Book ./ i ^^ . CORRESPONDENCE //^^ BETWEEN ^ /-"^f JOHN aUINCY ADAMS, President of the United States, SEVERAL CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS sokcebniiTg Z^t eijat^e A DESIGN TO DISSOLVE THE UNION JLUESEB TO H1.T:E EXISTED VS THAT STATE. -O'*' To which are now added ADDITIONAL. PAPERS, ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SUBJECT. PRINTED AND SOLD BY JONATHAKT EUiotT 1829. Advertisement to the Boston Edition. The NationitJ- Intelligencer of the 21st of Octo- ber last, contains a statement made by the Presi- dent of the United States, and published by his authority, in which he denounces certain citizens of Massachusetts, as having been engaged in a de- sign to produce a dissolution of the bnion, and the establishment of a separate Confederation. As no individual was named in that communication, a few citizens of Boston and its vicinity, who supposed that they or their friends might be considered by ihe public, if not intended by Mr Adams, to be implicated as ])arties to the alleged conspiracy, thought proper to address to him a letter dated on the 26th of INovember, asking for such a specifica- tion of the charge and of the evidence as might tend to remove suspicion from the innocent, and to ex- pose the guilty, if any such there were. To this letter they received a reply from Mr Adams, dated on the .'iOth of December, in which he declines to make the exphuiation recpiested of him, and gives his reasons for that refusal. Tliis correspondence, together with the origina! communication in the National Intelligencer, is now presented to the public, accompanied by an appeal to the citizens of the United States, in behalf of those who may be considered as implicated in this charge. If the result should be, either to fix a stigma on any citizens of Massachusetts, or on the other hand to exhibit Mr Adams as the author of an unfounded and culmnnious charge, those wiio have made this publication \n ill have the consolation of reilecting that it is not they who began this controversy, and that they are not answerable for its result. That result they cheerfully leave to an impartial and discerning public; feeling assured that he most thorough investij;ation will serve only more fully to prove the futility of the accusation. From the National Intelligencer of October £1, 1828. The publication of a letter from Mr Jefferson to Mr GileSj «]ated the 25th of December, 1825, concerning a communica- tion made by Mr Adams to Mr Jefferson, in relation to the embargo of 1807, renders necessary the following statementj^ which we are authorized by Mr Adams to make. The indistinctness of tlie recollectionsof Mr Jefferson, of which his letter itself feelingly complains, has blended toge- ther three distinct periods of time, and the information which he did receive from Mr Adams, with events which afterwards occurred, and of which Mr Adams could not have informed him. It fortunately happens that this error is apparent on the face of the letter itself. It says, ' Mr Adams called on me pending the embargo^ and while endeavors were making to obtain its repeal.' He afterwards says, that, at this inter- view, Mr Adams, among other things, told him that 'he had information, of the most unquestionable certainty, that cer- tain citizens of the Eastern States, (I think he named Massa chusetts particularly) were in negotiation with agents of the British government, the object of which was an agreement that the New-England States should^a^e no further part in the war then going on.^' &c. The embargo was enacted on the 22d of December, 1807, and repealed by the non-intercourse act on the 1st of March, 1809. The war was declared in June, 1812. In August, 1809, Mr Adams embarked fur Russia, nearly, three 3'ears before the Declaration of War, and did not return to the United States till August, 1817, nearly three years after the conclusion of the peace. Mr Madison was inaugurated President of the United State? on the 4th of March, 1809. It was impossible, therefore, that Mr Adams could have given any information to Mr Jeflerson, of negotiations by citizens of Mas-sachusetts with British agents during ike ivar, or having relation to it. Mr Adams never had knowledge of. any such negotiations. The interview, to vvhich Mr Jefferson alludes, took place on the 15th of March, 1808, pending the eiubargo; but, at the session of Congress before the substitution for it of the non- intcicourse act The information, given by Mr Adams ta Mr. Jefterson, had only an indirect reference even to the em* bargo, and none to arty endeavors for obtaining its repeal.— It was the substance of a letter from the Governor of Nova Scotia, to a person in the State of Massachusetts, written in the summer of 1807, and before the existence of the embargo; which letter Mr Adams had seen. It had been shown to him without any injunction of secrecy, and he betrayed no confi- dence in coinmunicating its puiport to ?4-r JeScrson. Its ob- .% MR ADAMS, jcct was to countenance and accredit a calumny then exten- sively prevailing; among the enemies ef Mr J. and the oppo- nents of his Administration, that he and his measures were subservient to France; and it alleged that the British govern- ment were infoimed of a plan, determined upon by France, to eftect the conquest of the British provinces on this Conti- nent, and a revolution in the government of the United States, as means to which they were first to produce war between the United States and England. From the fact that the Go- vernor of Nova Scotia had Mritten such a letter to an indi- vidual in Massachusetts, connected with other facts, and with the movements of the party then predominant in that State, Mr. Adams and Mr Jefferson drew their inferences, which sub- sequent events doubtless confirmed: but which inferences neither Mr Jefferson nor Mr Adams then communicated to each other. This was the only confidential interview which, during the administration of Mr Jefferson, took place between him and Mr Adams. It took place first at the request of Mr Wilson Carey Nicholas, then a member of the House of Re- presentatives of the United States, a confidential friend of Mr Jefferson; next, of Mr Robinson, then a Senator from Vermont; and, lastly, of Mr Giles, then a Senator from Vir- ,Tinia — which request is the only intervention of Mr Giles ever known to Mr Adams, between him and Mr Jefferson. It is therefore not surprising, that no such intervention occurred to the recollection of Mr Jefferson, in December, 1825. This interview was in March, 1808. In May, of the same year, Mr Adams resigned his seat in the Senate of the U. S. At the next session of Congress, which commenced in No- vember, 1808, Mr Adams was a private citizen residing at Boston. The embargo was still in force, operating with ex trenie pressure upon the interests of the people, and was wield- ed as a most effective instrument by ihe party prevailing in the State, against the administration of Mr Jefferson. The people were constantly instigated to forcible resistance against jt; and juries after juries accjuitted the violators of it, upon tlie ground that it was unconstitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn decision of the District Court of the United States. A separation of the Union was openly stimulated in the public prints, and a Convention of Delegates of the New England Stati'S, to meet at New Haven, was intended and proposed. Mr (iiles, and several other members or Congress, during tliis session, wrote to Mr Adams confidential letters, inform- ing him of the various measures pr()j)osed as reinforcements ov substitutes for the embargo, and soliciting his opinions upon the suliject. He answereil those letters with frankness, and in cunfitlencp. He earnestly recommended the substitution of the non-intercourse for tiie embargo: and, in giving his rea- AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 5 sons for this preference, was necessarily led to enlarge upon the views and purposes of certain leaders of the party, which bad the management of the State Legislature in their hands. He urged that a continuance of the embargo much longer would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the Legislature, and probably by the Judiciary of the State. That to quell that resistance, if force should be resorted to by the Government, it would produce a civil war: and that, in that event, he had no doubt that the leaders of the party would secure the co-operation with them of Great Britain. That their object was, and had been for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confedera- tion, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not prove- able in a court of law; and that, in the case of a civil war, the aid of G. Britain to effect that purpose would be as surely re- sorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to the design. That these letters of Mr Adams to Mr Giles, and to other members of Congress, were read or shewn to Mr Jeiferson, he never was informed. They were written, not for commu- nication to him, but as answers to the letters of his correspon- dents, members of Congress, soliciting his opinion upon mea- sures in deliberation before them, and upon which they were to act. He wrote them as the solicited advice of fiiend to friend, both ardent friends to the Administration, and to their country. He wrote them to give to the supporters of the Ad- ministration of Mr Jefferson, in Congress, at the crisis, the best assistance, by his information and opinions, in his power. He had certainly no objection that they should be communi- cated to Mr Jefferson; but this was neither his intention nor desire. In one of the letters to Mr Giles he repeated an as- surance, which he had verbally given him during the preced- ing session of Ccngress, that he had, for his support of Mr Jefferson's administration, no personal or interested motive, and no favor to ask of him whatever. That these letters to Mr Giles were by him communicated to Mr Jefferson, Mr Adams believes from the import of this letter from Mr Jefferson, now first published, and which has elicited this statement. He believes, likewise, that other letters from him to other members of Congress, written du- ring the same session, and upon the same subject, were also communicated to him; and that their contents, after a lapse of seventeen years, were blended confusedly in his memory, first, with the information given by Mr Adams to him at their interview in March, 1808, nine months before; and next, with events which occurred during the subsequent war, and of which however natural as a sequel to the information and opinions of Mr Adams, communicated to him at those two preceding pe riods, he could not have received tlie information from him. 6 MR ADAMS, COnZlZSPOSTDENCE. Jioston, November 29, 1S28. TO THE HONORABLE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. Sir: The undersigned citizens of Massachusetts, residing in Boston and its vicinity, take tlie liberty of addressing you on the subject of a statement published in the National Intelli- gencer of the iJlst of October, and which purports to have been communicated or authorized by you. In that statement, after speaking of those individuals in this State, whom the writer designates as 'certain leaders of the party which had the management of the State Legislature in their hands' in the year 1808, and saying, that in the event of a civil war, he (Mr Adams) ' had no doubt the leaders of the party would secure the co-operation with them of Great Britain:' it is added, 'That their object was, and had been for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the estab- lishment of a separate Confederation, he knew from unequi- vocal evidence, although not proveabie in a court of law.' This, sir, is not the expression of an opinion as to the na- ture and tendency of the measures at that time publicly adop- ted, or proposed, by the party prevailing in the state of Mas- sachusetts. Every citizen was at liberty to form his own opinions on that subject; and we cheerfully submit the pro- priety of those measures to the judgment of an impartial pos- terity. But tlie sentence which we have quoted contains the assertion of a distinct fact, as one within your own knowledge. We are not permitted to consider it as the unguarded expres- sion of irritated feelings, hastily uttered at a time of great political excitement. Twenty years have elapsed since this charge was first made, in private correspondence with certain members of Congress; and it is now deliberately repeated, and brought before the public under the sanction of your name, as being founded on unequivocal evidence,w ithinyourknowledge. We do not claim for ourselves, nor even for those deceased friends whose representatives join in this address, the title of leaders of any party in Massachusetts; but we were associa- ted in politics with the party prevailing here at the period re- ferred to in the statement above mentioned; some of us con- curred in all the measures adopted bv tl. at party; and we all •warndy approved and supported tliose measures. Many of our associates who still survive, are dispersed throughout Massachusetts and Maine, and could not easily be convened to join us on the present occasion. We tiust, however, that you will not question our riuht, if not for ourselves alone, at least in behalf of the higFdy valued friends -^vith whom we act- ed at that lime, and especially of those of them \\ho arc now deceased, respectfully to ask from you such a full and precise statement of liie facts and evidence relating to this accusa- tion, as may enable us fairly to meet and answer it. AND THE BOSTON I^EDERALl'^TS. 7 The object of this letter, therefore, is to request you to state, First, Who are the persons, desij^nated as leaders of the party prevailing in Massachusetts in the year 1808, whose object, you assert, was and had been for several years, a dis- goiution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confederation? and Sndly, tlie whole evidence on which that charge is founded, It is admitted in the statement of the charge, that it is not proveable in a court of law, and of course that you are not in possession of any legal evidence by which to maintain it. The evidence however must have been such as in your opin- ion would have been pronounced unequivocal by upright and honorable men of discriminating mindsjand we may certainly expect from your sense of justice and self respect a full dis- closure of all that you possess. A charge of this nature, coming as it does from the first magistrate of the nation, acquires an importance which we cannot affect to disregard; and it is one which we ought not to leave unanswered. We are therefore constrained, by a regard to our deceased friends and to our posterity, as Avell as by a sense of what is due to our own honor, most solemnly to declare, that we have never known nor suspected that the party which prevailed in Massachusetts in the year 1808, or any other party in this State, ever entertained the design to produce a dissolution of the Union, or the establishment of a separate Confederation. It is impossible for us in any other manner to refute, or even to answer this charge, until we see it fully and particularly stated, and know the evidence by whit h it is to be maintained. The undersigned think it due to themselves to add, that in making this application to you, they have no design nor wish to produce an effect on any political party or question what- ever. Neither is it their purpose to enter into a vindication or discussion of the measures publickly adopted and avowed by the persons against whom the above charge has been made. Our sole object is to draw forth all the evidence on which that charge is founded, in order that the public may judge of its application and its weight. We are .Sir, with due respet, your obedient servants, H. G. OTIS, CHARLES JACKSON, ISRAEL THORNDIKE, WARREN DU FTON, T. H. PERKINS, BENJ. PICKMAN, WM. PRESCOTT, HENRY CABOT, Son of the late George Cabot. DANIEL SARGENT, C. C. PARSONS, Son of Theophilas Parsons, Esq. dec'd* JOHN LOWELL, FRANLLIN DEXTER, Son of tlie late Samuel Dexter.- WM. SULLIVAN, 8 MR ADAMS, MR. ADAMS' REPLY TO THE PRECEDING LETTEK fVashington, 50th December, 1828. Messrs H. G. Otis, Israel Thornrlike, T. H. Perkins, William Prescoc; Diiniel Sargent, John Lowell, William Sullivan, Charles Jackson, Warrej' Diitton, Benjamin Pickman, Heniy Cobot, C. C. Paisons, and Franklio Deter— Gemxemex, I iiave received your letter of the 26th ult. and recogniz- ing among the signatures to it, names of persons for whom a long and on my part uninterrupted friendship, has survived all the bitterness of political dissension, it would have afford- ed me pleasure to answer with explicitness and candor not only those persons, but each and everyone of you, upon the only questions in relation to the subject matter of your letter, which as men or as citizens I can acknowledge your right to ask; namely whether the interrogator was himself one of the persons intended by me in the extract which you have given, from a statement authorised by me and published in the Na- tional Intelligencer of 21st October last. Had you or either of you thought proper to ask me this ques- tion, it would have been more satisfactory to me to receive the inquiry separately from each individual, than arrayed in solid phalanx, each responsible not only for himself but for all the others. Tlie reasons for this must be so obvious to persons of your intelligence, that I trust you will spare me the pain of detailing them. But, Gentlemen, this is not all. You undertake your in- quisition, not in your own names alone; but as the represen- tatives of a great and powerful party, dispersed throughout the States of Massachusetts and Maine: A party commanding, at the time to which your inquiries refer, a devoted majority in the Legislature of the then United Commonwealth; and even now, if judged of by the character of its volunteer delegation, of great influence and respectability. I cannot recognize you, on this occasion, as the representa- tives of that party, for two reasons — first, because you have neither produced your credentials for presenting yourselves as their champions, nor assigned satisfactory reasons for pre- senting yourselves without them. But, secondly, and chiefly, because your introduction of that party into tliis question is entirely gratuitous. Your solemn declaration that you do not know that tlie federal or any other party, at the time to which my statement refers, intended to produce the dissolution of the Union, and the formation of a new confederacy, does not take the issue, which your own statement of my charge (as you are pleased to consider it) had tended. The statement authorised by me, spoke, not of the federal party, but of cer- tain leaders of lliat party. In my own letters to the Mem- hen of Congress, who did me the honor at that agonizing cri- AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 9 sis to our National Union, of soliciting my confidential opin- ions upon measures under deliberation, I expressly acquitted the great body of the federal party, not only of participating in the secret designs of those leaders, but even of being privy to or believing in their existence. I now cheerfully repeat that declaration. I well know that the parly were not pre- pared for that convulsion, to which the measures and designs of their leaders were instigating them; and my extreme anx- iety for the substitution of the nonintercourse for the embargo arose from the eminent danger, that the continuance and enforcement of this latter measure would promote the views of those leaders, by goading a majority of the people and of the legislature to the pitch of physical resistance, by State authority, against the execution of the laws of the Union; the only eftectual means by which the Union could be dissol- ved. Your modesty has prompted you to disclaim the char- acter of leaders of the federal party at that time. If I am to consider this as more than a more disavowal of form, I must say that the charge, which I lament to see has excited so much of your sensibility, had no reference to any of you. Your avowed object is controversy. You call for a precise state ot facts and evidence; not affecting, so far as you know, any one of you, but to enable you fairly to meet and to answer it. And you demand, 1. Who are the persons designated as leaders of the party prevailing in Massachusetts in the year 1808, whose object I assert was, and had been, for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate confederacy? and 2. The whole evidence, on which that charge is founded. You observe that it is admitted, in the statement of the charge, that it is not proveable in a court of law, and your in- ference is, that I am of course not in possession of any legal evidence, by which to maintain it. Yet you call upon me to name the persons affected by the charge; a charge in your estimate deeply stigmatising upon those persons; and you per- mit yourselves to remind me, that my sense of justice and self-respect oblige me to disclose all that I do possess. My sense of justice to you. Gentlemen, induces me to remark, that I leave your self-respect to the moral influences of your own minds, without presuming to measure it by the dictatioo of mine. Suppose, then, that in compliance with your call, I should name one, two, or three persons as intended to be included in the charge. Suppose neither of those persons to be one of you. You however have given them notice, that 1 have no evidence against them, by which the charge is proveable in a court of law — and you know that I, as well as yourselves, am amenable to the laws of the land. Does your self-respect con- ^0 MR ADAMS, \inceyou that the persons so named, ifguiltj, would furnish the evidence against themselves, which they have been notifi- ed that I do not possess? Are you sure that the correspon- dence, which would prove their guilt, may not in the lapse of twenty-five years have been committed to the flames? In these days of failing and of treaciierous memories, may they not have forgotten that any such correspondence ever existed? And have you any gurantee to offer, that I should not be called by a summons more imperative than yours, to produce in the temple of justice the proof, which you say I have not, or be branded for a foul and malignant slanderer of spotless and persecuted virtue? Is it not besides imaginable that per- sons may exist, who though twenty-five years since driven in the desperation of disaj)pointment, to the meditation and pre- paration of measures tending to the dissolution of the Union, perceived afterwards the error of their ways, and would now gladly wash out from their own memories their participation in projects, upon which the stamp of indelible reprobation has past? Is it not possible that some of the conspirators have been called to account before a higlier than an earthly tribu- nal for all the good and evil of their lives; and whose reputa- tions might now suffer needlessly by the di^clousure of their names? I put these cas-es to you, Gentlemen, as possible, to show you that neither my sense of justice nor my self-respect does require of me to produce the evidence for which you call, or to disclose the names of persons, for whom you h we and can have no riglit to speak. These consideratior.s appear indeed to me so forcible, that it is not without surprise, that I am compelled to believe they had escaped your observation. I cannot believe of any of you that which 1 am sure never entered the hearts of some of you, that you shouhl have selected the present moment, for the purpose of drawing me into a controversy not only with yourselves, but with others, you know not whom— of daring me to (he denouncement of names, which twenty years since I declined commicting to the ear of confidential friendship ; and to the production of evidence wliich, though perfectly saii^sfactory to njy own mind, and perfecll> competent for the foundation of Imnest and palrioiic public conduct, was adecjuale in a court of law neither to the conviction of the guilty, nor to tlie jus- tification of the accuser, and so explicitly pronounced bv my- self. You say that you have no design nor wish to produce an efliict on any political party or cpieslion whatever — nor to en- ter into a vindication of the measures publicly adopted and avv)wed by the persons, against whom the above charge has been made. But can you believe that this subject could be discussed between you and me, as you propose, when calling upon me for a statenient, with the avowed intention of refut- KND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 11 iTi"- it, anil not produce an eftect on any political party or question? With regard to public measures of those times and the succeeding, which you declare to have had your sanc- tion and approbation, it needs no disclosure now, that a radi- cal and irreconcileable difference of opinion between most of yourselves and me existed. And can you suppose that in dis- closing names and stating facts, known perhaps only to my- self, I could consent to separate them from those public mea- sures, which you so cordially approved and which I so deeply lamented? Must your own deience against these charges for- ever rest exclusively upon a solemn protestation against the natural inference from the irresistible tendency of action to the secret intent of the actor? That a statesman who believes in human virtue should be slow to draw this inference against such solemn asservations, I readily admit : but for the regu- lation of the conduct of human life, the rules of evidence are widely dill'erent from those, which receive or exclude testi- mony in court of law. Even there, you know, that violent pre- sumption is equivalent, in cases hftecting life itself, to posi- tive proof; and in a succession of political measures through a series of years, all tending to the same result, there is an internal evidence, against which mere denial, however so- lemn, can scarcely claim the credence even of the charity, that believeth all things. Jjet me add that the statement authorized by me, as pub- lislied in the National Intelligencer, was made, not only without the intention, but without the most distant imagina- tion of offending you or injuring any one of you. But, on the contrary, for the purpose of expressly disavowing a charge, which was before the public, sanctioned witli the name of the lare Mr Jefferson, imputing to certain citizens of Massachu- setts treasonable negotiations with the British government during the war^ and expressly stating that he had recived in- formation of this FROM ME. On the publication of this letter, I deemed it indispensably due to myself, and to all the citi- zens of Massachusetts, not only to de y having ever given such information, but all knowledge of such a fact. And the more so, because tliat letter had vt ' nublisheil, though with- out my knowledge, yet I was well assured, from motives .of justice and kindness to me. It contained a declaration by Mr Jefferson hin self, frank, explicit, anil true, of the charac- ter of the motives of my conduct, in all transactions of my in- tercourse with him, during the period of the embargo. T his was a point upon which his memory could not deceive him, a point upon which he was the best of witnesses; and his testimuuy was the more deci.-ive because given at a moment, gs it would seem, of great excitement against me upondiffer- ant views of public policy even then in conflict and producing ereat exacerbation in his mind. The letter contained also a 1 2 MR ADAMS, narrative of a personal interview between himself and me, in March, 1808, and stated that I had then given him informa- tion of facts, which induced him to consent to the substitu- tion of the nonintercourse for the embargo; and also that I had apprized him of this treasonable negotiation by citizens of Massachusetts, to secede from the Union during the war, and perhaps rejoin after the peace. Now the substitution of the nonintercourse for the embargo, took place twelve months after this interview, and at a succeeding session of Congress, when I was not even a member of that body. The negotia- tion for seceding from the Union m ith a view to rejoin it after- wards, if it ever existed, must have been during the war. I had no knowledge of such negotiation, or even of such a de- sign. I could therefore have given no such information. But in giving an unqualitied denial to this statement of Mr Jefferson, and in showing that upon the face of the letter itself it could not be correct, it was due to him to show, that the mis- statement on his part was n ot intentional; that it arose from an infirmity of memory, which the letter itself candidly acknow- ledged; that it blended together in one distinct mass, the in- formation which I had given him in March, 1808, with the purport of confidential letters, which I had written to his and r^.y friends in Congress a year after, and with events, projects, and perhaps mere suspicions, natural enough as consequen- ces of the preceding times, but which occurred, if at all from three to six years later, and of which he could not have had information from me. The simple fact of which I apprized Mr. Jefferson was, that, in the summer of 1807, about the time of what was sometimes called the (ij/ltir of the Leopard and the Chesepeake, I had seen a letter from the governor of Nova Scotia to a person in Massachusetts, affirming that the British government had certain information of apian by that of France, to conquer the British possessions and effect a revolution in the United States, by means of a war between them and Great Britain. As the United States and Great Britain were in 1 807 at peace, a correspondence with the governor of Nova Scotia, held by any citizen of the United States, imported no violation of law; nor could the correspondent be responsible for any thing which the governor might write. But my infer- ences from this fact were, that there cxistt^d between the Bri- tish government and the party in Massachusetts opposed to Mr Jelferson, a channel of communication through the gover- nor of Nova Scotia, which he was exercising to inflame their hatred against France and their jealousies against their own government. The letter was not to any leader of the federal party; but I had no doubt it had been shown to some of them, as it had been to me, without injunction of secrecy; and, as 1 supposed, with a view to convince me that this conspiracy Zjctween Napoleon and Mr Jefferson really existed. How that AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. J^ channel of communication might be further used, was mattw of conjecture; for the mission of Mr John Henry was nine months after m_y interview with Mr Jefferson, and precisely at the time when I was writing to my friends in Congress the letters urging the substitution of the non intercourse for the embargo. Of Mr Henry's mission I knew nothing till it was disclosed by himself in 1812. It was in these letters of 1808 and 1809, that I mentioned the design of certain leaders of the federal party to effect a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a Nor- thern Confederacy. This design had been formed, in the wintf'r of 1803 — 4, immediately after; and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana. Its justifying causes to those who entertained it were, that the annexation of Louisiana to the Union traj.'scended the constitutional powers of the go- vernment of the United States. That it formed in fact a new confederacy to which the States, united by the former com- pact, were not bound to adhere. That it was oppressive to the interests and destructive to the influence of the Northern section of the confederacy, whose right and duty it therefore was to secede from the new body politic, and to constitute one of their own. This plan was so far matured, that the pro- posal had been made to an individual to permit himself, at the proper time, to be placed at the head of the military movements, which it was foreseen would be necessary for car- rying it into execution. In all this there was no aver tact of treason. In the abstract theory of our government the obedi- ence of the citizen is not due to an unconstitutional law. — He may lawfully resist its execution. If a single individual undertakes this resistance, our constitutions, both of the Uni- ted States and of each separate State, have provided a judi- ciary power, judges and juries, to decide between the indi- vidual and the legislative act, which he has resisted as uncon- stitutional. But let us suppose the case that legislative acts of one or more States of this Union are past, conflicting with acts of Congress, and commanding the resistance of their citizens against them, and what else can be the result but War; — civil war? and is not that, de facto, a dissolution of the Union, so far .'ts the resisting States are concerned.^ and what would be the condition of every citizen in the resisting States? Bound by the double duty of allegiance to the Union, and the State, he would be crushed between the upper and the nether millstone, with the performance of every civic duty converted into a crime, and guilty of treason, by every act of obedience to the law. That the power of annexing Louisiana to this Union had not been delegated to Congress, by the constitution of the United States, was my opinion; and it is recorded upon the journals of the senate, of which I was then a member — r4 MR ADAMS, But far from thinking the act itself a justifying cause for se- cession from the Union, I regarded it as one of the happiest events, which had occurred since the adoption of ihe consti- tution. I regretted that an accidental illness in my family, which detained me on my way to Washington to take my seat in the senate, deprived me of the power of voting for the ra- tification of the treaties, by which the cession was secured. I arrived at Washington on the fourtli day of the session of Congress, and on entering the city, passed by the secretary of the senate, who was going from the capital to the presi- dent's house, with the advice and consent of that body to the ratification. 1 took my seat in the senate the next day. Bills were im- mediately brought into Congress making appropriations to the amount of fifteen millions of dollars for carrying the conven- tion into eilect, and for enabling the president to take posses- sion of the ceded territory. These measures were opposed by all the members of the senate, who had voted against the ratifications of the conventions. They were warmly and cordially supported by me. I had no doubt of the constitu- tional power to make the treaties. It is expressly delegated in the constitution. The power of making tlie stipulated pay- ment for the cession, and of taking possession of the ceded territory, was equally unquestioned by me; — they were con- structive powers, but I thought them fairly incidental, and necessarily consequent upon the power to make the treaty. — But the power of annexing the inhabitants of Louisiana to the Union, of conferring upon them, in a mass, all the rights, and requiring of tiiem all the duties, of citizens of the Uni- ted States, it apjjeared to me iiad not been delegated to Con- gress by the people of the Union, and could not have been delegated by them, witliout the consent of tlie people of Lou- isiana tlieniselves. I thought they recjuired an amendn)ent to the constitution, and a vote of the people of J^nuisiana? and I offered to the senate, resolutions for carrying both those measures into ettect, which were rejected. It has been recently ascertained, by a letter from Mr Jef^ ferson to Mr Dunbar, written in July 1803, after he had re- ceived the treaties, and convened Congress to consider them, that, in his opinion, the treaties could not be carried into ef- fect without an amendment to the constitution: and that the proposal for such an amendment would be the first measure adopted by them, at their tiieeling. Yet Mr Jefferson, presi- dent of the I'nited States, did a[)prove the acts of Congress, assuming the power which he had so recently thought not delegated to them, and, as the Executive of the Union, car- ried them into execution. Thus M^-. JettersoD, President of the United States, the AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 15 federal members of Congress, who opposed and voted against the ratification of the treaties, and myself, all concurred in the opinion, that the Louisiana cession treaties transcended the constitutional powers of the government of the United States. But it was, after all, a question of constructive pow- er. The power of making the treaty was expressly giveti without limitation. The sweeping clause, by which all pow- ers, necessary and proper for carrying into effect those ex- pressly delegated, may be understood as unlimited. It is to be presumed, that when Mr Jefferson approved and executed the acts of Congress, assuming the doubtful power, he had brought his mind to acquiesce in this somewhat latitudinarian consn-uction. I opposed it as long and as far as my opposi- tion could avail. I acquiesced in it, after it bad received the sanction of all the organixed authority of the Union, and the tacit acquiescence of the people of the United States and of Louisiana. Since which time, so far as this precedent goes, and no farther, I have considered the question as irrevocably- settled. But, in reverting to the fundamental principle of all our constitutions, that obedience is not due to an unconstitutional . law, and that its execution may be lawfully resisted, you must admit, that had the laws of Congress for annexing Louisiana to the 'Union been resisted, by the authority of one or more States of the then existing confederacy, as 'unconstitutional.. that resistance might have been carried to the evtent of dis- solving the Union, and of fornii.>g a new confederacy; and that if the consequences of the cession had been so oppressive upon New England and the North, as was apprehended by the federal leaders, to whose conduct at that lime all these obser- vations refer, the project which they did then form of sever- ing the Union, and establishing a Northern Confederacy would in their application of the abstract principle to the exis- ting state of things have been justifiable. In their views, therefore, I impute to them nothing which it could be neces- sary for them to disavow; and, accordingly, these principdes Miere distinctly and explicitly avowed, eight years afterwards,, by my excellent friend, Mr Quincy, in his speech upon the admission of Louisiana, as a State, into the Union. AVhether he had any knowledge of the practical project of 1803 and 4,. I, know not; but the argument of his speech, in which he re- ferred to my recorded opinions upon the constitutional power, \^s an eloquent exposition of the justifying causes of that project, as 1 had heard them detailed at the time. That project, I repeat,. had gone to the length of fixing upon a mili-- tary leader for its execution; and although the circumstances of the times never admitted of its execution, nor even of its full developement, I had yet no doubt, in 1S08 and 1809, and IB MR ADAMS, have no doubt at this time, that it is the key to all the o-reat movements of these leaders of the federal party in New England, from that time forward, till its final catastrophe in the Hartford Convention. Gentlemen, I observe among the signers of your letter, the names of tvvo members of that Convention, together with that of the son of its president You will not understand me as affirming, that either of you was privy to this plan of military execution, in 1804. That may be known to yourselves and not to me. A letter of your first signer, recently published, has disclosed the fact, that he, although the putative was not the real father of the Hartford Convention. As he, who has hitherto enjoyed unrivaled, the honors, is now disposed to bestow upon others the shame of its paternity, may not the ostensible ami the real character or other incidents attending it, be alike diversified, so that the main and ultimate object of that assembly, though beaming in splendor from its acts, was jet in dim eclipse to the vision of its most distingui«hed mem- bers? However this may be, it was this project of 1803 and 4, which, from the time when I first took my seat in the Senate, of the United States, alienated me from the secret councils of those leaders of the federal party. I was never initiated in them. I approved and supported the acquisition of Louis- iana; and from the first moment that the project of separation ■was made known to me, I opposed to it a determined and in- flexible resistance. It is well known to some of you, Gentlemen, that the ces- sion of Louisiana was not the first occasion upon which my duty to my country prescribed to me a course of conduct dif- ferent from that which would have been dictated to me by the leaders and the spirit of party. More than one of you was present at a meeting of members of the Massachusetts Legislature on the 2Tlh May, 1802, the day after I first took my seat as a member of that legislature. A proposal then made by me, to admit to the council of the Common- wealth, a proportional representation of the minority as it ex- isted in the two houses, has, I trust, not been forgotten. It was the first act of my legislative life, and it marked the prin- ciple by which my whole public career has been governed from that day to this. My proposal was unsuccessful, and perhaps it forfeited whatever confidence might have been otherwise bestowed upon me as a party follower. My con- duct in tlie senate of the United States, with regard to the Louisiana cession, was not more acceptable to the leaders of the federal party, and some of you may perhaps remember that it was not suffered to pass without notice or censure, in the public federal journals of tlie time. With regard to the project of a separate Northern Confedc- AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. ' 17 racy, formed in the winter of 1803 and 4, in consequence of the Louisiana cession, it is not to me that you must apply for copies of the correspondence in which it was contained. To that and to every other project of disunion, I have been con- stantly opposed. My principles do not admit the right even of the people, still less of the legislature of any one State of the Union, to secede at pleasure from the Union. No provi- sion is made for the exercise of this right, either by the fede- ral or any of the State constitutions. The act of exercising it, presupposes a departure from the principle of compact and a resort to that of force. If, in the exercise of their respective functions, the legisla- tive, executive, and judicial authorities of the Union on one side, and of one or more States on the other, are brought into direct collision with each other, the relations between the parties are no longer those of constitutional right, but of in- dependent force. Each party construes the common compact for itself. The constructions are irreconcileable together. There is no umpire between them, and the appeal is to the sword, the ultimate arbiter of right between independent States, but not between the members of one body politic. I therefore hold it as a principle without exception, that when- ever the continued authorities of a State authorize resistance to any act of Congress, or pronounce it unconstitutional, they do thereby declare themselves and their State quoad hoc out of the pale of the Union. That there is no supposable case, in which the people of a State might place themselves in this * attitude, by the primitive right of insurrection against oppres- sion, I will not affirm: but they have delegated no such pow- er to their legislatures or their judges; and if there be such a right, it is the right of an individual to commit suicide — the right of an inhabitant of a populous city to set fire to his own dwelling house. These are my views. But to those who think that each State is a sovereign judge, not only of its own rights, but of the extent of powers conferred upon the gene- ral government by the people of the whole Union; and that each State, giving its own construction to the constitutional powers of Congress, may array its separate sovereignty against every act of that body transcending this estimate of their powers — to say of men holding these principles, that, for the ten years from 1804 to 1814, they were intending a dissolu- tion of the Union, and the formation of a new Confederacy, is charging theui with nothing more than with acting up to their principles. To the purposes of party leaders, intending to accomplish the dissolution of the Union and a new Confederacy, two pos- tulates are necessary. First, an act or acts of Congress, 2 18 MR ADAMS, which may be resisted as tmcons/z7w/iono^; and, secondly,. «. state of excitement among the people of one or more States of the Union sufficiently inflamed, to produce acts of the State legislatures, conflicting with the acts of Congress. Resolu- tions of the legislatures denying the powers of Congress, are the first steps in this march to disunion: but they avail nothing •without subsequent and corresponding action. The annexa- tion of Louisiana to the Union was believed to be unconstitu- tional, but it produced no excitement to resistance among the people. Its beneficial consequences to the whole Union were soon felt, and took away all possibility of holding it up as the labarum of a political religion of disunion. The projected separation met with other disasters, and slumbered till the attacK of the Leopard on the Chesapeake, followed by the orders in Cou!icil of 1 1th November, 1807, led to the embar- go of the 22d December of that year. Tlie first of these events brought the nation to the brink of war with Great Britainj and there is good reason to believe that the second was in- tended as a measure familiar to the policy of that government, to sweep our commerce from the ocean, carrying into British ports every vessel of ours navigating upon the seas, and hold- ing them, their cargoes, and their crews, in sequestration, to aid in the negotiation of Mr Rose, and bring us to the terms of the British cabinet. This was precisely the period at which the governor of Nova Scotia was giving to his his corres- pondent in Massachusetts, the friendly warning from the Bri- tish government of the revolutionizing and conquering plan of France, which was communicated to me, and of which I apprized Mr Jefterson. The enibargo, in the mean time, had been laid, and hud saved most of our vessels and seamen from the grasp of the British cruizcrs. It had rendered impotent ihf! British orders in Council; but, at the same time, it had choaked up the channels of our own commerce. As its ope- ration bore with heavy pressure upon the commerce and navi- gation of the North, the federal leaders soon began to clamor against it; then to denounce it as unconstitutional; and then !.o call upon the Commercial Slates to concert measures among th^Miiselves to resist its execution. The question made of the constitutionality of the embargo only proved that, in times of violent popular excitement, the clearest dele- gation of a power in (.'oiigress will no more shield the exercise of it from a charge of usurpation, than that of a power the most remotely implied or constructive. The question of the constitutionality of the embargo was solemnly argued before the District Court of the United States at Salem; and ahho' 'he decision of the Judg(^ was in its favor, it continued to be argued to th? juries; a'.d even when silenced before them, ^vas, in the distemper of the times, so infectious, that the ju- AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 19 ries themselves habitually acquitted those charged with the vi- olation of that law. There was little doubt, that if the question of constitutionality had been brought before the State judi- ciary of Massachusetts, the decision of the court would have been against the law. The lirst postulate for the projectors of disunion was thus secured. The second still lingered; for the people, notwithstanding their excitement, still clung to the Union, and the federal majority in the legislature was very small. Then was brought forward the first project for a Convention of Delegates from the New England States to meet in Connecticut, and then was the time at which I urged, with so much earnestness, by letters to my friends at Wash- ington, the substitution of the non-intercourse for the embargo. The non-intercourse was substituted. The arrangement with Mr Erskine soon afterwards ensued; and in August, 1809, I embarked upon a public mission to Russia. My ab- sence from the United States was of eight years' duration, and I returned to take charge of the Department df State in 1817. The rupture of Mr Erskine's arrangement, the abortive missionof Mr Jackson, the disclosures of Mr John Henrv, the war with Great Britain, the opinion of the judges of tiie Su- preme Court of Massachusetts, that by the constitution of the United States, no power was given either to the President or to Congress to determine the actual existence of the exigen- cies upon which the militia of the several States may be em- plojed in the service of the United States, and the Hartford Convention, all happened during my absence from this coun- try. I forbear to pursue the narrative. The two postulates for disunion were nearly consummated. The interposition of a kind Providence, restoring peace to our country and to the world, averted the most deplorable of catastrophes, and turning over to the receptacle of things lost upon earth, the adjourned Convention from Hariford to Boston, extinguished (by the mercy of Heaven, may it be foreverl) the projected New England Confederacy. Gentlt^men, 1 have waved every scruple, perhaps even the. proprieties of my situation, to give you this answer, in consi- tl'^ration of that long ai;d sincere friendship ht some of you. wiiich can cease to beat only with the last puliation of" ray heart. But 1 cr.nnot consent to a controversy wirh you.~ Here, if you please, let our J obit correspondence rest. I will ati^wer fur the public eye, or for the private ear. at bis option, ci her of y(.u, speaking for himself, upon any question which he may justly deem necessary, for the vindication of his nv/n reputation. But I can recognise among y(»i.' no representa- tive characters. Justly appreciating the "tili.il piety of thosf vbohave signed your letter in behalf of their deceased sires. 1 20 MR ADAMS, have no reason to believe that either of those parents would have authorized the demand of names, or the call for evidence which you have made. With the fatlier of your last signer, I had, in the year 1 809, one or more intimately confidontial conversations on this very subject, which I have flattered my- self, and still believe, were not without their influence upon the conduct of his last and best days. His son may have found no traces of this among his father's papers. He may believe me that it is nevertheless true. It is not improbable that, at some future day, a sense of so- lemn duty to my country may require of me to disclose the evidence which I do possess, and for which you call. But of that day the selection must be at my own judgment, and it may be delayed till I myself shall have gone to answer for the testimony I may bear, before the tribunal of your God and mine. Should a disclosure of names even tlien be made by me, it will, if possible, be made with such reserve, as tender- ness to the feelings of the living, and to the families and friends of +he dead, may admonish. But no arrav of numbers or of power shall draw me to a disclosure, which I deem premature, or deter me from mak- ing it, when my sense of duty shall sound the call. In the mean time, with a sentiment of aflectionate and una- bated regard for some, and of respect for all of you, permit me to subscribe myself, Your friend and fellow citizen, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. APPEAZ. TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. The following appeal is made to you, because the charges which have rendered it necessary were exhibited by your highest public functionary, in a communication designed for the eyes of all ; and because the citizens of every State in the Union have a deep interest in the reputation of every other »St;ite. , , It is wt'll known, that, during the embargo, and the suc- ceeding; reslriftiuns on our commerce, and also during the late vva"t- with (ircat Britain, the Slate of Massachusetts was sometimes charged with entertaining designs, dangerous, if not hostile, to the Union of the Stales. This calumnv, having been en,;endered at a period of extreme political excitement, and l)eiiig cimsidered like the thousand others whieh at such times art? fabricated by parly annimosity, and which live out their day and expire, has liithcrto attracted very little atten- tion in this Slate. It stood on the same footing with the charge a^aint Hamilton, for peculation j agaiu&t the late Presiden AND THE BOSTON FB^DERALISTS. 21 Adams, as being in favor of monarchy and nobility, and against Washington himself, as hostile to France, and devo- ted to British interests. Calumnies, which were seldom be- lieved by any respectable members of the party wliich circu- lated them. The publication by the President of the United States, ia the National Intelligencer of October last, has given an en- tirely new characrer to these charges against the citizens of Massachusetts. They can no longer be considered as the an- onymous slanders of political partisans ; but as a solemn and deliberate impeachment by the first magistrate of the United States, and under the responsibility of his name. It appears also that this denunciation, though now for the first time made known to the public, and to the parties implicated, (whoever they may be,) was contained. in private letters of Mr Adams, written twenty years ago, to members of the general govern- ment ; and that he ventures to state is as founded on unequi- vocal evidence within his own knowledge. It was impossible for those who had any part in the affairs of Massachusetts during the period in question, to suftersuch a charge to go forth to the world, and descend to posterity, without notice. The high official rank of the accuser, the silent, but baneful influence of the original secret denuncia- tion, and the deliberate and unprovoked repetition of it in a public journal, authorized an appeal to Mr Adams, for a spe- cification of the parties and of the evidence, and rendered such an appeal absolutely imperative. No higli-minded hon- orable man, of any party, or of any State in our confederacy, could expect that the memory of illustrious friends deceased, or the characters of the living, should be left undefended, througli the fear of awakening long extinguished controver- sies, or of disturbing Mr Adams' retirement. Men who feel a just respect for their own characters, and for public esteem, and who have a corresponding sense of what is due to the re- putation of others, will admit the right of all who might be supposed by the public to be included in Mr Adams' denun- ciation, to call upon him to disperse the cloud with which he had enveloped tlieir characters. Such persons had a right to require that the innocent should not sutler with the guilt\', if any such there were ; and that the parties against whom the charge was levelled, should have aji opportunity to repel and disprove it. Mr Adams had indeed admitted that his allega- tions could not be proved in a court of law, and thereby pru- dently declined a legal investigation; but the persons impli- cated had still a right to know what the evidence was, which he professed to consider as ' unequivocal,' in order to exhibit it to the tribunal of the public, before which he had arraign^ ed them. He had spoken of that evidence as entirely satis- 22 MR ADAMS, factory to him. They had a right to ascertain \vhether it Vould be alike satisfactory to impartial, upright, and honora- ble men. It being determined that this denunciation could not be suffered to pass unanswered, some question arose as to the mode in which it should be noticed. Should it be by a solemn public denial, in the names of all those who came within the scope of Mr Adams' accusation, including, as it does, all the leaders of the federal party from the year 1803 to 1814? Such a course, indeed would serve in Massachusetts, where the characters of the parties are known, most fully to countervail the charges of Mr. Adams; but this impeachment of their char- acter may be heard in difTerent States, and in future times. A convention might have been called of all who had beeen mem- bers of the federal party in the legislature during those eleven years; and a respectable host they would be, in numbers, in- telligence, education, talents, and patriotism, yet it might then have been said — ' You mean to overpower your accuser by numbers; you intend to seize this occasion to revive the old and long extinct federal party; your purpose is to oppress by popular clamour a falling chief ; you are avenging your- selves for this ancient defection from your party: you are con- scious of guilt, but you endeavor to diminish the odium of it by increasing the number of your accomplices.' These rea- sons had great weight; and tjie course adopted after delibera- tion appeared to be free from all objection. The undersigned, comprising so many of the federal party, that Mr Adams should not be at liberty to treat them as un- worthy of attention, and yet so few, that he could not charge them wi(h arraying a host against him, addressed to him the above letter of November 26th. They feel no fear that the public will accuse them of presumption in taking upon them- selves the task of vindicating the reputation of the federal party. The share which some of them had in public affairs during the period over which Mr Adams has extended his charges and insinuations, and the decided, p(»wevful, and well merited influence enjoyed by their illustrious friends, now deceased, most assuredly gave to the undersigned a right to demand the grounds of the accusation; a right which Mr. Adams liimself repeatedly admits might have been justly and propel ly exercised by eacii of them severally. Their demand was founded on the common principle, recognized alike in the code ot honor and of civil jurisprudence, that no man should make a charge affecting the right or character of others, witliout given them an opportunity of knowing the grounds on which it was made, and of disproving it, if untrue. To this plain and simple demand the undersigned received the AND THE BOSTON FEDERALll^TS. 23 answer contained in the above letter of Mr Adams, dated on the 30th of December. It will be seen that Mr Acfams altogether ri'fuses to produce any evidence in support of his allej^ations. Tiie former part of his letter contains his reasons for that refusal; and in the other part, he repeats the original charj^es in terms even more «)ffonsive tiian before. When addressin* to him our letter, we thought we might reasonably expect from his sense of what was due to himself, as well as to us, that he would fully dis- close all the evidence which he professed to consider so satis- factory; and we felt assured, that in that event we should be able fully to explain or refute it, or to show that it did not aSect any distinguished members of the federal party. And if, on the other hand, he should refuse to disclose that evi- dence, we trusted that the public would presume, what we nnhesitatingly believe, that it was because he had no evidence that would bear to be submitted to an impartial and intelligent community. Mr Adams has adopted the latter course ; and if the reasons that he has assigned for it should appear to be unsatisfactory, our tellow-citiz.ens, we doubt not, will join us in drawing the above inference. We therefore proceed to an examination of those reasons : Mr Adams first objects to our making a joint application to him; acknowledging the right of each one alone to inquire whether he was included in this vague and sweeping denun- ciation. It was not easy to see why any one should lose this acknowledged right, by uniting with others in the exercise of it; nor why this mere change of form should authorize Mr Adams to disregard our claim. But there are two objectiont to the course which he has condescended to point out, as the only one in which he could be approached or, this occasion. Any individual who should have applied to him in that mode might have been charged with arrogance; and to each of then* in turn he might have tauntingly replied, ' that the applicant was in no danger of suffering as one yf the " leaders" in Mas- sachusetts, and had no occasion to exculpate himself from a charge conveyed in the terms used by Mr Adams.' The other objection is still more decisive. After allowing tliis de- nunciation all the weight that it can be supposed to derive from the personal or official character of the accuser, we trust there are few citizens of Massachusetts who would be content to owe their political reputation to his estimation of it, and condescend to solicit his certificate to acquit them of the sub- picion of treasonable practices. Mr Adams next objects, that we make our application as the representatives of a great and powerful party, which, at the time referred to, commanded, as he says, a devoted ma- jority in the legislature of the Commonwealth^ and he denies 24 MR ADAMS, our right to represent tliat party. We have already stated the objetiions to a joint application by all, who nii^litbe included in this denunciation, and to a separate inquiry by each indi- vidual; and some of the reasons which we thouj!,ht, justified the Course which we have pursued. We certainly did not ar- rogate to ourselves the title of 'leaders;' and Mr Adams may enjoy, undisturbed, all the advantage which that circumstance can give him in this controversy. But we freely avowed such a close political connexion with all who could probably have been included under that appellation, as to render us respon- sible for all their political measures that were known to us; and we, therefore, must have been either their dupes, or the associates in their guilt. In either case, we were interested, and, as we apprehend, entitled, to make this demand of Mr Adams. As to the suggestion, that he sprke only of 'certain leaders,* of tlie federal party, and not of the party itself; we certainly intended to deny our knowledge and belief that any such plot had been contrived by any party whatever in this State; and it is exjilicitly so stated in our letter. This language would include any number, whether large or small, who might be supposed to have leagued together, for the purpose suggested by Mr Adams. There seems, therefore, to be but little ground for this technical objection, that we do not take the issue ten- dered by his chaige. But we wish to examine a little further this distinction which Mr Ailams relies upon, between a political party and its lead- ers. From the nature of representative government, itresults that, in conducting the business of their legislative and popu- lar assemblies, some individuals will be found to take a more active and conspicuous part than the rest, and will be regard- ed as essentially influencing public opinion, whilst they are generally themselves merely impelled by its force. But this influence, in whatever degree it may exist, is temporary, and is possessed by a constant succession of diflerent persons. — Those who possess it for the time being, are called leaders^ and, in the course of ten years, they must amount to a very numerous class. Their measures and political objects must necessarily be identified with those of their whole party. — To deny this, is to pronounce sentence of condemnation upon j)opular government. For, admitting it to be true, that the people may be occasionally sui prised and misled by those who abuse their confidence into measures repugnant to their inter- ests and duty, still, if the majority of them can, for ten years togethei-, be duped, and led hoodwinked to the very preci- pice of treason, by their perfidious guides, 'without partici- pating in their secret designs, or being privy to their exist- ence,' they show themselves unlit for self-government. It is AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS 25 not conceivable, that the federal party, which, at that time, constituted the great majority of Massachusetts, will feel themselves indebted to the president of the United States, for a compliment paid to their loyalty, at the expense of their character for intelligence and independence. It is in the above sense only, that a free people can recog- nize any individuals as leaders; and in this sense, every man, who is conscious of having enjoyed influence and con- sideration with his party, may well deem himself included in every approbrious and indiscriminate impeachment of the mo- tives of the leaders of that part}. But it would be arrogance to suppose himself alone intended, when the terms ot]the ac- cusation imply a confederacy of many. And while, on the one hand, it would betray both selfishness and egotism to confine his demand of exculpation to himself; so, on the other, it is impossible to unite in one application a// who might just- ly be considered as his associates. It follows then that any persons, who, from the relations they sustained to their party, Ijiay apprehend that the public will apply to them charges of this vague description, mayjoin in sucii numbers as they shall think fit, to demand an explanation of charges, which will probably aftcct some of them, and may affect them all. The right, upon the immutable principles of justice, is commensu- rate with the injury, and should be adapted to its character. Again, who can doubt that the public reputation of high minded men who have embarked in the same cause and main- tained a communion of principles, is a common property, which all who are interested are bound to vindicate as occa- sion may require — the present for the absent^the living for the dead — the son for the father. If any responsible individual at Washington should declare himself to be in possession of unequivocal evidence, tliat the leaders of certain states in our confederacy, were now matur- ing a plot for the separation of the States, might not the members of Congress, now there, from the States thus accu- sed, insist upon a disclosure of evidence and names? Would they be diverted from their purpose by an evasion of the ques- tion, on the ground, that as the libeller had not named any individuals, so there was no one entitled to make this de- mand? or would they be satisfied with a misty exculpation of themselves? This cannot be imagined. They would contend for the honor of their absent friends, of their party, and of their States. These were among our motives for making this call. We feel an interest in ail these particulars, and espe- cially in the unsullied good name of friends and associates, who, venerable for eminent talents, virtues and public servi- ces, have gone down to the grave unconscious of any impu tation on their characters. 56 MR ADAMS, Mr Adams admits our right to make severally, the inquiries which liave been made jointly; though in a passage eminent for its equivocation, he expresses a doubt Avhother we can come within the terms of his charges. On tltis remarkable passage we submit one more observation. As Mr Adams de- clares that he well knew from unequivocal evidence the exis< fence of such treasonable designs, he must have known, whe- ther the parties who addressed him were engaged in those de- signs. Why then resort to the extraordinary subterfuge, that if the signers of that letter were 7iot leaders, then the charges did not refer to them? There is then no right on the part of Mr Adams to prescribe to the injured parties, (and all are injured wlio may be com- prehended in his vague expressions) the precise form in which they should make their demand. And his refusal to answer that which we have made, is like that of one who having tired a random shot among a crowd, should protest against answering to the complaint of any whom he had actually wounded, be- cause they could not prove that his aim was directed at them. Anotiier reason assigned by Mr Adams for his refusid to name the individuals whom he intended to accuse, is that it might expose him to a legal prosecution. He certainly had not much to apprehend in this respect from any of the under- signed. As he had originally announced that he had no legal evidence to prove his charge, and the undersigned had ne- vertheless called on him to produce such as he did possess, he muat have been sufficiently assured that their purpose was not to resort to a court of justice, but to the tribunal of public opinion; and that they liad virtually precluded themselves from any other resort. Mr Adams suggests another objection to naming the parties accused, on account of the probable loss of evidence, and the forgetfulness of witnesses, after the lapse of twenty years. He undoubtedly now possesses all the evidence that he had in October last, when he published his statement. If he then made this grave charge against certain of his fellow-citizons, with the knowledge that {here was no evidence by v\hich it could be substantiated, wiiere was his sense of justice? If he made it without regarding, whether he had any such evidence or not, intending if called upon to shield himself from respon- sibility by suggesting this loss of documents and proofs, where was then his self-respect? Hut did it never occur to Mr Adams, that the parties accus- ed might also in this long lapse of time li.ive lost the proofs of their innocence? He has known for twenty years pas! (hat he had made his secret denunciation of his ancient political friends: and he must have anticipated the possiljility that it might at some time be made public, if he had nut even determined in AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 27 Ms own mind to publish it himself. He has therefore had ample opportunity, and the most powerful motives, to preserve all the evidence that might serve to justify his conduct on that occasion. On the other hand, the. parties accused, and espe- cially those venerable patriots who during this long interval have descended to the grave, unconscious of guilty and igno- rant that they tvere even suspected, have foreseen no necessity , and had no motive whatever^ to preserve any memorials of their Innocence. We venture to make this appeal to the conscience of Mr Adams himself. Mr Adams in one passage appeals to the feelings of the un- dersigned, and intimates his surprise that they should have selected the present moment for making their demand. He did them but justice in supposing that this consideration had its influence on their minds. Their only fear was that their appeal might be considered as an attack on an eminent man, whom the public favor seemed to have deserted. But the undersigned had no choice. Their accuser had selected his own time for bringing- this subjoct before the world; and thej were compelled to follow him vd desperate under the operation of this law in its terms perpet- ual. It was a bitter aggravation of her sutterings to be told, that its object was to preserve these interests. No people, at peace, in an equal space of time, ever endured severer priva- tions. She could not consider the annihilation of her trade as included in the power to regulate it. To her lawyers, statesmen, and citizens in general, it appeared a direct vio- lation of the constitution. It was universally odious. The disaftoction was not confined to the federal party. Mr Adams it is said, and not contradicted, announced in his letters to the members of Congress, that government must not rely upon its own friends. The interval from 1807 to 1812 was filled up by a series of restrictive measures vviiich kept alive the dis- content and irritation of the popular mind. Then followed the war, under circumstances whicii aggravated the public distress. In its progress. Massachusetts was deprived of gar- risons for her ports — with a line of sea coast equal, in extent, toone third of that of all the other maritime States, she was left during the whole war nearly defenceless. Her citizens subject to incessant alarm; a portion of the country invaded, and taken possession of as a conquered territory. Her own militia arrayed, and encamped 'at enormous expense; pay and subsistence supplied from her nearly exhausted treasury, and reimbursement refused, even to this day. Now, what, under the pressure and excitement of these measures was the conduct of the federal party, the 'devoted majority,' with the military force of the State in their hands; — with the encour- agement to be derived from a conviction that the Northern States were in sympathy with their feelings, and that govern- ment could not rely on'its own friends.^" Did they resist the laws? Not in a solitary instance. Did they threaten a separa- 34 MR ADAMS, tion of the States? Did they array their forces with a show of such disposition? Did the government or people of Massachu- setts, in any one instance, swerve from their allegiance to the Union? The reverse of all this is the truth. Abandoned by the national government, because she declined, for reasons which her highest tribunal adjudged to be constitutional, to surrender her militia into the hands of a military perfect, al- though they were always equipped, and ready and faithful under their own officers, she nevertheless clung to the Union as to the ark of her safety; she ordered her well trained mili- tia into the field, stationed them at the points of danger, de- frayed their expenses from her own treasury, and garrisoned with them the national forts. All her taxes and excises were paid with punctuality and promptness, an example by no means followed by some of the States, in which the cry for war had been loudest. These facts are recited for no other purpose but that of preparing for the inquiry, what becomes of Mr Adams' 'key,' his ' project,' and his 'postulates?' — The latter were, to all intents and purposes, to use his lan- guage, 'consummated." Laws unconstitutional in the public opinion had been enact- ed. A great majority of an exasperated people were in a state of the highest excitement. The legislature (if his word be taken) was under ' the management of the leaders.' The ju- dicial courts were on their side, and the juries were, as he pretends, contaminated. A golden opportunity had arrived. ' Now was the winter of their discontent made glorious sum- mer.' All the combustibles for revolution were ready. When, behold! instead of a dismembered Union, military movements, a nortiiern confederacy, and British alliance, accomplished at the favorable moment of almost total prostration of ihe cre- dit and power of the national rulers, a small and peaceful de- putation of grave citizens, selected from the ranks of civil life, and legislative councils, assembled at Hartford. There, calm and collected, like the Pilgrims, from whom they de- scended, and not unmindful of those who had achieved the independence of their country, they deliberated on the most effectual means of preserving for their fellow-citizens and their descendants the civil and political liberty which had been won, and bequeathed to them. The character of this muck injured assembly has been sub- jected to heavier imputations, under an entire deficiency not only of proof, but of probability, than ever befel any other set of men, discliarging merely the duties of a C(»mmittee of a legislative body, and making a public report of their doings to their constituents. These inq)Utatii)ns have never assum- ed a precise form; but vague opinions have prevailed of a com- bination to separate the Union. As Mr Adams has conde- AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 35 scended, by the manner in which he speaks of that conven- tion, to adopt or countenance those imputations on its pro- ceedings, we may be excused for making a few more remarks oil the subject, although this is not a suitable occasion to go into a full explanation and vindication of that measure. The subject naturally resolves itself into four points, or questions: First, the constitutional right of a State to appoint delegates to such a convention. Secondly, the propriety and expediency of exercising that right at that time. Thirdly, the objects intended to be attained by it, and the powers given for that purpose by the State to the delegates; and Fourthly, the manner in which the delegates exercised their power. As to the first point, it will not be doubted that the people have a right, ' in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good,' and to request of their ru- lers, ' by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of tlie wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.' This is enumerated in the constitution of Massachu- setts, among our natural, essential, and unalienable rights; and it is recognized in the constitution of the United States; and who, then, shall dare to set limits to its exercise, or to pre- scribe to us the manner in which it shall be exerted ? We have already spoken of the state of public affairs and the measures of the general government, in the year 1814, and of the degree of excitement, amounting nearly to desperation, to which they had brought the minds of the people in this and the adjoining States. Tlieir sufferings and apprehensions could no longer be silently endured, and numerous meetings of the citizens had been held on the occasion, in various parts of the country. It was then thought that the measures called for in such an emergency would be more prudently and safely matured and promoted by the government of the State, than by unorganized bodies of individuals, strongly excited by what they considered to be the unjust and oppressive mea- sures of the general government. If all the citizens had the right, jointly and severally, to consult for the common good, and to seek for a redress of their grievances, no reason can be given why their legislative assembly, which represents them all, may not exercise the same right in their behalf. We nowhere find any constitutional prohibition or restraint of the exercise of this power by the State; and, if not prohibited, it is reserved to the State. We maintain, then, that the people had an unquestionable right in this, as well as in other modes, to express their opinions of the measures of the general go- vernment, and to seek, ' by addresses, petitions, or remoa- 36 MR ADAMS, strances,' to obtain a redress of their grievances, and relief from iheir suft'erings. If tlieie was no constitutional objection to this mode of gro- ceedioi;, it will be readily admitted that it was in all respects the most eligible. In the state of distress and ilauger which then oppressed all hearts, it was to be apprehended, as be- fore suiigested, that larjije and frequent assertiblies of the peo- ple might lead to measures inconsistent with the peace and order of the community. If an appeal was to be made to the government of the United States, it was likely to be more eliVctual, it proceeding from the whole State c dlectively, than if from insulated assemblies of citizens; and the application in that form would tend also to repress the public excitement, and prevent any sudden and unadvised proceedings of the people, bv holding out to them the prospect of relief through the intluence of their State government. This latter con- sideration had great weight with the legislature; and it is believ- ed to have been the only motive that could have induced some of the delegates to that convention to quit the seclusion to which they had voluntarily retired, to expose themselves anew to all the fatigue and anxiety, the odium, the misrepresenta- tions, calumnies, and unjust reproaches, which so frequently accompany and follow the best exertions for tiie public good. If each one of the States had the right thus to seek a re- dress of grievances, it is clear that two or niore States might consult together for the same purpose; and the only mode in which they could consult each other was by a mutual appoint- ment of delegates for that purpose. liut this is not the only ground, nor is it the strongest, on which to rest the justification of the proceedings in question. If the "-overnment of the United States in a time of such dis- tress and danger should be unable, or should neglect, to af- ford protection and relief to the people, the legislature of the State would not only have a right, but it would be their duty, to consult together, and, if practicable, to furnish these from their own resources. This would be in aid of the general gov- ernment. How severely the people of Massachusetts experi- enced at that time the want this ability or disposition, in the general government, we need not repeat. If the legisla- ture of a sinjile State might under such circumstances endeav- our to provide for its defence, why they might not appoint a committee f)f delegates, to confer with delegates of neighbor- ing States who were exposed to like dangers and sufferings, to'ilevise and su;;gest to their respective legislatures measures by which their olvn resources might bfi employed 'in a man- ner not repugnant to their obligations as nuimbers of the Union.' A part of New-England had been invaded, and was AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 37 then held by the enemy, without an effort by the general gov- ernment to regain it ; "and if another invasion, which was then threatened and generally expected, had taken place, and the New-England States h.ad been still deserted by the govern- ment, and left to rely on their own resources, it is obvious that the best mode of providing for their coiuinon defence would have been by a simultaneous and combined operaiion of all their forces. The Stales originally possessed this ri^jht, and we hold that it has never been surrendered, nor taken from tliem by the people. The argument on this point miglitbe easily extended ; but we may confidently rely on the two grounds above mention- ed, to wit, the right of the people, through their Siate legisla' tures or otherwise, to petition and remonstrate for a redress cf their grievances; arid the riglit of the States in a time of war and of threatened invasion to make the necessary pro- visions for their own defence. To these objects was confin- ed the whale authority conferred by our legislature on the delegates whom they appointed. They were directed to meet and confer with other delegates, and to devise and suggest measures of relief for the adoption of the respective States ; but not to represent or act for their constituents by agreeing to, or adopting any such measures themselves, or in behalf of the States. But whilst we strenuously maintain this right of the people, to complain, to petition, and to remonstrate in the strongest terms against measures which they think to be unconstitu- tional, unjust, or oppressive, and to do this in the manner which they shall deem most convt'nient or eftecuial, provided it be in * an orderly and peaceable manner;' we readily ad- mit that a wise people would not hastily resort to it, especi- ally in this imposing form, on every occasion of partial and temporary discontent or suff-*ring. We therefore proceed to consider, Secondly, the propriety and expediency of adopting that measure in the autumn of 1814. On this point it is enough to say, that the grievances that were suil'ered and the dangers that were apprehended at that time, and the strong excite- ment which tliey produced among all the people, which is sta- ted more particularly elsev^h'^re in this address, rendered some measures for tlieir relief indispensably necessary. If the legislature had n>it uadert3ken their causs, it appeared to be certain, as we have already suggested, that tlie people would take it into their own hands ; and there was reason to fear that the proceedings in that case might be less orderly and p:"acefui, and at the same time, less eliicacious. Tlnrdiy. We have already stated the objects which our State government had in view, in proposing the convention 38 MR ADAMS, at Hartford, and the powers conferred on their delegates. If, instead of these avowed objects, there had been any secret plot for a dismemberment of the Union, in which it had been de- sired to engage the neighboring States, the measures for that purpose we may suppose would have been conducted in the most private manner possible. On the contrary, the resolution of our legislature for appointing their delegates, and prescrib- ing their powers and duties, was openly discussed and pas- sed in the usual manner; and a copy of it was immediately sent, by direction of the legislature, to the governor of every State in the Union. Fourthly. The only remaining question is, whether the delegates exceeded or abused their powers. As to this, we have only to refer to the report of their proceedings, and to their journal, which is deposited in the archives of this State. That report, which was published immediately after the adjournment of the convention, and was soon after accepted by the legislature, holds forth t!ie importance of the Union as paramount to all other consideration; enforces it by elaborate reasoning, and refers in express terms to JFashingtoii's fare- ivell address, as its text book. If then, no power to do wrong ivas given by the legislature to the convention, and if nothing unconstitutional, disloyal, or tending to disuion, was in fact done (all which is manifest of record,) there remains no pre- text for impeaching the members of the convention by imput- ing to them covert and nefarious designs, except the unchari- table one, that the characters of the men justify the belief, that they cherished in their hearts wishes, and intentions, to do what they had no authority to execute, and what in fact they did not attempt. On this head, to the people of New England who were acquainted with these characters, no explanation is necessary. For the information of others, it behoves those of us who were members to speak without reference to ourselves. With this reserve we may all be permitted to say, without fear of contradiction, that they fairly represented whatever of moral, intellectual, or patriotic worth, is to be found in the character of the New England community; that they retained all the personal consideration and conlidence, which are en- joyed by tlie best citizens, those who have deceased, to the hour of tlieir death, and those who survive, to the present time. For the satisfaction of tliose who look to self love, and to private interest, as sprin;js of human action, it may be ad- ded, that among the mass of citizens, friends, and connexions whom tiiey represented, were many, whose fortunes were princij)ally vested in the public funds, to wliom the disunion of the States would have been ruin. That convention may be said to have orii^inatcd with the people. Measures for relief had been demanded from immense numbers, in counties and AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 39 iowns, in all parts of the State, long before it was organized. Its main and avowed object was the defence of this part of the tountry against the common enemy. The war then wore its most tnreatening aspect. New-England was destitute of na- tional troops; her treasuries exhausted; her taxes drawn into the national coffers. The proceedings, and report of the convention, were in con- formity with this object. The burden of that report consist- ed in recommending an application to Congress to permit the States to provide for their own defence, and to be indemnified for the expense, by reimbursement, in some shape, from the National Government, of, at least, a portion of their own mo- ney. This convention adjourned early in January. On the 27th of the same month, an act of Congress was passed, which gave to the State Governments, the very power which \v^% sought by Massachusetts; viz — that of raising, organiz- ing and officering' state troops, ' to be employed in the State raising the same, or in any adjoining State' and providing for their pay and subsistence. This we repeat, was the most im- portant object aimed at by the institution of the convention, and by the report of that body. Had this act of Congress passed, before the act of Massachusetts, for organizing the convention, that convention never would have existed. — Had such an act been anticipated by the convention, or passed before its adjournment, that assembly would have consider- ed its commission as in a great measure, superseded. For although it prepared and reported sundry amendments to the constitution of the United States, to be submitted to all the States, and might even, if knowing of this act of Congress, have persisted in doing the sa«ne thing, yet, 4s this proposal for amendments could have been accomplished in other modes, they could have had no special motive for so doing, but what arose from their being together; and from the consideration which might be hoped for, as to their propositions, from that circumstance. It is thus matter of absolute demonstration, to all who do not usurp the privilege of the searcher of hearts that the design of the Hartford Convention and its do- ings were not only constitutional and laudable, but sanction- ed by an act of Congress, passed after the report was published, not indeed with express reference to it, but with its principal features, and thus admitting the reasonableness of its general tenor, and principal object. It is indeed grievous to perceive Mr Adams condescending to intimate that the Convention was adjourned to Boston, and in a strain of rhetorical pathos connecting his imaginary plot, then at least in the thirteenth year of its age, with the ' catastrophe' which awaited the ul- timate proceedings of the convention. That assembly ad- journed without day, after making its report. It was ipso 40 MR ADAMS, facto dissolved, like other Committees. One of its resolu tions did indeed purport that 'iftiie application of these States to the government of the United States, {recommended in a foregoing resolution) should he unsuccessful, and peace should not be concluded, and the defence of these States should be neglected as it has been, since the commencement of the v;ar, it will be, in the opinion of this Convention, expedient for the Leg:islature'(»f the several States, to appoint delef>-ates to another Convention h^ meet at Boston on the third Tuesday of June next, v.iih sucli powers and in>truction.s as the exi- gency cf a criils, so momentous may recjuire.' On this it is to be observed, First, tliat the Convention contemplated in the fore- 5;oing resolution never was appointed, and never could fiave been, according to the terms of that resolution,- because, as is shewn above, the object of the intended application to Congress had been attained. And, Secoiidhv if the contingerces mentioned in that resolution had occurred, the question of forming such a new Convention, and the ap- pointment (if the delegates, must have gone into the hands of new assembliesj because a'l t'le Legislatures of the New- England states would have been dissolved, and there would iiave been new elections, before the time proposed for the se- cond convention. And, lasth', it is matter of public notoriety that the report of this convention produced the effect of as- suaging the public sensibility, and operated to repress the vaj^ue and ardent expectations entertained by many of our ci'a/.cn.-i, of immediate and etrectual relief, from the evils of their condition. We pass over the elaborate exposition of constitutional law in the President's letter having no call, nor any inclination at this time to controvert its leading principles. Neither do we comment up'tn, though we perceive and feel, the unjust, and we niust be cxcu'-ed for saying, insidious mode in which he has grouped togeliier distant and disconnected occurrences, which happened in his absence from the country, for the pur- pose ot piuduciiig, by their collocation, a glaring and sinister elfect upon t!ie fed rial jiarty. They were all of a public na- ture. The argumoits concerning their merit or demerit have l)een exhausted; and time, and the good sense of an intelligent people, will place th.em ultimately in their true liglit, even ihougli Mr- Adams should continue to throw obstacles in the way ot this harmonious reaction of public opinion. Jt has been a source of wonder and perplexity to many in our commuriity, to ob.icrve the immense dilferencein tlie stan- dards by which public ojiinion has been led to measure the same kind of proceedings, when adopted in dillerent States. No pretence is urged that any actual resistance to the laws, or AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 41 forcible violation of t'lC constitQtional compact, has ever hap- pened in Massachusetts. Constitutional questions have arisen here as well as in other States. It is surprising and consoli- tarj that the number has not been greater, and that the termi- nation of them has not been less amicable. To the discussion of some of them great excitement was unavoidably incident; but in comparingcases with causes and effects, the impartial observer will perceive nothing to authorize any disparagement of tiiis State, to the advantage of the pretensions of other members of the confederacy. On this subject we disclaim the purpose of instituting invidi- ous comparisons; but every one knows that Massachusetts has not breen alone in complaints and remonstrances against the acts of the national government. Nothing can be found on the records of her legislative proceedings, surpassing the tone of resolutions adopted in other States in reprobation of the alien and sedition laws. In one State opposition to the exe- cution of a treaty, in others to the laws instituting tlie bank, has sounded the note of preparation for resistance in more impassioned strains than were ever adopted here. And at this moment, claims of State rights, and protests against the measures of the national government, in terms, for v.hich no parallel can be found in Massachusetts, are ushered into the halls of Congress, under the most solemn and imposing forms of State authority. It is not our part to censure or to approve these proceedings. Massachusetts has done nothing at any time, in opposition to the national government, and s!ie has said nothing in derogation of i.s powers, that is not fully jus- tified by the constitution; and not so much as other States have said, with more decided emphasis; and, as it is believed, without the stimulus of the same actual giievances. "NVe are no longer at a loss to account for the prevalence of these pre- judices against tliis part of the Union, since they can now be traced, not only to calumnies openly propagated in the season of bitter contention by irritated op| onents, but to the secret and hitherto unknown aspersions of Mr Adams. Mr Ji'fferson, then at the head of government, declares that the effect of Mr Adams" communication to him at their inter- view in March, 1808, was sucli on his mind, as to induce a change in the system of his administration. Like impressions were doubtlt'ssinade on Mr Giles and others, who then gave direction to the public sentiment. Notwithstanding these dis- advantages, if Mr Adams had not seen fit to proclaim to the world his former secret denunciation, there had !.tiil been room to hope tliat those impressions would be speedily oblite- rated, that odious distinctions between the people of different States would be abolished, and that all would come to feel a '•ommon interest in referring symptoms of excitement against 42 MR ADAMS, the procedure of the national government, which have been manifested successively on so many occasions, and in so many States, to the feelings, Avhich, in free governments, are al- ways roused by like causes, and are characteristic, not of a factious but of a generous sensibility to real or supposed usur- pation. But Mr Adams returns to the charge with new ani- mation; and by his political legacy to the people of Massa- chusetts, undertakes to entail upon them lasting dishonor.— He reaffirms his convictions of the reality of the old project, persists in connecting it with later events, and dooms himself to the vocation of proving that the federal party were either traitors or dupes. Thus he has again (but not like a healing angel) troubled the pool, and we know not when the turbid waters will subside. It must be apparent, that we have not sought, but have been driven into this unexpected and unwelcome controversy. On the restoration of peace in 1815, the federal party felt like men, who, as by a miracle, find themselves safe from the most appalling joer«7. Their joy was too engrossing to permit a vin- dictive recurrence to the causes of that peril. Every emotion of animosity was permitted to subside. From that time until the appearance of Mr Adams' publication, they had cordially joined in the general gratulation on the prosperity of their country, and the security of its institutions. They were con- scious of no deviation from patriotic duty, in (my measure wherein they had acted, or which had passed with their appro- bation. They were not only contented, but grateful, in the prospect of the duration of civil liberty, according to tl)e forms which the people had deliberately sanctioned- These objects being secured, they cheerfully acquiesced in tlie administra- tion of government, by whomsoever the people might call to places of trust, and of honor. With such sentiments and feelings, the public cannot but participate in the astonishment of the undersigned, at the time, the manner, and the nature, of Mr Adam's publication. We make no attempt to assign motives to him, nor to com- ment on such as may be imagined. The causes of past controversies, passing, as they were, to oblivion among existing generations, and arranging them- selves, as they must do, for the impartial scrutiny of future historians, the revival of them can be no less di^tasteful to the public, than painful to us. Yet, it could not be expected, that while Mr Adams, from his high station, sends forth the unfounded suggestions of his imagination, or his jealousy, as materials for present opinion, and future history, we should, by silence give countenance to his charges: nor tliat we should AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 43 neglect to vindicate the reputation of ourselves,our associates, and our fathers. H. G. OTIS, WM. SULLIVAN, ISRAEL TIWRNDIKE, CHARLES JACKSON, T. H. PERKINS, WARREN DUTTON, WM. PRESCOTT, BENJ. PICKMAN, DANIEL SARGENT, HENRY CABOT, Son of the late George Cabot. JOHN LOWELL, C. C. PARSONS, Son of Theophiliis Parsons, Esq. dcc'd* Boston^ January 28, 1829. I subscribed the foregoing letter, and not the Reply, for the following reasons: Mr Adams in his statement published in the National Intelligencer, spoke of the leaders of the Federal party, in the year 1808 and for several years previous as engaged in a systematic opposition to the general government having for its object the dissolution ol the Union, and the establishment of a separate confederacy by the aid of a foreign power. As a proof of tliat dis- position, particular allusion is made to the opposition to the embargo in the Courts of Justice in Massachusetts. This pointed the chai-ge directly at my late father, wliose efforts in that cause are probably remembered; and was the reason of my joining in the application to Mr Adams to know on wliat such a charge was founded. If this construction of the statement needs confirma- tion, it is to be found in one of the letters lately published in Salem as Mr Adams's. Mr Adams in his answer has extended his accusation to a subsequent jreriod. In the events of that time I have not the same interest as in those preceding it; and as the. Reply was necessarily co-extensive with the answer that reason prevented me from joining in it. 1 take this opportunity, however, to say for myself, that I find in Mr Adams's answer no justification of his charges; and, in reply to that portion of his letter particularly addressed to me, that I have seen no proof, and shall not re.idily believe, that any portion of my father's political course is to be attributed ki the influence there suggested FRANKLIN DEXTER. Boston, January 28, 1829. ADDITIONAL. PAPERS, ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SUBJECT. [Not embraced in the Boston Edition. Extract of aletterfrom John Quincy Adams to TVilliam Ph(- mer, Esq., dated, M Sea, 16 August, 1809. The spirit of party has become so inveterate and so virulent in our country; it has so totally absorbed the understandinj^, and the heart of almost all the distinguished men among us, that I, who cannot cease to consider all the individuals of both parties as my countrymen; who can neither approve nor disapprove, in a lump, either of the men or the measures of either party; who see both sides claiming an exclusive privi lege of patriotism, and using against each other weapons ot 44 MR ADAMS, political warfare v.hich I never can handle, cannot but die risK that congenial spirit which has always preserved itself pure from the infectious vapours of faction; which considers temperance as one of the first piditical duties; a«id which can perci'ive a very distinct shade of difference between political candor and political hypocrisy'. It affords me constant pleasure to recollect that the history of our country has fallen into the hands of such a man. For as impartiality lies at the bottom of all historical truth, I have often been not without my apprehensions, that no true history (if our times would appear, at least, in the course of our age. That we should have nothing but Federal Histories or Repub- lican Histories — New England Histories or Virginia Histo- ries. We are indeed not overstocked with men capable even of this, who have acted a part in t!ie public aifairs of our na- tion. But of men who unite both ([ualifications, that of hav- ing had a practical knowledge of our atlairs, and that of pos- sessing a mind capable of impartiality in summing up the merits of imr Govern-.aent, Administrations, Oppositions, and People, I know not anotiier man v. ith whom I have ever had the opportunity of forming an acquaintance, on the correct- ness of whose narrative I should so implicitly rely. Such a historian, and I take delight in the belief, will be a Legislator without needing constituents. You have so long meditated on yuur plan, and so much longer upon the duties of man in society, as they apply to the transactions of your own life, that I am well assured your work v.ill carry a pro- found political moral with it. And I hope, though upon this subject I have had no hint from you, which can ascertain that vour view of the subjvect is the same as n»ine; but I hope that the ??jora/ of your History will be, the indissoluble Union of the North American (continent. The plan of a New England Conibination more t Icsely cemented than by the general ties of the Fedtnal Government; a com!)ii)ation, first to rule the whole, and if that should prove impiacticable to separate from the rest, has been so far matured, and has engaged the stu- dios, the intrigues and tlie andjilions of so many leading men, in our part of tiie country, tliat I think it will eveiitually pro- duce loischievous consequences unless seasonably and otF^^c- tually discountenanced by men of more influence and of more couiprehensive views. 'l"o rise upon a division system is un- fortunately one of the most obvious, and apjjarcntly easy courses v.hich plays before the eyes ol individual ambition, in every section of tlie Union. It is the natural resource ot all the small statesmen, who, feeling like Ciusar, and finding that Rome is too large an object for lln ir gra.-p, would stiike oH' a viifige uheie they n.ight aspire to the fust station without exposing thcmbelves to derision. This has been the most AND THE BOSTON FEDEllALISTS. 45 powerful operative impulse upon all the diimionisis from tlie first Kentucky conspiracy down to the negotiations between Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire of the last winter and spring — considered merely as a purpose of ambi- tion, the great objection against this scheme is its littleness. Instead of adding all the tribes of Israel to Judah and Benja- min like David, it is walking in the ways of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin by breaking oft' Samaria from Jerusalem. Looking at in reference to moral considerations, it is detestable, as it certaitdy cannot beaccompli-.hed by open and honorable means. The abettors are obliged to disavow their real designs — to affect others — to practice continvial de- ception, and 10 work upon the basest materials, the selfish and dissocial passions of their instruments. Politically speak- ing, it is as injudicious as it is contracted and dishonorable. The American People are not prepared for disunion,: far less so than these people imagine. They will continue to resist and defeat every attempt of that character, as they uniformly have done, and such projects will still terminate in the ruin of their projectors. But the ill consequences of this turbu- lent spirit' will be to keep the country in a state of constant ac-itation, to embitter the local prejudices of fellow citizens against each other, and to diminish the influence which we ought to have, and might have, in the general councils of the Union. To counteract the tendency of these partial and foolish com- binations, I know nothins: so likely to have a decisive influ- ence as historical v/orks honestly and judiciously executed. For if the doctrine of Union were a new one now first to be inculcated, our history would furnish the most decisive argu- ments in its favor. It is no longer the great lesson to be learnt, but the fundamental maxim to be confirmed j and every spe- cies of influence should be exerted by all genuine American Patriots to make its importance more highly estimated and more unquestionably established. Perhaps you will find it impossible to avoid disclosing the New England man — 1 have enough of that feeling myself most ardently to wish, that the brio-htest examples of a truly liberal and comprehensive Ameri- can political system may be exhibited by New England men. I regret that I could not have the pleasure of a full and con- fidential personal interview with you, before my departure. My father I am sure will be happy to see you at Quincy, and to furnish you any materials in his power. He has been for the last three months publishing papers which 1 think will not be without their use in your undertaking. Adieu, my dear Sir. I write you this letter on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, after passing the night in catching cod — of which in the interval of a six hours calm, we have r 46 MR ADAMS, caught upwards of sixty. In the association of ideas there is no very unnatural transition from codfishing on the Grand Bank to the History of the United States. No man will I trust be better able than yourself to supply the intermediate links in this singular concatenation. Letme only hope it will appear to you as natural a transition, as that from any subject whatsoever to the assurance of that respect and attachment with which I subscribe myself, Your friend and humble servant. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. [From Austin's Life of Gerry.] Extract of a letter from a distingtmhed citizen of the United States, dated at St. Petersburg, 50th June, 1811. " The Massachusetts election appears to agitate tlie Americans in Europe almost exclusively; of all the other elections going on at the same time in many parts of the union, i see para};raphs in the newspapers, but hear not a syllable from any other quarter. But American federalists in tliis city have received letters from their friends in London and in Gottenbui-g, in high ex- ultation announcing tlie election of Mr. Gore by a majority of more than three thousand votes. Other Americans of difFei'ent politics contest the validity of tliis retMrn, and aflirm that Mr. Gerry and jNIr. Gray have been re-elected, though by a reduced majority compared with that of the last year. Why this extreme anxiety for the .Massachusettx electionp Is it Mr. Gore for whose elevation all this enthusiasm is harboured? I think it by no means difficult to account for. Tliere is much foreign hope and fear involved in these Massa- chusetts elections; all the rest, e\en New York, are despaired of. But the Massachusetts federal politicians have got to talk so openly and with such seeming indifl'erence, not to say readiness for a dissolution of the union; they are so valiant in their threats of resistance to the laws; they seem so resolute for a little experiment upon the e7te7'gy of the union and its government, that in the prospects of a war with America, wliich most of the British statesmen now at the helm consider as in the line of wise policy, they and all tlieir par- tizans calculate boldly and witliout disguise or concealment upon the co-ope- ralinn of the Massacliuselts federalisls. Tlie Massachusetts election there- fore, is a touchstone of national principle, and upon its issue may depend the question of peace and war between the United Slates and England. However hostile a British ministry may feel against us, they will never venture upon it until they can depend upon an active co-opci-ation with tliem, w ithin the Uni- ted States. Itis from the New England federalists alone that they can expect it. From the same view of the subject, though prompted by very opposite feel- ings, I loo take a deep interest in the Massachusetts elections. I have known now more than seven years the projects of the Boston faction against ihe uni6n. 'I'hey have ever since that time at lea?!t, been seeking a pretext and an occa- sion for avowing the principle. The people however, have never been ready to go with them; and when in the embargo time they did for a moment get a majority with them, they only verified the old proverb about setting a beggar on hnrse-b.ick. Mr. Quincy has been at the pains now of furnisiiihg them with a n(;w pretext, whieh will wear na better than its predecessors. Air. Quincy should not have quoted me as an authority for a dissolution of the union. He may be assuivd it is a doctrine that never will have my sanction. It is my at- t.ichiaent to thermion, which makes mt specially anxious for the result of the Massachusetts elections. They are a contest of life and deatii tor the union. If liiat party are not nltimati (y put down in .Massachusetts, as completely as tliey alteady are in New York and Peims\ Ivania, and all the southcin and wes- tern states, the union is gone. Instead ot a nation coexteiisive with the North Ami-rican continent, destined by (jO>I anineil under one social conqiact, we shall h;i\<: an imile'^s muliitudc of little insignificant clansand ti-ibes, at eternal «ar with one another, for a rock orafi>h-poud, the s{)ort and fable of European inast'-rs and oppixssors. AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 47 Extract of a letter from William Pbaner, heretofore a Sena- tor of the United States, and afterwards Governor of New Hampshire. EppiNG, N. H. December 20, 1828. During the long and eventful session of Congress of 1803 and 1804, I was a member of the senate, and was at the city of AVashington every day of that session. In the course of the' session, at dift'erent times and places, several of the Fed- eralists, senators and representatives, from the New England States, informed me that they thougiit it necessary to estab- lish a separate government in New England, and if it should be found practicable, to extend it so far South as to include Pennsylvania; but in all events to establish one in New Eng- land. They complained, that the slave holding States liad acquired, by means of their slaves, a greater increase of Rep- resentatives in the house than was just and equal — that too great a portion of the public revenue was raised in the North- ern States, and too much of it expended in the Southern and Western States; and that the acquisition of Louisiana, and the new States that were formed, and those to be formed in the West and in the ceded Territory, would soon annihilate the weight and influence of the Northern States in the go- vernment. Their intention, they said, was to establish their new go- vernment under the authority and protection of state govern- ments. That having secured the election of a governor, and a majority of a Legislature in a state in favor of a separation, the legislature should repeal the law authorizing the people to elect representatives to Congress, and the Legislature de- cline electing senators to Congress, and gradually withdraw the state from the Union, establish custom house oificers to grant Registers, and clearances to vessels, and eventually es- tablish a federal government in the Northern and Eastern States. And that if New England united in the measure, it would in due time be eftected without resorting to arms. Just before that session of Congress closed, one of the gentlemen to whom I have alluded, informed me, that ar- rangements had been made to have the next autumn, in Bos- ton, a select meeting of the leading federalists in New England, to consider and recommend the measures necessary to form a system of Government for the Northern States, and that Alexander Hamilton, of New York, had consented to attend that meeting. Soon after my return from Washington, I adopted the most effectual means in my power to collect the opinions of ^vell informed leading federalists in New Hampshire, upon the subject- I found some in favor of the measure, but a great majority of them decidedly opposed to the project; and from the partial and limited enquiries i made in Massachu- 48 MR ADAMS, setts, the result appeared to me nearly similar to that in Nevv- Hampsliire. Tlie Gentleman, who in the winter of 1803 and 1804, in- formed me tiiere was to be a meeting of federalists in the au- tumn of 1804, at Boston, at the session of Congress in the winter of 1804 and 1805, observed to me, that the deatii of General Hamilton had prevented that meeting; but the pro- ject was not, and would not be abandoned. I owe it to you as well as mjself, to state explicitly, that in the session of Congress, in the winter ot 1803 and 1804, 1 was, myself in favor of forming a separate Government in New Enj;land; and wrote several confidential letters to a few of my friends and correspondents, recommending the mea- sure. But afterwards, upon thoroughly investigating and maturely considering rhe subj.^ct, 1 was fully convinced that my opinion in favor of separation, was the most erroneous that 1 ever formed upon political subjects. The only conso- lation I had, was that my error in opinion had not produced any acts injurious to the integrity of the Union. \Vhen the same project was revived in 1803 and 1809, during the em- bargo and nonintercourse, and afterwards, during the war of 1812, I used every effort in my power, both privately, and publicly, to defi^at the attempt then made to establish a sepa- rate independent government in the Northern States. You are at liberty to make such use of this communication as you shall consider proper. Accept the assurance of my high respect and esteem, [Signed] WILLIAM PLUMKR. Extract from a Sermon preached at Boston, 23rZ Jiily, 1812, by a highly respectable clergyman, intimately connected with the most eminent leaders of the thai Federal party. "The alternative then is, that if you do not wish to become the slaves of those who own slaves, and who are themselves the slaves of French slaves, you must either, in the language of the day, cut the connexion, or so far alter the Natioiial Constitution, as to secure yourselves a due share in the Go- vernment. The Union has long since been virtually dissolv- ed, and it is full time that this portion of the disunited States should take care of itself. But this, as Mr Burke expresses it, is high mutter, and must be left to the united wisdom of a Xorthcrn and Eastern Convention. The voice of the people, who are our sovereigns, will then be heard, and must be res- ftected. To continue to sulfer, as wk havk kight vkabs past, rom the incapacity of a weak if not a corrupt Administration, is more than can be expected from human patience, or chris- tian resignation. The time has arrived when common prudence is pusillanimity, and m.)deration has ceased to be a virtue." AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS 49 Extracts from the Journals of the Hartford Convention. Rides of Proceeding — adopted \5 December, 1814, the first day nfthe Meeting. 2. The most inviolable secrecy shall be observed by each Member of this C(»nveiition, including the Secretary, as to all propositions, debates and proceedi!i<;;s thereof, until this in- junction shall be suspended or altered. 3. The Secretary of this Convention is authorised to em- ploy some suitable person to serve as a door-keeper and mes- senger, together with a suitable assistant, if necessary, neither of whom are at any time to be made acquainted with any of the debates or proceedings of the Board. January 3, 1815. »^fter the acceptance of Ihe final Report — On motion, Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy, in regard to all the Debates and proceedings of this Convention, except in so far as relates to the Report finally adopted, be, and hereby is, contimced. N. B. This injunction of secrecy was never removed. The Convention aiijourned the 5lh of January. Extracts from Use final Report of the Convention. *' To prescribe patience and firmness to those who are al- ready exhausted by distress, is sometimes to drive them to despair, and the prtigress towards reform by the regular road, is irksome to those whose imaginations discern, and whose feelings prompt, to a shorter course. — But when abuses, re- tiuced to system and accumulated through a course of year,*-, have pervaded every department of Government, and spreau corruption through every region of the States when these are clothed wiih the forms of law, and enforced by an Executive whose Vvill is their source, no summary means of relef can be applied without recourse to direct and open resista)i:e.-' '• It is a truth, not to be concealed, that a sentiment pre- vails to no inconsiderable extent, that Adm'nistration have given such constructions to that instrument, and practised so many abuses, under color of its authority, t/iat the time for a change is at haml. Those who so believe, regard the evils which surround them as intrinsic and incurable defects in the Constitution. They yield to a persuasion, that no change, at any time, or on any occasion, can aggravate the misery of their country. This opinion may ultimately prove to be cor- rect. But as the evidence on which it rests is not yet con- clusive, and as measures adopted apon the assumption of its certainty tniglit be irrevocable, s^me general considerations are submitted, in the hope of reconciling all to a course of moderation and firmness, which may save them from the regret 4 50 MR ADAMS, incident to sudden decisions, probably avert the evil, or at least insure consolation and success in the last resort.''^ *' The lust and caprice of power, the corruption of patron- a«»e, the oppression of the weaker interests of the community by the stronger, heavy taxes, wasteful expenditures, and un- just and ruinous wars, are the natural offspring of bad Admi- nistrations, in all ages and countries. It was indeed to be hoped, that the rulers of these Slates would not make such disastrous haste to involve their infancy in the embarrassments of old and rotten institutions. Yet all this have they done; and their conduct calls loudly for their dismission and dis- grace. But to attempt upon every abuse of power to change the Constitution, would be to perpetuate the evils of revolu- tion." " Finally, if the Union be destined to dissolution, by rea- son of the multiplied abuses of bad administrations, it should, if possible, be the work of peaceable times, and deliberate consent. Some new form of confederacy should be substitu- ted among those States, which shall intend to maintain ajede- ral relation to each other. Events may prove that the causes of our calamities are deep and permanent. They may be found to proceed, not merely from the blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence of party spirit, or the confusion of the times; but they may be traced to implacable combinations ol individuals, or of States, to monopolize power and office, and to Trample without remorse upon the rights and interests oi commercial sections of the l^nion. Whenever it shall ap- pear that these causes are radical and permanent, a separa- tion by equitable arrangement, will be preferrable to an al- liance by constraint, among nominal friends, but real enemies, inflamed hy mutual hatred and jealousies, and inviting by in- testine divisions, contempt, and aggression from abroad. But a severance of the Union by one or metre States, against the will of the resi, and especially in a time of war, can be ji' sti- fled only hy uhsoWte necessity Those are among the princi- pal objections ix^^iny-it precipitate measures tending to disunite the Stales, and wlun examined in connexion with the fare- well address of the Ftther of his country, they must, it is be- lieved, be deemed cond.usive." * " In this whole series of devices and measures for raising men, this Coiivention discern a total disregard for the Conslilution, and a disposition to violate its provisions de- manding fro % the individvcU States a firm and decided oppo- sition. An iron despotism can impo!?e no ha\(ler servitude npon the citizen, than to forco \\\n\ from his home and his oc- cupation, to wage oBensive wars, undertaken to gratify the AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 51 pride or passions of his master. The example of France has recently shewn that a cabal of individuals assuming to act in the name of the people, may transform the great body of citi- zens into soldiers, and deliver them over into the hands of a single tyrant. No war, not held in just abhorrence by a peo- ple, can require the aid of such stratagems to recruit an army." " That acts of Congress in violation of the Constitution are absolutely void, is an undeniable position. It does not, how- ever, consist with the respect and forbearance due from a con- federate State towards the General Government, to fly to open resistance upon every infraction of the Constitution.— The mode and the energy of the opposition should always con- form to the nature of the violation, the intention of its authors, the extent of the injury inflicted, the determination manifest- ed to persist in it, and the danger of delay. Hut in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions of the Consti- tution, affecting the sovereignty of a State, and liberties of the people; it is not only the right but the duty of such a State to interpose its authority for their protection, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergen- cies occur which are either beyond the reach of the judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their form!?. States, which have no common umpire, must be their own judges, and execide their own decisions. It will THUS BE PROPER for thc scvcral States to await the ultimate disposal of the obnoxious measures, recommended by the Se- cretary of War, or pending before Congress, and so to use their power according to the character these measures shall fi- nally assume, as effectually to protect their own sovereignty, and the rights and liberties of their citizens." "The last inquiry, what course of conduct ought to be adopt- ed by the aggrieved States, is in a high degree momentous. — When a great and brave people shall feel themselves deserted by their Government, and reduced to the necessity either of submission to a foreign enemy, or of appropriating to their own use those means of defence which are indispensable to self- preservation, they cannot consent to waif passive spectators of approaching ruin, lohich it is in their power to avert, and to re- sign the last remnant of their industrious eurniugs, to be dis- sipated in support of measures destructive of the best interests of the nation •'THIS CONVENTION WILL NOT TRUST THEM- SELVES TO EXPRESS THEiP CONVICTION OF THE CATASPROPHE TO WHICH SUCH A STATE OF THINGS INEVITABLY TENDS." 52 MR ADAMS, It would be inexpedient f.)r this Convention to diminish the hope of a successful issue to such an application, by recom- mending, upon supposition of a contrary event, ulterior pro- ceedings. Nor is it indeed within their province. In a state of things so solemn and trying as may then arise, the Legisla- tures of the States, or Conventions* of the whole people, or delegates appointed by them for the express purpose in anotlier Convention, must act as such urgent circumstttMcs may then require. '"^ ?y THEREFORE RESOLVED— "That it be and hereby is recommended to the Legisla- tures of the several States represented in this Convention, to adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually fo pro- tect the citizens of said States from the operation and effects of all acts which HA VE BEEN or incty be passed by the Congress of the United States, which, shall contain provisions, subjecting the militia or other citizens'to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments, not authorized by the Constitution of the Uni- ted States." " Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the said Legislatures, to authorize an immediate and earnest ap- plication to be made to the Government of the United States, tequesting their consent to some arrangement, whereby the said States may, separately or in concert, be empowered to assume upon themselves the defence of their territory against the enemy; and a reasonable portion of the taxes, collected within said States, «i03/ 6c /jmWin/o the respective treasuries thereof and appropriated to the payment of the balance due said States, and to the future defence, of the same. The Jimount so paid into the said treasuries to be credited, and the disbursements made as aforesaid to be charged to the United States. '•' liesolvedy Thatif the application of these States to the go- vernment of the United States, recommended in a foregoing Resolution, should he unsuccessful, and peace should not WE CONCLUDED, and the defence of these States should be neg- lected, as it has been since the commencement of the war, it will, in the opinion of this Convention, be expedient for the liegislatures of the several States to appoint Delegates to miother Convention, to meet at Boston, in the State of Mass- achusetts, on the third Thursday of June next, with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momen- tous may require." " Resolved, That the Hon. George Cabot, the Hon. Chaun- rey Goodric)), and the Hon. Daniel Lyman, or any two of tht-m, be authorized to call another meeting of this Convention, to be holden in Boston^ at any time before new Delegates AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 5S shall be chosen, as recommended in the above resolution, if in their judgment the situation of the country shall urgently require it." Correspondence between the Hon. A. Stewart, of S'fatmton, and Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Executor of Thomas Jef- ferson, deceased. Charlottesville, Oct. 11, 1828. Bear Sir: lam advised that among the papers in your pos- session, there is a letter written by your grandfather, vindi- eating Mr Adams' political course in the support which he gave to his administration, and the reasons whicii entitled him to so large a share of his confidence. It is important that their connexion should be explained, and that the history of this interesting period should be known to the people. It is important that it should now be known. Your grandfailier, if living, would not withhold his testimony in favor of any meritorious public servant, particularly one who has been so distinguished an aid, and so bright a;i ornament, to his admin- istration. Candid men of all parties will be gratified to re- ceive testim.ony from so pure a source. May I then ask the favor of you to furnish nie Viith a copy of the letter referred to, that it may be laid before the pecple. I am, dear sir, very aftectionatelv, vours, &c. ARCHIBALD STEWART. Th. J. Randolph. Edgehlll, Oct. 11, 1828. Dear Sir: — In compliance with y(iur request, I send you a copy of th" letter, I presume, alluded to in your note of this morning. Conscious that to suffer any writiiigs of my grand- father, in my possession, to be made subservient to the use of any peisonal or political purpose, would be an iinwoilhy and :m])roper abuse of the trust reposed in me, I have, neverthe- less, deemed it entirely cut formally declaring their separation iVom the Union of the States, they should withdraw I'rom all aid and obedience to them: that iheir naviiiatinn and commerce should be free from restraint or iriter rUjitiuir hv the Hiiti>]i; that they s-hould he considered and tieaied by them as neulral,-, and as such might AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 55 conduct themselves towards both parties; and at the close of the war be at liberty to rejoin this confederacy. He assured me that there was imminent danger that the convention would take place; that the temptations were such as mi^ht debauch many from their fidelity to the Union, and that, to enable its friends to make head against it, the repeal of the embargo was absolutely necessary. I expressed a just sense of the merit of the information, and of the importance of the disclosure to the safety and even salvation of our country; and however reluctant I was to abandon the measure (a mea- sure which, persevered in a little longer, we liad subsequent and satisfactory assurance would have effected its object com- pletely) from that moment, and influencf'd by that informa- tion, i saw the necessity of abandoning it, and, instead of ef- fecting our purpose by this peaceful weapon, we must fight it out, or break the Union. I then recommended to my friends to jaeld to the necessity of a repeal of the embargo, and to endeavor to supply its place by the substitute in which they could procure a general concurrence. 1 cannot too often repeat, that this statement is not pre-; tended to be in the very words which passed — that it only gives faithfully the impression remaining on my mind. The very words of a conversation are too transient and fugitive to be so long retained in remembrance. But the substance was too important to be forgotten; not only from the revolution of measures it obliged me to adopt, but also from the renewals of it in my meuiory on the frequent occasions I iiave had of doing justice to Mr Adams, by repeating this proof of his fidelity to his country, and of his superiority over all ordinary considerations, when the safety ot that was brought into ques- tion. With this best exertion of a waning memory which I can command, accept assiirai>ces of my constant friendship and respect, THOMAS JEFFERSON. Note.— Extracts from a confidential letter of Mr Jefferson to William B. Giles, dated 25th Do-cember, 18"25, will le found in the Richmond Enquirer of the 7th September, 1827. "Monticello, Jan. 21, 1826. Dear Sir: — Your favor of Jan. 15th is received, and 1 ait» entirely sensible of the kindness of your motives which sug- gested the caution it recommended: but I believe what I have done, is the only thing I could have done, with honor and conscience. Mr Giles requested me to state a fact, which he knew himself, and of which he knew me to be possessed. What use he intended to make of it, 1 knew not, nor have I a right to inquire, or to indicate any suspicion that he would make an unfair one ; that was his concern, not mine, and his character was sufficient to sustain the responsibility for it. I 56 MR ADAMS, knew too, if an uncandid use should be made of it, there would be found those who would so prove it. Independent of the terms of intimate friendship, on which Mr Giles and myself have ever lived together, the world's respect entitled him to the justice of my testimony to any truth he mi^^ht call for; and how that testimony should connect me with whatever he may