Isaac Eoff

Beech Grove Confederate Cemetery,
Beech Grove, Tennes

ISAAC EOFF

PVT

CONTINENTAL LINE

REV WAR

1761

1841

Harrison Gray Otis et al to John Quincy Adams, November 26, 1828

Boston, November 26, 1828.

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

SIR,

The undersigned, citizens of Massachusetts, residing in Boston and its vicinity, take the liberty of addressing you on the subject of a statement published in the National Intelligencer of the 21st of October, and which purports to have been communicated or authorised by you.

In that statement, after speaking of those individuals in this State, whom the writer designates as “certain leaders of the party which had the management of the State Legislature in their hands” in the year 1808, and saying, that in the event of a civil war, he (Mr Adams) “had no doubt the leaders of the party would secure the co-operation with them of Great Britain,” it is added, “That their object was, and had been for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not proveable in a court of law.”

This, sir, is not the expression of an opinion as to the nature and tendency of the measures at that time publicly adopted, or proposed, by the party prevailing in the State of Massachusetts. Every citizen was at liberty to form his own opinions on that subject; and we cheerfully submit the propriety of those measures to the judgment of an impartial posterity. But the sentence which we have quoted contains the assertion of a distinct fact, as one within your own knowledge. We are not permitted to consider it as the unguarded expression of irritated feelings, hastily uttered at a time of great political excitement. Twenty years have elapsed since this charge was first made, in private correspondence with certain members of Congress; and it is now deliberately repeated, and brought before the Public under the sanction of your name, as being founded on unequivocal evidence, within your knowledge.

We do not claim for ourselves, nor even for those deceased friends whose representatives join in this address, the title of leaders of any party in Massachusetts ; but we were associated in politics with the party prevailing here at the period referred to in the statement above mentioned; some of us concurred in all the measures adopted by that party; and we all warmly approved and supported those measures. Many of our associates who still survive, are dispersed throughout Massachusetts and Maine, and could not easily be convened to join us on the present occasion. We trust however that you will not question our right, if not for ourselves alone, at least in behalf of the highly valued friends with whom we acted at that time, and especially of those of them who are now deceased, respectfully to ask from you such a full and precise statement of the facts and evidence relating to this accusation, as may enable us fairly to meet and answer it.

The object of this letter therefore is, to request you to state

First, Who are the persons, designated as leaders of the party prevailing in Massachusetts in the year 1808, whose object, you assert, was and had been for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confederation? and

Secondly, the whole evidence on which that charge is founded.

It is admitted in the statement of the charge, that it is not proveable in a court of law, and of course that you are not in possession of any legal evidence by which to maintain it. The evidence however must have been such as in your opinion would have been pronounced unequivocal by upright and honorable men of discriminating minds ; and we may certainly expect from your sense of justice and self respect a full disclosure of all that you possess.

A charge of this nature, coming as it does from the first magistrate of the nation, acquires an importance which we cannot affect to disregard; and it is one which we ought not to leave unanswered. We are therefore constrained, by a regard to our deceased friends and to our posterity, as well as by a sense of what is due to our own honor, most solemnly to declare, that we have never known nor suspected that the party which prevailed in Massachusetts in the year 1808, or any other party in this State, ever entertained the design to produce a dissolution of the Union, or the establishment of a separate Confederation. It is impossible for us in any other manner to refute, or even to answer this charge, until we see it fully and particularly stated, and know the evidence by which it is to be maintained.

The undersigned think it due to themselves to add, that in making this application to you, they have no design nor wish to produce an effect on any political party or question whatever. Neither is it their purpose to enter into a vindication or discussion of the measures publickly adopted and avowed by the persons against whom the above charge has been made. Our sole object is to draw forth all the evidence on which that charge is founded, in order that the public may judge of its application and its weight.

We are Sir, with due respect,

Your obedient servants,

H. G. OTIS,

ISRAEL THORNDIKE,

T. H. PERKINS,

WM. PRESCOTT,

DANIEL SARGENT,

JOHN LOWELL,

WM. SULLIVAN,

CHARLES JACKSON,

WARREN DUTTON,

BENJ. PICKMAN,

HENRY CABOT,

Son of the late George Cabot.

C. C. PARSONS,

Son of Theophilus Parsons, Esq. deceased.

FRANKLIN DEXTER,

Son of the late Samuel Dexter.

SOURCE: Correspondence Between John Quincy Adams, Esquire, President of the United States and Several Citizens of Massachusetts Concerning the Charge of a Design to Dissolve the Union Alleged to have Existed in that State, p. 11-14

Wilson Lumpkin to John C. Calhoun, January 27, 1829

Washington, 27th January, 1829.

Dear Sir: I herewith enclose you the copy of a letter received from my friend General Daniel Newnan, in whom I have great confidence. I also give you an extract from my friend's letter.

The great confidence and friendship which I have long entertained, and still entertain, for General Jackson, as well as yourself, induce me to take the liberty of making this communication to you. I am confident the best interest of our common country requires, not only the harmonious and patriotic union of the two first officers of the Government, but of every patriotic citizen of the whole country, to frown indignantly upon all intriguers, managers, political jugglers, and selfish politicians, of every description, who are disposed to divide and conquer.

I feel the more at liberty and authorized to make this communication, because I know, of my own knowledge, you and your friends are misrepresented upon this subject. However, General Jackson, himself, must see and know the object of these shallow efforts.

I do not know one conspicuous friend of yours, but what has constantly, zealously, and uniformly supported General Jackson, from the day that Pennsylvania declared in his favor to the present time. How, then, can it be possible that General Jackson can suspect the friendship, constancy, or sincerity of you or your friends? No; he cannot—he will not — he does not. I have quite too much confidence in the General to believe such idle tales.

Nevertheless, it is proper for you and him both to be apprized of the machinations of the mischievous. You are at liberty to use this communication in any way you please.

With respect and esteem,

Your obedient servant,

WILSON LUMPKIN.

Hon. J. C. Calhoun.

SOURCE: John Caldwell Calhoun, Correspondence Between Gen. Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun, p. 5-6

Henry Knox to Lucy Flucker, March 7, 1774

Monday Evening, March 7, 1774.

What news? Have you spoken to your father, or he to you, upon the subject? What appearance has this [to us] grand affair at your house at present? Do you go to the ball to-morrow evening? I am in a state of anxiety heretofore unknown. I wish the medium of our correspondence settled, in order to which I must endeavor to see you, when we will settle it.

SOURCE: Francis Samuel Drake, Life and Correspondence of Henry Knox, p. 16-7

The Committee of Convention to Alexander Hamilton, March 17, 1777

Kingston, March 17, 1777.

Dear Sir: We are to inform you, that Robert E. Livingston is, with us, a committee appointed by Convention to correspond with you at Head Quarters. You will give us pleasure in the information that His Excellency is recovered from the illness which had seized him the day before Messrs. Cuyler and Taylor left Head Quarters. Any occurrences in the army which may have happened, you will please to communicate. In answer to your letter to the Convention, of the sixth of March instant, we are to inform you, that it is determined to permit that company to join the Continental Army, for which you will take the necessary steps. At the same time, you will take some notice of the disposition of our guns, which, as you well know, are all in the Continental service; and unless some little attention is paid to them, we may, perhaps, never see them again.

We are, Sir,

Your most obed't and humble servants,

Gouv. Morris,

Wm. Allison.

SOURCE: John C. Hamilton, Editor, The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Correspondence. 1769-1789, Volume 1, p. 12

John Adams, July 6, 1774

Falmouth, 6 July, 1774.

Our Justice Hutchinson is eternally giving his political hints. In a cause this morning, somebody named Captain Mackay as a referee. I said, “An honest man?” “Yes,” says Hutchinson, “he's an honest man, only misled” — “he, he, he!” — blinking and grinning. At dinner today somebody mentioned determinations in the Lord's House (the Court sits in the meeting-house). “I've known many very bad determinations in the Lord's house of late,” says he, meaning a fling upon the clergy. He is perpetually flinging about the Fasts, and ironically talking about getting home to the Fast. A gentleman told me that he had heard him say frequently that the Fast was perfect blasphemy. “Why don't you pay for the tea? Refuse to pay for the tea! and go to fasting and praying for direction! Perfect blasphemy !”¹

This is the moderation, candor, impartiality, prudence, patience, forbearance, and condescension of our Judge.

Samuel Quincy said yesterday, as Josiah told me, he was for staying at home and not going to meeting as they, i. e., the meetings, are so managed.

Such is the bitterness and rancor, the malice and revenge, the pride and vanity, which prevail in these men. And such minds are possessed of all the power of the province.

Samuel makes no fortune this court. There is very little business here, it is true, but S. gets but very little of that little — less than anybody.

Wyer² retains his old good nature and good humor, his wit, such as it is, and his fancy, with its mildness. Bradbury retains his anxiety, and his plaintive, angry manner; David Sewall his softness and conceited modesty.

Bradbury and Sewall always roast Dr. Gardiner at these courts, but they have done it more now than usual, as Gardiner had not me to protect him. See how I think of myself!

I believe it is time to think a little about my family and farm. The fine weather we have had for eight or ten days past I hope has been carefully improved to get in my hay. It is a great mortification to me that I could not attend every step of their progress in mowing, making, and casting. I long to see what burden. But I long more still to see to the procuring more sea-weed, and muscle mud, and sand, etc.

However, my prospect is interrupted again. I shall have no time. I must prepare for a journey to Philadelphia, a long journey indeed! But if the length of the journey were all, it would be no burden. But the consideration of what is to be done is of great weight. Great things are wanted to be done, and little things only I fear can be done. I dread the thought of the Congress' falling short of the expectations of the continent, but especially of the people of this province.

Vapors avaunt! I will do my duty, and leave the event. If I have the approbation of my own mind, whether applauded or censured, blessed or cursed, by the world, I will not be unhappy.

Certainly I shall enjoy good company, good conversation, and shall have a fine ride and see a little more of the world than I have seen before.

The letters I have written, or may write, my dear, must be kept secret, or at least shown with great caution.

I believe I forgot to tell you one anecdote. When I first came to this house it was late in the afternoon, and I had ridden thirty-five miles at least. “Madam,” said I to Mrs. Huston, “is it lawful for a weary traveller to refresh himself with a dish of tea, provided it has been honestly smuggled, or paid no duties?” “No, sir,” said she, “we have renounced all tea in this place, but I’ll make you coffee.” Accordingly I have drank coffee every afternoon since, and have borne it very well. Tea must be universally renounced, and I must be weaned, and the sooner the better.

_______________

¹ Foster Hutchinson, one of the Associate Justices of the Superior Court, and brother of the Governor. He was proscribed and his property confiscated. He removed to Nova Scotia in 1776, where he died in 1799.

² David Wyer, a graduate of Harvard College in 1758, entered on the practice of his profession at Falmouth, but died before he was forty, in October, 1775.

SOURCE: Charles Francis Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution, p. 16-8

Benjamin Franklin to John Baskerville*, 1760

Craven Street, London, 1760.

Dear Sir,

Let me give you a pleasant instance of the prejudice some have entertained against your work. Soon after I returned, discoursing with a gentleman concerning the artists of Birmingham, he said you would be a means of blinding all the readers in the nation; for the strokes of your letters being too thin and narrow, hurt the eye, and he could never read a line of them without pain. I thought, said I, you were going to complain of the gloss of the paper, some object to. “No, no,” said he, “I have heard that mentioned, but it is not that; it is in the form and cut of the letters themselves; they have not that height and thickness of the stroke, which makes the common printing so much the more comfortable to the eye.” — You see this gentleman was a connoisseur. In vain I endeavoured to support your character against the charge; he knew what he felt, and could see the reason of it, and several other gentlemen among his friends had made the same observation, &c. Yesterday he called to visit me, when, mischievously bent to try his judgment, I stepped into my closet, tore off the top of Mr. Caslon's¹ specimen, and produced it to him as yours, brought with me from Birmingham; saying, I had been examining it, since he spoke to me, and could not for my life perceive the disproportion he mentioned, desiring him to point it out to me. He readily undertook it, and went over the several founts, shewing me every where what he thought instances of that disproportion; and declared, that he could not then read the specimen without feeling very strongly the pain he had mentioned to me. I spared him that time, the confusion of being told, that these were the types, he had been reading all his life with so much ease to his eyes; the types his adored Newton is printed with, on which he has pored not a little; nay, the very types his own book is printed with; (for he is himself an author) and yet never discovered this painful disproportion in them, till he thought they were yours.

I am, &c.

B. Franklin.

_______________

* John Baskerville, the celebrated type-founder and printer, was born in 1706, at Wolverley, in the County of Worcester. Having a small estate of about sixty pounds a year, he was not bred to any profession; but in 1746, he became a schoolmaster at Birmingham, which he continued many years. Afterwards he entered upon the japanning business, which succeeded so well as to enable him to purchase a country house and to set up his carriage; each pannel of which was a distinct picture, and the whole might be considered as a pattern card of his trade. In 1750, he began business as a type-founder, on which he spent many hundreds before he could produce a letter to please himself. By perseverance he overcame all obstacles, and in 1756 published an edition of Virgil in quarto, which was followed by Paradise Lost, the Bible, Common Prayer, and several other works. In 1765, he applied to Dr. Franklin, then at Paris, to sound the literati there respecting the purchase of his types, but the proposal was not accepted. They were many years after purchased by the celebrated M. De Beaumarchais, and employed in the printing his edition of the works of Voltaire. Baskerville died at Birmingham, in 1775; and as he had an aversion to churchyards, he was by his own direction buried in a mausoleum erected on his own grounds.

¹ An eminent type-engraver and letter-founder in London.

SOURCE: William Temple Franklin, The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 1, p. 5-7

Henry Knox to Thomas Longman, December 15, 1793

It is but justice to myself to say, that while I experience the strongest sensations of gratitude for your forbearance and liberality, that it is with extreme inconvenience that I pay so heavy an arrear for property destroyed by events which I could no more control than I could the great operations of nature, [nor] am I more responsible for them: I mean the war. In paying you, I feel inclination and duty blended together. Had my pecuniary situation admitted of the measure, you should long ago have received the amount due.

SOURCE: Francis Samuel Drake, Life and Correspondence of Henry Knox, p. 14

John Adams, July 6, 1774

Falmouth,¹ 6 July, 1774.

Mobs are the trite topic of declamation and invective among all the ministerial people far and near. They are grown universally learned in the nature, tendency, and consequences of them, and very elegant and pathetic in descanting upon them. They are sources of all kinds of evils, vices, and crimes, they say. They give rise to profaneness, intemperance, thefts, robberies, murders, and treason. Cursing, swearing, drunkenness, gluttony, lewdness, trespasses, maims, are necessarily involved in them and occasioned by them. Besides, they render the populace, the rabble, the scum of the earth, insolent and disorderly, impudent and abusive. They give rise to lying, hypocrisy, chicanery, and even perjury among the people, who are driven to such artifice and crimes to conceal themselves and their companions from prosecutions in consequence of them.

This is the picture drawn by the Tory pencil; and it must be granted to be a likeness. But this is declamation. What consequence is to be drawn from this description? Shall we submit to Parliamentary taxation to avoid mobs? Will not Parliamentary taxation, if established, occasion vices, crimes, and follies infinitely more numerous, dangerous, and fatal to the community? Will not Parliamentary taxation, if established, raise a revenue unjustly and wrongfully? If this revenue is scattered by the hand of corruption among the public officers and magistrates and rulers in the community, will it not propagate vices more numerous, more malignant and pestilential among them? Will it not render magistrates servile and fawning to their vicious superiors, and insolent and tyrannical to their inferiors? Are insolence, abuse, and impudence more tolerable in a magistrate than in a subject? Are they not more constantly and extensively pernicious? And does not the example of vice and folly in magistrates descend and spread downwards among the people?

Besides, is not the insolence of officers and soldiers and seamen, in the army and navy, as mischievous as that of porters, or of sailors in the merchant service? Are not riots raised and made by armed men as bad as those by unarmed? Is not an assault upon a civil officer, and a rescue of a prisoner from lawful authority, made by soldiers with swords or bayonets, as bad as if made by tradesmen with staves?

Are not the killing of a child by R.,² and the slaughter of half a dozen citizens by a party of soldiers, as bad as pulling down a house or drowning a cargo of tea, even if both should be allowed to be unlawful? Parties may go on declaiming, but it is not easy to say which party has excited most riots, which has published most libels, which has propagated most slander and defamation? Verbal scandal has been propagated in great abundance by both parties; but there is this difference, that one party have enjoyed almost all public offices, and therefore their defamation has been spread among the people more secretly, more maliciously, and more effectually. It has gone with greater authority, and been scattered by instruments more industrious. The ministerial newspapers have swarmed with as numerous and as malicious libels as the antiministerial ones. Fleet's paper, “Mein's Chronicle,” etc., etc., have been as virulent as any that was ever in the province. These bickerings of opposite parties, and their mutual reproaches, their declamations, their sing-song, their triumphs and defiances, their dismals and prophecies, are all delusion.

We very seldom hear any solid reasoning. I wish always to discuss the question without all painting, pathos, rhetoric, or flourish of every kind. And the question seems to me to be, whether the American colonies are to be considered as a distinct community so far as to have a right to judge for themselves when the fundamentals of their government are destroyed or invaded, or whether they are to be considered as a part of the whole British empire, the whole English nation, so far as to be bound in honor, conscience, or interest by the general sense of the whole nation. However, if this was the rule, I believe it is very far from the general sense of the whole nation, that America should be taxed by the British parliament. If the sense of the whole of the empire could be fairly and truly collected, it would appear, I believe, that a great majority would be against taxing us against or without our consent. It is very certain that the sense of parliament is not the sense of the empire, nor a sure indication of it.

But, if all other parts of the empire were agreed unanimously in the propriety and rectitude of taxing us, this would not bind us. It is a fundamental, inherent, and unalienable right of the people, that they have some check, influence, or control in their supreme legislature. If the right of taxation is conceded to Parliament, the Americans have no check or influence at all left.

This reasoning never was nor can be answered.

_______________

¹ The ancient name of Portland, in Maine, at this period a part of the province of Massachusetts Bay.

² Ebenezer Richardson. The affair happened on the 22d February, 1770, a few days before the other and more serious disturbance here alluded to, commonly known as the Boston massacre. A man of the government side, by the name of Lillie, who kept a shop in Hanover Street, finding the non-importation agreement not universally observed, ventured to offer his stock of goods for sale. As a consequence, his shop was at once marked out in the street as infringing the agreement, and a board set up on which a hand was drawn for the purpose of arresting attention and deterring all persons from purchasing. Richardson, well known as an informer attached to the custom house, who lived close by, came out and attempted to get rid of the board. A struggle took place. The mob drove him back to his house, and attacked it with stones. He then fired a musket twice, killing a German boy eleven years old, by the name of Christopher Snyder, and wounding another very severely.

SOURCE: Charles Francis Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution, p. 14-16

Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Hamilton to the Provincial Congress, March 6, 1777

Morristown, March 6, 1777.

Gentlemen:

It is necessary I should inform you of the changes which have happened in your Company of Artillery, which should have been done long ago, had I not been prevented by sickness, from which I am but lately recovered.

General Washington has been pleased to appoint me one of his Aids-de-Camp. Captain-Lieutenant James Moore, a promising officer, and who did credit to the State he belonged to, died about nine weeks ago. Lieutenant James Gilleland, some time before that, resigned his commission, prompted by domestic inconveniences, and other motives best known to himself. There remain now only two officers, Lieutenants Bean and Thompson, and about thirty men. The reason that the number of men is so reduced, besides death and desertions, was owing to a breach of orders in Lieutenant Johnson, who first began the enlistment of the company; and who, instead of engaging them during the war, according to the intention of the State, engaged them for the limited term of a twelvemonth. The time of those enlisted by him has expired; and for want of powers to re-engage them, they have mostly entered into other corps.

I have to request you will favor me with instructions as to your future intentions. If you design to retain the company on the particular establishment of the State, it will be requisite to complete the number of officers, and make provision to have the company filled by a new enlistment. In this case, I should beg leave to recommend to your notice, as far as a Captain-Lieutenancy, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Bean is so incurably addicted to a certain failing, that I cannot, in justice, give my opinion in favor of his preferment. But if you should determine to resign the company, as I expect you will, considering it as an extraordinary burthen, without affording any special advantages, the Continent will readily take it off your hands, so soon as you shall intimate your design to relinquish it. I doubt not you will see the propriety of speedily deciding on the matter, which the good of the service requires.

I am, with the sincerest respect, gentlemen,

Your most ob't and most humble servant,

Alex. Hamilton.

SOURCE: John C. Hamilton, Editor, The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Correspondence. 1769-1789, Volume 1, p. 11-12

Thomas Jefferson to William Livingston, January 1783

Philadelphia, January, 1783.

Dear Sir,

It gives me real concern that I have been here several days, and so closely engaged that I have not been able to pay you the respect of a letter, and to assure you that I hold among my most estimable acquaintances, that which I had the pleasure of contracting with you at this place. I am the more concerned, as expecting to leave this place on Tuesday next, I might have been gratified by the carrying letters from you to Mr. and Mrs. Jay. Perhaps it may not yet be too late. * *

I beg you to accept my sincere wishes for your happiness, and believe me very really,

Dear sir, your most obedient,

And most humble friend and servant,

Th. Jefferson.

SOURCE: Theodore Sedgwick, A Memoir of the Life of William Livingston, p. 373

William Livingston* to Thomas Jefferson, January 25, 1783

Trenton, 25 January, 1783.

DEAR SIR,

BEING just returned to this place from a journey to the eastern parts of the State, I find myself honoured with your very kind and obliging Letter of the 3d instant. My host here having neglected to transmit it to me from his daily expectations of my return, I fear that this letter will not find you in America, and in such case I have desired the President of Congress to do me the favour of directing it accordingly, and of sending it to France by the first opportunity.

And now, my dear sir, give me leave to assure you, that I am not only extremely sensible of the politeness of your offer to be the bearer of my Letters to Mr. and Mrs. Jay, but that I am particularly flattered by the value you are pleased to set on the acquaintance you contracted with me, in Philadelphia: An acquaintance, which I most earnestly wish to cultivate to my dying day, tho’ like the rest of the world, that is too much actuated by motives of self-interest, this wish of mine partakes, I fear, too much of that inglorious passion: as the benefits that will result from our intimacy (which I pray you to perpetuate by your correspondence) will be altogether on my side.

Heaven grant you a prosperous voyage and a safe return: and be assured that I am with the greatest sincerity, your most humble

Friend and Servant.

WIL: LIVINGSTON.

_______________

* William Livingston (1723—1790), son of Philip Livingston and Catharine Van Brugh, and brother-in-law to William Alexander, Lord Stirling. The letter to which this is a reply is printed in part in Sedgwick, Life of William Livingston, 373.

SOURCE: William Keeney Bixby, Thomas Jefferson Correspondence: Printed from the Originals in the Collections of William K. Bixby, p. 3-4