6

SUPPOSED CONSEQUENCES.

[CHAP. I.

The above quotation is given in justice to Mr. Adams, and it shows, if we may credit his assertions, that Jefferson's impressions drawn from Mr. Adams's writings and conversation, that he desired to "attempt to introduce" a hereditary government of "King, Lords, and Commons," into the United States, were not well founded. We confess we are inclined to give full credit to Mr. Adams's assertions. We are inclined to give him. the benefit of that distinction between theoretical opinions and actual designs, which it has been sought so unsuccessfully to establish in the case of Hamilton.

Mr. Adams's mention, in the same letter, that (apparently he means to carry the idea in consequence of Jefferson's letter to Smith) Samuel Adams in his " formal speech "as LieutenantGovernor of Massachusetts, had "very solemnly held up the idea of hereditary powers, and cautioned the public against them, as if they were at that moment in the most imminent danger of them "-that "these things were all accompanied with the most marked neglect, both of the Governor [John Hancock] and Lieutenant-Governor of the State towards him [Mr. Adams]"-that "all together served as a hue and cry to all his enemies and rivals, to the old constitutional faction of Pennsylvania, in concert with the late insurgents of Massachusetts, both of whom considered his [Mr. Adams's] writings as the cause of their overthrow," etc.-that "Mr. Hancock's friends were preparing the way by his [Mr. Adams's] destruction, for his [Mr. Hancock's] election to the place of Vice-President "-that "many people thought, too, that no small share of a foreign. influence in revenge for certain intractable conduct at the treaty of peace was and would be intermingled "—we say, Mr. Adams's mention of these things serves to show that a vague allusion in a letter by Jefferson exercised a marvellous influence on the public mind, or else it shows that Jefferson's opinions were very generally shared by the leading Republicans. Which is the most probable solution? We will not cite Hancock's views, or those of the Pennsylvania "faction" alluded to, because Mr. Adams believed these parties were his enemies.

versation together on the subject of the nature of government-that anything besides very transient hints" have passed between them, etc. Those familiar with Mr.

64

Adams's style of political disquisition, will readily understand that he would not regard anything short of a folio or two, as anything beyond "hints?"

1 That is. French influence.

But had Samuel Adams, whose virtue was even more Spartan than his nerve, officially directed popular prejudice and animosity against his Revolutionary colleague, only on the proof of a bare supposed allusion in a published letter by a third person? Can we suppose that all this banding together against the second officer and man' in the nation flowed from such a source? Jefferson's words always fell like a spell on the American ear; but the tracing of such an effect to such a cause, is too wide of the boundaries of probability to receive grave consideration.

In truth, we are not compelled to resort to any strained and unnatural theory of solution. John Adams's Defence of the American Constitutions, and his Discourses on Davila, were as open to other eyes as to Jefferson's. They produced the same. impression on the popular party (the men who were to form the Republican party as soon as it organized) throughout the Union. If they were not construed in the like manner by the opposite. party, the assurances which Sedgwick gave Hamilton, that Adams had abandoned his earlier political views, must have been based on other and satisfactory evidence! In truth, a perusal of these productions will now show that they could not. of possibility have failed to convey the idea to the intelligent men of all parties that the writer had no confidence whatever in democracy, and that at least all his "theoretical" preferences were in favor of a mixed form closely analogous to that of England. If Mr. Adams did not wish to have the spirit of our system directed somewhat in the same channel, by the construction which should be given to our written constitutions, why did he write and publish these voluminous disquisitions?

Again we say we do not believe Mr. Adams sought to change the form of our government. Nor do we believe that he so far sought to change the essence, as to make his adherence to the form a mere pretext to deceive the public; and herein was the difference between him and the Hamiltonians. Yet he undoubtedly would have preferred to give, in the progress of what he considered a fair experiment, a much more consolidated structure to the general government, and a greater preponderance to the the executive and senatorial branches than they now possess. Mr. Adams, as we think was usual with him,

Such was unquestionably Mr. Adams's position in the public eye at this moment.

8

IMPUTED DISCREPANCIES, ETC.

[CHAP. I. wrote and talked worse than he voluntarily acted; and in his Defence and Davila, foolishly brought on himself the suspicion of being the most ultra of that anti-popular party, when in reality he hardly came up to middle ground among them. We must be understood here and elsewhere to speak of Mr. Adams's opinions in their general or prevailing tenor. If the most exaggerated momentary excesses in other, if not in all, directions were to be taken into account, he could be shown to have believed anything or nothing. This gross inconsistency was superficial. As in the case of all honest men, there was a certain central thread of consistency in his life, which liberal eyes can never be at a loss to find.

On the 30th of August, Jefferson replied to Adams's last quoted letter of June 29th. He expressed his gratification that the latter saw "in its true point of view, the way in which he [Jefferson] had been drawn into the scene "-urging, however, that his note to Smith had not produced by far so important an effect as Mr. Adams attributed to it-that it was Publicola's attack on the political principles set forth in Paine's Rights of Man, that had called forth such a number of replies-and that the bitterness personally manifested towards Mr. Adams had proceeded from the supposition that he was Publicola.' And here the correspondence appears to have dropped.

This letter is given entire, and we are bound to presume correctly, in Mr. Adams's Works, vol. viii. p. 509.

One of the sentences in it is as follows: "His [Publicola's] antagonist very criminally, in my opinion, presumed you to be Publicola, and on that presumption hazarded a personal attack on you." The editor of Mr. Adams's Works remarks, in a note appended to the first clause of this sentence: "If this was criminal, Mr. Jefferson probably erred with him. He [Jefferson] attributes one article in Fenno's paper, at least, to Mr. Adams." The editor then cites the letter of Jefferson to Washington of May 8th, already given in this chapter. This, it will be remembered, contains Jefferson's declaration: one of Fenno's [articles] was evidently from the author of the Discourses on Davila." Mr. C. F. Adams might have also cited the letter of Jefferson to Monroe, of July 10th, in which the latter allegation is made more comprehensive-by, impliedly, imputing all of Publicola's articles to John Adams.

But we confess we do not discover anything in this to justify the impression that Jefferson stood in the same predicament with Publicola's "antagonist," unless it should be made to appear that a private and confidential expression of an opinion bearing against a friend is equivalent to a public charge "presumed" or taken for granted as a fact, in a newspaper, and made the ground of a personal attack! This will hardly, we fancy, pass for a sequitur.

Again, Mr. Jefferson said in the same letter to Mr. Adams:

Indeed, it was impossible that my note should occasion your name to be brought into question; for, so far from naming you, I had not even in view any writing which I might suppose to be yours, and the opinions I alluded to were principally those I heard in common conversation from a sect aiming at the subversion of the present Government, to bring in their favorite form of a King, Lords, and Commons."

Mr. Adams's editor appends the following note to the above:

"But on the other hand is the following, addressed to another person: That I had in my view the Discourses on Davila, which had filled Fenno's papers for a twelvemonth, without contradiction, is certain.' Jefferson to Washington (8th May, 1791) in Sparks's

JHAP. I.]

IMPUTED DISCREPANCIES.

9

On the 17th of May, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison set out on an excursion to the North. It appears from memoranda of the former, lying before us, that they reached New York on the 19th,

edition of Washington's Writings, vol. x. p. 160, ncte. Those who are curious in such matters, would do well to compare the tone of the two letters throughout.'

This note of Mr. C. F. Adams, like the preceding one, is designed to point out a supposed conflict in Mr. Jefferson's statements to different persons.

We think the interpretation in both cases turns on the same idea. In the first case, Mr. Jefferson said in effect: "Nobody had the right to take it for granted in a public newspaper, that you were Publicola, and to assail you accordingly.' In the second, he

said in effect: "When I wrote J. B. Smith, I had in view no production which I had the right to take for granted to be yours, and therefore no one had the right to assume that I meant you; but I did have in view certain doctrines heard in conversation," etc.

Can it be supposed that he had any intention of really deceiving Mr. Adams in regard to the mental application of the Smith letter, when in his first communication to him on this subject (July 17, 1791), he substantially admitted that application, first, by not denying it, and, secondly, by informing Mr. Adams that it was well known to them both that they differed in their ideas of the best form of government, and that they had talked about it?

When Mr. Adams accepted his explanation on this basis, what would be the use of advancing to a new and contradictory position?

But no contradiction is expressed, or intended. In the second letter, he still adheres to his original position, that he had made no public attack on Mr. Adams, and had done nothing which authorized others to make such an attack. He does not again impute the doctrines to Mr. Adams which he did in his first letter, because the latter had ostensibly disclaimed them. But he now advances from an admission to the direct assertion that in the Smith letter he did refer to the doctrines imputed to Mr. Adams in the first letter to him! And it will be further remarked that in the last one, he does not withdraw the mental application. He remains silent on that point. He says as much as to say: "I referred in the Smith letter to certain doctrines. It cannot be possible that I caused your name to be brought into question, so long as I had no acknowledged writing of yours in view, and so long as you say (or seem to say) that you have advocated no such doctrines."

Jefferson's aim throughout is to prove that he has neither made nor authorized any body else to make a public attack on his friend, while beyond this, without denying or really concealing the truth, he makes no blunt or offensive admissions. Perhaps had he understood the ordeal his words were to pass through, he would have been more explicit !

There are few men who have seen much of the world, who have not sometimes stood in analogous positions to the one here occupied by Jefferson, and who do not know how excessively awkward it is to decide just how much and just how little shall be said in extricating one's self from a difficulty with a friend, particularly if the aggrieved party's temper is understood to be very excitable, and very unreasonable when excited. But when it comes to the motive, certainly that man shows a truer friendship who is willing to do all he decently can to remove the difficulty, than he who at once throws himself into an aggressive attitude by those bluntnesses or unnecessary declarations which some regard as necessary to vindicate their courage.

In this very case, we have no doubt that John Adams made a greater effort to keep a troublesome fact out of sight than did Mr. Jefferson. His son (J. Q. Adams), assuming that his father was attacked in the letter to J. B. Smith, was offensively retaliating on Mr. Jefferson, in some articles over the signature of Publicola. Nobody, we think, had any doubt that they came from Mr. Adams, or some one immediately about him. These articles were continued. Is it probable that John Adams did not know their authorship? If we had any doubts on the subject, they would be removed by his declarations to Jefferson, which were as follows:

"And I, with equal frankness, declare that I never did, either by myself or by any other, have a sentence of mine inserted in any newspaper since I left Philadelphia. Ĭ neither wrote nor corrected Publicola. The writer in the composition of his pieces followed his own judgment, information and discretion without any assistance from me.' What is not said here is more significant than what is said. Why did not Mr. Adams say that he "neither wrote the articles nor knew who did write them?" To deny knowledge of authorship would have covered the whole ground, and saved all those collateral and special disclaimers. Yet to admit the knowledge, when the writer was his own son, and who, it would therefore be presumed, could be at least stopped by him if the attacks were painful to himself, would be to admit a degree of complicity. Consequently, the above disclaimer is made to wear the appearance of a total disclaimer-so much so, that the party receiving it would not be entitled to ask a more specific one without

10

JOURNEY NORTH.

[CHAP. I. Albany on the 26th, Stillwater on the 28th, Fort George on the 29th, Ticonderoga on the 31st, Bennington on the 4th of June, Northampton on the 7th, Springfield and Hartford on the 8th, Guilford on the 11th, New York on the 16th, and Philadelphia on the 19th. His private memoranda of the journey are hardly worth transcribing. Some general description of it will be found in a letter to his son-in-law, Mr. Randolph, which is published without any address in the Congressional edition of his Works (vol. iii. p. 265), and also in one, we shall presently give, to his daughter Martha.

On the 28th of July, the Secretary of State addressed a communication to Mr. Short, in France, remonstrating in firm language against the conduct of the National Assembly in imposing an additional duty on tobacco carried in American, over that carried in French vessels, and making some other unfavorable

betraying unfriendly and offensive distrust. Under the circumstances, the "equivoque " was probably venial, because it contained no express deception, and was the fruit of a good and friendly motive-to obtain a reconciliation with a valued friend. It was simply practising on the rule of "least said soonest mended"-an excellent one, so far as it can be conscientiously carried in those proverbially delicate matters, misunderstandings between friends!

Some gentlemen seem very fond of assuming that Jefferson always had a very particular and interested design in keeping on terms of friendship with John Adams! We agree with these gentlemen in part. We believe that Jefferson was particularly attached to John Adams-that he gave up even political coaction with the Colossus of July 2d, 3d and 4th, 1776, with indescribable reluctance. But on the score of mere personal interest, what favors had he to ask, what to expect from the latter? There is an ingenious theory that some years subsequent to 1791, Jefferson sought to divide the Federalists, by drawing away John Adams from the ultra school, and inducing him to unite with the Republicans. We have no doubt this is true. But was there anything unfriendly or treacherous to John Adams, or improper in itself, in this conduct? The result of it would have been to make Mr. Adams President for two terms-and it would have necessarily delayed Jefferson's accession to the Presidency. But of this more hereafter.

We are pleased that Mr. C. F. Adams called attention to a comparison of "the tone of the two letters throughout" which Jefferson wrote Washington May 8th, 1791, and to John Adams, August 30th, 1791. Herein he but anticipated us. In that comparison will be found a more unmistakable explanation of Jefferson's private feelings towards the latter, than can be derived from any other source at that precise moment. Washington, we believe, was never suspected in his confidential circle of being at all partial personally to John Adams. At least such was Jefferson's belief and his declaration. When, therefore, he wrote General Washington that he was "afraid the indiscretion of a printer had committed him with his friend Mr. Adams, for whom, as one of the most honest and disinterested men alive, he had a cordial esteem, increased by long habits of concurrence in opinion in the days of his republicanism," etc.-we say when he wrote this, we have every reason to believe we get at his true feelings. We have not observed, at any rate, even any wire-drawn theory to prove what super-Jesuitical scheme Jefferson could have had in deceiving Washington in this particular, in a letter which he knew would be treated confidentially.

We will venture to extend Mr. C. F. Adams's invitation to "the curious." We invite them to compare the tone" of every letter and paper Jefferson ever wrote where John Adams's name is mentioned or allusion is made to him. We shall find no overboilings of wrath, and denunciations as ridiculous as children heap upon each other in their anger, in private letters-no anonymous attacks in newspapers-no petty criticisms on his great productions made during paroxysms of wounded vanity, followed by vehement declarations of "love." We shall find, from the first to the last, one consistent view of Mr. Adams's character-one consistent way of speaking of that character-one consistent expression of the writer's feelings towards him!