DOCSLIB.ORG

American Historians and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution| an Historiographical Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Historians and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution| an Historiographical Study University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1974 American historians and the diplomacy of the American Revolution| An historiographical study Laurie Joy Wood The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Wood, Laurie Joy, "American historians and the diplomacy of the American Revolution| An historiographical study" (1974). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1510. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1510 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN HISTORIANS AND THE DIPLOMACY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: AN HISTORIOGRAPHICAL STUDY By Laurie Joy Wood B.A., Principia College, 1972 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1974 Approved by: Chairman, Board of Examiners Djg^an"^ Gi>^duate School /y/ H7X. Date UMI Number; EP36207 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT UMI EP36207 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 II SILAS DEANE IN PARIS 12 III WILLIAM AND ARTHUR LEE AS DIPLOMATS .... 48 IV BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S CAREER IN EUROPE .... 73 V THE DIPLOMACY OF JOHN ADAMS IN EUROPE ... 113 VI THE MISSIONS OF JOHN JAY 143 VII FRANCIS DANA IN RUSSIA 173 VIII CONCLUSION . 18 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The struggle against Great Britain by the original thirteen colonies in North America arrested the dominance of the world by the British Empire and simultaneously in­ troduced the new United States into world politics. The Revolution produced an immediate need for competent men to negotiate with European countries in order to secure the various forms of aid and the alliances that were essential for the survival of this venture in republicanism. Hence the study of American foreign policy essentially begins / with revolutionary diplomacy and an awareness of its suc­ cess and^airixires^. The men and events involved in this initial era of American diplomacy have been the subject of niunerous mono­ graphs, biographies and articles. This thesis will confine itself to a study of American writings, with the exception of Bernard Fay's well'^accepted volume on Franklin. (Fay's books, which Include Louis XVI of The End of the World and The Revolutionary Spirit in France and America: A Study of Moral and Intellectual Relations between France and America at the End of the 18th Century, are well received on both sides of the Atlantic for their content and scholarship.) 1 2 This thesis will concentrate on historical evaluations of the American diplomats and their political and private activities in Europe» It will point out the prevailing scholarly opinions on these subjects, and then discuss the authors who present new approaches. The representatives of the United States were plunged into the intricacies of European politics. Certain problems almost invariably confronted these first diplomats from the United States, Their instructions from Congress usually proved unrealistic during the actual negotiations with Eu­ ropean foreign ministers. The men dispatched from the United States discovered the difficulty in following the congres­ sional instructions while trying to ingratiate themselves and their country with a particular European nation. Then, among the original Paris commission, there were serious dis­ agreements and, even with John Adams as a replacement for Silas Deane, the quarrels continued. The contradictions between official and personal goals often contributed towards the confusion and disagreements among the Americans and Eu­ ropeans. Defining the goals of the United States if inde­ pendence were achieved often presented problems, especially as the discussions of the terms of a peace treaty progressed. Basically, historians who wrote in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are quite enamored of the ef­ forts of the American diplomats to secure recognition of Amer­ ican independence, while more recent historians recognize the 3 conflicts of allegiance^ and priorities experienced by some of the American envoys. Great Britain was determined to retain control of the colonies, both to enhance her economic structure and to sustain her strong position on the Conti­ nent. In addition, France and Spain were forced to make adjustments in receiving representatives from a rebellious United States, because the American envoys insisted that European governments recognize the independence of the United States before negotiations for alliances or treaties could begin. This required great flexibility on the part of the European statesmen, since at least several realized that an independent United States could possibly present a geograph­ ical and political threat to any kind of power balance Europe could try to maintain. The American commissioners had to adjust to the instinct of self-preservation that per­ vaded the courts of Europe and Great Britain. Four nineteenth-century historians have written or edited books about Arthur Lee, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams which emphasize their invaluable roles in American diplomacy. The two-volume work on Franklin by Edward Hale and Edward Hale, Jr., is comprised of Franklin's writings, and the editorial comments praise Franklin's contributions to the revolutionary effort. As controversial as Arthur Lee's diplomatic and political career was, his grand- nephew, Richard Henry Lee, endeavors to characterize him as the epitome of wisdom in his decisions and a martyr for having withstood personal attacks from Deane and Franklin. 4 For authors who study Arthur Lee, this biography is the only primary text available. Because of the bias in these two volumes, subsequent authors must attempt to substantiate or discredit the opinions of this first writer. The account of John Adams's life by John T. Morse is another nineteenth- century biographical study which praises the abilities of Adams and rarely alludes to any of the problems which re­ sulted from his recalcitrance and pride. In the nineteenth century, Francis Wharton compiled six volumes of the diplomatic correspondence of the Amer­ ican Revolution which provide material for a study of the men of the Revolution and their diplomacy, their attitudes and activities. These volumes do not contain editorial re­ marks attempting to shape the reader*s viewpoint, however. The transition made by twentieth-century historians in writing about the diplomacy of the American Revolution points towards more objective analyses of the men and the situations they encountered. Although J. C. Hildt is writ­ ing about a time period that extends beyond the Revolution, he does attempt to present a realistic view of the problems Francis Dana encountered in Russia. In contrast, George Clark seems to belong in the nineteenth-century tradition as he praises all the efforts that Silas Deane made towards securing the independence of the United States and condemns those men who criticized Deane's activities in Europe. His flagrant disregard for the canons of historical research and writing is exemplified by the absence of docu­ 5 mentation and the obvious bias in favor of Deane. E. S. Corwin's book on the alliance with France critically eval­ uates American policy in France, as he avoids a laudatory interpretation of the negotiations surrounding the Franco- American alliance. W. P. Cresson and Frank Monaghan, two biographers of early American political leaders, have written useful accounts of the efforts of Francis Dana and John Jay in American diplomacy. Cresson carefully examines Dana's career in Russia and attributes the failure of his mission to the difficulty of fulfilling the congressional instructions and coping with the unexpected turmoil in Catherine's court. Monaghan emphasizes the adverse circum­ stances that John Jay faced in Spain and then extols his achievements on the peace commission in Paris. Moreover, both these accounts are useful not only for the information they provide about the lives and activities of these men in the European courts but also for the material concerning the machinations of European diplomacy. Thomas Perkins Abernethy has written two articles discussing the quarrels that de­ veloped among the original representatives to Paris, Frank­ lin, Lee and Deane. In contrast to the eulogistic approach of the nineteenth'Century authors and the rather one-sided treatments by Cresson and Monaghan, Abernethy demonstrates that there were legitimate reasons for Lee to doubt the propriety of the activities of Deane and Franklin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • He Meeting of Washington and Rochambeau, May 21-22, 1781
    Mech-Conference at Wethersfield:Layout 1 5/16/09 11:14 AM Page 1 THE WETHERSFIELD CONFERENCE he Meeting of Washington and Rochambeau, May 21-22, 1781 T In early July 1780, French General Comte Donatien de Rochambeau arrived at the wharves of Newport, Rhode Island with seven ships of the on the Frenc h–with his size, dignity, graciousness and heroic demeanor. However, the French General was disappointed that the Commander-in-Chief line, four frigates and thirt y- odd transports with nearly 5,500 French regulars. He was to place himself and his men under the orders of the American spoke only in generalities and did not invite the French officers to ride over to the Hudson to have a look at the American Arm y–which was probably Commander -in-Chief George Washington and serve in a subordinate capacity. This immense French effort to aide the American cause was the result intentional on Washington’s part for fear the bedraggled Continentals and militia might so shock the French professionals that they would return to France. of the alliance that American diplomats Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane negotiated and signed in Paris in February 1778. It wasn’t until May 8, 1781 – after a long winter of delay, doubt and uncertaint y–that the comte de Rochambeau received important dispatches from The appearance of the French at Newport marked a highly significant event that would change the course of the American Revolution. But as weeks the French ministers of war and the marine informing him that Admiral de Grasse’s fleet of 26 ships of the line, 8 frigates and 150 transports had been slipped by, the French high command became increasingly impatient that no role had been assigned for its troops.
    [Show full text]
  • John the Painter
    THE Pennsylvania Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY VOLUME LXIII JANUARY, 1939 NUMBER ONE John the Painter HIS is the tale of an aberrated Scotsman who stepped momen- tarily into the spotlight of history during the American Revo- Tlution, and, for a brief, fantastic space, sent shivers rippling along the spines of Lord North's cabinet, and spread consternation throughout the length and breadth of merry England. He was born plain James Aitken, an unprepossessing infant in the brood of an indigent Edinburgh blacksmith. Dangling from a gibbet in Ports- mouth town, he departed this life, in 1777, famous or infamous, as John the Painter. Twice James Aitken's crimes flared red on the British horizon—an incendiary whose distorted mind interpreted the torch of liberty as literal rather than allegoric -y who set himself, single-handed, to destroy the might of the king's navy. Boasting him- self an agent of the American Congress, this insignificant little Scottish zealot, ere his destructive path ended, had burned to the ground his majesty's rope house in the Portsmouth navy yard, and had started two alarming, if not serious, fires in busy Bristol. Harken, then, to the tale of James Aitken, alias James Hill, other- wise James Hinde, commonly called, as the old court record set forth, John the Painter. Silas Deane's French servant probably eyed with repugnance the shabby little man, who, for the third time, was insisting upon an 2 WILLIAM BELL CLARK January audience with his employer. Twice before the devoted servant, who regarded any Englishman as inimical to his patron's welfare, had dismissed him summarily.
    [Show full text]
  • Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named 'American Revolution Museum at Yorktown'
    DISPATCH A Newsletter of the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation • Spring 2012 Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named ‘American Revolution Museum at Yorktown’ Along with a physical transforma- bonds, is estimated at $46 tion of the Yorktown Victory Center will million. Private donations come a new name – “American Revolu- to the Jamestown-Yorktown tion Museum at Yorktown” – adopted Foundation, Inc., will sup- May 10 by the Jamestown-Yorktown port elements of gallery Foundation Board of Trustees and and outdoor exhibits and endorsed by the Jamestown-Yorktown educational resources. Foundation, Inc., Board of Directors. “The new name high- Recommended by a board naming lights the core offering of study task force, the new name will the museum, American be implemented upon completion of Revolution history,” said the museum replacement, and in the Frank B. Atkinson, who meantime the Yorktown Victory Center chaired the naming study will continue in operation as a museum task force comprised of 11 The distinctive two-story main entrance of the American of the American Revolution. members of the Jamestown- Revolution Museum at Yorktown will serve as a focal point Construction is expected to start Yorktown Foundation for arriving visitors. in the second half of 2012 on the proj- and Jamestown-Yorktown name were identified, and research ect, which includes an 80,000-square- Foundation, Inc., boards, “and the in- was undertaken on names currently in foot structure that will encompass ex- clusion of the word ‘Yorktown’ provides use. Selected names were tested with panded exhibition galleries, classrooms a geographical anchor. We arrived Yorktown Victory Center visitors and and support functions, and reorganiza- at this choice through a methodical reviewed by a trademark attorney and tion of the 22-acre site.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • Who Was George Washington?
    Book Notes: Reading in the Time of Coronavirus By Jefferson Scholar-in-Residence Dr. Andrew Roth Who was George Washington? ** What could be controversial about George Washington? Well, you might be surprised. The recently issued 1776 Project Report [1] describes him as a peerless hero of American freedom while the San Francisco Board of Education just erased his name from school buildings because he was a slave owner and had, shall we say, a troubled relationship with native Americans. [2] Which view is true? The 1776 Project’s view, which The Heritage Foundation called “a celebration of America,” [3] or the San Francisco Board of Education’s? [4] This is only the most recent skirmish in “the history wars,” which, whether from the political right’s attempt to whitewash American history as an ever more glorious ascent or the “woke” left’s attempt to reveal every blemish, every wrong ever done in America’s name, are a political struggle for control of America’s past in order to control its future. Both competing politically correct “isms” fail to see the American story’s rich weave of human aspiration as imperfect people seek to create a more perfect union. To say they never stumble, to say they never fall short of their ideals is one sort of lie; to say they are mere hypocrites who frequently betray the very ideals they preach is another sort of lie. In reality, Americans are both – they are idealists who seek to bring forth upon this continent, in Lincoln’s phrase, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” while on many occasions tripping over themselves and falling short.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pacific Guano Islands: the Stirring of American Empire in the Pacific Ocean
    THE PACIFIC GUANO ISLANDS: THE STIRRING OF AMERICAN EMPIRE IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN Dan O’Donnell Stafford Heights, Queensland, Australia The Pacific guano trade, a “curious episode” among United States over- seas ventures in the nineteenth century,1 saw exclusive American rights proclaimed over three scores of scattered Pacific islands, with the claims legitimized by a formal act of Congress. The United States Guano Act of 18 August 1856 guaranteed to enterprising American guano traders the full weight and authority of the United States government, while every other power was denied access to the deposits of rich fertilizer.2 While the act specifically declared that the United States was not obliged to “retain possession of the islands” once they were stripped of guano, some with strategic and commercial potential apart from the riches of centuries of bird droppings have been retained to this day. Of critical importance in the Guano Act, from the viewpoint of exclusive or sovereign rights, was the clause empowering the president to “employ the land and naval forces of the United States” to protect American rights. Another clause declared that the “introduction of guano from such islands, rocks or keys shall be regulated as in the coastal trade between different parts of the United States, and the same laws shall govern the vessels concerned therein.” The real significance of this clause lay in the monopoly afforded American vessels in the carry- ing trade. “Foreign vessels must, of course, be excluded and the privi- lege confined to the duly documented vessels of the United States,” the act stated.
    [Show full text]
  • American Revolution End Notes
    American Revolution End Notes 1 This article was written by Frank J Rafalko, Chief 12 Letter from George Washington to Governor Jonathan Community Training Branch, National Trumball, November 15, 1775 in which Washington Counterintelligence Center inserted the resolve of Congress he received from John Hancock regarding Church 2 Thomas Hutchinson came from a prominent New England family In 1737, despite his familys 13 This article was written by Frank J Rafalko, Chief, admonishment to him about going into politics, he was Community Training Branch, National elected to the Massachusetts House of Representative Counterintelligence Center He later served as Chief Justice of the colony and then royal governor 14 Col Jacobus Swartwout (d1826), commander of the 3 Francis Bernard was the nephew of Lord Barrington, 2d Dutchess County Regiment of Minute Men the secretary of state for war in London Barrington arranged for Bernard to be appointed as royal governor 15 Johnathan Fowler of New Jersey, but after two years Bernard move to Massachusetts to become royal governor there He was 16 James Kip recalled to London in 1769 17 This article was written by Dan Lovelace, National 4 Dr Benjamin Church Counterintelligence Center 5 AJ Langguth, Patriots The Men Who Started the 18 Carl Van Dorens description of Benedict Arnold in his American Revolution, Simon and Schuster, New York, Secret History of the American Revolution 1988, p 311 19 This article is copyrighted by Eric Evans Rafalko and 6 Edmund R Thompson, ed, Secret New England Spies used with his
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 May Christopher Rivera.Pdf (1.964Mb)
    School of Graduate Studies Colorado State University–Pueblo 2200 Bonforte Boulevard Pueblo, Colorado 81001 (719) 549–2100 “INTO DUST AND OBSCURITY”: SILAS DEANE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE 1778 TREATY OF ALLIANCE by Christopher Michael-Anthony Rivera _____________________ A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY–PUEBLO Pueblo, Colorado, USA MAY 2015 Master’s Thesis Committee: Advisor: Dr. Matthew L. Harris Dr. Paul Conrad Dr. Brigid Vance STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted and approved for the partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at Colorado State University–Pueblo. It is deposited in the University Library and available to borrowers of the library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowed without special permission, provided that, accurate acknowledgment of their source is indicated. Requests for permission to use extended quotations, or to reproduce the manuscript in whole or in part, may be granted by the History Graduate Program or the Graduate Studies Director in History in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. Signed: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ APPROVAL BY THESIS ADVISOR THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE SHOWN BELOW: ________________________________ ____________ Dr. Matthew Harris Date Committee Chair Professor of History ________________________________ ____________ Graduate Studies Director in History Date Dr. Matthew Harris “INTO DUST AND OBSCURITY”: SILAS DEANE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE 1778 TREATY OF ALLIANCE by Christopher Michael-Anthony Rivera Silas Deane’s role during the American Revolution has been examined by numerous academics, including George Clark, Jonathan Dull, Julian Boyd, Richard Morris, David Jayne Hill, and Walter Isaacson.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson and Franklin
    Jefferson and Franklin ITH the exception of Washington and Lincoln, no two men in American history have had more books written about W them or have been more widely discussed than Jefferson and Franklin. This is particularly true of Jefferson, who seems to have succeeded in having not only bitter critics but also admiring friends. In any event, anything that can be contributed to the under- standing of their lives is important; if, however, something is dis- covered that affects them both, it has a twofold significance. It is for this reason that I wish to direct attention to a paragraph in Jefferson's "Anas." As may not be generally understood, the "Anas" were simply notes written by Jefferson contemporaneously with the events de- scribed and revised eighteen years later. For this unfortunate name, the simpler title "Jeffersoniana" might well have been substituted. Curiously enough there is nothing in Jefferson's life which has been more severely criticized than these "Anas." Morse, a great admirer of Jefferson, takes occasion to say: "Most unfortunately for his own good fame, Jefferson allowed himself to be drawn by this feud into the preparation of the famous 'Anas/ His friends have hardly dared to undertake a defense of those terrible records."1 James Truslow Adams, discussing the same subject, remarks that the "Anas" are "unreliable as historical evidence."2 Another biographer, Curtis, states that these notes "will always be a cloud upon his integrity of purpose; and, as is always the case, his spitefulness toward them injured him more than it injured Hamilton or Washington."3 I am not at all in accord with these conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stamp Act Crisis (1765)
    Click Print on your browser to print the article. Close this window to return to the ANB Online. Adams, John (19 Oct. 1735-4 July 1826), second president of the United States, diplomat, and political theorist, was born in Braintree (now Quincy), Massachusetts, the son of John Adams (1691-1760), a shoemaker, selectman, and deacon, and Susanna Boylston. He claimed as a young man to have indulged in "a constant dissipation among amusements," such as swimming, fishing, and especially shooting, and wished to be a farmer. However, his father insisted that he follow in the footsteps of his uncle Joseph Adams, attend Harvard College, and become a clergyman. John consented, applied himself to his studies, and developed a passion for learning but refused to become a minister. He felt little love for "frigid John Calvin" and the rigid moral standards expected of New England Congregationalist ministers. John Adams. After a painting by Gilbert Stuart. Adams was also ambitious to make more of a figure than could Courtesy of the Library of Congress (LC- USZ62-13002 DLC). be expected in the local pulpits. So despite the disadvantages of becoming a lawyer, "fumbling and racking amidst the rubbish of writs . pleas, ejectments" and often fomenting "more quarrels than he composes," enriching "himself at the expense of impoverishing others more honest and deserving," Adams fixed on the law as an avenue to "glory" through obtaining "the more important offices of the State." Even in his youth, Adams was aware he possessed a "vanity," which he sought to sublimate in public service: "Reputation ought to be the perpetual subject of my thoughts, and the aim of my behaviour." Adams began reading law with attorney James Putnam in Worcester immediately after graduation from Harvard College in 1755.
    [Show full text]
  • Attendees at George Washington's Resignation of His Commission Old Senate Chamber, Maryland State House, December 23
    Attendees at George Washington’s Resignation of his Commission Old Senate Chamber, Maryland State House, December 23, 1783 Compiled by the Maryland State Archives, February 2009 Known attendees: George Washington Thomas Mifflin, President of the Congress Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Congress Other known attendees: Members of the Governor and Council of Maryland. Specific members are not identified; full membership listed below Members of the government of the City of Annapolis. Specific members are not identified; full membership listed below Henry Harford, former Proprietor of Maryland Sir Robert Eden, former governor Those who attended who wrote about the ceremony in some detail: Dr. James McHenry, Congressman and former aide to Washington Mollie Ridout Dr. James Tilton, Congressman There was a “gallery full of ladies” (per Mollie Ridout), most of whom are unknown Members of the Maryland General Assembly The General Assembly was in Session on December 23, and both houses convened in the State House on December 22 and on December 23. It is difficult to identify specific individuals who were in the Senate Chamber GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1783 William Paca, governor November 3-December 26, 1783 SENATE WESTERN James McHenry EASTERN Edward Lloyd SHORE SHORE George Plater Daniel Carroll, Matthew John Cadwalader (E, president ' Tilghman Dcl) Thomas Stone Richard Barnes ' (DNS, R) Robert Goldsborough (DNS) (E, Charles Carroll of Benedict Edward Hall John Henry DNS) Carrollton, Samuel Hughes William Hindman William Perry (E) president ' John Smith Josiah Polk (DNS) HOUSE OF DELEGATES ST MARY'S John Dent, of John CECIL Nathan Hammond William Somerville BALTIMORE Archibald Job Thomas Ogle John DeButts Thomas Cockey Deye, Samuel Miller HARFORD Edmund Plowden speaker William Rowland Benjamin Bradford Norris Philip Key Charles Ridgely, of Benjamin Brevard John Love William KENT John Stevenson ANNAPOLIS John Taylor (DNS) Peregrine Lethrbury Charles Ridgely Allen Quynn Ignatius Wheeler, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • John Quincy Adams Influence on Washington's Farewell Address: A
    La Salle University La Salle University Digital Commons Undergraduate Research La Salle Scholar Winter 1-7-2019 John Quincy Adams Influence on ashingtW on’s Farewell Address: A Critical Examination Stephen Pierce La Salle University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/undergraduateresearch Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Military History Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Pierce, Stephen, "John Quincy Adams Influence on ashingtW on’s Farewell Address: A Critical Examination" (2019). Undergraduate Research. 33. https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/undergraduateresearch/33 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the La Salle Scholar at La Salle University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Research by an authorized administrator of La Salle University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Quincy Adams Influence on Washington’s Farewell Address: A Critical Examination By Stephen Pierce In the last official letter to President Washington as Minister to the Netherlands in 1797, John Quincy Adams expressed his deepest thanks and reverence for the appointment that was bestowed upon him by the chief executive. As Washington finished his second and final term in office, Adams stated, “I shall always consider my personal obligations to you among the strongest motives to animate my industry and invigorate my exertions in the service of my country.” After his praise to Washington, he went into his admiration of the president’s 1796 Farewell Address.
    [Show full text]