Quincy, September 13, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
IT is some consolation to find in the paragraph of the charter, next following the court of admiralty, that nothing in it "shall in any manner enure, or be taken to abridge, bar, or hinder any of our loving subjects whatsoever, to use and exercise the trade of fishing upon the coasts of New England, but that they and every of them shall have full and free power and liberty to continue and use their said trade of fishing upon the said coast, in any of the seas thereunto adjoining, or any arms of the said seas, or salt water rivers, where they have been wont to fish; and to build and sett, upon the lands within our said province or colony, lying waste, and not then possessed by particular proprietors, such wharfs, stages, and work-houses, as shall be necessary for the salting, drying, keeping and packing of their fish, to be taken and gotten upon that coast; and to cut down and take such trees and other materials there growing or being upon any parts or places lying waste, and not then in possession of particular proprietors, as shall be needful for that purpose, and for all other necessary easments, helps and advantages, concerning the trade of fishing there, in such manner and form, as they have been heretofore at any time accustomed to do, without making any willful waste or spoil, any thing in these presents to the contrary notwithstanding."
Fellow citizens! Recollect that "This our province or colony" contained the whole of Nova Scotia as well as the "Province of Maine, Massachusetts bay and New Plymouth." Will you ever surrender one particle, one iota of this sacred charter right, and still more sacred right of nature, purchase, acquisition, possession, usage, habit and conquest? Let the thunder of British cannon say what it will, I know you will not. I know you cannot. And if you could be base enough to surrender it, which I know you cannot and never will be, your sons will reclaim it, and redemand it, at the price of whatever blood or treasure it may cost, and will obtain it, secure it, and command it, forever. This pretended grant is but an acknowledgment of your antecedent right by nature, and by English liberty. You have no power or authority to alienate it. It was granted, or rather acknowledged to your successors and posterity as well as to you, and any cessions you could make would be null and void in the sight of God and all reasonable men.
Mr. Otis descanted largely on these charters. His observations carried irresistible conviction to the minds and hearts of many others as well as to mine, that every one of those statutes from the navigation act, to the last act of trade, was a violation of all the charters and compacts between the two countries, was a fundamental invasion of our essential rights, and was consequently null and void; that the legislatures of the colonies, and especially of Massachusetts, had the sole and exclusive authority of legislation and especially of taxation in America.
The indecision and inconsistency which appear in some of Mr. Otis's subsequent writings is greatly to be regretted and lamented. They resemble those of colonel Bland, as represented by Mr. Wirt. I wish I had Col. Bland's pamphlet, that I might compare it with some of Mr. Otis's.
I have too many daily proofs of the infirmity of my memory to pretend to recollect Mr. Otis's reasoning in detail. If, indeed, I had a general recollection of any of his positions, I could not express them in that close, concise, nervous and energetic language, which was peculiar to him, and which I never possessed.
I must leave you, sir, to make your own observations and reflections upon these charters. But you may indulge me in throwing out a few hints, rather as queries or topicks of speculation, than as positive opinions. And here, though I see a wide field, I must make it narrow.
1. Mr. Bollan was a kind of learned man, and of indefatigable research, and a faithful friend to America; though he lost all his influence when his father-in-law governor and general Shirley went out of circulation. This Mr. Bollan, printed a book very early on the "rights of the colonies." I scarcely ever knew a book so deeply despised. The English reviews would not allow it to be the production of a rational creature. In America itself it was held in no esteem. Otis himself, expressed in the house of representatives, in a public speech, his contempt of it in these words: "Mr. Bollan's book is the strangest thing I ever read; under the title of 'Rights of Colonies,' he has employed one third of his work to prove that the world is round; and another, that it turns round; and the last, that the pope was a devil for pretending to give it to whom he pleased."
All this I regretted. I wished that Bollan had not only been permitted, but encouraged to proceed. There was no doubt he would have produced much in illustration of the ecclesiastical and political superstition and despotism of the ages when colonization commenced and proceeded. But Bollan was discouraged and ceased from his labours.
What is the idea, Mr. Tudor, of British allegiance? And of European allegiance? Can you, or rather will you analize it? At present, I have demands upon me, which compel me to close abruptly, with the usual regard of your friend,
JOHN ADAMS.
Quincy, September 18, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
THE English doctrine of allegiance is so mysterious, fabulous and enigmatical, that it is difficult to decompose the elements of which it is compounded. The priests, under the Hebrew economy, especially the sovereign pontiffs, were anointed with consecrated oil, which was poured upon their heads in such profusion, that it ran down their beards, and they were thence called "the Lord's anointed." When kings were permitted to be introduced, they were anointed in the same manner by the sovereign pontiff; and they too were called "the Lord's anointed." When the pontiffs of Rome assumed the customs, pomps and ceremonies of the Jewish priesthood, they assumed the power of consecrating things, by the same ceremony of "holy oil." The pope, who, as vicar of God, possessed the whole globe of earth in supreme dominion and absolute property, possessed also the power of sending the holy ghost wherever he pleased. To France it pleased his holiness to send him in a phial of oil; to Rheims in the beak of a dove. I have not heard, that my friend, Louis 18th. has been consecrated at Rheims by the pouring on of this holy oil; but his worthy elder brother, Louis 16th. was so consecrated at a vast expense of treasure and ridicule. How the holy bottle was conveyed to England, is worth inquiry. But there it is, and is used at every coronation; and is demurely, if not devoutly shewn to every traveller who visits the tower. These ideas were once as firmly established in England, as they were in Rome; and no small quantity of the relicks of them remain to this day. Hence the doctrines of the divine right of kings, and the duties in subjects of unlimited submission, passive obedience and non-resistance, on pain (Oh, how can I write it) of eternal damnation. These doctrines have been openly and boldly asserted and defended, since my memory, in the town of Boston, and in the town of Quincy, by persons of no small consideration in the world, whom I could name, but I will not, because their posterity are much softened from this severity.
This indelible character of sovereignty in kings, and obedience in subjects, still remains. The rights and duties are inherent, unalienable, indefeasible, indestructible and immortal. Hence the right of a lieutenant or midshipman of a British man of war, to search all American ships, impress every seaman his judgeship shall decree by law, and in fact to be a subject of his king, and compel him to fight, though it may be against his father, brother or son. My countrymen! will you submit to these miserable remnants of priestcraft and despotism?
There is no principle of law or government, that has been more deliberately or more solemnly adjudged in Great Britain, than that allegiance is not due to the king in his official capacity or political capacity, but merely to his personal capacity. Allegiance to parliament is no where found in English, Scottish or British laws. What, then, had our ancestors to do with parliament? Nothing more than with the Jewish Sanhedrim, or Napoleon's literary and scientific Institute at Grand Cairo. They owed no allegiance to parliament as a whole, or in part. None to the house of lords, as a branch of the legislature, nor to any individual peer or number of individuals. None to the house of commons, as another branch, nor to any individual commoner or group of commoners. They owed no allegiance to the nation, any more than the nation owed to them; and they had as good and clear a right to make laws for England, as the people of England had to make laws for them.
What right, then, had king James 1st. to the sovereignty, dominion, or property of North America? No more than king George 3d. has to the Georgium Sidus, because Mr. Herschell discovered that planet in his reign. His only colour, pretension or pretext is this. The pope, as head of the church, was sovereign of the world. Henry 8th. deposed him, became head of the church in England; and consequently became sovereign master and proprietor of as much of the globe as he could grasp. A group of his nobles hungered for immense landed estates in America, and obtained from his quasi holiness a large tract. But it was useless and unprofitable to them. They must have planters and settlers. The sincere and conscientious protestants had been driven from England into Holland, Germany, Switzerland, &c. by the terrors of stocks, pillories, croppings, scourges, imprisonments, roastings and burnings, under Henry 8th. Elizabeth, Mary, James 1st. and Charles 1st. The noblemen and gentlemen of the council of Plymouth wanted settlers for their lands in America, and set on foot a negotiation with the persecuted fugitive religionists abroad, promised them liberty of conscience, exemption from all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical, civil and political, except allegiance to the king, and the tribute, moderate surely, of one fifth of gold and silver ore. This charter was procured by the council at Plymouth, and displayed off as a lure to the persecuted, fugitive Englishmen abroad; and they were completely taken into the snare, as Charles 2d. convinced them in the first year of his actual, and the twelfth of his imaginary reign. Sir Josiah Child, enemy as he was, has stated, in the paragraphs quoted from him in a former letter fairly and candidly the substance of these facts.
Our ancestors had been so long abroad, that they had acquired comfortable establishments, especially in Holland, that singular region of toleration, that glorious asylum for persecuted Hugunots and Puritans; that country where priests have been enternally worrying one another; and alternately teazing the government to persecute their antagonists, but where enlightened statesmen have constantly and intrepidly resisted their wild fanaticism.
The first charter, the charter of James 1st. is more like a treaty between independent sovereigns, than like a charter of grant of privileges from a sovereign to his subjects. Our ancestors were tempted by the prospect and promise of a government of their own, independent in religion, government, commerce, manufactures, and every thing else, excepting one or two articles of trifling importance.
Independence of English church and state, was the fundamental principle of the first colonization, has been its general principle for two hundred years, and now I hope is past dispute.
Who then was the author, inventor, discoverer of independence? The only true answer must be the first emigrants; and the proof of it is the charter of James 1st. When we say, that Otis, Adams, Mayhew, Henry, Lee, Jefferson, &c. were authors of independence, we ought to say they were only awakeners and revivers of the original fundamental principle of colonization.
I hope soon to relieve you from the trouble of this tedious correspondence with your humble servant,
JOHN ADAMS.
Quincy, September 23, 1818.
DEAR SIR,
IF, in our search of principles, we have not been able to investigate any moral, philosophical or rational foundation for any claim of dominion or property in America, in the English nation, their parliament or even of their king; if the whole appears a mere usurpation of fiction, fancy and superstition; what was the right to dominion or property in the native Indians?
Shall we say, that a few handfulls of scattering tribes of savages have a right to dominion and property over a quarter of the globe, capable of nourishing hundreds of happy human beings? Why had not Europeans a right to come and hunt and fish with them?
The Indians had a right to life, liberty and property in common with all men; but what right to dominion or property beyond these? Every Indian had a right to his wigwam, his armour, his utensils; when he had burned the woods about him, and planted his corn and beans, his squashes and pompions, all these were his undoubted right: but will you infer from this, that he had right of exclusive dominion and property, over immense regions of uncultivated wilderness, that he never saw, that he might have the exclusive privilege of hunting and fishing in them, which he himself never expected or hoped to enjoy?
These reflections appear to have occurred to our ancestors; and their general conduct was regulated by them. They do not seem to have had any confidence in their charter, as conveying any right, except against the king, who signed it. They considered the right to be in the native Indians. And in truth all the right there was in the case, lay there. They accordingly respected the Indian wigwams and poor plantations; their clambanks and musclebanks and oysterbanks, and all their property.
Property in land, antecedent to civil society, or the social compact, seems to have been confined to actual possession and power of commanding it. It is the creature of convention; of social laws and artificial order. Our ancestors, however, did not amuse themselves, nor puzzle themselves with these refinements. They considered the Indians as having rights; and they entered into negotiations with them, purchased and paid for their rights and claims, whatever they were, and procured deeds, grants, and quit claims of all their lands, leaving them their habitations, arms, utensils, fishings, huntings and plantations. There is scarcely a litigation at law concerning a title to land, that may not be traced to an Indian deed. I have in my possession, somewhere, a parchment copy of a deed of Massasoit of the township of Braintree, incorporated by the legislature in one thousand six hundred and thirty nine. And this was the general practice through the country, and has been to this day through the continent. In short, I see not how the Indians could have been treated with more equity or humanity, than they have been in general in North America. The histories of Indian wars have not been sufficiently regarded.
When Mr. Hutchinson's history of Massachusetts bay first appeared, one of the most common criticisms upon it, was the slight, cold and unfeeling manner in which he passed over the Indian wars. I have heard gentlemen the best informed in the history of the country, say, "he had no sympathy for the sufferings of his ancestors," "otherwise he could not have winked out of sight, one of the most important, most affecting, afflicting and distressing branches of the history of his country."
There is somewhere in existence, as I hope and believe, a manuscript history of Indian wars, written by the Rev. Samuel Niles of Braintree. Almost sixty years ago, I was an humble acquaintance of this venerable clergyman, then, as I believe more than four score years of age. He asked me many questions, and informed me, in his own house, that he was endeavouring to recollect and commit to writing an history of Indian wars, in his own time, and before it, as far as he could collect information. This history he completed and prepared for the press: but no printer would undertake it, or venture to propose a subscription for its publication. Since my return from Europe, I enquired of his oldest son, the Hon. Samuel Niles of Braintree, on a visit he made me at my own house, what was become of that manuscript? He laughed, and said it was still safe in the till of a certain trunk; but no encouragement had ever appeared for its publication. Ye liberal christians! Laugh not at me, nor frown upon me, for thus reviving the memory of your once formidable enemy. I was then no more of a disciple of his theological science than ye are now. But I then revered and still revere the honest, virtuous and pious man. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. And his memorial of facts might be of great value to this country.
What infinite pains have been taken and expenses incurred in treaties, presents, stipulated sums of money, instruments of agriculture, education? What dangerous and unwearied labours to convert the poor ignorant savages to christianity? And alas! with how little success? The Indians are as bigotted to their religion as the Mahometans are to their Koran, the Hindoos to their Shaster, the Chinese to Confucius, the Romans to their Saints and Angels, or the Jews to Moses and the Prophets. It is a principle of religion, at bottom, which inspires the Indians with such an invincible aversion both to civilization and Christianity. The same principle has excited their perpetual hostilities against the colonists and the independent Americans.
If the English nation, their parliaments and all their kings have appeared to be totally ignorant of all these things, or at least to have vouchsafed no consideration upon them; if we, good patriotic Americans have forgotten them, Mr. Otis had not. He enlarged on the merit of our ancestors in undertaking so perilous, arduous, and almost desperate an enterprize, in disforresting bare creation; in conciliating and necessarily contending with Indian natives; in purchasing rather than conquering a quarter of the globe at their own expense, at the sweat of their own brows; at the hazard and sacrifice of their own lives; without the smallest aid, assistance or comfort from the government of England, or from England itself as a nation. On the contrary, constant jealousy, envy, intrigue against their charter, their religion and all their privileges. Laud, the pious tyrant dreaded them, as he foresaw they would overthrow his religion.
Mr. Otis reproached the nation, parliaments and kings with injustice, ungenerosity, ingratitude, cruelty and perfidy in all their conduct towards this country, in a style of oratory that I never heard equalled in this or any other country.
JOHN ADAMS.
[1] One of the Regiments then in Boston.—Note by the Publishers.
[2] Salus populi, was the motto of one of his essays.
[3] Waller, on the death of Cromwell.
[4] Jemmibullero—This was a silly and abusive song, written by a Mr. S. Waterhouse, a stanch tory; but with so little wit, that it only exposed the writer to contempt.