Late American Statesmen, No. II [pp. 95-119]

LATE AMERICAN STATESMEN. ~
it is true, called by a king to an office which he could not reject
without disloyalty to that king; but he was called to political
life by his own kingly instincts, by a consciousness of destiny
imposed on him by his parentage and training, by the very insulation which confined his impetuous nature within this single
channel. In political life must he remain, taking whatever service this life imposed on him; but the service had to be
taken with its inherent limitations. And in addition must be
considered the dominant characteristic of Mr. Adams already
noticed-his animosity to whatever stood in his path. In that
path was the slavery issue. It thwarted him; it must be put
out of the way; the anxieties of those dreading encroachment
in this relation must be appeased; but none the less did the agitators who from both sides forced the issue appear odious to
Kim. From that time forward, while making no peace with the
anti-slavery men as a party, he never speaks of the pro-slavery
agitators but with dislike. Yet not to them is his dislike limited; nor -are they the only parties who rear against him an
implacable front. Abolitionists blocked his path on his first
canvass for the presidency; they blocked his way on his last
canvass for the House. His early enemy, menacing him with
unwelcolne and perverse mien at the beginning of his career,
menaced him to its very close. Irreconcilable himself with whatever enemy stood in his way, he remained irreconcilable to the
end, even tho he was thus irreconcilable with irreconcilability
itself.
The alliance of Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, by which Mr. Clay,
after throwing his influence in favor of Mr. Adams in the House,
was made secretary of state by Mr. Adams, was denounced by
Mr. Randolph as the union of the puritan with the gambler. If
puritanism, as Hooker tells us, be the jure-divinoism of individualism; if it mean a militant maintenance of the personal present will against any adversary in the way; if it involve battling
against the oppression of others rather from dislike of the oppressor than for liking of the oppressed,-then puritanism may
be ascribed to-Mr. Adams. And if strict accuracy in the expression of belief, if inaccessibility to the corrupting influence of
money, if disdain of sensual pleasure, if dauntless courage, are
the notes of puritanism, then, in this sense also, he was a puri
I I I