To Shining Sea - Chapter 21
Letter Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, October 24th 1800
The Unveiling of Canadian History, Volume 4.
To Shining Sea – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana, and the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804.
Part 2 – The Haitian Frontier
Chapter 21 - Letter Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, October 24th 1800
President Adams’s concerns seemed to be overly preoccupied with his re-election, and not with the concerns of the nation. The ‘federalists’, including Hamilton, were very concerned with the growing unpopularity of Adams, and of the probability of the election of Jefferson. But after Hamilton had done everything to prevent the election of Jefferson, he now found himself doing everything to secure the election of Jefferson!
Alexander Hamilton’s 1800 pamphlet -‘Letter Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams’
With the disbandment of the Provisional Army (and after the firings of his friends Pickering and McHenry), General Hamilton’s thoughts turned to the upcoming presidential elections.
Earlier, after the elections in New York, he had written to Theodore Sedgwick on May 4th, that:
“you have heard of the loss of our election in the City of New York. This renders it too probable that the Electors of President for this State will be Antifederal. If so, the policy which I was desirous of pursuing at the last election is now recommended by motives of additional urgency. To support Adams & Pinckney, equally, is the only thing that can possibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson.”
Note: Before the 1804 elections after the passage of the 12th amendment, each Elector cast two votes for president [the Electors did not vote for vice-president] and the person who received the most votes became President, and the person who received the second most votes became Vice-President. But because of the growth of party politics, Electors were urged to vote for their party’s two ‘candidates’, with the complications that may result if both ‘candidates’ received the same number of votes - as happened in the 1800 election!
Hamilton would write in his ‘Letter concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams’ that (during the first presidential election of 1789) :
“it was deemed an essential point of caution to take care, that accident or an intrigue of the opposers of the Government, should not raise Mr. Adams, instead of General Washington, to the first place … It was therefore agreed that a few votes should be diverted from Mr. Adams to other persons, so as to insure to General Washington a plurality. Great was my astonishment, and equally great my regret, when, afterwards, I learned from persons of unquestionable veracity, that Mr. Adams had complained of unfair treatment, in not having been permitted to take an equal chance with General Washington, by leaving the votes to an uninfluenced current … It is a fact, which ought not to be forgotten, that Mr. Adams, who had evinced discontent, because he had not been permitted to take an equal chance with General Washington, was enraged with all those who had thought that Mr. Pinckney ought to have had an equal chance with him.”
During the presidential election in 1796, General Hamilton had supported Thomas Pinckney as the Federalists’ candidate for vice-president and had urged all of the federalist electors to vote equally for Adams and Pinckney – as a way of stopping Jefferson from being elected vice-president! But, some of Adam’s supporters feared that if Adams and Pinckney received the same number of votes in the northern states, and if Pinckney received some additional votes in the southern states, then Pinckney would receive more votes than Adams. Adams’s supporters urged the Federalist electors in New England to vote for Adams but not for Pinckney. This led to Adams falsely attributing motives to General Hamilton of trying to get Pinckney elected president instead of him -
“Mr. Adams never could forgive the men who had been engaged in the plan.”
In the 1796 election, Adams received 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68 electoral votes, and Thomas Pinckney received 59 electoral votes – Pinckney received 8 votes from his home state of South Carolina where Adams received none, but received 18 votes less than Adams in the New England states.
“The plan of giving equal support to the two Federalist Candidates, was not pursued. The result was, that Mr. Adams was elected President by a majority of two votes, and Mr. Jefferson Vice-President … but for a sort of miracle, the departure would have made Mr. Jefferson President.”
Some ‘federalists’ (including Pickering) did want General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (the vice-presidential candidate in 1800, who was the brother of Thomas Pinckney – the vice-presidential candidate in 1796) to become president instead of Adams. Pickering would later say that he believed that Adams had made a deal with the ‘republicans’ who would ‘support his re-election to the presidency, provided he would make peace with France and remove Mr. McHenry and me from office’.
On May 7th, Pickering had written to William Smith that:
“The only chance of a federal President will be by General C. C. Pinckney. It is proposed to run him with Mr. Adams; and as South Carolina & part of North Carolina will vote for him, if the New England States also keep him on their votes, Mr. Pinckney will be elected. The Carolinians it is supposed will vote for Mr. Jefferson as well as Gen. Pinckney.”
Some federalists, like Pickering, were hoping that Pinckney would either become vice-president, or perhaps even become president – either way, defeating the re-election of the perceived unstable Adams.
“At the time we agreed on Mr. Pinckney as a candidate, which was at a meeting of the whole federal party in Congress, we had every assurance which could be given by the members from S. Carolina, that whatever might be the character of their electors, such was the popularity of General Pinckney, that all the votes of that state would be given to him – if federal, of course for Adams and Pinckney, if antifederal, for Pinckney and Jefferson.” [Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Rufus King, September 26th 1800]
On June 7th, General Hamilton set out on a three-week trip to New England to review, for the last time before it was disbanded, the brigade of the Provisional Army that had been stationed at Oxford, Massachusetts, but also to conduct a tour of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, to lobby the potential ‘federalist’ electors and to campaign for equal support for Pinckney.
On July 1st, after returning to New York, General Hamilton wrote of his trip to Oliver Wolcott, the Secretary of the Treasury, that:
“there is little doubt of Federal Electors in all. But there is considerable doubt of a perfect Union in favor of Pinckney … It is essential to inform the most discreet of this description of the facts which denote unfitness in Mr. Adams. I have promised confidential friends a correct statement …”
Wolcott replied on July 7th that:
“I will readily furnish the statement you desire from a firm conviction, that the affairs of this Government will not only be ruined, but that the disgrace will attach to the federal party, if they permit the reelection of Mr. Adams … You may rely upon my cooperation in every reasonable measure for effecting the election of Genl. Pinckney.”
On August 3rd, Hamilton again wrote to Wolcott that:
“I have serious thoughts of giving to the public my opinion respecting Mr. Adams with my reasons in a letter to a friend with my signature. This seems to me the most authentic way of conveying the information & best suited to the plain dealing of my character. There are however reasons against it and a very strong one is that some of the principal causes of my disapprobation proceed from yourself & other members of the Administration who would be understood to be the sources of my information whatever cover I might give the thing.”
Wolcott replied on September 3rd that:
“we know that the present humiliation of the federal party, is to be attributed to the violent & inconsistent conduct of the President. We also know that opinions have been frequently expressed by him, not only unjust to individuals, but highly imprudent & dangerous in relation to the public interests. It is as I conceive perfectly proper & a duty, to make known those defects & errors which disqualify Mr. Adams, for the great trust with which he is now invested.”
On September 26th, Hamilton sent to Wolcott the draft of his ‘letter to Adams’, for Wolcott’s opinion and any corrections that may be needed.
Then, on August 1st, Hamilton wrote directly to President Adams that:
“it has been repeatedly mentioned to me that you have, on different occasions, asserted the existence of a British Faction in this country, embracing a number of leading or influential characters of the Federal Party … and that you have sometimes named me, at other times plainly alluded to me, as one of this description of persons: And I have likewise been assured that of late some of your warm adherents, for electioneering purposes, have employed a corresponding language.
I must, Sir, take it for granted, that you cannot have made such assertions or insinuations without being willing to avow them, and to assign the reasons to a party who may conceive himself injured by them. I therefore trust that you will not deem it improper that I apply directly to yourself, to ascertain from you, in reference to your own declarations, whether the information, I have received, has been correct or not, and if correct what are the grounds upon which you have founded the suggestion.”
President Adams refused to answer the letter to Hamilton.
Hamilton had intended that his ‘letter’ would be printed in a limited number of copies, to be privately sent to influential ‘federalists’ – after potential electors had been chosen in New England and in the Carolina’s.
But, Aaron Burr was able to obtain a copy of the printed letter and (probably through the help of John Beckley) sent excerpts of it to be published in the Aurora newspaper!
When Hamilton learned of this, and not wanting portions of the letter to be selectively printed by the ‘republican’ press, agreed to have the complete letter published publicly as a 54-page pamphlet –
“to permit the letter to be thrown into circulation: deeming it better that it should appear in toto than by piece meal.”
The ‘Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States’ was published on October 24th – one week before the presidential election began!!!
Hamilton’s ‘letter’ began, although agreeing with Adams’s ‘independent partiality of conduct’ and his ‘patriotism and integrity’, that he was unfit to be president, that:
“some of the warm personal friends of Mr. Adams are taking unwearied pains to disparage the motives of those Federalists, who advocate the equal support of Gen. Pinckney, at the approaching election of President and Vice-President. They are exhibited under a variety of aspects equally derogatory. Sometimes they are versatile, factious spirits, who cannot be long satisfied with any chief, however meritorious: – Sometimes they are ambitious spirits, who can be contented with no man that will not submit to be governed by them: – Sometimes they are intriguing partisans of Great Britain, who, devoted to the advancement of her views, are incensed against Mr. Adams for the independent impartiality of his conduct ... not denying to Mr. Adams patriotism and integrity, and even talents of a certain kind, I should be deficient in candor, were I to conceal the conviction, that he does not possess the talents adapted to the Administration of Government, and that there are great and intrinsic defects in his character, which unfit him for the office of Chief Magistrate ...”
He wrote of the merits and the faults of President Adams during the conflict with France, that:
“it is in regard to our foreign relations, that the public measures of Mr. Adams first attract criticism ... (at first) he did all in his power to rouse the pride of the nation – to inspire it with a just sense of the injuries and outrages which it had experienced, and to dispose it to a firm and magnanimous resistance; and that his efforts contributed materially to the end … the latter conduct of the President forms a painful contrast to his commencement. Its effects have been directly the reverse. It has sunk the tone of the public mind – it has impaired the confidence of the friends of the Government in the Executive Chief – it has distracted public opinion – it has unnerved the public councils – it has sown the seeds of discord at home, and lowered the reputation of the Government abroad. The circumstances which preceded, aggravate the disagreeableness of the results …”
Hamilton then wrote of Adams’s irrational firing of his ministers, that:
“The circumstance, which next presents itself to examination, is the dismission of the two Secretaries, Pickering and McHenry … It happened at a peculiar juncture, immediately after the unfavorable turn of the election in New York, and had much the air of an explosion of combustible materials which had been long prepared, but which had been kept down by prudential calculations respecting the effect of an explosion upon the friends of those Ministers in the State of New York. Perhaps, when it was supposed that nothing could be lost in this quarter, and that something might be gained elsewhere by an atoning sacrifice of those Ministers, especially Mr. Pickering, who had been for some time particularly odious to the opposition party, it was determined to proceed to extremities. This, as a mere conjecture, is offered for as much as it may be worth. One fact, however, is understood to be admitted, namely, that neither of the dismissed Ministers had given any new or recent cause for their dismission …”
And Hamilton discussed Adams’s actions regarding rebellion, that:
“The last material occurrence in the administration of Mr. Adams, of which I shall take notice, is the pardon of Fries, and other principals in the late insurrection in Pennsylvania ...”
and that Adams used:
“the novel doctrine, disavowed by every page of our law books, that treason does not consist of resistance by force to a public law; unless it be an act relative to the militia, or other military force. And upon this, or upon some other ground, not easy to be comprehended, he of a sudden departed from all his former declarations, and against the unanimous advice of his Ministers, with the Attorney General, came to the resolution, which he executed, of pardoning all those who had received sentence of death …”
Note: On July 14th 1798, an act was passed to lay and collect a direct tax, to pay for the expenses of the military and naval defences required in the conflict with France. A rebellion against the tax began in March 1799 in southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12th, President Adams issued a proclamation ‘to call forth military force to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed’. 500 federal troops were assembled and sent, where they arrested Fries and 14 others for treason, and arrested 13 others for misdemeanor – ending the rebellion. On May 21st, President Adams issued a proclamation to ‘grant a full free and absolute pardon, to all and every person or persons concerned in the said insurrection’. The three men, who had already been found guilty of treason – Fries, Haney and Getman, would later receive a special pardon.
Hamilton ended the ‘letter’ that:
“if, as I have been assured from respectable authorities, Mr. Adams has repeatedly indulged himself in virulent and indecent abuse of me; if he has denominated me a man destitute of every moral principle; if he has stigmatised me as the leader of a British Faction; then certainly I have right to think that I have been most cruelly and wickedly traduced; then have I right to appeal to all those who have been spectators of my public actions; to all who are acquainted with my private character, in its various relations, whether such treatment of me, by Mr. Adams, is of a nature to weaken or to strengthen his claim to the approbation of wise and good men; then will I so far yield to the consciousness of what I am, as to declare, that in the cardinal points of public and private rectitude, above all, in pure and disinterested zeal for the interests and service of this country …
Yet with this opinion of Mr. Adams, I have finally resolved not to advise the withholding from him a single vote. The body of Federalists, for want of sufficient knowledge of facts, are not convinced of the expediency of relinquishing him. It is even apparent, that a large proportion still retain the attachment which was once a common sentiment. Those of them, therefore, who are dissatisfied, as far as my information goes, are, generally speaking, willing to forbear opposition, and to acquiesce in the equal support of Mr. Adams with Mr. Pinckney, whom they prefer …
Ought they not, by a co-operation in General Pinckney, to give a chance for what will be a safe issue, supposing that they are right in their preference, and the best issue, should they happen to be mistaken? Especially, since by doing this, they will increase the probability of excluding a third candidate, of whose unfitness all sincere federalists are convinced. If they do not pursue this course, they will certainly incur an immense responsibility to their friends and to the Government ...
To refrain from a decided opposition to Mr. Adams’s re-election has been reluctantly sanctioned by my judgment; which has been not a little perplexed between the unqualified conviction of his unfitness for the station contemplated, and a sense of the great importance of cultivating harmony among the supporters of the Government; on whose firm union hereafter will probably depend the preservation of order, tranquility, liberty, property, the security of every social and domestic blessing.”
Whatever the historians (and the hysterians) may have commented about Hamilton’s letter, the fact remains that in the presidential election, Hamilton’s policy of ‘equal support for Pinckney’ prevailed among the ‘federalists’ – Adams received 65 electoral votes and Pinckney received 64 electoral votes. One elector in Rhode Island would cast 1 vote for Adams and 1 vote for Jay – instead of Pinckney.
The presidential elections took place between October 31st and December 3rd, when the electors for each state were to be chosen. In a private letter received by Jefferson on December 12th, he was assured that one elector in South Carolina would cast a vote for George Clinton instead of Burr – ensuring that Jefferson would have one more vote than Burr. But soon it was reported that this did not happen, and that the election might result in a tie.
Note: Regarding South Carolina’s electors: perhaps, it was due to Aaron Burr’s son-in-law, Joseph Alston, who was one of the wealthiest planters and one of the leading ‘republicans’ in South Carolina!!!
In a letter to Hamilton on December 17th, Congressman Otis asked for his aid, writing that:
“there exists the strongest probability that the electoral votes are equally divided between Messrs. Jefferson and Burr … The question now is, in what mode shall the friends of the federal government take advantage of this casualty? Can any terms be obtained from Mr. Burr favorable to the true interest of the country and is he a man who will adhere to terms when stipulated? Is it advisable to attempt a negotiation with him and in what manner & through what channel shall it be conducted? We are inclined to believe that some advantage may be derived from it but few of us have a personal acquaintance with Mr. Burr. It is palpable that to elect him would be to cover the opposition with chagrin and to sow among them the seeds of a mortal division. But whether in any event he would act with the friends of the constitution, or endeavor to redeem himself with his old party by the violence of his measures and the overthrow of the constitution, is a doubt which you may assist us to resolve …”
On December 16th, Hamilton had written to Wolcott that:
“it is now, my dear Sir, ascertained that Jefferson or Burr will be President and it seems probable that they will come with equal votes to the House of Representatives. It is also circulated here that in this event the Federalists in Congress or some of them talk of preferring Burr. I trust New England at least will not so far lose its head as to fall into this snare. There is no doubt but that upon every virtuous and prudent calculation Jefferson is to be preferred. He is by far not so dangerous a man and he has pretensions to character. As to Burr there is nothing in his favor. His private character is not defended by his most partial friends. He is bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement … If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure to himself permanent power and with it, wealth. He is truly the Cataline of America …”
Hamilton would write similar letters, in support of electing Jefferson and not Burr, to Theodore Sedgwick on December 22nd; to Harrison Otis on December 23rd; to Gouverneur Morris on December 24th; to James Bayard on December 27th; to James Ross on December 28th; and to John Rutledge on January 4th.
Hamilton would again write to Wolcott that:
“if Jefferson is president, the whole responsibility of bad measures will rest with the Anti-federalists. If Burr is made so by the Federalists the whole responsibility will rest with them. The other party will say to the people. We intended him only for Vice President. Here he might have done very well or been at least harmless. But the Federalists to disappoint us and a majority of you took advantage of a momentary superiority to put him in the first place. He is therefore their president and they must answer for all the evils of his bad conduct. And the people will believe them ... Alas! when will men consult their reason rather than their passions? … Adieu to the Federal Troy if they once introduce this Grecian Horse into their citadel.”
On February 11th 1801, the President of the Senate, Vice-president Jefferson, opened the certificates of the electors of the several states and read the votes, and afterwards declared:
“that Thomas Jefferson of Virginia and Aaron Burr of New York, having the greatest number, and a majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, and, being equal, it remained for the House of Representatives to determine the choice.”
While the ‘federalists’ swept the vote in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware, the ‘republicans’ swept Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee, and the vote was split in Pennsylvania (federalists 7, republicans 8), in Maryland (federalists 5, republicans 5) and in North Carolina (federalists 4, republicans 8). But, the ‘federalist’ hope to win some votes in South Carolina was not realized, and the ‘republican’ sweep of New York proved to be the key to victory in the presidential election.
However, the ‘republican’ electors failed to do what the ‘federalist’ electors had done in Rhode Island, and Jefferson and Burr each received 73 electoral votes. According to the Constitution, any tie vote would therefore be determined by the present, sitting members of the House of Representatives – controlled by the ‘federalists’, and not the new, recently-elected members – controlled by the ‘republicans’!
During a caucus of the ‘federalists’, it was determined, that in order to stop Jefferson from becoming the president, that they would throw their votes to Burr!?!
The House of Representatives then returned to their chamber, and proceeded, according to the constitution (and by the rules resolved by the House on February 9th) to choose a president. On the first ballot taken, the votes of 8 states were given for Jefferson, the votes of 6 states for Burr, and the votes of 2 states were equally divided. But the votes of 9 states were necessary to constitute a choice of president, and it was agreed that another ballot would be taken in an hour.
The balloting was repeated until 12 noon on the following day, February 12th, with the 28th ballot being the same result, and the House was adjourned until 11 o’clock the next day. On the 13th, the 29th ballot was taken – with the same result; on the 14th, the 30th, 31st, 32nd and 33rd ballots were taken – with the same result; and on the 16th, the 34th ballot was taken – with the same result. On February 17th, the 35th ballot was taken – again with the same result!!!
But an hour later, on the 36th ballot, the ‘federalist’ members in the states of Delaware and South Carolina abstained, taking their votes away from Burr, and the ‘federalist’ members in the (tied) states of Vermont and Maryland abstained, giving their votes to Jefferson. Hamilton’s work in stopping Burr had finally succeeded!
On March 4th 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President of the United States in the new federal capital, in the District of Columbia.
A Note concerning the relationship of Thomas Jefferson and James Callender:
On June 13th 1798, the day before President Adams had signed into law the Sedition Act, James Callender left Philadelphia and moved to Richmond, Virginia. Being broke, Jefferson loaned him $50 to help him get back on his feet and, Callender soon was able to secure a job, writing for the Richmond Examiner, whose editor was Meriwether Jones - Jefferson’s close friend.
[Jefferson and Callender did exchange letters, but without signatures – to keep the correspondence secret.]
Callender began writing essays that attacked Adams and supported Jefferson becoming the next president. In January 1800, these essays were collected and published as a pamphlet, ‘The Prospect Before Us’, and Jefferson wrote to Callender that they ‘cannot fail to produce the best effect’.
On May 24th, Callender was indicted for publishing the pamphlet in violation of the Sedition Act, and on June 4th, he was found guilt and sentenced to a $200 fine and 9 months in jail. [The Sedition Act was set to expire on March 3rd 1801.]
Callender was released on March 3rd – the last day of John Adams’s presidency. Jefferson would pardon Callender on March 16, 1801. But, when Callender asked Jefferson to appoint him as the Postmaster for Richmond, Jefferson refused. Callender then switched horses and became the editor of the Richmond Recorder – a ‘federalist’ newspaper!
In September 1802, Callender would write in his paper about Jefferson that:
“it is well known that the man, whom it delighteth the people to honor, keeps, and for many years past has kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves. Her name is Sally …”
Thus began the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings!
After the death of Jefferson’s wife, Martha, in 1782, he was ‘inconsolable’. Since Jefferson’s wife and her slave, Sally Hemings, had the same father, it was said that their looks bore a very close resemblance. And here lies the supposition for Jefferson’s affection for Sally - she reminded him of his lost love, Martha.
At this time, in 1802, Sally Hemings had a 4 year-old son and a 1 year-old daughter, and would later have 2 more sons. Sally’s four surviving children were granted their freedom upon coming of age (as agreed to by Jefferson) and Sally was given her freedom by Jefferson’s daughter, after his death.
[next week - chapter 22 - The Ratification of the Convention with France, February 3rd 1801]
*************
For those who may wish to support my continuing work on ‘The Unveiling of Canadian History’, you may purchase my books, that are available as PDFs and Paperback (on Amazon) at the Canadian Patriot Review :
Volume 1 – The Approaching Conflict, 1753 – 1774.
Volume 2 – Forlorn Hope – Quebec and Nova Scotia, and the War for Independence, 1775 – 1785.
And hopefully,
Volume 3 – The Storming of Hell – the War for the Territory Northwest of Ohio, 1786 – 1796, and
Volume 4 – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana – the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804,
may also appear in print, in the near future, while I continue to work on :
Volume 5 – On the Trail of the Treasonous, 1804 - 1814.