Topics: Founding Fathers

Defending Thomas Jefferson – John Birch Society v. Jefferson

s The John Birch Society, an advocacy group for a more limited and constitutional government, released a video concerning Thomas Jefferson called Myth v. Fact, narrated by the Society’s CEO Art Thompson. They argue that Thomas Jefferson was actually an anti-American traitor who tried to take down the American government. This charge is that it is just not true.

The John Birch Society’s argument is founded upon half-truths—not only are key statements clearly taken out of context but they also ignore all evidence that contradicts the conclusion they want to prove. One of the most laudable features of American government and culture is that our Founders wisely created a system that enables justice and truth to prevail.

In fact, the Due Process clauses of the Bill of Rights exist to help achieve this singular objective: the accused has the right to present evidence in his or her behalf. These indispensable protections in our American system are built upon the simple Biblical principle that declares “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). The John Birch Society made its case by excluding key pieces of evidence that actually disprove the point they seek to make. You will get to see what they excluded, and look at Jefferson’s own actual word and will see that far from being anti-American, he was a lifelong patriot who strove for American advancement throughout his life.

Against Jefferson

Art Thompson’s primary evidence against Jefferson is an infamous 1796 letter to an Italian friend of Jefferson, Philip Mazzei. Jefferson’s letter is primarily about routine business transactions and general small talk. The anti-Jefferson party in America, however, seized upon one paragraph; Thomas also relies on this paragraph to reach his conclusions. (Interestingly, though, he never actually reads any section of that paragraph). Anti-Jeffersonians have used this letter against Jefferson ever since it was originally written, and Thompson does the same. Significantly, the charges Thompson makes here are no different than what Jefferson’s political rivals made over 200 years ago.

The paragraph on which Thompson relies for his errant conclusions relates to Jefferson’s private reflections about the bitter factionalism that was then breaking out in American politics. This letter was written at the end of George Washington’s presidency, at a time when the first political parties were developing in America: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (also known as Republicans, or Democratic-Republicans). Jefferson, the Anti-Federalist, was then engaged in a presidential campaign against John Adams, the Federalist.

It was perhaps the bitterest, nastiest, and most divisive political campaign in the history of American politics. Jefferson saw the contest as the elitists against the people. He was concerned that many new politicians working their way into American government were far too sympathetic to the high-handed British system that the American people had thrown off during the American War for Independence.

During the campaign, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents made outrageous claims against him, including that he was a murderer, an atheist, a thief, and aiding foreign convicts. Reports alledged that he was secretly plotting the destruction and overthrow of the Constitution. His critics also accused him of defrauding a widow and her children, and said he planned to abolish the navy and starve the farmers.1 And if that wasn’t enough, citizens were warned that if Jefferson were elected, he would confiscate and burn every Bible in America.2

Thomas Jefferson’s 1796 Letter

Of course, all of these claims were false—all of them, but these attacks were swirling around Jefferson at the time he wrote his French friend—this was the atmosphere in which his comments were made. In that letter, Jefferson told his friend:

The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party [i.e., the Federalists] has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is with them and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all of the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption and for assimilating us in all things, to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model.

It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve them, and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors.3

Notice that there is absolutely no anti-American sentiment embedded within the text. The Jefferson critics from the 1700’s and of today both try to twist it to say that Jefferson is some kind of undercover French operative trying to undermine the government, but what in the letter suggests that? Nothing. (This is likely why critics such as Art Thompson summarize their view of the letter rather than actually quoting direct text from it.)

To the contrary Jefferson is bewailing that there are some who actually are trying to undermine the republican form of government by making America a monarchy, or at the very least more British—that is, more of an elitist system where the people themselves have little actual power or voice. Jefferson, in fact, actually attacks the very thing which he is being accused of doing by Mr. Thompson. Jefferson, from the Declaration, to his Presidency, and to his passing, always stood against monarchism and boldly defended republicanism. (By the way, “republicanism” was defined in the dictionaries of that day as being rooted in a government “in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.”4 It is what President Abraham Lincoln later described as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”5)

Analysis of the Letter

The portion of the letter, along with several paragraphs of French commentary, was printed in French papers after being delivered to them by Jefferson’s friend, and the recipient of his letter, Philip Mazzei. (Mazzei was an Italian who helped Virginia obtain arms during the American War for Independence, and become a friend of Jefferson at that point. He later spent time in France as the French sought to throw off their monarchal political system and free the people.) This French paper, with its own spin of Jefferson’s words, was then sent to America and translated back into English. At this point, the anti-Jefferson media picked up the twice translated piece and with the excerpt they lifted from the letter, viciously attacked Jefferson.

According to his personal policy, Jefferson never publicly responded to the name-calling, preferring instead to let the insults die out on their own. He based this strategy off of three considerations. First, he felt that responding to outrageous claims appeared to justify them.6 Second, Jefferson trusted that in the end his virtue would triumph over his enemies’ lies.7 And lastly, he believed that the people would eventually see through the lies and side with the truth.8

Jefferson even acknowledged that he could have successfully pursued legal action against many of his enemies who made such false allegations in the press, remarking:

I know that I might have filled the courts of the United States with actions for these slanders, and have ruined perhaps many persons who are not innocent. But this would be no equivalent to the loss of [my own] character. I leave them, therefore, to the reproof of their own consciences. If these do not condemn them, there will yet come a day when the false witness will meet a Judge [God] Who has not slept over his [the false accusers’] slanders [cf Proverbs 19:5].9

This mode of action, however, did not work entirely, and even 30 years later (not to mention now 200 years later) some of his most bitter enemies resorted to drudging the false claims out to throw renewed insults at Jefferson.10

Other Attacks on Jefferson

Timothy Pickering

One such example is a libelous attack by Timothy Pickering, an Alexandrian Federalist with a long-standing grudge against Jefferson.11 An ardent lifelong Federalist, Pickering always fought against anything Jefferson did and religiously supported English policies. At one point, Pickering even attempted to lead a secessionist movement in New English but failed miserably, effectively ending his political career at the same time.

Pickering parroted the tone of arguments the anti-Jefferson media made then and the John Birch Society makes now. In effect, imagine if someone based their history exclusively on CNN’s view of Trump, or Fox’s view on Obama. It is remarkably bad historical practice to get information exclusively from the person’s enemies, but that is exactly what the video does. Thomson today uses the same letter, the same ad hominem, and the same vitriol which was used over 200 years ago.

Jefferson, in response to Pickering attack, eventually broke his silence on the Mazzei letter. He wrote to Martin Van Buren on June 29, 1824, explaining the details of the letter. In his typically systematic fashion, Jefferson walked through every objection to his words and conduct.

In his original letter, Jefferson had stated that “men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council…had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” Jefferson’s critics at the time claimed that this clause was a clear attack on George Washington, with whom Jefferson had so closely served throughout the Federal Era (that is, from 1760 until Washington’s death in 1799). Jefferson directly denied that he criticized Washington in the Mazzei letter, saying that:

The other allegation respecting myself is equally false.…I do affirm that there never passed a word, written or verbal, directly or indirectly, between General Washington and myself, on the subject of that letter. He would never had degraded himself so far as to take to himself the imputation in that letter on the ‘Samsons in combat.’ the whole story is a fabrication, and I defy the framers of it, and all mankind to produce a scrip of a pen between General Washington and myself on the subject, or any other evidence more worthy of credit than the suspicions, suppositions and presumptions.12

After calling out the complete lack of evidence for the claim that he was attacking Washington, Jefferson flatly declared that those who had launched these attacks were those who were:

Boiling with party passions, and—under the dominion of these—readily welcoming fancies for facts. But come the story from whomsoever it might, it is an unqualified falsehood.13

Thomas Jefferson’s Explanation

Having dismissed the whole affair in general terms, Jefferson then turned his attention to the specific nature of the Mazzei letter. He denied that anything in his statements were either false or treasonous, and pointed out the context of those short remarks in the otherwise lengthy letter:

This letter to Mazzei has been a precious theme of crimination for federal malice. It was a long letter of business in which was inserted a single paragraph only of political information as to the state of our country. In this information there was not one word which would not then have been, or would not now be approved, by every republican in the U.S. looking back to those times.14

Jefferson then noted that when the French had reprinted a few clauses taken out of context from the letter, that an additional paragraph of their own commentary was added as if Jefferson himself had written that commentary. American papers later reprinted that section as if it were Jefferson’s own words (which they were not), and that it was this section what had caused most of the criticisms and attacks against him. He explained that only a short portion of his original letter was:

extracted and translated [and] got into a Paris paper at a time when the persons in power there were laboring under very general disfavor, and their friends were eager to catch even at straws to buoy them up. To them, therefore, I have always imputed the interpolation of an entire paragraph additional to mine, which makes me charge my own country with ingratitude and injustice to France. There was not a word in my letter respecting France or any of the proceedings or relations between this country and that. Yet this interpolated [that is, added or inserted] paragraph has been the burthen [grievous weight] of federal calumny [slander and defamation], has been constantly quoted by them, made the subject of unceasing and virulent abuse, and is still quoted…as if it were genuine and really written by me.15

Letter Lost Its Meaning

Even today, critics such as Thompson fail to realize that much of the animosity against Jefferson stemmed from that fake paragraph, and they use it to condemn Jefferson—but he did not write it! In their defense, however, it is at least understandable that some confusion might still persist because, as Jefferson notes, even other distinguished patriots and friends, such Chief Justice John Marshall, had believed the false reports.16

Jefferson further noted that in the translation of his letter from its original English, into Italian, then into French, and then back into English, the letter itself became so mutated and transformed that in many cases the anti-Jefferson newspapers were able to make it mean whatever they wanted it to. He focused specifically on one single word which significantly affected the interpretation of the letter:

The genuine paragraph, retranslated, through Italian & French into English, as it appeared here in a Federal paper, besides the mutilated hue which these translations and retranslations of it produced generally, gave a mistranslation of a single word which entirely perverted [changed] its meaning, and made it a pliant and fertile text of misrepresentation of my political principles. The original [paragraph in my letter], speaking of an Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical party which had sprung up since he had left us, states their object to be “to draw over us the substance, as they had already done the forms of the British government.”

Now the forms here meant were the levies, birth-days, the pompous cavalcade to the State house on a meeting of Congress, the formal speech from the throne, the procession of Congress in a body to re-echo the speech in an answer, etc., etc., but the translator here, by substituting form in the singular number for forms in the plural, made it mean the frame or organization of our government, or it’s form of legislature, executive, and judiciary authorities, co-ordinate and independent, to which form it was to be inferred that I was an enemy. In this sense they always quoted it, and in this sense Mr. Pickering still quotes it…and countenances the inference.17

While Jefferson loved America, he did not appreciate the more extreme wing of the Federalist party which looked back longingly at the monarchical institutions of England. He was concerned that soon a faction might gain power and undo the Revolution, murmuring like the Israelites did after being brought up out of Egypt [Exodus 16:2-3].

Conclusion

As his life and letters clearly prove, Jefferson wasn’t some anti-American operative controlled by the French, the Jacobins (radical French political party responsible for the atrocities in the French Revolution), the Illuminati (a secret fraternal organization originally similar to Freemasonry), or another group of suspicious intent. Jefferson was the patriot of the Declaration, espousing the limited nature of government, the inalienable rights of citizens, and the sovereignty of the people under God, and was unwavering in his support of a republican vision of America. He made it clear that his dominate principle in government was that, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”18

The errors in the video produced by the John Birch Society are unfortunate. They are the same errors made today by many who judge a person, group, movement, or event based upon the accusations of their opponents alone. If Mr. Thompson wishes to make Jefferson a traitor, he must do more than vaguely reference a single letter—a letter taken completely out of context, and a letter openly rebutted by Jefferson himself. Jefferson wrote over 19,000 letters, and to charge the writer of the Declaration of Independence with treason based upon only 7 sentences out of the millions he wrote is laughable at best, insidious at worst.

Endnotes

1 See, for example, Charles Warren, Odd Byways in American History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942), 127-128; Dumas Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962), 3:481; Charles O. Lerche, Jr., “Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear,” The William and Mary Quarterly (October 1948), 3rd Series:V:4:466-491.
2 Wilburn E. MacClenny, The Life of Rev. James O’Kelly and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South (Suffolk: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company, 1910), 171-173.
3 Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, 24 April 1796, Founders Online.
4 Noah Webster, Webster’s American Dictionary, 1828, s.v., “republic.”
5 Abraham Lincoln, “Address at the Dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery”, November 19, 1863, Complete Works (New York: The Century Co., 1907), 2:439.
6 Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Logan, June 20, 1816, The Works of Thomas Jefferson (1905), XI:366.
7 Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, February 11, 1807, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, XI:155.
8 Thomas Jefferson to Wilson C. Nicholas, June 13, 1809, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, IV:129.
9 Jefferson to Uriah McGregory, August 13, 1800, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, III:439, here.
10 For more information see, Jefferson’s Letter to Philip Mazzei The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, (Princeton University Press, 2002), 29:73-88.
11 See, “Timothy Pickering,” , accessed December 11, 2018.
12 Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press).
13 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press).
14 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press).
15 Thomas Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press).
16 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press).
17 Jefferson to Van Buren, 29 June 1824, Founders Early Access (University of Virginia Press).
18 Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, December 23, 1791, Founders Online.

Ten Facts About George Washington

From the $1 Bill to the capital of America, George Washington’s name appears more often than probably any other name in American history. Being the most prominent Founding Father, everyone learns how Washington led the Continental Army against the British during the War for Independence and eventually became the first President of the United States. But there are plenty of stories and facts that are rarely taught in schools today. Watch the video and then read below about ten facts you probably do not know about George Washington.

1. George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree.

“I cannot tell a lie,” a young George Washington is reported to have said—but his biographers sure can! The famous story originates from the 5th edition of the popular biography The Life of Washington the Great by Mason Weems.1 Published in 1806, seven years after Washington’s death, there are no primary sources attesting to its truthfulness. All things considered, its late appearance and the complete lack of evidence has led most to consider it apocryphal.

2. He was most embarrassed about his lack of education and his bad teeth.

The most persistent enemy to Washington were not his political or military opponents, but his teeth. By the time he was sworn in as the first President of the United States he only had a single original tooth left.2 Over the course of his life he had a number of dentures made from a wide variety of materials.3 The dentures of the time were large, bulky, and burdensome which worked together to make Washington quite self-conscience about them leading him to be more introverted than perhaps he might have been.4

On top of this, George Washington did not have the same high level of education his older brothers received due to the death of their father when he was only eleven years old. This tragedy led Washington to become a surveyor (which incidentally provided the exact education he needed to accomplish the amazing things God had planned for him). When standing next to the genius level intellects of Jefferson, Adams, and others it was easy for Washington to feel at an embarrassing disadvantage to his more educated peers.5 That said, Washington was still incredibly intelligent on account of his extensive reading throughout his life in order to make up for his perceived lack of formal education.

3. He was nominated to be commander of the colonial army by John Adams.

“I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.”6 It was with these words that the ever-humble George Washington accepted the unanimous appointment to command the soon-to-be-created Continental Army. The official vote happened on June 15, 1775, with John Adams credited as being the one who recommended and nominated Washington to the position.7 On the occasion, Adams wrote to his wife explaining how Congress elected the, “modest and virtuous, the amiable, generous and brave George Washington,” and solemnly proclaimed that, “the Liberties of America, depend upon him.”8

4. George Washington was described as being taller than the average man.

In an era when the average man stood at 5’7″, noted early biographer Jared Sparks clocked Washington in at an impressive 6’3″ tall.9 John Adams, later in life, wrote to fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Rush, that Washington had, “a tall stature, like the Hebrew sovereign chosen because he was taller by the head than the other Jews.”10

A military observer repeatedly called attention to the vast stature of Washington, explaining, “it is not difficult to distinguish him from all others; his personal appearance is truly noble and majestic; being tall and well proportioned.”11 He continues to write that Washington, “is remarkably tall, full six feet, erect and well proportioned…This is the illustrious chief, whom a kind Providence has decreed as the instrument to conduct our country to peace and to Independence.”12 George Washington was a tall man with an even bigger purpose.

5. He encouraged his troops to go to church.

As General, Washington would issue orders throughout the army instructing them on daily operations. On June 23, 1777, he issued the following order:

“All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every other succeeding Sunday, with their respective brigades and regiments, when their situations will admit of it, and the commanding officers of the corps are to see that they attend. The Commander-in-Chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practice, and every neglect will not only be considered a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue, and religion.”13

Being a man of great piety and sincere religion himself, it is no surprise that Washington placed such an extraordinary emphasis on his soldiers’ corporate worship. In fact, when Washington believed the chaplains were not making regular church services a proper priority, he required all the chaplains to come to a meeting to address the issue and then report back to him.14

Washington’s devotion to Christ was so apparent in the camp that the Rev. Henry Muhlenberg, father of Major General John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, remarked:

“His Excellency General Washington rode around among his army yesterday and admonished each and every one to fear God, to put away the wickedness that has set in and become so general, and to practice the Christian virtues. From all appearances this gentleman does not belong to the so-called world of society, for he respects God’s Word, believes in the atonement through Christ, and bears himself in humility and gentleness. Therefore the Lord God has also singularly, yea, marvelously, preserved him form harm in the midst of countless perils, ambuscades [ambushes], fatigues, etc. and has hitherto graciously held him in His hand as a [chosen] vessel. II Chronicles 15:1-3.”15

6. He forbade his officers to swear.

Along the same lines as the previous fact, Washington focused on making the American military not only righteous but also respectable. To this end, on July 4, 1775, he issued the following order:

“The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness. And in like manner requires and expects, of all officers, and soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine Service, to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.”16

7. He was the only President elected unanimously.

After the ratification of the Constitution, the first order of business was to fill the newly created positions of government. The most important question was, “who will be our President?” For the Americans of 1789, that was apparently an easy answer. “George Washington of course!” With that resolution, Washington, “by no effort of his own, in a manner against his wishes, by the unanimous vote of a grateful country.”17 In the history of the United States, there has been only one other unanimous vote for President — Washington again for his second term.18

8. George Washington added “So help me God” to the Presidential Oath of Office.

Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution states that when the President is sworn into office, he is to say the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

With his hand laid upon the open Bible, Washington repeated the oath. He then sealed the oath by with a solemn, “so help me God,” and reverently bowed down and kissed the Bible.19 One eyewitness to the event recalled that, “it seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn appeal to Heaven and earth at once.”20

9. He was elected to be a vestryman at local churches.

In early American Episcopalian churches, vestrymen were, “a select number of principal persons of every parish, who choose parish officers and take care of its concerns.”21 This included making sure the poor, widows, and orphans were taken care of, and even extended to major decisions about the church as a whole.

George Washington was elected (perhaps his first election) to be a vestryman in two different parishes. In March of 1765, he was chosen in Fairfax Parish with 274 votes, and then four months later he was again chosen in Truro Parish with 259 votes.22 Washington was extremely active as a vestryman.23

On one occasion, Washington even went toe-to-toe with George Mason (fellow future delegate to the Constitution Convention) about relocating the church to a new site. After an impassioned speech by Mason which seemingly settled the question, Washington unassumingly rose and used a surveying map to show where the new site would be and how it would be better for each parishioner. This sudden recourse to sound reason and just sensibilities restored the council to their senses and they voted with Washington to move the church to the new site.24

10. George Washington was killed by his doctors.

This characterization might be a little uncharitable—the doctors were doing the best they could with the knowledge they had—but it doesn’t mean it’s not true. The old General fell sick after riding out on Mount Vernon during the cold rain. Soon, he was struggling to breathe. The following is taken from the journal of George Washington’s lifelong friend and physician, James Craik:

“The disease commenced with a violent ague, accompanied with some pain in the upper and fore part of throat, a sense of stricture in the same part, a cough, and a difficult rather than paint deglutition, which were soon succeeded by fever and a quick and laborious respiration. The necessity of blood-letting suggesting itself to the General, he procured a bleeder in the neighborhood, who took from his arm, in the night, twelve or fourteen ounces of blood.”25

Medical science at the time thought that a number of sicknesses were caused because of some issue with the person’s blood itself. To fix the disease, therefore, a common “solution” would be to bleed a patient out in order to get rid of the bad blood.

Once more doctors had been called to the scene, Craik continues:

“In the interim were employed two copious bleedings; a blister was applied to the part affected, two moderate doses of calomel were given, and an injection was administered, which operated on the lower intestines—but all without any perceptible advantage; the respiration becoming still more difficult and distressing.”26

Even more blood was taken, and now the doctors applied hot irons to his throat because they thought that an accumulation of blood in Washington’s throat was what caused the difficulty breathing. Calomel is a kind of mercury chloride, which, we now know to be quite toxic! This, along with the bleedings and the injections were a long way off from helping Washington recover. But the doctors weren’t done yet:

“Upon the arrival of the first of the consulting physicians, it was agreed… To try the result of another bleeding, when about thirty-two ounces of blood were drawn, without the smallest apparent alleviation of the disease… ten grains of calomel were given, succeeded by repeated doses of emetic tartar, amounting, in all, to five or six grains, with no other effect than a copious discharge of the bowels. The powers of life seemed now manifestly yielding to the force of the disorder. Blisters were applied to the extremities.”27

More blood-letting, more toxic calomel, more blisters. The biggest variation in this round of treatments is that they gave Washington another poisonous substance—emetic tartar. Altogether, it served only to give the dying President diarrhea.

Finally, Dr. Craik relates the end to his friend’s suffering:

“Speaking, which was painful from the beginning, now became almost impracticable; respiration grew more and more contracted and imperfect, till… when retaining the full possession of his intellect, he expired without a struggle.”28

A contemporary doctor estimated the total amount of blood drawn to be, “the enormous quantity of eighty-two ounces, or above two quarts and a half of blood in about thirteen hours.”29 The same doctor goes on to accurately explain that:

“Very few of the most robust young men in the world could survive such a loss of blood; but the body of an aged person must be so exhausted, and all his power so weakened by it as to make his death speedy and inevitable.”30

The average amount of blood in someone of Washington’s size and stature is around 210 ounces. If, as the doctor estimates, somewhere around 82 ounces were taken, then Washington lost nearly 40% of his blood. This amount is nearly tantamount to exsanguination (death by bleeding out), and when combined with the blisters, calomel, emetic tartars, and the various vapors, it appears to be the unfortunate conclusion that the doctors killed George Washington.31

Endnotes

1. Mason Locke Weems, The Life of Washington the Great (Augusta: George P. Randolph, 1806), 8-9.
2. “Washington Tooth Troubles,” Mount Vernon (accessed March 29, 2019).
3. “False Teeth,” Mount Vernon (accessed September 18, 2023).
4. “Washington Tooth Troubles,” Mount Vernon (accessed March 29, 2019).
5. “Education” Mount Vernon (accessed March 29, 2019).
6. June 16, 1775, Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress, Held at Philadelphia, May 10, 1775. 
7. John Adams autobiography, part 1, through 1776, Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive, Massachusetts Historical Society.
8. John Adams to Abigail Adams, June 17, 1775, Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive, Massachusetts Historical Society.
9. Jared Sparks, The Life of George Washington (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1839), 102n.
10. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, November 11, 1807, Founders Online (accessed March 29, 2019).
11. James Thacher, A Military Journal During the American Revolutionary War (Boston: Richardson and Lord, 1823), 37.
12. Thacher, Military Journal, 182-183.
13. George Washington, General Order, June 28, 1777, Records of the Revolutionary War (New York: Pudney & Russell, 1858), 330.
14. Washington, General Order, October 6, 1777, Records of the Revolutionary War, 345.
15. Henry M. Muhlenberg, The Journals of Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1958), III:149, journal entry for May 7, 1778.
16. George Washington, General Orders, July 4, 1775, Library of Congress (accessed September 18, 2023).
17. Washington Irving, Life of George Washington (New York: G. P. Putman & Company, 1857), IV:516.
18. Annals of Congress (1873), 2nd Congress, 2nd Session,  874-875, February 13, 1793; Jared Sparks, The Life of George Washington (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1839), 445.
19. Irving, Washington, IV:475.
20. “Philadelphia, May 8. Extract of a Letter from New York, May 3,” Gazette of the United States (May 9 to May 13, 1789).
21. Noah Webster, “Vestry-man,” American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).
22. Jared Sparks, The Life of George Washington (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1839), 520.
23. “Churchwarden and Vestryman,” Mount Vernon (accessed April 1, 2019).
24. Sparks, Washington, 106.
25. James Craik, “From The Times, A Newspaper printed in Alexandria (Virginia), dated December, 1799,” The Medical Repository (New York: T. & J. Swords, 1805), III:311.
26. Craik, “From The Times” Medical Repository, III:311-312.
27. Craik, “From The Times” Medical Repository, III:312.
28. Craik, “From The Times” Medical Repository, III:312.
29. John Brickell, “Medical Treatment of General Washington,” Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Printed for the College, 1903), 25:93.
30. Brickell, “Medical Treatment” College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 25:93.
31. For a more technical examination of the medical circumstances surrounding Washington’s death see, Dr. Wallenborn’s, “George Washington’s Terminal Illness: A Modern Medical Analysis of the Last Illness and Death of George Washington,” The Washington Papers (November 5, 1997).

 

* Originally posted: May 9, 2019

 

George Washington 1785 Letter

Below is an original letter in WallBuilders’ collection, from George Washington, dated February 1, 1785. This letter was written during a short period of retirement for Washington, following the War for Independence and before the Constitutional Convention. After resigning his military commission, he settled back in Mount Vernon following an almost continuance absence of eight years.

 

Mount Vernon 1st Feb. 1785

Gentleman,

You may think me very troublesome – and the reason I assign for being so (that I am of the opinion you can serve me better than any other) no good apology for the liberty I take.

My Miller (William Roberts) in now become such an intolerable serv, and when drunk so great a madman, that he never unwilling I am to part with an old servant (for he has been with me 15 years) I cannot with propriety on common justice to myself bear with him any longer.

I pray you once more, therefore, to engage & forward to me, a miller as seen as you may have it in your power; and whatever engagement you shall enter into on my behalf I will religiously fulfil. I do not stipulate for the wages at altho’ my Mill (being on an indifferent stream & not constant at work) can illy [sic] afford high wages.

My wishes to procure a servant who understands the manufacturing business perfectly – and who is sober and honest, that I may even at the expense of paying for it, have as little trouble as possible with him. If he understood the business of a Mill _____ and was obliged by his attitude to keep the Mill works in repair, so much the better. Whatever agreement you may enter into on my behalf, I pray you to have it reduced to writing, & specially declared, that there may be no misexception [sic] or disputes thereafter.

The House in which such Muller will live, is a very comfortable one, within 30 yards of the Mill (which works two pairs of stones one pair of them french Burns) – it has a small Kitchen convenient thereto and a good garden properly paled it. There is a Coopers shop within 50 yards of the Mill, with three Negro Coopers which will also be under the direction of the Miller. Whose allowance of meat, flour, & privileges of every kind, I would have ascertained, to prevent after claims. I do not object to the Mans having a family (a wife I could wish him to have) but if it was a small one, it would be preferable.

At any rate be so good as to let me hear from you, that I may know on what to depend, as it is no longer safe for me to entrust my business to the care of Willi’m Roberts. It only remains now for me to ask your sanguineness for this trouble & to assure you of the esteem with which I am

Gentm

Your friend & very Humble

G. Washington

Mess. Lewis’s

“Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death”

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered one of the most famous speeches in American history. While some of his words are still familiar today, many Americans are unaware of the turbulent times preceding his celebrated address.

In the 1760s, Parliament passed numerous laws directly violating the rights of the colonists, including the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and many others. Patrick Henry, a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, was one of many who objected. When the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, the joy was so widespread that a Boston minister preached a notable sermon celebrating the event!

But the repeal of the Stamp Act was only a temporary reprieve. In 1767 came the hated Townshend Revenue Acts, which led to additional boycotts and protests. When the British sent troops to America to enforce these acts, it led to the shooting down of five Americans in what became known as the Boston Massacre. The Townshend Acts were finally repealed, but in 1774 they were replaced by even worse laws known as the Intolerable Acts.

The British became more hard-fisted, and following the Boston Tea Party, they closed almost all commercial shipments, effectively ended self-government in Massachusetts, and required the people to house British troops in private homes. It was against the backdrop of this turmoil that Patrick Henry rose to speak.

Some had argued that the American Colonies were too weak to do anything against the British (one of the world’s greatest powers at that time), but in his March 23, 1775 speech, Henry replied:

Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God Who presides over the destines of nations, and Who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. . . .Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! . . . . Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Significantly, Henry’s speech was heavily punctuated with quotations from numerous Bible verses. (See the commentary surrounding Matthew 12 in the Founders’ Bible for more about this, also showing how Bible verses appeared throughout numerous famous speeches by our Founding Fathers.) Not long after his speech came the Battles of Lexington and Concord, beginning the American War for Independence. So March 23rd marks the anniversary of one of the most famous speeches heralding American independence! (You can even purchase a parchment reprint of this famous speech from WallBuilders.)

First Federal Budget: 1789

Below is an interesting item from WallBuilders’ collection — the first federal budget of the United States, dated July 9, 1789. This budget takes up only about 1/2 page of the newspaper it’s printed in, The Gazette of the United States (July 18, 1789).

Here’s the complete front page, the budget is on the top right.


And here’s a close-up of the budget.

1789 Inauguration Eyewitness

The 1789 inauguration of George Washington as the first President of the United States under the Constitution was a very important event. It established several precedents for inaugurations that have withstood the test of time, including many religious activities. Congress had set up a basic procedure for the inauguration but there were some of the details that Washington added in himself during this historic event — such as the phrase “so help me God” after the oath and the practice of giving an inauguration address. Below, from WallBuilders’ collection, is a May 3, 1789 excerpt of an eyewitness account of the inauguration that was printed in the newspaper, Gazette of the United States (May 9-May 13, 1789).

Philadelphia, May 8.

Extract of a letter from New-York, May 3.

“I was extremely anxious to arrive here, in order to be present at the meeting of the President and the two Houses. That event, however, did not take place til Thursday last, when The President was qualified was qualified in the open gallery of the Congress House, in the sight of many thousand people. The scene was solemn and awful, beyond description. It would seem extraordinary, that the administration of an oath, a ceremony so very common and familiar, should, in so great a degree excite the public curiosity. But the circumstances of his election—the impression of his past services—the concourse of spectators—the devout fervency with which he repeated the oath—and the reverential manner in which he bowed down and kissed the sacred volume—all these conspired to render it one of the most august and interesting spectacle ever exhibited on this globe. It seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn appeal to Heaven and earth at once, Upon the subject of this great and good Man, I may, ‘perhaps, be an enthusiast; but I confess, that I was under an awful and religious persuasion, that the gracious Ruler of the universe was looking down at that moment with peculiar complacency on an act, which to a part of his creatures was so very important. Under this impression, when the Chancellor pronounced, in a very feeble manner, “Long live George Washington,” my sensibility was wound up to such a pitch, that I could do no more than wave my hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the repeated acclamations which rent the air.”

Happy Independence Day!

America’s Birthday

On July 4, 1776 a group of Americans approved a document declaring the United States of America free from English rule. This document was the Declaration of Independence, and today we celebrate the 242nd birthday of this courageous action!

The Declaration of Independence is the nation’s birth certificate. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, outlined its purpose:

When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind.

John Adams, in informing his wife of the events preceding the passage of the Declaration, stated:

I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory–I can see that the end is more than worth all the means and that posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction.

Across the generations, many others have heralded the importance of the Declaration. For example, Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant saw it as one of the many evidences of God’s guidance:

In all these marked stages of national progress, from the Declaration of Independence to the recent amendments of the Constitution, it is impossible not to perceive a providential series and succession of events.

And President John F. Kennedy’s words about the Declaration are as stirring today as they were when they were originally delivered over 50 years ago:

[The] Declaration unleashed not merely a revolution against the British but a revolution in human affairs. Its authors were highly conscious of its worldwide implications. And George Washington declared that liberty and self-government everywhere were, in his words, “finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” This prophecy has been borne out….This doctrine of national independence has shaken the globe, and it remains the most powerful force anywhere in the world today.

As we celebrate the birthday of America today, don’t forget the many sacrifices made long ago by the signers of the Declaration on our behalf! Happy Independence Day!

“[O]n this special day, the birthday of our nation, in the midst of all the joyous celebrations let us take a moment to remember the debt of thanks we owe to those who came before us, to the same God who guides us all, and to the spirit of faith and patriotism which still makes America ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave’.”
Ronald Reagan

Proclamation – Lord’s Day – 1782

John Dickinson (1732-1808) was a lawyer, statesman, and soldier during the War for Independence. He wrote, among many other pieces, the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania which were highly praised both in the colonies and abroad. Although he was a delegate to Continental Congress, he absented himself from the vote to adopt on the grounds of wishing to have more secure footing before igniting war with Briton. This, however, did do keep Dickinson from fully supporting the measure upon its adoption and throwing all his energies toward securing the liberty of America.

He was held in an extremely high regard by the other notable men of the time, with Dr. Benjamin Rush remarking that, “Few men wrote, spoke and acted more for their country from the year 1764 to the establishment of the federal government than Mr. Dickinson.”

The following is a prayer proclamation John Dickinson issued while he was the president of Pennsylvania in 1782.

By the President and Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

A Proclamation.

As the best and greatest of Beings commanded mankind into existence with a capacity for happiness, bestowing upon them understanding and many “good gifts”; so when they, by an abuse of the blessings thus intrusted, had involved themselves in guilt and misery, his compassion was extended towards them, and in “his tender mercies,” not only “seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night,” were continued unto them, but “the eternal purposes’ were revealed, and the heavenly treasuries opened, to restore the human race to the transcendent privilege from which by transgression they were fallen: And in this “marvelous work,” the laws of righteousness have been with such infinite wisdom adjusted, and united to the obligation of nature, that while they jointly tended to promote the felicity of men in a future state, they evidently cooperate to advance their welfare in the present, and to offend against the sanctions of revelation, of the dictates of reason and conscience, is suredly to betray the joys of this life, as well as those of another.

Wherefore, as we are entirely persuaded that just impressions of the deity are the great supports of morality, And As the experience of ages demonstrates, that regularity of manners is essential to the tranquility and prosperity of societies, And the assistance of the Almighty, on which we rely, to establish the inestimable blessings our afflicted country is contending for, cannot be expected without an observance of his holy laws, We esteem it our principal and indispensable duty to endeavor, as much as we can, that a sense of these interesting truths may prevail in the hearts and appear in the lives of the inhabitants of this state; And Therefore have thought proper to issue this Proclamation, sincerely desiring that they seriously meditating on the many signal and unmerited benefits of public and private import conferred upon them, the affecting invitations and munificent promises of divine goodness, and the “terrors set in array” against disobedient, may be urged to exert themselves in avoiding, discountenancing, and suppressing all vice, profaneness and immorality, and feeling a due gratitude, love,and veneration for their most gracious, all-wise , and omnipotent Benefactor, Sovereign, and Judge, and correspondent temper of resignation to the dispensations of his Supreme Government, may become a people “trusting in him, in whom they live and move and doing good.”

And to the intent that these desirable ends may be forwarded, all persons are herby fervently exhorted, to observe the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, and thereon constantly to attend the worship of God, as a service pleasing to him who is, “a hearer of prayer,” and condescends to “inhabit the praises of his people,” and profitable to themselves; a neglect of which duty has, in multitude of instances, been the beginning of a deviation into the ways of presumption, that at length have led into the deepest distresses and severest sorrows:

And As the education of youth is of so much moment to themselves and to the commonwealth, which cannot flourish unless that important point be diligently regarded, the sentiments, dispositions, and habits begin then generally formed that pervade the rest of their lives, all parents, guardians, masters, and tutors are herby strenuously called upon, to discharge the high trust committed to them, and for which they must account, by a faithful attention; that those under their care may be nurtured in piety, filial reverence, submission to superiors in age or station, modesty, sincerity, benevolence, temperance, industry, consistency of behavior, and frugality regulated by an humble reliance on Providence, and a kind respect for others; that their inexperienced minds may be by wholesome instructions fully convinced, that whatever employment they are designed for, virtue will be a chief promoter of success, and irregularity of conduct the greatest obstacle to it; that the intellectual faculties are aided by moral improvements, but weakened by illicit courses; and in brief, that Religion is the fiend of their peace,health and happiness; and that to displease their Maker, or trespass against their neighbor, is inevitably to inure themselves.

And we expect and hereby require, that all well disposed persons, and especially those in places of authority, will by their conversation and demeanor encourage and promote piety and virtue, and to their utmost contribute to the rendering these qualities truly laudable and honorable, and the contrary practices justly shameful and contemptible; that thus the influence of good men, and the dignity of the laws, may be combined in repressing the follies and insolencies of scorners and profligates, in directing the weak and thoughtless, and in preserving them from the pernicious contagion of evil examples; And for further promoting such reformation, it is hereby enjoined, that all magistrates, and others whom it may concern, be very vigilant and exact in discovering, prosecuting, and punishing all persons who shall be guilty of profanation of the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, blasphemy, profane swearing or cursing, drunkenness, lewdness, or other dissolute or immoral practices; that they suppress all gaming houses, and other disorderly houses, that they put in execution the act of General Assembly, entitled, “An Act for the suppression of Vice and Immorality,” and all other laws now in force for the punishing and suppressing any vice, profaneness or immorality: And for the more effectual proceeding herein, all Judges and Justice, having cognizance in the premises, are directed to give strict charges at their respective Courts and Sessions, for the due prosecution and punishment of all who shall presume to offend in any of the kinds aforesaid; and also of all such as, contrary to their duty, shall be remiss or negligent in putting the laws in execution: And that they do at their respective Courts and Sessions cause this Proclamation to be publicly read, immediately before the charge is given: And every Minister of the Gospel is requested strongly to inculcate in the respective congregations where they officiate, a love of piety and virtue, and an abhorrence of vice, profaneness, and immorality.

Given in council, under the hand of the President, and the Seal of the State, at Philadelphia, this twentieth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty two.

Attest. T. Matlack, Secretary.

John Dickinson.

God Save the Commonwealth.

“The General Principles of Christianity” – Context Leading to Adams’ June 28, 1813, Letter to Jefferson

When writing to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813, John Adams discusses the fact that America achieved independence through the general principles of Christianity. The letter itself, however, was the culmination of events which began nearly fifteen years earlier.

Adams and Jefferson were friends for many years but fell out after the events of the presidential election of 1800. By the year 1813 Jefferson and Adams had resumed their friendship after the repeated urgings of Dr. Benjamin Rush.1 This newly revived friendliness, however, was significantly tested when private letters written by Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly were published in the biography of Rev. Theophilus Lindsey. One of the letters from 18012 included apparent and harsh censures of Adams’ policies. Upon readings this book Adams wrote to Jefferson on May 29, 1813, saying, “I wish to know if you have seen this book. I have much to say on the subject.”3

After waiting for twelve days without a response, Adams again took up his pen on June 10, 1813, and went through the 1801 Jefferson letter responding to the various claims made against him. Adams focused on the part where Jefferson had quoted him, writing: “The President himself declaring that we were never to expect to go beyond them in real science.”4 In the original letter to Rev. Priestly, Jefferson explains his disgust at this alleged statement by the then President Adams, exclaiming:

Those who live by mystery & charlantanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, – the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, – endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame.”5

Responding to these now twelve year old charges, Adams declared:

The sentiment that you have attributed to me in your letter to Dr. Priestley, I totally disclaim, and demand, in the French sense of the word, of you the proof. It is totally incongruous to every principle of my mind and every sentiment of my heart.6

Four days later Adams wrote another letter to Jefferson continuing the project of rebuffing Jefferson’s claims from 1801, but this time focusing mainly on the “alien law.”7

On June 15, 1813, Jefferson responded to the initial letter from May 29. The existence of the biography and even the person of Theophilus Lindsey was entirely new information to him. After looking back upon his own copies of the letters sent to the Dr. Priestly, Jefferson began explaining these letters. He told Adams that, “it was a confidential communication of reflections on these from one friend to another, deposited in his bosom, and never meant to trouble the public mind.”8 He further explained:

Still less must they [readers of the letters in question] consider it as looking personally towards you. You happen, indeed, to be quoted, because you happened to express more pithily than had been done by themselves, one of the mottos of the party. This was in your answer to the address of the young men of Philadelphia.9

At the end of the letter Jefferson makes clear that he sees no need to drag up things from so long ago remarking: “I should see with reluctance the passions of that day rekindled in this, while so many of the actors are living, and all are too near the scene not to participate in sympathies with them. About the facts you and I cannot differ; because truth is our mutual guide.”10

Upon receiving Jefferson’s letter, Adams retrieved his response to the address of the young men of Philadelphia from 1798, fifteen years prior.11 Adams then proceeded to correct Jefferson’s misconception of what had been said. The young men of Philadelphia had addressed Adams during the time when hostilities with France where high, assuring the President that they were, “accentuated by the same principles on which our forefathers achieved their independence.”12 In answer to this Adams admonished them to hold fast to those fundamental principles:

Science and morals are the great pillars on which this country has been raised to its current population, opulence, and prosperity. Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will haphazard a prediction, that after the most industrious  and impartial researches, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions, or systems of education more fit, in general, to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors.13

It was from this statement that Jefferson had drawn the criticism that Adams thought no improvement could be made upon the sciences of the ancestors, thereby implying that he was one of those who preferred “mystery and charlantanerie” over the simplicity of Christianity. Perceiving Jefferson’s misunderstanding, Adams described the principles which he referred to in his 1798 letter. He began by walking through what his answer did not mean:

Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, of those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Philosophers? No.14

Adams here dismissed any idea that he attempted to propagate and employ for personal power a “most perverted system” of values instead of that “most sublime and benevolent” form of Christianity. Carrying on, Adams revealed what he truly meant, saying:

The general principles in which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty…15

Adams explained to Jefferson that in actuality they both desired the same ends – that the simplicity of those general principles of the Christian faith be maintained by the younger generation just as it had been by their own.

Endnotes

1 Cf. https://wallbuilders.com/resource/benjamin-rush-dream-about-john-adams-and-thomas-jefferson/

2 Thomas Jefferson to Doctor Joseph Priestly, March 21, 1801, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), IX:216.

3 John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, May 29, 1813, Founders Archives.

4 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X:40.

5 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, IX:217.

6 Adams, Works of Adams, X:41.

7 Adams, Works of Adams, X:42.

8 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, XI:294.

9 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, XI:294.

10 Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, IX:296.

11 Adams, Works of Adams, IX:187.

12 Adams, Works of Adams, X:44.

13 Adams, Works of Adams, X:44.

14 Adams, Works of Adams, X:45.

15 Adams, Works of Adams, X:45.

Four Letters on Government – John and Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams (1722-1803) and his second cousin, John Adams (1735-1826), were important and longstanding actors in the struggle for American independence. John Adams expounds on this in his diary on February 9, 1772:

Is it not a pity that a brace [pair] of so obscure a breed should be the only ones to defend the household, when the generous mastiffs and best-blooded hounds are all hushed to silence by the bones and crumbs that are thrown to them, and even Cerberus himself is bought off with a sop? … they [John and Samuel Adams] have a sense of honor and a love of their country, the testimony of a good conscious, and the consolation of philosophy, if nothing more, which will certainly support them, in the cause of their country, to their last gasp for breath, whenever that may happen.1

John Adams

This “brace of Adamses” kept their word and continued to advocate for the liberty of their country through the War for Independence, and throughout the course of their lives, as demonstrated by a series of letters between them in 1790. John Adams was the vice president of the US and Samuel was the lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts during this period. Published in 1802 under the title Four Letters, discuss the future government of America from the perspectives of both the Federalist John Adams and the Anti-Federalist Samuel Adams.

John Adams, responding to an earlier letter from Samuel, recounts a recent visit to Philadelphia:

The sight of our old Liberty Hall and of several of our old friends, had brought your venerable idea to my mind, and continued it there a great part of the last week; so that a letter from you, on my arrival, seemed but in continuation.2

He then asks Samuel:

What, my old friend, is this world about to become? Is the millennium commencing? Are the kingdoms of it about to be governed by reason? Your Boston town meetings and our Harvard College have set the universe in motion. Every thing will be pulled down. So much seems certain. But what will be built up? Are there any principles of political architecture? What are they?3

Samuel Adams answers this query in his response:

You ask,—what the is about to become? and,—is the  millennium commencing? I have not studied the prophecies, and cannot even conjecture. The golden age, so finely pictured by poets, I believe has never as yet existed but in their own imagination. … The same tragedies have been acted on the theatre of the world, the same arts of tormenting have been studied and practiced to this day and even religion and reason untied have never succeeded to establish the permanent foundation of political freedom and happiness in the most enlightened countries on the earth.4

The elder Adams, as he turns his attention towards the hopeful element that he sees in mankind, becomes more positive:

The love of liberty is inter-woven in the soul of man, and can never be totally extinguished and there are certain periods when human patience can no longer endure indignity and oppression. The spark of liberty then kindles into a flame, when the injured people, attentive to the feelings of the just rights, magnanimously contend for their complete restoration.5

He reverts to his previous manner as he recounts how history shows that so often these sparks of freedom lead not to the flame of liberty, but rather to the flame of tyranny, remarking that, “such contests have too often ended in nothing more than ‘a change of impostors and impositions.’”6 Seeing that such a threat faces America as well, Samuel Adams explains the only hope he sees for preserving liberty:

Let the divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impression the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls; of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; instructing them in the art of self-government, without which they never can act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of  leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system, which will happily tend to subdue the turbulent passions of men, and introduce that golden age…7

Sam Adams

Samuel, having placed his hopes in subsequent generations’ education in the tenets of true virtue, quips: “When this millennium shall commence, if there shall be any need of civil government, indulge me in the fancy, that it will be in the republican form, or something better.8

In his response, John Adams expresses his own pessimism regarding the nation’s—and more generally the world’s—ability to provide such an education. He agrees with his older cousin but reflects:

I think with you, that knowledge and benevolence ought to be promoted as much as possible; but, despairing of ever seeing them sufficiently general for the security of society, I am for seeking institutions which may supply in some degree the defect. If there were no ignorance, error, or vice, there would be neither principles nor systems of civil or political government.9

In this, the difference surfaces between the two Adams’. Anti-federalist Samuel Adams prefers to hope for the elevation of the people to a sufficient capability for self-government, while federalist John Adams places his hopes in the ability of an active government to preserve the safety of the nation by institutional means. Both aim for the secured liberty of America, but one seeks to achieve it by strengthening the people first, while the other aims to strengthen the government first. John Adams further explains his position:

With you, I have also the honor most perfectly to harmonize in your sentiments of the humanity and wisdom of promoting education in knowledge, virtue, and benevolence. But I think that these will confirm mankind in the opinion of the necessity of preserving and strengthening the dikes against the ocean, its tides and storms. Human appetites, passions, prejudices, and self-love will never be conquered by benevolence and knowledge alone, introduced by human means.10

John also takes a different route regarding the effects of the people’s strong affection for liberty and freedom so lauded by Samuel Adams. The younger says:

The numbers of men in all ages have preferred ease, slumber, and good cheer to liberty, when they have been in competition. We must not then depend alone upon the lover of liberty in the soul of man for its preservation. Some political institutions must be prepared, to assist this love against its enemies. Without these, the struggle will end only in a change of impostors. … Let us be impartial, then, and speak the whole truth. Till we do, we shall never discover all the true principles that are necessary.11

To the objections on the primacy of universal education over a strong government Samuel Adams responds:

I am very willing to agree with you, in thinking that improvements in knowledge and benevolence receive much assistance from the principles and systems of good government. But is it not as true that, without knowledge and benevolence, men would neither have been capable nor disposed to search for the principles or form the system? Should we not, my friend, bear a grateful remembrance of our pious and benevolent ancestors, who early laid plans of education? by which means, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue have been generally diffused among the body of the people, and they have been enabled to form and establish a civil constitution, calculated for the preservation of their rights and liberties.12

He then continues to argue for the necessity of a widespread educational system directed towards the moral development of the community:

I am far from thing the people can be deceived, by urging upon them a dependence on the more general prevalence of knowledge and virtue. It is one of the most essential means of further, and still further improvements in society, and of correcting and amending moral sentiments and habits and political institutions; till, “by human means,” directed by Divine influence, men shall be prepared for that “happy and holy state,” when “the Messiah is to reign.”13

Samuel Adams end by expressing that while John views government as the tool which will level both the aristocracy and the people, he believes that education is the true leveling agent:

Wise and judicious modes of education, patronized and supported by communities, will draw together the sons of the rich and the poor, among whom it makes no distinction; it will cultivate the natural genius, elevate the soul, excite laudable emulation to excel in knowledge, piety, and benevolence; and, finally, it will reward its patrons and benefactors, by shedding its benign influence on the public mind. Education inures men to thinking and reflection, to reasoning and demonstration. It discovers to them the moral and religious duties they owe to God, their country, and to all mankind.14

These four letters provide a window into the party conflicts which were raging between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist—though they show a much more civil and thoughtful tone than was generally seen at the time. In its most basic form, the “brace of Adamses” are seeking to answer how best the freedom of society can be improved. While they both value the necessities for education and political principles, the real difference arises from where they place primacy.

Endnotes

1 John Adams, February 9, 1772, The Works of John Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850) 2:295-296.
2 The Works of John Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851) 6:411.
3 John Adams to Samuel Adams, September 12, 1790, Works (1851), 6:411-412.
4 Samuel Adams to John Adams, October 4, 1790, Works (1851), 6:412.
5 Samuel to John, October 4, 1790, Works (1851), 6:413.
6 Ibid.
7 Samuel Adams to John Adams, October 4, 1790, Works (1851), 6:414.
8 Ibid.
9 John Adams to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790, Works (1851), 6:415.
10 Adams to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790, Works (1851), 6:416.
11 Adams to Samuel Adams, October 18, 1790, Works (1851), 6:418.
12 Samuel Adams to John Adams, November 1790, Works (1851), 6:422.
13 Samuel Adams to John Adams, November 1790, Works (1851), 6:423.
14 Samuel Adams to John Adams, November 1790, Works (1851), 6:425.