Papers of John Adams, volume 20

To John Adams from James Boyd, 30 June 1789 Boyd, James Adams, John
From James Boyd
Boston June 30th. 1789

Your Excellency will pardon the freedom of my addressing you, when you are acquainted with my sufferings & my present Indigence. which is such as urges me to request your Influence with Congress respecting the resolv’s of this Court (relative to my sufferings) which was sent on to Congress, by Order of Government. bearing date Novr. 10th: 1786, Copy of which by the desire of the Honbe. Mr. Bowdoin. I inclos’d to the Honbe. Mr: Dalton on the 3 Int. requesting him to deliver the same to your Excelly. 1

As your Excellency was in Europe at the time those papers were sent to Congress. I was inform’d by several Gentlemen then in Congress. that nothing respecting them cou’d be done untill your return to America as the Eastern Boundary Line was not then determin’d. Altho’ that Matter is not yet fully determin’d as to the River St. Croix. I am clearly of opinion that its the Most Northern River, as that was the only one known to the Indians by the Name of St. Croix, & is the River Mitchel was order’d by Government to explore & take the true Course, I was present with Mitchel when the Indians (upon Oath) declaird that to be the only St. Croix—2

I am encouraged by my Friends who have wrote to Congress in my behalf, to hope that Congress will take Notice of my present Indigent situation & in their wisdom & goodness grant me some relief. as I am the only Refugee yet unnoticd—

with great Esteem & respect I beg leave to / subscribe my self Your Excelly / Most Obt Hbe. Servt.

James Boyd

PS. for any particulars I beg leave to refer to Mr: Dalton. who I wrote fully too—

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esq / Vice president of the United States.”

1.

Seeking restoration of or compensation for his land, Boyd wrote to George Washington on 27 November. The president included Boyd’s petition in his 9 Feb. 1790 message to the Senate on the eastern boundary dispute, along with a copy of the Mass. General Court’s 10 Nov. 1786 resolution supporting Boyd’s quest. The Senate appointed a committee to investigate the claim on 10 Feb. 1790. Six weeks later, it recommended the formation of a joint Anglo-American commission to settle the dispute, effectively reiterating John Jay’s advice on the matter in his 21 April 1785 report to Congress. Boyd did not regain his lands, but on 7 April 1798 Congress passed an act for the relief of refugees from Canada and Nova Scotia. In 1812 Congress recognized that Boyd lost 50,000 acres and awarded his heirs 2,240 acres near Columbus, Ohio (vol. 19:485; First Fed. Cong. , 61–62 65–66, 373–376, 383–385; Amer. State Papers , 1:95, 96; U.S. Statutes at Large , 48 2:712; Edward Livingston Taylor, “Refugees to and from Canada and the Refugee Tract,” Ohio Archæological and Historical Publications, 12:219, 239 [1887]).

2.

For the dispute over the location of the Schoodic River (now St. Croix) and the significance of John Mitchell’s map, see vol. 18:241–244, 296, 328–329, 399–400.

To John Adams from James Sullivan, 2 July 1789 Sullivan, James Adams, John
From James Sullivan
Sir Boston July 2d. 1789

When I had the honor of addressing a Letter to your Excellency, upon a subject of allowed importance to the united States, I did not indulge a hope, that you would step aside from the important concerns in which you are engaged, to acknowledge the receipt of it.1 nor was I vain enough to imagine, that I was able to Suggest one thought, which was not fully possessed by the Learned body of Partriots in which you preside.

But having been informed that the report which you are obliging enough to mention, was generally spread round the seat of Government; and being well aware, that it could not fail to give great uneasiness, as well to the President, and Congress, as to every real friend to his Country, I threw upon paper, Such Sentiments, as might be well improved, in Some measure to contradict it. for if I beleived that the report was true, I should appear to be, Either in traiterous enmity to the united states, or very little versed in those politicks, which are founded in the feelings of the human heart, in advising to a measure that wears the appearance of coercive decision. for if what is (as I suppose) intended by the Minority here, would support that state, a coercive Experiment might be disagreeable in its consequences.

When the frame of Government for the united States, was submitted to the people, as a political proposition, it could not be conceived, that they would be intirely united in any one opinion besides that, of a federal Government being Necessary; this was not only an avowed, but I beleive a real, & general Sentiment. every one had an indubitable right to express his mind upon the subject; and he was a Coward, and unworthy of that freedom we have contended for, who would not dare to do it. I was myself, and still am, an advocate for amendments: but not for one half the Alterations proposed by Mr. Madison.2 the trial by Jury, as a democratical balance in the Judiciary department, in all matters where alliens are not wholly concerned, or where the revenue is in question, (constitutionally Established), has ever been my principal wish in amendments. I may therefore be placed in what is called the minority. or if by minority is intended, 49 those members of our State convention who voted against the Constitution, the report Your Excellency has mentioned, has very little foundation. there can be no Minority, or Majority, composed of a large number, but what must include some unprincipled men; and as it cannot be fully concluded, that all those of the Massachusetts convention, who voted for the adoption of the Constitution, were Patriots instigated by genuine Love to their Country, so the conclusion on the other Side, that all who voted against it, were Enemies to their Country, would be equally fallacious. my opinion is, and I know as much of the people of this Commonwealth, as any one man in it, that the minority (with few exceptions), both in Convention and out, are as zealously inclined to support the general Government as the majority are; they wish amendments, but they neither wish them in any other mode than the one pointed out by the Constitution, nor that the effecting them should interrupt the necessary business of the Revenue, or that of organizing the Government

There are in this Commonwealth, some men in whom the people have no confidence, who are Seeking for themselves, and who hope to succeed by Scandalizing men, whose merit, & Services, give them the preheminence with the people. they will no doubt, alarm the apprehension of good men, and create Jealousies and a want of confidence. and may thus Succeed in their enterprizes if they answer their Sinister purposes without destroying that confidence between Rulers, and Ruled, which is the bond of society, it will be fortunate. their political situation of some of them in years past, obliges them to direct their Arrows in a particular manner, and though some revolutionists are raised above their reach, yet when ever they are found vulnerable there will be no want of shafts. a grateful Country has a plaister, Sooner or later, for every wound.

perhaps some Individuals, unworthy, unprincipled, and distressed in their pecuniary circumstances, and who were in the minority in the Convention of this state, may prompt the majority in Rhode Island to wrong and destructive measures. but I do most solemnly assure you, that I beleive the report to be fabricated to serve particular purposes, and that the people in general of this Commonwealth, minority as well as majority, are as ready to Support and defend this Constitution as they would the Revolution of the states if it was in danger. the sentiments contained in the first production in the paper inclosed are those of the people in general. let me add here, that I am assured, that there are some men who have a hand in sowing these Jealousies, that would be very willing to bury the 50 Constitution of the united States, in the ruins of our Independence. in short these misrepresentations originate from men who have an habitual hatred to the old whigs, and are used by men who have no other politicks, than office and Emolument, and who circulate the reports to wound those who stand in their way.

I will intrude no longer upon Your Excellencys goodness; Time will discover who are the friends of the people, and of the Government the people have Established

I am with the most perfect / sentiments of Esteem your Excellen / cys most obliged & most Humble / Servant

Ja Sullivan

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency Mr Adams.”

1.

Sullivan’s letter was of 10 June, to which JA replied on 18 June, both above. Sullivan wrote again on 28 June (Adams Papers), requesting JA’s patronage for a judicial appointment in the newly created eastern district. JA took no action on his behalf. Sullivan resigned his post as a probate judge when, on 12 Feb. 1790, Gov. John Hancock named him attorney general of Massachusetts (Thomas C. Amory, Life of James Sullivan, 2 vols., Boston, 1859, 2:416).

2.

With Rhode Island and North Carolina still wavering on ratification, the Constitution’s critics-turned-congressmen began to consolidate a set of amendments for discussion. James Madison, who had postponed the subject on 25 May 1789, led the charge on 8 June, brushing aside calls to delay the debate while the formation of the revenue system simultaneously occupied the House of Representatives. Anxious to identify and “provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community,” Madison argued that swift approval of the amendments would accelerate the process of ratification.

Since the Constitution’s drafting two years earlier, JA and others had questioned why the document lacked a clear summary of individual liberties alongside the frame of government. When he sent Thomas Jefferson a copy on 10 Nov. 1787, JA asked, “What think you of a Declaration of Rights? should not Such a Thing have preceeded the Model?” JA echoed popular fears that freedom of press and conscience as well as the powers of juries lay largely unaddressed. He also contested the limited presidential veto and the need for Senate approval of nominations, but JA was willing to bend on those points in order to achieve ratification. Jefferson, who backed Madison’s plan of “alterations,” was more emphatic about reserving power at the state level, worrying that individual rights recently won in the American Revolution were again at stake. “This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty to which I had given four centuries instead of four years. But I hope it will all come about. We are now vibrating between too much and too little government, and the pendulum will rest finally in the middle,” Jefferson wrote to WSS on 2 Feb. 1788.

Combining and repackaging ideas from nearly 200 separate revisions that arose in the state ratification conventions, Madison proposed several amendments that mainly guaranteed personal liberties. Members put off discussion of Madison’s amendments for another month as they tended to other matters. In Aug. 1789, the amendments went through several rounds of heavy revision and heated debate, mostly centered on the clauses upholding freedom of religion. Congress finally passed twelve amendments, ten of which came to be known as the Bill of Rights, on 25 September. JA signed the Bill of Rights, along with Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House, John Beckley, clerk of the House, and Samuel Allyne Otis, secretary of the Senate. Meeting the constitutional quota needed to enact it as law, ten states ratified the Bill of Rights by 15 Dec. 1791. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Georgia did so in 1939 (vol. 19:212–213, 269–270; Madison, Papers, Congressional Series , 12:196, 199; Jefferson, Papers , 12:558; U.S. Senate, Jour. , 1st Cong., 1st sess., p. 96–97; Bickford and Bowling, Birth of the Nation , p. 51–54).