| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence --CHAPTER XVII. LIVINGSTON--MORRIS.
Livingston's political career. § 180. Robert R. Livingston was born on November 27, 1746, and after studying law with his kinsman William Livingston began the practice of the profession in New York in partnership with John Jay. Appointed by Governor Tryon to the recordership of New York in 1773, Livingston was in 1775 dismissed from that post in consequence of his revolutionary affiliations. Sent in 1775 to the Continental Congress, he was one of the committee of five which drafted the Declaration of Independence, which, however, he was prevented from signing by the necessity of his attendance at the provincial convention of New York, which body, in part through his exertions, declared, on July 8, its independence as a "State." In 1777 he was appointed chancellor of New York, which office he held until 1801, being a delegate also to the Continental Congress until 1777, and again in 1779 and 1781. His election as secretary of foreign affairs, and his services in that post, will be presently noticed. As chairman of the New York convention to consider the federal Constitution he was largely instrumental in inducing its adoption in New York. Declining the mission to France, offered to him by Washington in 1794, he accepted it in 1801 from Jefferson, his term as chancellor then expiring, and by him, with Monroe, the convention for the purchase of Louisiana was negotiated. His services, after his retirement from his mission in 1805, were employed equally beneficially in the advance of the agricultural interests of New York, and in the introduction, in concert with Fulton, of steam navigation. He died at Clermont, his family seat and the place of his birth, on February 26, 1813.
His attitude as to congressional parties. § 181. The conflicts in Congress which preceded Livingston's appointment have been already noticed,* and it has been seen that Livingston took a leading position in that school of revolutionary statesmen which held that the true policy of Congress should be not merely to overthrow the British supremacy, but to establish a stable and at the same time liberal system in its place.† It has also been seen that the policy of what has been called
[Note *: * Supra, §§ 15 ff.]
[Note †: † Supra, § 4.]
Page 595 | Page image
the purely "liberative" or "expulsive" school was to keep the direction of the Revolution, both as to domestic and as to foreign affairs, in the hands of Congress, acting through committees under its immediate direction; and that it was maintained by this school of politicians that in matters diplomatic as well as matters financial and matters military, the "militia" impulses of the people should be relied on, without hampering them by subordinating them to artificial and effete rules not suited to a young republic. It has also been seen that in military matters this school was more or less engaged in thwarting Washington;* that in financial matters, in its recklessness in seizing any agency it could get hold of, it had resorted to an unlimited issue of paper money and of drafts on Europe without funds, thereby, in defiance of the counsels of Washington, of Franklin, and of Morris, exposing the credit of the country to ruin; and that, in addition to the aid it obtained from enthusiasts who believed that any means to effect their immediate purpose ought to be seized, and from speculators who were interested in inflating the currency, they were supported by a powerful combination of statesmen who for various reasons were averse to taking from Congress the absolute control of our affairs, domestic and foreign.†
[Note *: * Supra, §§ 11, 146, 153.]
[Note †: † Supra, §§ 156, 176, 177.]
But the critical position of our foreign relations, together with a reaction against the influences above specified, led to a determination, in January, 1781, to establish a department of foreign affairs, under the control of a responsible secretary. It was not, however, until August 10, 1781, that Robert R. Livingston was elected to this post by a vote of six States to three for Arthur Lee. The character of the opposition to him is thus stated in the following letter from Arthur Lee to Samuel Adams, dated Philadelphia, August 13, 1781:
"This choice," that of Livingston as secretary for foreign affairs, "is, I think, a very serious thing for the eastern States, and indeed for them all. For I can assure you that something passed during the negotiation of the treaty which convinced me there are deep designs against the fishery. Dr. Franklin, we all know, is devoted to these designs. Mr. Jay and Chancellor Livingston are both enemies to the eastern States."‡
[Note ‡: ‡ Bancroft MSS.; see further supra, § 146, for a letter of Arthur Lee to Dana attacking Livingston.]
We see, then, that the opposition to Livingston and the support of Arthur Lee were rested in the canvass, so far as the appeals to New England were concerned, on the supposed opposition of Livingston and Franklin to the fisheries. But this statement was utterly without foundation. The ablest as well as the boldest argument sent during the Revolution from this side of the water to sustain our fishery claims was issued by Livingston. And it was to Franklin's vigorous maintenance of these claims at the peace conferences that their admission by Great Britain was eminently due.§ The appeal to New England, however,
[Note §: § See infra, title Fisheries, Franklin.]
Page 596 | Page image
made by Arthur Lee, on behalf of the fisheries, unfounded as it was, was joined in by Izard, both basing it on their supposed knowledge of Franklin's opposition to these cherished New England interests; and it was through this, as well as through other influences, that the strong vote against Livingston was secured.
His policy as secretary. § 182. Livingston, though a much younger man than Franklin, possessed, in his dispassionateness and his many sidedness, not a few of Franklin's characteristics. From his prior administrative experience as royalist recorder of New York he had at least some acquaintance with practical government in America; his thorough studies as a scholar and jurist gave him a knowledge of administrative politics in other spheres. As secretary of foreign affairs in 1781--1783, he did more than any one in the home government in shaping its foreign policy. But the system he indicated was, as will be seen, not the "militia" system of unsophisticated impulse, but that which the law of nations had at the time sanctioned as the best mode of conducting international affairs. His course as secretary was based on the law of nations as thus understood by him. He at once accepted Franklin's position--that it was unwise, as well as against international usage, for the United States to send ministers to foreign courts without some intimation that they would be received. He saw that from the nature of things the then neutral courts of Europe would not throw away the advantages of their neutrality by entering into an alliance with the United States, which, as a revolutionary republic, they, as absolutists, could have no desire to encourage. He therefore advised the recall of Dana, and he opposed any further efforts being made to send ministers to European courts by whom such missions were not invited. Acting also on the principle that a minister to a foreign court must be a persona grata, and aware of Franklin's transcendent gifts as a negotiator, as well as of his great acceptability to France, to Franklin he gave his unwavering support. Of the unrelenting animosity to America of the British Government he, as well as his relative and friend Jay, to whom he was strongly attached, made no question; and no part of his diplomatic work was more labored than that which comprised his efforts to collect materials, based on the cruelties of the war, to show that no settlement which did not admit independence was practicable. The alliance with France he considered sacred, France having performed faithfully her engagements to us, and we being bound to perform faithfully our engagements to her; and for this reason he disapproved of the action of the peace commissioners in negotiating with England without concert with France. Of his policy his very able papers, contained in the following volumes, are the best vindication.*
[Note *: * See an analysis of them in index, title Livingston.]
It may be here added that while adhering to the "constructive" or
Page 597 | Page image
merely "expulsive" or "liberative," he belonged to the liberal wing of constructionism. He wanted, it is true, not simply to abolish the British system, but to establish a better system in its place. But the new system he strove for, and which he was instrumental in introducing, was to be a system of liberalism, construing the Constitution of the United States, which he advocated, on all doubtful points in favor of that view which leaves to government only such power as the people can not exercise for themselves.
The following extract from a letter, heretofore unpublished, of February 18, 1782, from Livingston to Harrison, governor of Virginia, illustrates Livingston's adhesion to diplomacy as a system:
"I do myself the honor to transmit your excellency several resolutions of Congress which, having a reference to the department of foreign affairs, are in course to go through this office. The necessity of carrying them into effect is too obvious to need observations. While we hold an intercourse with civilized nations we must conform to laws which humanity has established and which custom has consecrated among them. On this the rights which the United States or their citizens may claim in foreign countries must be founded. The resolution (No. 2) passed Congress in consequence of a convention about to be concluded between his most christian majesty and the United States of America, which affords an additional reason for paying it the earliest attention. Your excellency and the legislature will see the propriety of rendering the laws on these subjects as simple and the execution of them as expeditious as possible, since foreigners, who are the great object of them, are easily disgusted at complex systems which they find a difficulty in understanding, and the honor and peace of a nation are frequently as much wounded by delay as by a denial of justice."
For the above I am indebted to Mr. Dreer, of Philadelphia.
Robert Morris, political career of. § 183. Robert Morris, from whom came a series of letters, given in the following volumes, not merely exhibiting the true principles of finance on which alone a solid government could be built up, but presenting to France, as our only reliable European ally, the grounds on which her financial aid could be claimed, was born in England in 1734. Coming to Philadelphia in 1747 he entered as a clerk in the house of Charles Willing, then taking the lead in the foreign commerce of the Colonies. By his business genius, as well as by his activity and fidelity, Morris was, when he came of age, promoted to a partnership in this house; and he soon became remarkable not only for his fertility of expedients and for his integrity, but for his knowledge of the commercial relations of the old world as well as of the new, and for his eminent powers of political as well as financial organization. He opposed the stamp act; and though in so doing he acted greatly against his business interests, he signed the non-importation agreement of 1765. As a delegate to the Continental Congress of 1775--'76, while at first he opposed the Declaration of Independence as premature, he signed that paper when it was agreed on, and from that time onward he gave without stint his time, his money, and his credit to the revolutionary cause. Elected in February, 1781, to the superin-
Page 598 | Page image
"remedial" school of politics, as distinguished from that which was tendency of finance,* he entered at once into the work of reducing into system the monetary affairs of the country, which had been thrown into almost desperate confusion by the failure of the States to comply with requisitions on them, by the loss of value of the paper money which Congress had lavishly issued, and by the unwillingness of capitalists at home and abroad to lend money to a government whose finances were so recklessly managed. Of his financial policy a sketch will be given in the next section. To his consummate ability as an administrator a brief tribute has been already paid,† and the bitterness of the congressional opposition to him has been also noticed.‡ Under the impression
[Note *: * On Feb. 21, 1781, Jones, one of the Virginia delegation, wrote to Washington (Letters of Joseph Jones, by Ford, p. 69): "Yesterday Mr. Morris, without a vote against him (though S. A. [Samuel Adams] and his colleague General W. [Artemas Ward] declined to ballot), was chosen financier."]
[Note †: † Supra, § 4. Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton were earnest in their expression of conviction of Morris' supreme qualifications for the post. (1 Bolles' Financial History, 268); and see index, Washington, Franklin, and Morris; 8 Lodge's Hamilton, 86; as to Edward Everett's high opinion of him, see 33 North American Review, 4-3.]
[Note ‡: ‡ Supra, § 14. The opposition to him was headed by Samuel Adams and Richard H. Lee, and was due in part to personal antagonism, in part to that dread of a co-ordinate executive which led these eminent men to oppose both Washington and Franklin. Madison's views of the attacks on Morris are thus given:
"My charity, I own, can not invent an excuse for the prepense malice with which the character and services of this gentleman (Robert Morris) are murdered. I am persuaded that he accepted his office from motives which were honorable and patriotic. I have seen no proof of misfeasance. I have heard many charges which were palpably erroneous. I have known others, somewhat suspicious, vanish on examination. Every member in Congress must be sensible of the benefit which has accrued to the public from his administration; no intelligent man out of Congress can be altogether insensible of it. The court of France has testified its satisfaction at his appointment, which I really believe lessened its repugnance to lend us money. These considerations will make me cautious in lending an ear to the suggestions even of the impartial; to those of known and vindictive enemies, very incredulous." (Madison to Randolph, June 4, 1782, 1 Madison Papers, 137.)
From an anonymous letter, intercepted by the British, dated Princeton, Aug. 5, 1783, from "a member of Congress," the movements against Morris, in which the writer was engaged, are described with much vivacity, and it is shown that the same members who were endeavoring get rid of Franklin were endeavoring to get rid of Morris. In the manuscript copy of this letter among Mr. Bancroft's papers it is attributed to Stephen Higginson, of Massachusetts. (Bancroft's MSS., 1783, 2, 331.) This information given in the letter is referred to by Sir Guy Carleton, in whose hands it fell, in a manuscript dispatch to Lord North, of Aug. 29, 1783, in which Morris' proposed resignation is noticed.
Henry Laurens' hostility to Morris, at least in the early part of his public services, is noticed in the life of Morris in Sanderson's Biography of the Signers, 343.
To Washington, in April, 1782, Hamilton thus wrote:
"Morris certainly deserves a great deal from his country. I believe no man in this country but himself could have kept the money machine agoing during the period he has been in office. From everything that appears his administration has been upright as well as able. The truth is, the old leaven of Deane and Lee is at this day working against Mr. Morris. He happened in that dispute to have been on the side of Deane, and certain men can never forgive him. A man whom I once esteemed and whom I rather suppose duped than wicked, is the second actor in this business." (8 Lodge's Hamilton, 113. See also 6 Potter's Am. Monthly, 19, 103; 14 Atlantic Monthly, 591.)
In Moore's Materials for History, first series (1861), 70, is given Robert Morris' letter of Dec. 26, 1777, to Henry Laurens, explaining his relations to Thomas Morris down to the latter's death. This letter will be found infra, under its proper date, and is well worth study.
In the Sanderson's Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence is given an excellent life of Morris, p. 338 ff. In the large body of letters to and from Morris given in the following volumes will be found the most exact information obtainable of his career as the financier of the Revolution.]
Page 599 | Page image
that this opposition could not be overcome by him so as to enable him to carry out the policy on which he entered, he announced, on January 24, 1783, his intention to resign.* A reaction, however, taking place in his favor, he was induced to remain until November, 1784. He was a member of the convention which framed the Constitution of the United States and a Senator of the United States from Pennsylvania from 1788 to 1795, declining the position of Secretary of the Treasury, to which he was nominated by Washington. Of princely liberality in the disposal of a large fortune he had acquired, he went towards the close of his life into unsuccessful business ventures. Had he when in office used his high position for personal speculation he would have largely increased his fortune. Had he kept up, concurrently with his official employment, his private business, his matchless sagacity, his great industry, and his high credit would have enabled him to continue as the leading and the most opulent merchant in the land. But when holding public office he retired absolutely from private business; and when he resumed business again, the powers that had adjusted themselves to a field in which the forces of the civilized world were combatants proved, aside from a weakening of his faculties from other causes,† unfitted to take up the threads of the counting-room. The result was utter breaking down and utter insolvency. But this cloud should not be permitted to obscure his splendid services during the war. He had rising before his eyes, even when the battle was fiercest, the "goodly fabric," as Washington called it, of constitutional liberty; and of this fabric one of the chief pillars was that of financial honor. To him also, next to Franklin, is due the maintenance of the French alliance, since it was by his effort that Congress and the State legislatures were induced to take action as to taxation, which enabled the French Government to see that the United States would meet their obligations in good faith. He died in Philadelphia on May 8, 1806, a few months after the death of William Pitt the younger, with whom in some respects he may be compared. Both had great financial abilities, and both dealt with finance in relation to public affairs. Pitt, however, through his surrender against his own judgment to the anti-revolution crusade of high toryism, involved his country in an enormous debt, and, by placing England in the ranks of continental absolutism,
[Note *: * See index, title Morris, for correspondence.]
[Note †: † As to Morris' decay of faculties, see 6 Potter's Am. Monthly, 19, 103.]
Page 600 | Page image
prevented her from exercising that liberal influence on France which might have averted that imperialism which, when he was dying, he saw supreme. Morris, on the other hand, devoted himself not from enthusiasm but from a sense of justice, to the liberal cause; and so successful were his services, that when death approached him he was able to see the debts by which the nation was crushed when he took office, almost entirely liquidated by the system of finance he had established. Both died insolvent. Pitt's debts were paid by Parliament, and there was erected in Westminster Abbey a monument of him in which his haughty features stand out in marble against the wall from which in sculpture the eagle eye of his great father looks down. It is not creditable to the United States that no monument has been erected to Morris; and it is still less creditable to the State of Pennsylvania that she took no measures to relieve the then greatest of her citizens from an indebtedness for which he for a time had been confined in a debtor's prison.
Services in building up the finances of the United States. § 184. Morris, as has already been noticed,* belonged, from his training as well as from his mental structure, to the constructive as distinguished from the merely expulsive or liberative school of our revolutionary statesmen, and to him, with Washington and Franklin, and with Livingston and Jay, is due the honor of gradually evolving, even during the throes of the Revolution, the system of executive and legislative co-ordinancy which afterwards became the basis of the Constitution of the United States. To him also is due the establishment, on sound principles, of a permanent department of finance, which, tremendous as were the difficulties with which it had to contend, kept off the absolute ruin which was impending, and opened the way for a final restoration of credit.
[Note *: * Supra, § 14.]
Morris' financial policy may be thus summed up:
Page 601 | Page image
10 to 15 per cent. Ere long they rose in value to par, and were taken without hesitation."*
In this way he provided the funds for the campaign which culminated at Yorktown, and a large part of the armament for that campaign "together with the expense of provisions for and pay of the troops, was accomplished on the personal credit of Robert Morris, who issued his notes to the amount of $1,400,000, which were finally all paid."†[Note *: * 1 Bolles' Financial History, 285. See, for reference, index, title Morris.]
[Note †: † Judge Peters, in 6 Potter's Amer. Monthly, 22.]
[Note ‡: ‡ 1 Bolles' Financial History, 299.]
"The sudden restoration of public and private credit which took place on the establishment of the bank was an event as extraordinary in itself as any domestic occurrence during the progress of the Revolution." Morris' credit § led to the reception in its vaults of specie both in payment of stock subscriptions and as deposits. Within four months after it was opened it was able to loan Congress $400,000. The circulation of the bank, paid in specie and kept at par, was of immense value in increasing the volume of currency and restoring public confidence. The bank, it must be remembered, was designed to be a government fiscal agent, and its operations were limited to this sphere, with the liberty of issuing redeemable paper to the government when making its loans.
[Note §: § Sanderson's Biography of Signers of the Declaration, 351.]
The following, from Robert Morris, was printed in the Independent Gazetteer of April 8, 1788:
"To the printer of the Independent Gazetteer, Philadelphia:
"Richmond, 21st March, 1788.
"Sir: From some of your Gazettes which have lately reached me, and particularly from one of the 13th instant, I find that I am charged as a public defaulter to a very considerable amount. This assertion is made to support a charge against the federal Constitution, which those writers say is calculated to screen defaulters from justice. Without pretending to inquire whether the Constitution be, in this respect, misun derstood or misrepresented, I readily agree that if, on fair investigation, that fault shall really appear, an amendment ought to be made.
Page 602 | Page image
"I stand charged in a twofold capacity: First, as a chairman of committees of Congress, and, secondly, as superintendent of the finances. But it so happens that in neither of those capacities did I ever touch one shilling of the public money.
"At an early period of the Revolution I contracted with the committees to import arms, ammunition, and clothing, and was employed to export American produce and make remittances on account of the United States for the purpose of lodging funds in Europe. To effect these objects I received considerable sums of money. The business has been performed, but the accounts are not yet settled. Among the various causes which have hitherto delayed the settlement I shall only mention here that I have not yet been able to obtain the required vouchers for delivery of articles in different parts of America, nor the duplicates of some accounts and other needful papers which were lost at sea during the war. It was my intention to have gone in person to New York, where alone (since the removal of Congress) this business can be finally adjusted; but circumstances unexpected obliged me to come to this country. I therefore employed a gentleman to proceed on the settlement of those accounts, but during the investigation obstacles arose which he was not sufficiently acquainted with the transactions to remove; and as some of the deficient vouchers are to be obtained in this State and South Carolina, he came on hither, and is now in pursuit of them. I have indeed been less solicitous on this subject than otherwise I should have been from the conviction that there is a balance in my favor, so that no charge could justly lie against my reputation. Nor could my interest suffer by the delay, for the date of a certificate to be received for the balance was immaterial.
"As superintendent of the finances I have no accounts to settle. As I never received any of the public money none of it can be in my hands. It was received in and paid from the public treasury on my warrants. The party to whom it was paid was accountable; and the accounts were all in the treasury office, open (during my administration) to the inspection of every American citizen. The only point of responsibility, therefore, in which I can possibly stand is for the propriety of issues to others by my authority. It is true that I caused a statement of the receipts and expenditures to be made and printed, but this was not by any means intended for a settlement with Congress, but to be transmitted by them (if they should think proper) to the several States; for I have ever been of the opinion that the people ought to know how much of their money goes into the public treasury and for what purposes it is issued. Perhaps some persons may remember that, in conformity to this opinion, I caused the receipts (even during the war) to be published (monthly) in the gazettes; and the expenditures, as I have already mentioned, were open to public inspection. This mode of conduct was reprehended by some, and perhaps justly. My fellow-citizens will judge whether it looks like the concealment of a public defaulter. As to the suggestion that the United States in Congress were influenced by me to neglect the duty of calling me to account, I shall not attempt to refute it. Every man who feels for the dignity of America must revolt at such an insult to her representatives.
"Before I conclude I think it necessary to apologize for having written this letter to all who may take the trouble of reading it. A newspaper is certainly an improper place for stating and settling public accounts, especially those which are already before the proper tribunal, but I thought it in some sort a duty to take notice of charges which, if not controverted, might have influenced weak minds to oppose the Constitution. This was at least the ostensible reason for bringing me forward on the present occasion. With what decency or propriety it has been done I leave to the reflection of the authors. Their exultation on my 'losses and crosses' is character istic. To every pleasure which can arise from the gratification of such passions they are heartily welcome; and the more so as I hope and expect the enjoyment will be of short duration.
"Robert Morris."*
[Note *: * For a sketch of the life of Robert Morris by Mrs. C. H. Hart, see 1 Penn. Mag. of History, 333.]
Page 603 | Page image
C. W. F. Dumas' diplomatic services. § 185. Charles William Frederick Dumas, numerous letters from whom will be found in the following pages, was a native of Switzerland, but he passed a large portion of his life in Holland, chiefly employed as a man of letters. He was a person of deep learning, versed in the ancient classics, and skilled in several modern languages, a warm friend of liberty, and an early defender of the American cause. About the year 1770, or a little later, he published an edition of Vattel, with a long preface and notes, which were marked with his liberal sentiments.
When Dr. Franklin was in Holland, on his way to France, a short time before his return to his own country, at the beginning of the Revolution, he became acquainted with M. Dumas. Having thus witnessed his ability, his love of freedom, and his zeal in favor of America, he considered him a suitable person to act as agent in promoting our affairs abroad. Towards the close of the year 1775, when the committee of secret correspondence was formed, of which Dr. Franklin was chairman, it was resolved to employ M. Dumas for executing the purposes of the committee in Holland. A letter of general instructions was accordingly written to him by Dr. Franklin in the name of the committee, and from that time M. Dumas commenced a correspondence with Con gress, which continued without interruption during the Revolution, and occasionally to a much later period. He acted at first as a secret agent, and after John Adams went to Holland as minister plenipotentiary from the United States M. Dumas performed the office of secretary and translator to the minister. On the departure of Mr. Adams for Paris, to engage in the negotiations for peace, M. Dumas remained in the character of chargé d'affaires from the United States. In this capacity he exchanged with the Dutch Government the ratification of the treaty which had been previously negotiated by Mr. Adams.
It will be seen by M. Dumas' correspondence that his services were unremitting, assiduous, and important, and performed with a singular devotedness to the interests of the United States, and with a warm and undeviating attachment to the rights and liberties for which they were contending. Congress seems not to have well understood the extent or merits of his labors. He was obliged often to complain of the meager compensation he received, and of the extreme difficulty with which he and his small family contrived to subsist on it. Both Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin recommended him to Congress as worthy of better returns, but with little effect. This indifference to his worth and his services while living renders it the more just that his memory should be honored with the respect and gratitude of posterity.
M. Dumas was still living in 1794, when Mr. John Quincy Adams went to Holland as minister from this country, but he died soon afterwards at an advanced age.*
[Note *: * 5 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 185.]
Page 604 | Page image
Of Dumas Parton thus writes:
"During one of his visits to Holland he (Franklin) had become acquainted with Professor Charles W. F. Dumas, a native of Switzerland, who had long resided at The Hague, and much frequented the circle of diplomatists who dawdled away existence at that sedate capital. Mr. Dumas, who had made international law his specialty, recalled himself very acceptably to Dr. Franklin in the autumn of 1775, by sending him copies of Vattel, edited and annotated by himself; a most timely gift, which was pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents. To him Dr. Franklin addressed the first letter authorized by the committee of secret correspondence."*
[Note *: * 2 Parton's Franklin, 111.]
Dumas, as has been seen, was charged by Arthur Lee with corruption,† and by both Arthur and William Lee his services were constantly undervalued. On the other hand, Franklin had entire confidence in Dumas, as is exhibited in the voluminous correspondence an the following pages.‡ By Jefferson, who, as minister to France after the peace, had full opportunity of becoming acquainted with Dumas' services, those services are spoken of in high terms, and his loyalty as well as his intelligence uniformly commended.§
[Note †: † Supra, § 147.]
[Note ‡: ‡ See index, titles Dumas, Franklin; and 8 Sparks' Franklin, 448, 452, 498.]
[Note §: § 1 Jefferson's Writings (by Washington) 568; 2 id., 287, 366; 3 id., 331.]
John Adams, during his residence at The Hague, placed his house under the care of Dumas and his family, and many years afterwards Adams in a letter to Mercy Warren (July 30, 1807), in reply to a statement of Mrs. Warren that "he took lodgings at Amsterdam for several months at the house of Mr. Dumas, a man of some mercantile interest, considerable commercial knowledge, not acquainted with manners or letters, but much attached to the Americans from the general predilection of Dutchmen in favor of republicanism," thus writes:
"Mr. Dumas never lived in Amsterdam. Mr. Dumas never was a merchant. Mr. Dumas never had any mercantile interest. If Mr. Dumas had any commercial knowledge, it was merely theoretical and such as every man of reading and reflection and knowledge of the world possesses. Mr. Dumas was a man of the world, and well acquainted with manners. Mr. Dumas was so much a man of letters, that he was one of the most accomplished classical scholars that I have been acquainted with, and had taken as general a survey of ancient and modern science as most of the professors of the universities of Europe or America. He was indeed much attached to the Americans, but from better motives and more knowledge than 'the general predilection of Dutchmen in favor of republicanism.' Such was Mr. Dumas. He always lived at The Hague, at least from my first knowledge of him till his death at upwards of four score. He had been in England before our Revolution and Dr. Franklin had been in Holland, in both of which countries Dr. Franklin and Mr. Dumas had become acquainted and attached in friendship to each other. * * * Mr. Dumas corresponded also with Congress, and he was allowed three hundred pounds sterling a year for his services."
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |