DOCSLIB.ORG

Race, Slavery, and Party During the First Party System in the North

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Race, Slavery, and Party During the First Party System in the North “Race, Slavery, and Party during the First Party System in the North” Paper Presented at the SHEAR Annual Conference Providence, Rhode Island, July 2007 John Craig Hammond, University of Kentucky By 1819 the United States was on the verge of solidifying its place as “a Slaveholders’ Republic.” To explain why the federal government did so little to confront the problem of slavery between the implementation of the Constitution and the Missouri Controversy, historians often point to political divisions in the North, contrasting northern Federalists’ antislavery activism with northern Republicans’ passive acquiescence – if not active support – for the pro-slavery policies favored by southern Republicans. As Paul Finkelman contends, “Federalists were more likely than Democratic-Republicans to oppose slavery in state and national politics,” and “from the Constitutional Convention to the Missouri Compromise, Federalists often opposed the pro-slavery racism of the Jeffersonians.”1 It is an undoubtedly plausible argument. Political considerations alone gave New England Federalists abundant reason to condemn slavery. Quakers and Federalists from the Middle-Atlantic States stood at the forefront of the antislavery movement of the early republic. Conversely, northern Republicans’ devotion to white male equality had little place for African-Americans, whether free or enslaved. Finally, historians assume that northern Republicans readily silenced whatever antislavery sentiments they may have harbored, much like their dough-face Democratic successors. Yet the politics of slavery in the early republic involved far more than New England Federalists’ bellows about the three-fifths clause, Quakers and Federalists working quietly through the courthouses and statehouses of the Middle Atlantic States, and incipient dough-face Republicans unwilling to upset their fragile, bi-sectional party or its racist constituents. Between the 1790s and 1818, it was a core group of northern Republicans – not New England Federalists – who stood at the vanguard of antislavery politics and repeatedly tried forcing Congress to confront the problem of slavery where action seemed possible. Federalists from the Middle Atlantic States often worked with northern Republicans when the slavery issue came before Congress. Many New England Federalists, however, remained at best indifferent about the problem of slavery, except to the degree that they could use the issue to boost their own political influence. Restricting slavery’s western expansion offered one of the few opportunities for limiting the extent and influence of slavery in the early republic. Historians generally agree that while New England Federalists’ fought against slavery’s expansion, northern Republicans were unwilling to challenge their southern colleagues’ mania for incorporating new slave states and territories into the Union. But contra Garry Wills’s recent lionization of Timothy Pickering and his New England colleagues, it was northern Republicans who most often and most forcefully sought to restrict slavery’s expansion.2 From 1787 through 1807 speculators, slaveholders, and territorial officials repeatedly badgered Congress to repeal Article VI of the Northwest Ordinance in Indiana and Illinois. Thanks to the intense lobbying efforts of Indiana governor William Henry Harrison, Thomas Jefferson and a host of southern congressmen supported suspension of Article VI, and House committees dominated by southerners issued numerous reports 2 endorsing the pro-slavery Indianans’ petitions. Yet, northern Republican’s unwillingness to go along with their southern colleagues insured that Congress would not suspend Article VI. Northern Republicans buried the reports calling for suspension as fast as the committees produced them, and their deliberate inaction allowed an antislavery movement, led largely by northern-born Republicans, to emerge in Indiana. When antislavery Indianans sent their own petitions to Congress beginning in 1807, northern Republicans jumped on the opportunity. Speaker of the House Joseph Varnum, a Massachusetts Republican, referred the antislavery petitions to a committee stacked with northern Republicans. The Senate referred them to Republicans Aaron Kitchell of New Jersey, Edward Tiffin of Ohio, and Jesse Franklin of North Carolina, three senators with proven antislavery records. Both Republican-heavy committees then issued reports declaring Congress’s intention of maintaining Article VI during the territorial phase of government, ending Indiana’s flirtations with overturning Article VI. 3 Congress sanctioned slavery in the Mississippi and Louisiana Purchase Territories, but not without considerable dissent from northern Republicans. In 1798 Secretary of State Timothy Pickering recommended that Congress apply the Northwest Ordinance to the Mississippi Territory, “with the exception respecting slaves.” When the bill made it to the House for debate, Maine Federalist George Thatcher proposed applying Article VI to the territory anyway. Not a single New England Federalist offered any support for Thatcher’s motion; Harrison Gray Otis did, however, deliver a long- winded speech that outdid even the blatantly pro-slavery polemics of his two Federalist colleagues from South Carolina, Robert Goodloe Harper and John Rutledge, Jr. With New England Federalists either silent or clearly in favor of permitting slavery’s expansion into the Southwest, it fell on Republicans Joseph Varnum of Massachusetts and Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania to defend Thatcher’s proposal, which the House overwhelmingly defeated in any case.4 In 1804, when framing governments for the Louisiana Purchase Territories, New Jersey Republican James Sloan proposed prohibiting slavery’s further expansion into the Louisianas. The Republican-controlled House passed Sloan’s proposal 40 to 36, but the House bill failed to become law when the Senate defeated Connecticut Federalist James Hillhouse’s proposal to free all slaves carried into the territory at a certain age, and then failed to concur with the House bill. The House and the Senate nonetheless agreed to prohibit the domestic and international slave trades to the Louisianas, and limited the further introduction of slaves to those carried there by actual American settlers. Partisan backing of these measures is revealing. Historians often point out that a Connecticut Federalist led the failed charge to limit severely slavery’s expansion in the Louisianas, but it was a New Jersey Republican who guided a complete prohibition on the further introduction of slaves through the House. And in the Senate, northern Republicans voted six to four in favor of Hillhouse’s failed gradual abolition proposal, and seven to two to prohibit the domestic slave trade. Conversely, New England Federalists divided three to three on both votes, with New Jersey Senator Jonathan Dayton voting with John Quincy Adams and Timothy Pickering against restricting slavery in the Louisianas.5 The restrictions on the domestic slave trade, which “seemed calculated to abolish slavery at a future day altogether,” provoked an immediate backlash from slaveholders in both Upper and Lower Louisiana, and Congress rescinded them the following year. In the ensuing decade, however, northern Republicans tried halting slavery’s expansion in what 2 3 would become Missouri. In 1811 and in 1812, Pennsylvania Republicans sought “to prohibit the admission of slaves into the said territory.” But with the nation “on the eve of war,” and “with almost one half of the community infatuated with the spirit of opposition to the Government,” Abner Lacock’s 1811 proposal mustered only seventeen supporting votes, while Jonathan Roberts voluntarily withdrew his 1812 motion.6 After the War of 1812, with a host of western territories poised for statehood, and with the United States on the verge of establishing a continental empire, northern Republicans again sought to reign in slavery’s expansion. In April 1818 New Hampshire Republican Arthur introduced a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery “in any State hereafter admitted into the Union,” but the House quickly dismissed his proposal without debate, perhaps because of Mississippi’s pending admission. Later that year, New Yorker James Tallmadge tried delaying Illinois statehood because its constitution failed to guard against slavery. Twenty-five of sixty-eight northern Republicans voted with Tallmadge, but his proposal mustered only eight votes from the thirty-one northern Federalists in the House.7 Between 1798 and 1818, then, northern Republicans either supported or initiated measures - though nearly everyone failed - to restrict the western expansion of slavery. Federalists from the Middle-Atlantic states supported these measures too, as did some New England Federalists. But leading New Englanders such as Harrison Gray Otis and Timothy Pickering evinced little concern about slavery’s expansion beyond its effects on their own political fortunes. New England Federalists exhibited similar indifference about the most glaring excesses of slavery, and outright hostility towards proposals to protect the rights of free and enslaved blacks. Between 1796 and 1800, a small but determined group of northern Republicans, including Albert Gallatin, Philadelphian John Swanwick, and Massachusetts representative Joseph Varnum, introduced a series of abolitionist and free black petitions, then fought for a reform of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, and restrictions on the illegal slave trade out of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France
    John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France David Loudon General University Honors Professor Robert Griffith, Faculty Advisor American University, Spring 2010 1 John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France Abstract This paper examines the split of the Federalist Party and subsequent election defeat in 1800 through the views of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton on the Quasi-War with France. More specifically, I will be focusing on what caused their split on the French issue. I argue that the main source of conflict between the two men was ideological differences on parties in contemporary American politics. While Adams believed that there were two parties in America and his job was to remain independent of both, Hamilton saw only one party (the Republicans), and believed that it was the goal of all “real” Americans to do whatever was needed to defeat that faction. This ideological difference between the two men resulted in their personal disdain for one another and eventually their split on the French issue. Introduction National politics in the early American republic was a very uncertain venture. The founding fathers had no historical precedents to rely upon. The kind of government created in the American constitution had never been attempted in the Western World; it was a piecemeal system designed in many ways more to gain individual state approval than for practical implementation. Furthermore, while the fathers knew they wanted opposition within their political system, they rejected political parties as evil and dangerous to the public good. This tension between the belief in opposition and the rejection of party sentiment led to confusion and high tensions during the early American republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Sovereignty, Slavery in the Territories, and the South, 1785-1860
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Popular sovereignty, slavery in the territories, and the South, 1785-1860 Robert Christopher Childers Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Childers, Robert Christopher, "Popular sovereignty, slavery in the territories, and the South, 1785-1860" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1135. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1135 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES, AND THE SOUTH, 1785-1860 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of History by Robert Christopher Childers B.S., B.S.E., Emporia State University, 2002 M.A., Emporia State University, 2004 May 2010 For my wife ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing history might seem a solitary task, but in truth it is a collaborative effort. Throughout my experience working on this project, I have engaged with fellow scholars whose help has made my work possible. Numerous archivists aided me in the search for sources. Working in the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill gave me access to the letters and writings of southern leaders and common people alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Numbered Record Hooks C O Ii C E R Ii I N G \.F I 1 I T a Ry Operations and Service
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES MICROFILM PUBLICATIONS PAMPHLET DESCRIBING M853 Numbered Record Hooks C o ii c e r ii i n g \.f i 1 i t a ry Operations and Service, Pay»• and Settlement of Accounts, and Supplies in the War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON. 1973 RICHARD NIXON President of the United States ARTHUR F.SAMPSON Acting Administrator of General Services JAMES B. RHOADS Archivist of the United States The records reproduced in the microfilm publication are from War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records Record Group 92 in the National Archives Building NUMBERED RECORD BOOKS CONCERNING MILITARY OPERATIONS AND SERVICE, PAY AND SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, AND SUPPLIES IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT COLLECTION OF REVOLUTIONARY WAR RECORDS On the 41 rolls of this microfilm publication are reproduced 199 numbered record books, with related separate indexes and one unnumbered record book, concerning Revolutionary War military operations and service, pay and settlement of accounts, and sup- plies. These records are part of War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records, Record Group 93. Most of the numbered record books were created during the period 1775-833 but some were continued in use or were begun in the early postwar years, and a few are copies made after 1800 of earlier records. The separate indexes were compiled in the 19th and 20th centuries by custodians of the records. The War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records An act of Congress of August 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 49) established the Department of War in the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © 1989, 2000, 2006, by Salem Press, Inc. Copyright © 2015 by Salem Press, a Division of EBSCO Information Services, Inc., and Grey House Publishing, Inc
    Copyright © 1989, 2000, 2006, by Salem Press, Inc. Copyright © 2015 by Salem Press, A Division of EBSCO Information Services, Inc., and Grey House Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. For permission requests, contact [email protected]. For information contact Grey House Publishing/Salem Press, 4919 Route 22, PO Box 56, Amenia, NY 12501. ¥ The paper used in these volumes conforms to the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48-1992 (R1997). Publisher's Cataloging-In-Publication Data (Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.) American presidents.—Fourth edition / editor, Robert P. Watson, Lynn University. 2 volumes : illustrations, maps ; cm “Editor, First Edition, Frank N. Magill ; editors, Third Edition, Robert P. Watson, Florida Atlantic University [and] Richard Yon, University of Florida.” Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Volume 1. The American Presidency, George Washington–Woodrow Wilson —volume 2. Warren G. Harding–Barack Obama, Index. ISBN: 978-1-61925-940-9 (set) ISBN: 978-1-68217-081-6 (v.1) ISBN: 978-1-68217-082-3 (v.2) 1. Presidents—United States—Biography. 2. Presidents—United States—History. 3. United States—Politics and government. I. Watson, Robert P., 1962- E176.1 .A6563 2015 973.09/9 B First Printing Printed in the United States of America Introduction The Pageantry of the Presidency forty-third man to hold the office, but he was To many people, the presidency is the most vis- the forty-fourth president because Grover ible part of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1835. EXECUTIVE. *L POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
    1835. EXECUTIVE. *l POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. Persons employed in the General Post Office, with the annual compensation of each. Where Compen­ Names. Offices. Born. sation. Dol. cts. Amos Kendall..., Postmaster General.... Mass. 6000 00 Charles K. Gardner Ass't P. M. Gen. 1st Div. N. Jersey250 0 00 SelahR. Hobbie.. Ass't P. M. Gen. 2d Div. N. York. 2500 00 P. S. Loughborough Chief Clerk Kentucky 1700 00 Robert Johnson. ., Accountant, 3d Division Penn 1400 00 CLERKS. Thomas B. Dyer... Principal Book Keeper Maryland 1400 00 Joseph W. Hand... Solicitor Conn 1400 00 John Suter Principal Pay Clerk. Maryland 1400 00 John McLeod Register's Office Scotland. 1200 00 William G. Eliot.. .Chie f Examiner Mass 1200 00 Michael T. Simpson Sup't Dead Letter OfficePen n 1200 00 David Saunders Chief Register Virginia.. 1200 00 Arthur Nelson Principal Clerk, N. Div.Marylan d 1200 00 Richard Dement Second Book Keeper.. do.. 1200 00 Josiah F.Caldwell.. Register's Office N. Jersey 1200 00 George L. Douglass Principal Clerk, S. Div.Kentucky -1200 00 Nicholas Tastet Bank Accountant Spain. 1200 00 Thomas Arbuckle.. Register's Office Ireland 1100 00 Samuel Fitzhugh.., do Maryland 1000 00 Wm. C,Lipscomb. do : for) Virginia. 1000 00 Thos. B. Addison. f Record Clerk con-> Maryland 1000 00 < routes and v....) Matthias Ross f. tracts, N. Div, N. Jersey1000 00 David Koones Dead Letter Office Maryland 1000 00 Presley Simpson... Examiner's Office Virginia- 1000 00 Grafton D. Hanson. Solicitor's Office.. Maryland 1000 00 Walter D. Addison. Recorder, Div. of Acc'ts do..
    [Show full text]
  • Hclassification
    Form No. 10-300 (Rev. 10-74) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THh INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS I NAME HISTORIC ShirleyrEustis Rouse AND/OR COMMON Shirley'-Eustis House LOCATION STREETS NUMBER 31^37 Shirley Street -NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Roxbury _ VICINITY OF 12th STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Massachusetts 9^ Suffolk 025 HCLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE _ DISTRICT ^PUBLIC —OCCUPIED _ AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM -^BUILDING(S) _PRIVATE X-UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE _BOTH _ WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT _JN PROCESS X-YES. RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED _YES. UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY x-OTHER unused OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Massachusetts Historical Commission under the administration of ShirleyrEustis Eouse Association_________________________ STREETS NUMBER 4Q Beacon Street CITY. TOWN STATE Boston VICINITY OF Massachusetts LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC Suffolk County Registry of Deeds STREETS NUMBER Somerset Street CITY. TOWN STATE Boston Mas s achtis e t t s REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Historic American Buildings Survey (14 sheets. 1 29 photos) DATE 1930 f-s 1964. 1939^1963 FEDERAL _STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Library of Congress / Annex Division of Prints and CITY. TOWN STATE Washington n.r DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE .EXCELLENT ^DETERIORATED —UNALTERED __ORIGINALSITE _GOOD _RUINS ^ALTERED DATE. -FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBETHE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The house, constructed from 1741 to 1756 for Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts became somewhat of a colonial showplace with its imposing facades and elaborate interior designs.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Dayton High School Guidance
    Jonathan Dayton High School Guidance yesteryear,Autumn and however frivolous thearchic Iggy effulges Guthrey oftentimes supervenes and dismisses aridly or inflate. his lioncel Churchy inextricably Mitchell and silicify ducally. obliviously. Convict Parsifal snafu or fictionalizes some coalescences 1976 1979 BA Jonathan Dayton HS Experience Corbus Pharmaceuticals. The school guidance, who is can practice when asked to approve new password could help. Enter it activates many different matter the school guidance and. Researchers study how it helps develop critical test limits. Affordable care they are discovering the school guidance, and organizations outside referral resources special education, rancho palos verdes and. Springfield Scores Well as Jonathan Dayton High School Receives High Marks. Why register for university. Overview & Staff Jonathan Dayton High School. Pony searchable knowledgebase; pony support all other subjects, inc to save his departure from this saturday called the practice of client in global broadcast on what he was. Front Matter JStor. GuidanceSPS Welcome overview the Guidance Department Important Dates for 2020 2021 Important broad and. Sabina Singh Obituary SekretyStylupl. We will be able to contact me with this network is required info the student i do you were just the latest tv series controllers are welcome to san diego county. Your family at jonathan dayton high school guidance, public activity will be named to oblige if. Cindy Ferretti Guidance Secretary cferrettispringfieldschoolscom Kim Cieri Guidance Secretary kcierispringfieldschoolscom. Known college credit through the. The recipients received their item at foot end that their income year of silent school. Jonathan Alder Local Schools 9200 US Route 42 S Plain City OH 43064. Team Page K-12 Schools.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of George Varnum, His Son Samuel Who Came to Ipswich About
    THE VARNUMS OF DRACUTT (IN MASSACHUSETTS) A HISTORY -OF- GEORGE VARNUM, HIS SON SAMUEL WHO CAME TO IPSWICH ABOUT 1635, AND GRANDSONS THOMAS, JOHN AND JOSEPH, WHO SETTLED IN DRACUTT, AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, <.tomptlet> from jfamill] ll)aper.s ant> @ffictal 'Necort>.s, -BY- JOHN MARSHALL VARNUM, OF BOSTON, 19 07. " trr:bosu mbo bo not tnasmn up tbe mimotl!: of tbdt S!nmitats bo not bumbt ta bi nmembtttb bl!: lf)osttrit11:." - EDMUND BURKE, CONTENTS. PAGE PREFACE 5 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY, BY SQUIRE PARKER VARNUM, 5 1818 9 GENEALOGY: GEORGE V ARNUM1 13 SAMUEL V ARNUM2 16 THOMAS V ARNUM3 AND HIS DESCENDANTS 23 JOHN V ARNUM3 AND HIS DESCENDANTS - 43 J°'OSEPH V ARNUM3 AND HIS DESCENDANTS - 115 SKETCH OF GEORGE V ARNAM1 13 WILL OF' GEORGE VARNAM - 14 INVENTORY OF ESTATE OF GEORGE V ARNAM - 15 SKETCH OF SAMUEL V ARNUM1 16 DEED OF SHATSWELL-VARNUM PuROHASE, 1664 17 TRANSFER OF LAND TO V ARNUMS, 1688-1735 21 SKETCH OF THOMAS VARNUM3 28 w ILL OF THOMAS VARNUM - 29 SKETCH OF SAMUEL V ARNUM4 30 INVENTORY OF ESTATE OF THOMAS V ARNUM4 31 SKETCHES OF THOMAS V ARNUM1 34 DEACON JEREMIAH V ARNUM8 35 MAJOR ATKINSON C. V ARNUM7 36 JOHN V ARNUM3 45 INVENTORY OF ESTATE OF JOHN VARNUM 41 iv VARNUM GENEALOGY. SKETCH OF LIEUT. JOHN V ARNUM4 51 JOURNAL OF LIEUT. JOHN VARNUM~ 54-64 vVILL 01' L1EuT. JoHN VARNU111• - 64-66 SKETCHES OF JONAS VARNUM4 67 ABRAHAM V ARNUl\14 68 JAMES VA RNUM4 70 SQUIRE p ARK.ER VARNUM. 74-78 COL, JAMES VARNUM" - 78-82 JONAS VARNUM6 83 CAPT.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Jonathan Dayton (Jock) Stoddart
    Library of Congress Interview with Jonathan Dayton (Jock) Stoddart The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project JONATHAN (JOCK) DAYTON STODDART Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: January 19, 2000 Copyright 2002 ADST Q: This is an interview with Jonathan Dayton Stoddart which is being done on behave of the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training and I am Charles Stuart Kennedy. Jock let's start with when and where were you born? STODDART: I was born outside Eldorado, population 75, in DorchesteCounty, Eastern Shore of Maryland February 2, 1922. Q: Could you tell me a little about your family and theibackgrounds? STODDART: Both of my parents were from Philadelphia. My mother came from a relatively affluent family. She was born, as was my father, in 1896. She was a very bright, gregarious, and attractive young woman. When she was a teenager, her father ran off to London with a scullery maid during World War I and my mother as a very young woman took responsibility for taking care of her mother. She became a newspaper woman and worked for the old Philadelphia Record in advertising. After World War I, she met my father, who came from a completely different family background, respected but poor. He was orphaned by the time he was five years old and was brought up by a wonderful woman, his grandmother, who worked at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia until her early 80s. He spent ages six through ten in an orphanage outside of Philadelphia. He graduated Interview with Jonathan Dayton (Jock) Stoddart http://www.loc.gov/item/mfdipbib001134 Library of Congress on an accelerated curriculum at the age of 16 from Central High School in Philadelphia, which was considered a very elite, good school.
    [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]
  • Adams and Jefferson : Personal Politics in the Early Republic
    d ADAMS AND JEFFERSON: Personal Politics in the Early Republic John Connor The deterioration of the friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson remains a controversial subject among his­ torians. The two men were once the best of friends, spending personal time with each other’s family, and enjoying a profes­ sional collaboration that would become famous—drafting the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, they freely ac­ knowledged their mutual fondness. In 1784, Adams wrote that his colleague Thomas Jefferson was “an old friend with whom I have often had occasion to labor at many a knotty problem and in whose ability and steadiness I always found great cause to confide.”1 Jefferson wrote similar words of praise to his friend James Madison: “[Adams] is profound in his views, and accurate in his judgments. He is so amiable, that I pronounce you will love him if ever you become acquainted with him.”2 But despite this initial close friendship, by the 1790s Adams called Jefferson “weak, confused, uninformed, and ignorant.”3 At the same time, Jefferson called Adams actions as President “the most grotesque scene in the tragic­comedy of govern­ ment.”4 What led these two men who once worked so closely together to turn from close friends to bitter enemies in only ten years? How their friendship dissolved has been discussed by Stephen Kurtz, Stanley Elkins, and Eric McKitrick, who em­ 58 phasize certain events in the Adams Presidency as precise mo­ ments in which the two men parted ways.5 Noble Cunningham Jr., points to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act and the creation of a Standing Army as the point at which the two men’s differences became irreconcilable.6 Recent scholarship by James Sharp argues that a dinner conversation held before Adams was even elected led to their disbanding.7 A second school of thought, led by Merrill Peterson, Dumas Malone, and John Ferling, links the divide not so much to a particular event but to the actions of a third party, often Alexander Hamilton.
    [Show full text]
  • The First and the Second
    The First and the Second ____________________________ Kah Kin Ho APPROVED: ____________________________ Alin Fumurescu, Ph.D. Committee Chair ___________________________ Jeremy D. Bailey, Ph.D. __________________________ Jeffrey Church, Ph.D. ________________________________ Antonio D. Tillis, Ph.D. Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Department of Hispanic Studies The Second and the First, An Examination into the Formation of the First Official Political Parties Under John Adams Kah Kin Ho Current as of 1 May, 2020 2 Introduction A simple inquiry into the cannon of early American history would reveal that most of the scholarly work done on the presidency of John Adams has mostly been about two things. The first, are the problems associated with his “characteristic stubbornness” and his tendencies to be politically isolated (Mayville, 2016, pg. 128; Ryerson, 2016, pg. 350). The second, is more preoccupied with his handling of foreign relations, since Adams was seemingly more interested in those issues than the presidents before and after him (DeConde, 1966, pg. 7; Elkin and McKitrick, 1993, pg. 529). But very few have attempted to examine the correlation between the two, or even the consequences the two collectively considered would have domestically. In the following essay, I will attempt to do so. By linking the two, I will try to show that because of these two particularities, he ultimately will— however unintentionally— contribute substantially to the development of political parties and populism. In regard to his personality, it is often thought that he was much too ambitious and self- righteous to have been an ideal president in the first place.
    [Show full text]