John Adams: Pioneer
American Conservative
A. Owen Aldridge
DR.BENJAMIN
RUSH,one of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, once called
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson “the
North and South Poles of the American
Revolution.”’ This observation places
Adams at the head of the conservative
ranks in the early years of the republic
and Jefferson as the leader of the contrary
liberal current. Paradoxically, however,
the private lives of the two statesmen
almost entirely reverse these positions.
Jefferson, a member of the landed aristocracy of Virginia, owned slaves throughout his entire life and surrounded himself
with every available comfort and luxury.
Adams, although by no means plebeian,
was descended from sturdy New England
settlers, worked on his own farm, and
lived frugally even while serving as a diplomat in Paris and as president in Washington. Adams himself noted t h a t
Jefferson was generally regarded as “eternally in opposition to government, and
myself constantly in favor of it.”2Today, of
course, it is the conservative attitude
that is associated with opposition to big
government. Adams and Jefferson, however, thought alike on many political,
aesthetic, and moral issues from the time
of their collaboration on the Declaration
AOWEN
.&<RIDGE
isprofessorEmeritus in the
comparative literature program at the Unioersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
of Independence to the moment of their
deaths on the same day in 1826.
Many of the differences between the
two leaders and the popular belief that
these differences were extreme came
about because of political party divisions.
Both were Federalists in the original meaning of the word as comprising merely
support of colonial independence. Both
were republicans, however, in their opposition to monarchy during the framing of
the Constitution. But when the Republicans became a party favoring the French
Revolution, Jefferson became an ardent
adherent while Adams remained in the
Federalist fold. Later in his life Adams
regretted that they should have been
“separated by mere differences of opinion in politics, religion, philosophy, or
anything else.”3
George Washington and Alexander
Hamilton are sometimes seen as rivaling
Adams for the title of preeminent American conservative, but each comes far
short of Adams in qualifications. Washington wrote very little and did not expound a formal political philosophy of
any kind. Hamilton was more of a pragmatist than a theorist, influenced by contemporary conditions rather than ideology, and his activities were chronologically subsequent to those of Adams.
Russell Kirk also places Hamilton in a
different class from Adams, describing
217
Modern Age
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
him as “thefirst American businessman”
in contrast t o Adams as “the founder of
true conservatism in A m e r i ~ a . ”Kirk
~ is
not stinting in his praise, affirming that
Adams’s “body of political thought exceeds, both in bulk and penctratim, any
other work on government by an American.” Strangely enough, Irving Babbitt in
his Democracy and Leadership (1924) extols Washington, but has littletosayabout
Adams. He does quote as an epigraph,
however, from a letter from Adams to
Jefferson, 15 November 1815, a passage
formulating “the fundamental article” of
his political creed that “despotism or
unlimited sovereignty or absolute power
is the same in a majority of a popular
assembly, an aristocratical council, an
oligarchical junto, and asingle emperorequally arbitrary, cruel, bloody and in
every way diabolical.”
The word conseruative derives from a
verb meaning to keep, t o retain. A political conservative is usually considered
one who advocates a political system
based upon a constitution or a collection
of laws designed t o provide legal equality
for every citizen. A social conservative
must ideallyreveal acapacity for compromise and maintain an intelligent interest
in human affairs other than finance and
politics. Of equal importance, he must
adhere toaprivatecodeof behavior based
on high ethical standards, standards
based in large measure on a knowledge of
the historical and literary bulwarks of his
culture. In Adams’s society, these foundations were considered to reside in their
purest formamong the classics of ancient
Greece and Rome. From the days of his
youth, Adams acquired a thorough foundation in this heritage, basing upon it a
considerable amount of his political
theory. He also engaged in exemplary
moral conduct throughout his entire life,
earnng the enviable cognomen of “Honest John Adams.”
As a young student, wavering between
law and divinity as prospective careers,’
he maintained that the most important
objective in life is not money, honor, political office,or scientific knowledge, but
“Habits of Piety and Virtue.” He resolved
to study thescriptures four nights weekly
and a Latin author on the other three.6In
later life,he expounded the view that for
humanity at large the quest for honor
surmounts any other motivation. From
youth to old age, Adams found inspiration and respite in reading, includingclassics such as Homer, Virgil, Horace and
Cicero.If hewereascholar, heaffirmed, he
would have read military
Consequently in a letter to a general of the
Revolution, he cited a host of examples
from ancient Greek history to support his
opinion “that Courage and reading were
all that were necessary to the formation
of an Officer.’18In the early years of the
republic he envisioned the establishment
of an academy for the “improving and
ascertaining of the English language.” The
example of Greece and Rome, he believed,
“would be sufficient, without any other
argument, to show the United States the
importance to their liberty, prosperity,
and glory of an early attention to the
subject of eloquence and language.” He
accurately predicted that English in the
next and succeeding centuries would be
“moregenerally the language of the world
than Latin was in the last or French is in
the present age.”9
In one of his earliest published works,
Thoughts on Government (1776), Adams
declared, “All sober inquiries after truth,
Pagan and Christian, have declared that
the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue.’”O In connection
with the same work, h e wrote to a friend,
“I hold the Principle of Honour Sacredbut am not ashamed to Confess myself so
much of a Grecian, or Roman, if not of a
Christian as to think the Principle of Virtue of higher Rank in the Scale of moral
Excellence, than Honour.”” In the same
spirit Adams observed in his diary, 28
April 1756,that themost important objecSummer2002
218
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
I
tive in life is not money, honor, political
office, or scientific knowledge, but “Habits of Piety and Virtue.” The meanest of
men who endeavor to promote the happiness of their fellow men should be esteemed higher than the greatest magistrate who works for his own pleasure or
ambition.I2Adams drew no line between
social and private virtue, considering
them parts of the same quality.
In remarks instigated by the death of
his mother-in-law, he maintained that
both natural morality and Christian benevolence “make it our indispensable
Duty to lay ourselves out, to serve our
fellow Creatures to the Utmost of our
Power of promotingand supporting those
great Political systems, and general Regulations upon which the Happiness of
Multitudes depends.”l3To one of his relatives, aminister who had assured him that
God would impart wisdom and guidance
for “Establishingthe Liberties of America
on a perpetual basis,”Adams replied that
political liberty depends not upon God,
but upon the religion and morality of the
populace. “The only foundation of a free
Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this
cannot be inspired into our people, in a
greater Measure than they have it now,
they may change their Rulers, and the
forms of Government, but they will not
obtain a lasting Liberty.”14
Translating the Latin adage Omnium
Rerum Domina Virtus, “Virtue is the Mistress of allThings,”Adams reasoned in his
diary that “a Nation that should never do
wrong must necessarily govern t h e
World.”I5He added that the power of virtue is unfortunately not a very common
topic. One of the advantages of Christianity, heperceived, is bringing the principle
of loving your neighbor as yourself to the
attention andvenerationof theentirepopulace so that “Children, Servants, Women
and Men are all Professors in the science
of public as well as private Morality.”
Adams’s most sensitive comment on
virtue consists of a profession in his mem-
oirs of his own sexual purity. “NoVirginor
Matron ever had Cause of Grief or Resentment for any Intercourse between me and
any Daughter, Sister, Mother, or any other
Relation of the Female Sex. My Children
may be assured that no illegitimate
Brother or Sister exists or ever existed.”16
Not all leaders of the Revolution were
able to make such a declaration. That of
Adams has never been contested.
Since Adams began public life as a
lawyer, it is not strange that the title of his
first major publication A Dissertation on
Canon and Feudal Law (1765), should reflect legal terminology, although the content of the workitself deals primarily with
the principles of liberty and freedom in
America. These are contrasted with “the
twogreatest systems of tyranny”that have
grown out of Christianity, feudalism,
which tied serfs to the land, and priestcraft, which harnessed a people’s minds.
The temporal grandees and the spiritual
grandees collaborated with each other to
obtain a blind and implicit obedience to
both systems. Neither the theme nor the
content of the Dissertation may properly
be labelled as either primarily conservative or liberal, even though Adams observed that the “poor people” have seldom had an opportunity to defend their
rights, “Rightsthat cannot be repealed or
restrained by human law^.''^'
Contrary to the servile belief imposed
upon the common people by the twin
tyrannical systems of feudalism and
priestcraft, “government is a plain, simple,
intelligent thing, founded in nature and
reason, quite comprehensible by common sense.” Reminding his readers that
so-called “British liberties are not the
grants of princes or parliaments,” Adams
described the struggles and sufferings of
the early settlers in New England. “Let us
recollect it was liberty! the hope of liberty,forthemselvesandus andours, which
conquered all discouragements, dangers,
and trials.”But libertywas not to beeither
obtained or preserved without educa-
Modern Age
219
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
I
tion, without a general knowledge among
the people, who have a right to knowledge from the frame of their nature.
Revealing his personal devotion to
history and the classics, Adams urged,
“Let us study the law of nature; search
into the spirit of the British constitution;
read the histories of ancient sages; contemplate the great examples of Greece
and Rome; set before us, the conduct of
our own British ancestors, who have defended for us the inherent rights of man
against foreign and domestic tyrants and
usurpers.”
Adams’s earliest publication placing
him squarely on the side of conservatism,
Thoughts on Gouemment (1 776), came as
the result of three Southern gentlemen
shortly after the Declaration of Independence asking for advice on drafting constitutions for their colonies. Although
the main thrust of his argument was levelled against the concept of a single legislature as advocated by Thomas Paine in
Common Sense, Adams also stressed the
merits of keepingseparatethelegislative,
executive, and judicial powers, an arrangement that was by no means universally accepted at the time. He differed
from Paine on both the form of the legislatureand the division of powers, particularly on the former, charging that Paine’s
“crude,ignorant Notions of aGovernment
by one Assembly, will do more Mischief,
in dividing the Friends of Liberty, than all
the Tory Writers. He is a keen Writer, but
very ignorant of the Science of Government.”Is
Adams introduced his own views by
means of a generally accepted principle,
although one more frequently expressed
by liberals than by conservatives: “the
form of government which communicates
ease, comfort, security, or in one word
happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the
best.”lg He immediately joined this principle, however, with a highly conservative one-the form of government that
best promotes happiness is that “whose
principle and foundation is virtue.” In
government, he added, ‘‘apeople cannot
be long free, and never can be happy,
whose laws are made, executed, and interpreted by one assembly.”
He opposed a single legislative assembly on the grounds that it is “liable to all
the vices, follies and frailties of an individua1,”is“aptto be avaricious,and likely
to grow ambitious and eventually vote
itself perpetual.”20To avoid these hazards, Adams advocated the election of
two distinct representative bodies each
operating to check and to arrest the errors of the other. He also proposed that
the governor be elected by both houses
and be given a negative upon the legislature. Recognizing the importance of the
judicial power, Adams affirmed that it
should be separate and independent of
both the legislative and the executive
powers so that it could be a checkon both
and they a check upon it.
Paine in a further pamphlet, Four Letters on Interesting Subjects (1776), published shortly after Adams’s Thoughts on
Gouernment,objected to both of Adams’s
principles.21Two houses, he affirmed,“may
fall out about forms and precedence, and
check one another’s honour and tempers, and thereby produce petulance and
ill-will, which a more simple form of government would have prevented.” On the
subject of the separation of powers, Paine
argued that onlytwoexist in government,
“the power to make laws and the power to
execute them; for the judicial power is
only a branch of the executive, the CHIEF
of every country being the first magistrate.” The two opposing conservative
measures of a bicameral legislature and
an independent judiciary upheld by
Adams, however,were later incorporated
in the Constitution of the United States
and that of a bicameral legislature became the focus of his most significant
publication, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the Unitedstates of
Summer 2002
220
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
America (1787).
Adams was also largelyresponsible for
the provision for two houses in the Constitution of Massachusetts. Although
present in the convention for drawing up
the document for only the months of
September and October 1778,he was acknowledged as its “principal engineer.”22
It clearly and succinctly states Adams’s
doctrines: “the legislative, executive and
judicial power shall be placed in separate
departments, to the end that it might be
a government of laws, and not of men,”
and the legislative department “shall be
formed by two branches, A SENATE and
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.”
Before this constitution was formally
adopted, Adams was sent by the Continental Congress to represent the colonies in a treaty of peace in Paris, where he
met two of the major French writers on
political theory, Anne-Robert Turgot and
Gabriel Bonnot de Mably. The latter, soon
after making Adams’s acquaintance, conceived the notion of writing a history of
t h e American Revolution and approached him for advice and assistance.
Instead of encouragement, however,
Mably received a blunt written disparagement of his project on thegrounds that he
lacked both time and research facilities
for a work of such magnitude. As a result,
Mably abandoned his ambitious enterprise, but wroteand published in its stead
Observationson the GovemmentandLaws
of the United States o f America (1784),
based almost entirely on the state constitutions that were then being circulated
throughout France, largely through the
efforts of Benjamin Franklin. In his text
Mably several times affirmed that Adams
had asked him to write on the topic of the
American constitutions. Although Adams
was offered the opportunity of denying
these assertions, he declined to do so on
the grounds of not wishing to enter “into
the Fracasseries of the Men of Letters in
F r a n ~ e . ” ~1787
~ I n he proceeded to do just
that, however, by publishing two volumes
of A Defence o f the Constitutions o f the
Governmentofthe UnitedstatesofAmerica
and a third volume in the next year specifying on the title page Against the Attack
ofM. Tuigot.
Adams almost certainly had Mably in
mind when he began writing, but shifted
his attention to Turgot when Richard
Price in England published in 1784Observations on the American Revolution, including in his appendix a letter from
Turgot written in 1778 indicating dissatisfaction with every one of the state cons t i t u t i o n ~ .Adams
~~
may have added
Turgot to his title as a ploy to attract
increased European readership even
though the text of the Defence gives the
French statesman only incidental treatment. Inaletterto Jefferson in 1787,Adams
argues that his Defence is a refutation of
Turgot:
The two volumes [ 1&2,1787] are confined
to one point, and if a City is defended from
an attack made on the North Gate,it may be
called a Defence of the City, although the
otherthreeGates, theEast, West andSouth
Gates were so weak as to have been
defenceless, if they had been attacked.-If
aWarrior should ariseto attackour Constitutions where they are not defensible, 1’11
not undertake to defend them. Two thirds
of our States have made Constitutions, in
no respect better than those of the Italian
Republicks,andassureas thereisanHeaven
andanEarth, if theyarenot altered theywill
produce Disorder and Conf~sion.2~
According to this metaphor, thesingle
gate that needed to be defended against
Turgot was that of a legislature of two
houses and vindicating it was equivalent
to defending the constitutions of all the
states. In his text Adams posed the “great
question” as “What combination of powers in society, or what form of government, will compel the formation, impartial execution, and faithful interpretation of good and equal laws, so that the
citizens may constantly enjoy the benefit of them, and may be sure of their
221
Modem Age
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
continuance?”26Adams does not, however, give a clear idea of Turgot’s ideal
state and how it differs from his own. The
main issue is not the same as that in
Thoughts on Government in which both
sides accept a separation between executive and legislative powers and differ
merely over whether the latter should be
vested in one or in two houses. Turgot
had in mind a single assembly-conceived as the nation in which all three
powers were united.
In his preface, Adams affirms that “M.
Turgot intended that an assembly of representatives should be chosen by the
nation, and vested with all the powers of
government; and that his assembly should
be the centre in which all the authority
was to be collected, and should virtually
be deemed the nation.” Although Adams
maintains that the rest of his book is
devoted to explaining the consequences
of this idea and collecting opposing authorities, in reality it consists almost entirely of a historical survey of systems of
government in which are found elements
favorable to his own scheme. Here he
draws upon his previous study of history,
both ancient and modern, citing
Herodotus,Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus,
as well as Machiavelli, Harrington, and
Hume.
In explaining his motive for writing, he
includes an extensive Latin quotation
from Cicero containing the latter’s famous
sentence “Respublicaest res populi.” Comparing the three branches of government
to the treble, tenor, and bass in music, he
opposes the placing of unlimited power
exclusively in the hands of any one of the
three.27He also cites theTeutonicsystem
described by Tacitus and Caesar to illustrate the evils of attempting to mix “the
authority of the one, the few, and the
many, confusedly in one assembly.” In a
single house it would be impossible to
maintain equal virtue among its representatives, who would cluster by nature
into groups or divisions based upon vir-
tue, experience, education or envy.28
The largest part of the Defence is devoted to separate chapters describing
past republics in Italyand elsewhere. In a
chapter on the opinion of philosophers,
he includes a treatment of Franklin, who,
while ambassador in Paris, had been
closely associated with Turgot. In his private correspondence Adams affirms that
it was under Franklin’s influence that
Turgot had come to admire the Constitution of Pennsylvania with its single legis1atu1-e.~~
His Defence admits that he does
not know all the details of Turgot’s system, but presumes that he did not favor a
simple monarchy or aristocracy, but
rather a single house representing all the
people and that, according to “the most
benign construction,”the representatives
would be chosen annually.30
Adams knew even less about Franklin’s
system and even that knowledge was
based upon general reports indicating
that Franklin had presided over the convention that had drawn up the Pennsylvaniaconstitution that provided for asingle
legislature. Beyond this Adams was aware
only of the widely circulated report that
Franklin had said in the convention that
“two assemblies appeared to him like a
practice he had somewhere seen, of certain wagoners, who when about to descendasteephillwithaheavyload,ifthey
had four cattle, took off one pair from
before, and chaining them t o the hinder
part of the wagon drove them up hill;
while the pair before and the weight of the
load, overbalancing the strength of those
behind, drew them slowly and moderately down the hill.”
Adams’s summary of Franklin’s illustration is completely different from one
given by Thomas Paine in which Franklin
compares a bicameral system to “putting
one horse before a cart and the other
behind it, and whipping them both. If the
horses are of equal strength, the wheels of
the cart, like the wheels of government,
will stand still;and if the horses are strong
Summer2002
222
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
enough, the cart will be torn to pieces.”31
Even though Adams on several occasions
accuses Franklin and Turgot as agreeing
on the merits of a single house, he had no
trouble in interpreting Franklin’s illustration as a vindication of two assemblies.
The weight of the load itself, he affirmed,
“would roll the wagon on the oxen and
the cattle on one another, in one scene of
destruction, if the forces were not divided and the balance formed, whereas,
by checking one power by another, all
descend the hill in safety and avoid the
danger .”
In reply to Turgot’s assertion that republics are “founded on the equalilty of
all the citizens, and, therefore, ‘orders’
and ‘equilibriums’ are unnecessary,”
Adams underscores the ambiguity of the
concept of equality.32He asks whether
citizens are supposed to be “all of the
same age, sex, size, strength, stature, activity, fame, wit, temperance, constancy,
and wisdom.” He denies that there could
even exist “a nation whose individuals
were all equal, in natural talents, and
riches.” In his native state of Massachusetts as in all the others, he acknowledges, there exist inequities in wealth,
birth, talents, and virtue implanted by
God and by nature, which no act of legislature can eradicate.
When Adams returned to America, he
produced a sequel to the Defence praising the same theme of the separation of
powers and based upon the same technique of seeking parallels in remote history to contemporary political problems.
Originally appearing throughout 1790 as
articles in the Gazette o f the United States
stimulated by another French commentary, that of the Marquis de Condorcet, Un
Bourgeois de New Haven, sur 1’Unite‘ de la
Le‘gislature, the work was published in
book form as Discourses on Davila. It consists largely of a translation with accompanying commentary on a history of
French civil wars in the seventeenth century by Enrico Catarino Davila. Drawing a
parallel between these internecine hostilities and the contemporary French
Revolution, Adams was able t o include
topics inculcating his conservative principles beyond those contained in the
Defence.
He begins with the doctrine that “the
passion for distinction” is at the heart of
man’s nature and behavior, a doctrine
that he had earlier set forth in a letter to
Jefferson, 9 October 1789, maintaining
“that neither Philosophy, nor Religion,
nor Morality, nor Wisdom, nor Interest,
will ever govern nations or Parties, against
their Vanity, their Pride, their Resentment or Revenge, or their Avarice or
Ambition.”33In the same letter he observes that “the Loss of Paradise, by eating a forbidden apple, has been many
Thousand years aLesson to Mankind; but
not much regarded.” This doctrine of the
desire for eminence as the ruling passion
of mankind is so firmly apparent in
Adams’s own personality and career that
a modern Belgian scholar, Jean-Paul
Goffinon, has published a book with the
title Aux origines de la re‘volution
amgricaine:John Adams La Passion de la
distinction (1996).
In his Discourses, Adams relates this
psychological principle to his favorite
political doctrines of the separation of
powers and a bicameral legislature. He
vindicates the continued use of titles,
forms, and ceremonies and distinguishes
between equality before the law and
equality of talents. He explains the distinction for passion as a universal characteristic responsible for human gregariousness in every stage of civilization.34“A
desire to be observed, considered, esteemed, praised, beloved, and admired
by his fellows, is one of the earliest, as
well as keenest dispositions discovered
in the heart of man.” Comparable to hunger as a natural human trait, this psychogenetic drive serves as the foundation of
all society. Just as it is a principal function of government to regulate this pas-
Modem Age
223
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
sion, government relies upon it as a principal instrument in carrying out its other
functions.
Adams discards as fleeting and soon
neglected such distinctions as beauty
and elegance, mastery in music and the
arts, and even education. The important
ones are those related to birth and social
recognition. Comparing the differences
in the breeds of men t o those in horses, he
admits that all that philosophy can say is
“that there is ageneral presumption, that
a man has had some advantages of education, if he is of a family of note.” Noble
blood, whether hereditary or elective,
like wealth, stimulates esteem, and it
would be foolish to despise either one.
Honors and distinctions exist in the humblest levels of society and are as eagerly
pursued as in the highest. Titles, decorations, and differences in clothing serve
the same purpose today as they did in
Roman times. “When the love of glory
enkindles in the heart, and influences the
whole soul, then, and only then, may we
depend on a rapid progression of the
intellectual faculties.”
In the light of the recognition that
emulation next to self-preservation is “the
great spring of human actions,” Adams
affirms that the “great question will forever remain, whoshall work?”Theanswer
he finds in the agency of government
which will mediate between “therich and
the poor, the laborious and the idle, the
learned and the ignorant, distinctions as
old as the creation, and as extensive as
the globe.” Extending the classical concept of the great chain of being from the
realm of biology to that of human relations, Adams asserts his fundamental
doctrine that all men are subject by nature to equal laws of morality, and in
society have a right to equal laws for their
government, “yet no two men are perfectly equal in person, property, understanding, activity, and virtue.”
The moral aspect of this cornerstone
of conservatism manifests itself forcibly
in a literary genre Adams utilized in his
old age, the dialogue ofthe dead, a genre
originating in classical times and revived
in the eighteenth century. Directly inspired by news of Franklin’s death in 1790,
Adams recorded under the title “Dialogue
of the Dead, Charlemagne, Frederick,
Rousseau, Otis” a scene in the afterworld
in which the four political leaders engaged in c o n ~ e r s a t i o nAfter
. ~ ~ inquiring
whether Franklin has yet crossed the River
Styx, the group agrees that during his life
he had purveyed some pretty moralviews
from the head, but some very immoral
ones from the heart. Frederick describes
his philosophy as chiefly hypothetical
and conjectural and admits that he owed
his own renown to amaxim that Otis had
previously applied to Franklin, Populus
Vultdecipidecipistus. Headds that if greatness is to be measured by its effects, Otis
was one of the greatest statesmen that
ever lived; the town of Boston contributed more to civilization than imperial or
republican Rome; and Harvard College
more than all the scholars of the Sorbonne.
Charlemagne then admits that his own
grandeur was likewise d u e t o t h e
“detestible Maxim” imputed to Franklin.
Adams uses Charlemagne’s admission to
make explicit his targets in his earlier
Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law:
“Leogavemethetitleof Caesar and Augustus
and Magnus, and initiated that Superstition
Farce of Confirmation, which cheated all
Europe for so many hundred Years. I, in my
turn, transferred t o the Pope, the authority
which the Roman Senate and People had
anciently [...I of electingandconfirmingthe
Emperor. This infamous Bargain, as contemptible as the Artifices of two Lackeys,
established the temporal and Spiritual Monarchies of Europe for many hundreds of
Years.”
Frederick then gives more encomiums
t o Otis, who in turn compliments
Rousseau, who modestly affirms that he
did nothing but propagate the principles
of Locke and Voltaire. Frederick then
Summer 2002
224
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
--
praises these two for filling every volume
and almost every page of their works with
the themes of liberty and toleration. Otis
observes that Rousseau had failed to consider the significance of emotion in world
history. “The Passions of the human heart
are insatiable, an Interest unballanced; a
Passion uncontrolled in Society, must
produce disorder and tyranny. You have
nothing to do therefore to preserve equal
Laws but to provide a Check for every
Passion, a Reaction to silly Antics, a Contrast to everylnterest, which counteracts
the Laws.” Here Adams transfers the concept of checking from the political arena
to that of the moral and psychological,
prefiguring later notions of the moral
check proclaimed by Irving Babbitt and
others.
Otis also argues that there are even
greater evils than those admitted by
Charlemagne-that is, the denying o r
doubting the moral government of the
world, the existence of a future state, o r
the presence of an all-perfect Intelligence.
He ascribes more honor to the laws of
Palestine and Jerusalem than to those of
Boston and Cambridge, while affirmingas
“the sublime Principle of Right order and
happiness in the universe” that “Thou
shalt love the Supream with all thy heart
and thy Neighbour as thyself.”
Adams’s fervent dedication to principle is as cogently revealed in this jeu
d’esprit as in any part of his personal correspondence or published works. In both
thought and behavior throughout his
entire life, Adams balanced a spirit of
personal enterprise with a vigilant devotion tovirtue. Somewhat of an iconoclast,
however, he subjected his favorite philosophical, religious, and political systems
to rigorous analysis, preserving him from
intolerance on the one hand, and irrational zeal on the other. He buttressed every
one of his opinions by extensive reading
in both American and European letters,
both ancient and modern. In politics, he
combined revolutionary and modern
doctrines with rigid principles of order
and the containment of power. In the
application of his ideals and abilities to
political leadership, he was unexcelled
by any American of his era.
1. Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield
(Princeton, 1951), Vol. 2, 1127. 2. Works of John
Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston, 1851),
Vol. 10, 49. 3. Quoted from a letter to Benjamin
Rush, cited in Page Smith, John A d a m (New York,
1962), Vol. 2, 1104. 4. The Conservative Mind
(Chicago, 1963), 65,62.5. The Adams Papers: Diary
and Autobiography o f John Adams, ed. L. H .
Butterfield, et al. (Cambridge, Mass., 196l), Vol. 1,
23. 6. Ibid., Vol. 1, 35. 7. Ibid., Vol. 3, 305. 8. Ibid.,
446. 9. Ibid., Vol. 2, 446. 10. Works (Boston, 1850),
Vol. 4, 194. 11. Papers of John Adams, ed. Robert
J. Taylor, et al. (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), Vol. 4,
73-74. 12. Diary, Vol. 1, 23. 13. Adams Family
Correspondence, ed. L. H. Butterfield, et al. (Cambridge, Mass., 1963-1973), Vol. 1: 316-317. 14.
Family Correspondence, Vol. 2, 21. 15. Diary, Vol.
3, 238. 16. Ibid., 260. 17. Papers, Vol. 1, 112. 18.
Diary, Vol. 3, 331-333. 19. Papers, Vol. 4, 86. 20.
Works (1851), Vol. 4, 195. 21. This work is attributed to Paine by A. Owen Aldridge, in Thomas
Paine’s American Ideology (Newark, Del., 1984).
219-238. 22. Works, Vol. 4, 230. 23. The relations
between Adams and Mably are described by A. O.,.
Aldridge, in “John Adams Meets Mably,” in
Dalhousie French Studies, Vol. 52 (ZOOO), 88-99. 24.
A. 0. Aldridge, “John Adams Confronts Turgot,” in
Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, ed. Timothy
Erwin and Ourida Mostefai (Baltimore, 2001), 75.
25. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P.
Boyd, et al. (Princeton, 1955), Vol. 12, 291. Russell
Kirk inexplicably affirms that Adams wrote his
Defense at the instigation of Jefferson and that the
latter was at that time Adams’s enemy. In reality
Jefferson had no influence upon the work and
made no attempt to encourage Adams in the
project although he did try unsuccessfully to
arrange a French translation. 26. Works of John
Adams, ed. C. F. Adams (1851), Vol. 4,406.27.Ibid.,
Vol. 4, 296. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid., 623. 30. Ibid., 389. 31.
To the Citizens of Philadelphia on the Proposal for
Calling a Convention (Philadelphia, 1805). 23. 32.
Works, 4, 391. 33. Papers of Thomas Jefferson,Vol.
11 (1953), 221. 34. Works, ed. C. F. Adams, Vol. 6,
232.35. Permission to discuss this document from
the microfilm edition of Adams’s Papers has been
granted by the Massachusetts Historical Society.
:
.
Modern Age
225
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED