution.—
Crudities enough, to be Sure, come from a certain august Source; as
you have remarked: but the People Should not mind them. The People themselves should
honour their own Creation, if they mean to honour themselves. and I hope the People will
assert their own Supremacy, and give the Title of Majesty
to the President. This is the lowest that can comport with his constitutional Dignity,
Authority, and Power.
I agree, entirely with you that it is Aristocratical Pride alone, that feels itself hurt, by a distinction of the President. Those who proudly think themselves his Compeers, cannot bear that he should be more than Primus inter Pares. But the common People, if they understand their own cause and Interest, will take effectual Care to mortify that Pride by making the Executive Magistrate a ballance against it which can be done only, by distinguishing him clearly and decidedly, far above all others.
I thank you for Traceys Romance, which I have Shewn and will continue to show to proper Persons, and I hope it will assist in procuring a Bankrupt Act.—2 Your Letter to the President, I delivered immediately.3
Your Pupil Ames makes a very pretty figure: let me congratulate you
on his fame, and that of another of your Pupils Mr Minot, to
whom I am indebted for two Copies of his History, which I am ashamed to say I have never
thanked him for, as I ought in Duty to have done for the great Pleasure I received from
the perusal of that elegant and judicious Composition.4
I am, my dear sir yours &c
RC (MHi:Tudor-Adams Correspondence); internal address: “William Tudor Esqr / Barrister at Law.”; endorsed: “Mr. A. 28 June / 1789—” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 115. Tr (Adams Papers).
Sir, you are going to have a king, under the title of president.
See Tudor’s letter of 21 June, and note 3, above.
See Tudor’s letter of 6 June, and note 1, above.
That is, Massachusetts representative Fisher Ames and historian
George Richards Minot. Minot (1758–1802), Harvard 1778, of Boston, was clerk of the
Mass. house of representatives from 1781 to 1792. A presentation copy of Minot’s History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts in the Year
Seventeen Hundred and Eighty-Six and the Rebellion Consequent Thereon,
Worcester, Mass., 1788, is in JA’s library at MB. His account, although flawed by inattention to the role
of Boston politics and the difficulty of understanding and suppressing the insurgents,
became the standard narrative of Shays’ Rebellion (
DAB
; Richards, Shays’s Rebellion
, p. 159, 160–162;
Catalogue of JA’s
Library
).