Part 17

_P. S._ I have mislaid the letter from Boston. The extract informed, that a bill had passed the two Houses of Assembly, adopting the resolution of Congress of the 18th of March, and establishing an annual tax for seven years, for the redemption of their part of the bills payable in silver and gold, or in produce at the market price, in hard money.

* * * * *

TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.

Paris, June 17th, 1780.

Sir,

The refugees in England are so great an obstacle to peace, that it seems not improper for me to take notice of them to Congress. Governor Hutchinson is dead. Whether the late popular insurrections, or whether the resolutions of Congress of the 18th of March, respecting their finances, by suddenly extinguishing the last rays of his hopes, put a sudden end to his life, or whether it was owing to any other cause, I know not. He was born to be the cause and the victim of popular fury, outrage, and conflagrations. Descended from an ancient and honorable family, born and educated in America, professing all the zeal of the congregational religion, affecting to honor the characters of the first planters of the new world, and to vindicate the character of America, and especially of New England, early initiated into public business, industrious and indefatigable in it, beloved and esteemed by the people, elected and trusted by them and their representatives, his views opened and extended by repeated travels in Europe, engaged in extensive correspondence in Europe as well as in America, favored by the Crown of Great Britain, and possessed of its honors and emoluments; possessed of all these advantages and surrounded by all these circumstances, he was perhaps the only man in the world who could have brought on the controversy between Great Britain and America, in the manner and at the time it was done, and involved the two countries in an enmity, which must end in their everlasting separation. Yet this was the character of the man, and these his memorable actions. An inextinguishable ambition and avarice, that were ever seen among his other qualities, and which grew with his growth and strengthened with his age and experience, and at last predominated over every other principle of his heart, rendered him credulous to a childish degree, of everything that favored his ruling passion, and blind and deaf to everything that thwarted it, to such a degree, that his representations, with those of his fellow-laborer, Bernard, drew on the King, Ministry, Parliament, and nation, to concert measures, which will end in their reduction and the exaltation of America.

I think I see visible traces of his councils in a number of pamphlets, not long since published in London, and ascribed to Mr Galloway. It is most probable, that they were concerted between the Ministry and the refugees in general, and that Mr Galloway was to be given out as the ostensible, as he probably was the principal author.

"The cool thoughts on the consequences of American independence," although calculated to inflame a hasty warlike nation to pursue the conquest of America, are sober reasons for defending our independence and our alliances, and therefore proper for me to lay before my countrymen. The pamphlet says, "it has been often asserted, that Great Britain has expended in settling and defending America, more than she will ever be able to repay, and that it will be more to the profit of this kingdom to give her independence, and to lose what we have expended, than to retain her as a part of her dominions." To this he answers, "that the bounties on articles of commerce, and the expense of the last war, ought not to be charged to America, and that the sums expended in support of Colonial governments, have been confined to New York, the Carolinas, Georgia, Nova Scotia, and East and West Florida. That New England, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, have not cost Great Britain a farthing, and that the whole expense of the former is no more than £1,700,000, and when we deduct the £700,000, extravagantly expended in building a key at Halifax, we can only call it one million." He concludes, "that posterity will feel that America was not only worth all that was spent upon her, but that a just, firm, and constitutional subordination of the Colonies, was absolutely necessary to the independence and existence of Great Britain." Here I think I see the traces of Mr Hutchinson.

Another argument, he says, much relied on by the advocates for American independence is, "that a similarity of laws, religion, and manners, has formed an attachment between the people of Great Britain and America, which will ensure to Great Britain a preference in the commerce of America." He agrees, "that a uniformity of laws and religion, united with a subordination to the same supreme authority, in a great measure forms and fixes the national attachment. But when the laws and the supreme authority are abolished, the manners, habits, and customs derived from them will soon be effaced. When different systems of laws and governments shall be established, other habits and manners must take place. The fact is, that the Americans have already instituted governments, as opposite to the principles upon which the British government is established as human invention could possibly devise. New laws are made, and will be made in conformity to, and in support of their new political systems, and of course destructive to this national attachment. Their new States being altogether popular, their essential laws do already, and will continue to bear a greater resemblance to those of the democratical Cantons of Switzerland, than to the laws and policy of Great Britain. Thus we find, in their first acts, the strongest of all proofs of an aversion in their rulers to our national policy, and a sure foundation laid to obliterate all affection and attachment to this country among the people. How long then can we expect that their attachment, arising from a similarity of laws, habits, and manners, if any such should remain, will continue? No longer than between the United Provinces and Spain, or the Corsicans and the Genoese, which was changed, from the moment of their separation, into an enmity, which is not worn out to this day."

How it is possible for these rulers, who are the creatures of the people, and constantly dependent upon them for their political existence, to have the strongest aversion to the national policy of Great Britain, and at the same time the far greater part of the people wish and hope for a union with that country, and are ready to unite in reducing the powers of those rulers, as this author asserts, I know not. I leave him to reconcile it. If he had been candid, and confessed that the attachment in American minds in general is not very strong to the laws and government of England, and that they rather prefer a different form of government, I should have agreed with him, as I certainly shall agree, that no attachment between nations arising merely from a similarity of laws and government, is ever very strong, or sufficient to bind nations together, who have opposite or even different interests.

"As to attachments," says he, "arising from a similarity of religion, they will appear still more groundless and ridiculous. America has no predominant religion. There is not a religious society in Europe, which is not to be found in America. If we wish to visit the churches of England, or the meetings of the Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Moravians, Menonists, Swinfielders, Dumplers, or Roman Catholics, we shall find them all in America.

"What a motley, or rather how many different and opposite attachments, will this jumble of religions make.

"Should there be any remains of this kind of national attachment, we may conclude, that the Lutherans, Calvinists, Menonists, Swinfielders, Dumplers, and Moravians, will be attached to Germany, the country from whence they emigrated, and where their religions are best tolerated; the Presbyterians and Puritans to Ireland, and the Roman Catholics to France, Spain, and the Pope, and the small number of the Church of England to Great Britain.

"Do we not daily see, Monarchies at war with Monarchies, Infidels with Infidels, Christians with Christians, Catholics with Catholics, and Dissenters with Dissenters? What stress then can be justly laid on an attachment arising from a similarity of laws, government, or religion?

"It has also been asserted, that America will be led from motives of interest, to give the preference in trade to this country, because we can supply her with manufactures cheaper than she can raise them or purchase them from others.

"But a commercial alliance is already ratified, greatly injurious to the trade of Great Britain, and should France succeed in supporting American independence, no one can doubt but other treaties, yet more injurious, will be added; and as to the ability of America to manufacture, she possesses, or can produce a greater variety of raw materials, than any other country on the globe. When she shall have a separate and distinct interest of her own to pursue, her views will be enlarged, her policy exerted to her own benefit, and her interest instead of being united with, will become not only different from, but opposite to that of Great Britain. She will readily perceive, that manufactures are the great foundation of commerce, that commerce is the great means of acquiring wealth, and that wealth is necessary to her own safety. With these interesting prospects before her, it is impossible to conceive, that she will not exert her capacity to promote manufactures and commerce. She will see it to be clearly her interest not only to manufacture for herself but others. Laws will be made granting bounties to encourage it, and duties will be laid to discourage or prohibit foreign importations. By these measures her manufactures will increase, her commerce will be extended; and feeling the benefits of them as they rise, her industry will be excited, until she shall not only supply her own wants, but those of Great Britain herself, with all the manufactures made with her own materials. The nature of commerce is roving; she has been at different periods in possession of the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and the Venetians; Germany and France lately enjoyed her, and supplied Great Britain with their manufactures. Great Britain at present folds her in her arms."

Surely it was never intended that any American should read this pamphlet, it contains so many arguments and motives for perseverance in our righteous and glorious cause. It is astonishing, however, that, instead of stimulating England to pursue their unjust and inglorious enterprise, it does not convince all of the impracticability of it, and induce them to make peace.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JOHN ADAMS.

* * * * *

TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.

Paris, June 20th, 1780.

Sir,

Last evening I received the letter, an extract of which I have the honor to enclose. It is from Mr Gerry, a member of Congress, who has been a member of their Treasury Board from the beginning of the year 1776.[5]

[5] See this letter above, dated May 5th, 1780, p. 52.

It is much to be regretted, that the Congress did not publish their resolution to pay off the loan office certificates, according to the value of money, at the time of their being respectively issued, with their resolutions of the 18th of March; because this I think would have prevented the alarm, that has been spread in Europe. It will be found, that almost all the interest that European merchants or others have in our funds, lies in these certificates, and that almost all the paper bills now in possession of their factors in America, have been received within a few months; immediately before the 18th of March, and consequently received at a depreciation of forty for one, at least, perhaps at a much greater.

Although some Europeans may have considerable sums in loan office certificates, yet I have reason to believe, that the whole will be found much less than is imagined. They have realized their property generally as they went along. Some may have purchased land, others have purchased bills of exchange, others have purchased the produce of the country, which they have exported to St Eustatia, to the French West India Islands, and to Europe.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JOHN ADAMS.

* * * * *

COUNT DE VERGENNES TO JOHN ADAMS.

Translation.

Versailles, June 21st, 1780.

Sir,

I have received the letter, which you did me the honor to write me on the 16th of this month, and also the extract of the letter addressed to you from Boston, dated the 26th of April.

From this it appears, that the Assembly of Massachusetts has determined to adopt the resolution of Congress, fixing the value of the paper money at forty for one in specie. On reading that resolution, I was persuaded, that it had no other object than that of restoring the value of the paper money by lessening its quantity, and that in consequence of that operation the paper not brought in would take its course according to the circumstances, that would give it a greater or less degree of credit. What confirmed me in this opinion, was the liberty given to the possessors of the paper money to carry it to the treasury of their State, or to keep it in their own possession. But from the information I have since received, and the letter, which you have been pleased to communicate to me, I have reason to believe, that it is the intention of Congress to maintain the paper money invariably at the exchange of forty for one, and to settle on that footing all the paper money, which has been thrown into circulation, in order to reduce insensibly the two hundred millions of dollars, for which it is indebted, to five millions.

I will not presume, Sir, to criticise upon this operation, because I have no right to examine or comment upon the internal arrangements, which Congress may consider as just and profitable; and moreover I readily agree, that there may be some situations so critical as to force the best regulated and best established governments to adopt extraordinary measures to repair their finances, and put them in a condition to answer the public expenses; and this I am persuaded has been the principal reason, that induced Congress to depreciate the money, which they themselves have emitted.

But while I admit, Sir, that that Assembly might have recourse to the expedient abovementioned in order to remove their load of debt, I am far from agreeing, that it is just, or agreeable to the ordinary course of things to extend the effect to strangers, as well as to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, I think it ought to be confined to Americans, and that an exception ought to be made in favor of strangers, or at least, that some means ought to be devised to indemnify them, for the losses they may suffer by the general laws.

In order to make you sensible of the truth of this observation, I will only remark, Sir, that the Americans alone ought to support the expense, which is occasioned by the defence of their liberty, and that they ought to consider the depreciation of their paper money, only as an impost which ought to fall upon themselves, as the paper money was at first established only to relieve them from the necessity of paying taxes. I will only add, that the French, if they are obliged to submit to the reduction proposed by Congress, will find themselves victims of their zeal, and I may say of the rashness, with which they exposed themselves in furnishing the Americans with arms, ammunition, and clothing; and in a word, with all things of the first necessity, of which the Americans at the time stood in need. You will agree with me, Sir, that this is not what the subjects of the King ought to expect, and that after escaping the dangers of the sea, the vigilance of the English, instead of dreading to see themselves plundered in America, they ought on the contrary, to expect the thanks of Congress, and of all the Americans, and believe, that their property will be as secure and sacred in America as in France itself.

It was with this persuasion, and in a reliance on public faith, that they received paper money in exchange for their merchandise, and kept that paper with a view to employ it in new speculations of commerce. The unexpected reduction of this paper overturns all their calculations at the same time that it ruins their fortune. I ask, Sir, if these consequences can induce you to believe, that this act of Congress is proper to advance the credit of the United States, to inspire a confidence in their promises, to invite the European nations to run the same risks, to which the subjects of his Majesty have exposed themselves?

These, Sir, are the principal reflections occasioned by the resolution of Congress of the 18th of March. I thought it my duty to communicate them to you with an entire confidence, because you are too enlightened not to feel their force and justice, and too much attached to your country, not to use all your endeavors to engage it to take steps to do justice to the subjects of the King.

I will not conceal from you, that the Chevalier de la Luzerne has received orders to make the strongest representations on this subject, and that the King is firmly persuaded, that the United States will be forward to give to him, on this occasion, a mark of their attachment by granting to his subjects the just satisfaction, which they solicit and expect, from the wisdom and justice of the United States.

I have the honor to be, &c.

DE VERGENNES.

* * * * *

TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.

Paris, June 22d, 1780.

Sir,

I received this day the letter, which your Excellency did me the honor to write me on the 21st of this month.

I thank your Excellency for the confidence, which induced you to communicate this letter to me, and the continuance of which I shall ever study to deserve.

When your Excellency says, that his Majesty's Minister at Congress has already received orders to make representations against the resolutions of Congress of the 18th of March, as far as they effect his subjects, I am at a loss to know with certainty, whether your Excellency means only, that such orders have lately passed, and are sent off to go to America, or whether you mean, that such orders were sent so long ago as to have reached the hand of the Chevalier de la Luzerne.

If the latter is your Excellency's meaning, there is no remedy; if the former, I would submit it to your Excellency's consideration, whether those orders may not be stopped and delayed a little time, until his Excellency Mr Franklin may have opportunity to make his representations to his Majesty's Ministers, to the end, that if it should appear, that those orders were issued in consequence of misinformation, they may be revoked, otherwise sent on.

I will do myself the honor to write fully to your Excellency upon this subject without loss of time, and although it is a subject on which I pretend not to an accurate knowledge in the detail, yet I flatter myself I am so far master of the principles as to demonstrate, that the plan of Congress is not only wise, but just.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JOHN ADAMS.

* * * * *

TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.

Paris, June 22d, 1780.

Sir,

I this day acknowledge the receipt of the letter, which you did me the honor to write to me on the 21st.

I have the honor to agree with your Excellency in opinion, that it is the intention of Congress to redeem all their paper bills which are extant, at an exchange of forty for one, by which means, the two hundred millions of dollars, which are out, will be reduced to about five millions.

I apprehend, with your Excellency, that it was necessary for the Congress to put themselves in a condition to defray the public expenses. They found their currency to be so depreciated, and so rapidly depreciating, that a further emission sufficient to discharge the public expenses another year, would have, probably, depreciated it to two hundred for one; perhaps, would have so totally discredited it, that nobody would have taken it at any rate. It was absolutely necessary, then, to stop emitting. Yet it was absolutely necessary to have an army to save their cities from the fire, and their citizens from the sword. That army must be fed, clothed, paid, and armed, and other expenses must be defrayed. It had become necessary, therefore, at this time, to call in their paper; for there is no nation that is able to carry on war by the taxes, which can be raised within the year. But I am far from thinking, that this necessity was the cause of their calling it in at a depreciated value, because I am well convinced that they would have called it in at a depreciated value, if the British fleet and army had been withdrawn from the United States, and a general peace had been concluded. My reason for this belief is, the evident injustice of calling it in at its nominal value, a silver dollar for a paper one. The public has its rights as well as individuals; and every individual has a share in the rights of the public. Justice is due to the body politic, as well as to the possessor of the bills; and to have paid off the bills at their nominal value, would have wronged the body politic of thirtynine dollars in every forty, as really as if forty dollars had been paid for one, at the first emission in 1775, when each paper dollar was worth, and would fetch a silver one.

I beg leave to ask your Excellency, whether you judge that the Congress ought to pay two hundred millions of silver dollars, for the two hundred millions of paper dollars which are abroad? I presume your Excellency will not think that they ought; because I have never met with any man in America or in Europe, that was of that opinion. All agree, that Congress ought to redeem it at a depreciated value. The only question then, is, at what depreciation? Shall it be at seventyfive, forty, thirty, twenty, ten, or five, for one? After it is once admitted, that it ought to be redeemed at a less value than the nominal, the question arises, at what value? What rule? I answer, there is no other rule of justice than the current value, the value at which it generally passes from man to man. The Congress have set it at forty for one; and they are the best judges of this, as they represent all parts of the continent where the paper circulates.

I think there can be little need of illustration; but two or three examples may make my meaning more obvious. A farmer has now four thousand dollars for a pair of oxen, which he sells to a commissary to subsist the army. When the money was issued in 1775, he would have been glad to have taken one hundred. A laborer has now twenty dollars a day for his work; five years ago, he would have been rejoiced to have received half a dollar. The same with the artisan, merchant, and all others, but those who have fixed salaries, or money at interest. Most of these persons would be willing to take hard money for his work and his produce, at the rate he did six years ago. Where is the reason, then, that Congress should pay them forty times as much as they take of their neighbors in private life?