From: Connecticut Committee of Correspondence
(Committees of Correspondence were early revolutionary cells, specifically organized for revolutionary reeducation, for the manipulation of opinion, so as to lay the groundwork of resistance to the globe’s greatest imperialist power, the British Empire. “Sam Adams was the promoter of the first local committees on November 12, 1772, and within three months Governor Hutchinson reported that there were more than eighty such committees in Massachusetts.” Committees of Correspondence formed the basis for the soon to follow Committees of Public Safety, as the road to Revolution unfolded. See page 217, “Committees of Correspondence,” Concise Dictionary of American History, Editor, Wayne Andrews.)
* * * * *
Enlightened Authoritarians
* * * * *
But the origin of the American Republic is distinguished by peculiar circumstances. Other nations have been driven together by fear and necessity—their governments have generally been the result of a single man’s observations; or the offspring of particular interests. In the formation of our constitution, the wisdom of all ages is collected—the legislators of antiquity are consulted—as well as the opinions and interests of the millions, who are concerned. In short, it is an Empire of Reason. . . Noah Webster.[1]
* * * * *
America’s wordsmith, Noah Webster, who was teaching in Philadelphia at the time of the most dynamic assemblage of critical thinkers ever convened to engage in a protracted intellectual exercise of political administration, who, without pause or reservation, waxed serious in their consultations of previous cultures, empires and governments, as well personalities both known and barely regarded or even forgotten, the most Dynamic Generation in this Nation’s history, referred to the record of Man—that is, his history—in an effort to construct a society and culture, but most important, a government, as inclusive as humanly possible, contingent, of course, on the strengths and weaknesses of the human condition . . . that perhaps over a course of years, would not only be well administered but . . . maybe even last. . . ?
Hopeless dreamers to a man? . . . perhaps; but nevertheless committed to, but not merely a government, considered a Republic and not the despised doctrine of “Democracy,”[2] but to Empire, subduing the continent upon which their forefathers had landed or to which had been bought. Land, the basis of Economic Liberty, is the founding principle of America. To which many of the Founders were seeking to enlarge their claims minus interference from the Crown and Parliament. Yet who, at the same time, were willing to share with those willing to strike out for their share for the determinate of power . . . indeed, creating an empire overseen by an evolving Dictatorship of the Landed Class, comprised of land owners, both modest and mammoth, and able to vote and or if need be, run for elected office, so as to insure that an arbitrary regime of a landed class whose ranks were open to even immigrants willing to chance their lot in taming a vast wilderness rich with opportunity and resources.
This epic endeavor in spreading the wealth in what will be known to history as Manifest Destiny, was not to be restricted to a parochial entity known as thirteen colonies. “As early as 1778, Samuel Adams, leader of the left wing of the Revolution, proposed to his compatriots that they set their sights beyond the thirteen original colonies toward the acquisition of Canada, Nova Scotia and Florida as well: We shall never be upon a solid footing till Britain cedes to us what nature designs we should have, or till we wrest it from her.”[3] Or, as Jefferson observed: Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North & South is to be peopled. We should take care too, not to think it for the interest of that great continent to press too soon on the Spaniards. Those countries cannot be in better hands. My fear is that they are too feeble to hold them till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece. The navigation of the Mississippi we must have. This is all we are as yet ready to receive.[4]
Such an acquisition of land was not possible to wrest from the control of then, the present inhabitants, Spanish and the indigenous, without a suitable multitude ready, willing and able to chance their fortunes on the opportunity of a lifetime: Improving their own economic lots while at the same time partake in the political structure required to oversee the burgeoning empire. Indeed, it is the word Empire that brings to mind the assessment of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu: It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist: in a large one, there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are two great deposits to entrust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; in a small one the interest of the public is easily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have a less extent, and of course are less protested. . . [5]
This, of course, begs the following food for thought: Were the Founders undermining the quest for Republic at the start? or even before the start? True, the notion of taking part in the great land grab at the expense of the indigenous enabled the White masses to attempt to fulfill their destinies. But the endeavors of Man are not of an egalitarian variety. The human condition is not of a cookie-cutter nature. There will always be the few who are more successful than the many; or, plan to be more successful than his fellow Man, regardless of the justifications. This brings us, of course, to a foundational understanding as to why many of the Founders did not trust the Common Herd. For instance, Alexander Hamilton:
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the wellborn, then the mass of the people. . . . The people are turbulent and changing: they seldom judge or determine right. Give to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.[6]
Fellow Federalist Papers author, John Jay, Those who own the country ought to run it. Connecticut’s own Roger Sherman, co-author of The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, thought that the people should have as little to do as possible with government. John Adams, more than most, seemed to have an understanding of the developing class distinctions in the American colonies. “He was not the least bit shy about asserting the intellectual superiority of the New English. As early as 1775: Gentlemen, men of any sense, of any kind of education, in the other colonies are much fewer than in New England. He also noted an ominous ‘dissimilitude of character’ in the South because ‘the common people among them are very ignorant and very poor. . . . This inequality of property gives an aristocratical turn to all their proceedings.[7] Adams, in turn, in 1776, did not fully concur with Thomas Paine’s political agenda as outlined in Common Sense. Paine penned his fiery pamphlet in language even the barely literate would understand. Indeed, the treatise went through 25 editions in 1776 and was available in hundreds of thousands of copies. Paine’s political flavor was easy to grasp by the masses: Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil. . .[8]
“Paine’s pamphlet appealed to a wide range of colonial opinion angered by England. But it caused some tremors in aristocrats like John Adams, who were with the patriot cause but wanted to make sure it didn’t go too far in the direction of Democracy. Paine had denounced the so-called balanced government of Lords and Commons as a deception, and called for single-chamber representative bodies where the people could be represented. Adams denounced Paine’s plan as ‘so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter-poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work.’ Popular assemblies needed to be checked, Adams thought, because they were ‘productive of hasty results and absurd judgments.’”[9]
Thomas Jefferson, though, favored limited government, supported states’ rights, believed in the Agrarian as the Salt of the Earth. Preferred a Republic that would be dominated by the people digging in the dirt, the agrarian or farmer. Since land was the determinant of power, the farmer knew best the value of land as that determinant of power. In addition, he was a foe of a large, standing regular army, supporting the notion of state militias as the primary form of defense, and overseen by the states themselves.
Hamilton, the Virginian’s political foe, thought a strong central government the best hope of the future of the Republic. Favored manufacturing, finance and trade, together with agriculture, for an American economy that was balanced and necessary to provide America with a proper and functioning economy for the future. This is precisely the view Jefferson would gravitate towards following the War of 1812. For the Industrial Revolution was evolving, fueled as it was by finance capitalism. For the day of the Landed Gentry and its control of the economic agenda was coming to a conclusion. Some agrarians were moving from the land to the cities, to working in the developing factory system. The trend of Urbanization was proceeding apace. And with this social-economic development, a radical alteration of political control will become more Urban than Rural.
Like Franklin, Jefferson subscribed to a greater trust in the Common Man and, thought that the foundation of the Common Man’s devotion to Republicanism was with to an access to education. Yet Jefferson thought, “The worst that could happen . . . was for Americans to rush into the Industrial Revolution, exchanging their farms for factories and the open countryside for the slums of large cities. Jefferson never doubted that Americans had created as nearly perfect a society as mankind had yet achieved; to him, the industrialization of the United States was comparable to the exodus from paradise.
“Where agriculture was concerned, it is apparent that Jefferson was as much concerned with the social as with the economic conditions it created. Nor did he exclude political considerations: he never strayed far from his main point—that agriculture, ‘that great American interest, constituted the most solid bond of union of the diverse sections of which the American union was constructed. He recognized that if the farmers organized politically, nothing–not even the Hamiltonian ‘phalanx’ of bankers, speculators and businessmen—could stand against them.”[10]
“But Hamilton always took a realistic rather than a romantic view of human nature—his romanticism was reserved for the nation, not for its citizens—and he resigned himself early in his career to making the best of the strange republican world in which his destiny was cast. Robert Troup, one of his most intimate friends, declared that Hamilton ‘never had the least idea that we had materials, in the country, at all suitable for the construction of a monarchy; and consequently he never harbored any intention whatever of attempting that form of government.
“However he might appear to his enemies, Hamilton always visualized himself as the one man who could make republicanism a success. In his opinion this entailed, among other things, protecting popular government from its friends and well-wishers. For republicans seemed to Hamilton to have a particular weakness for killing the thing they loved.[11] If monarchy were ever established in the United States, for example, Hamilton felt sure that it would eventuate ‘from convulsions and disorders, in consequence of the arts of popular demagogues.’ Here Hamilton believed he had touched upon the weakest spot of republicanism—its tendency to produce demagogues and the proclivity of the people to follow these Pied Pipers of Democracy. The road to political office in the United States, Hamilton decided, was by ‘flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion.”[12] While he absolved Jefferson and Madison of any intention of bringing disaster upon the country, he believed that it would be the inevitable result of their actions.”[13]
Yet Jefferson held to the premise that Hamilton was wedded to a strong chief executive as the best means of stabilizing the government and that it was the glue to meld together the Republic. This concerned Jefferson, from the perspective, that same posed a threat to States’ Rights. Hamilton, though, did not see the chief executive so much as a threat to Republican Liberty, believing that republics were not destroyed by renegade chief executives, but rather by the libidinous actions of the people. Indeed, Hamilton viewed a capable chief executive as the basic component for successful Republican Government.
Hamilton’s viewpoint on the un-tenability of the people is not unfounded. For history shows that throughout the Christian epic, and many more times than not, Christians invariably eschew the precepts of the Prince of Peace, and opt instead for an authoritarian or despot. Such, then, is the original sin of Christianity. Indeed, Horace White once observed, “that the Constitution of the United States, is based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes that the natural state of man is a state of war, and the carnal mind is at enmity with God.[14] But the Founders were hardly a collection of undiscerning religious types. They were, for the most part, practical men. They were lawyers, merchants, businessmen, investors, planters, writers, with experience in the courtroom, the market place, government houses, banks, with some them understanding the potential danger of the side road and back alley. Gouveneur Morris seemed to take this, with his outlook on the Common Man, a step further, “The mob began to think and reason. Poor reptiles! . . . They bask in the sun, and ere noon they will bite, depend on it. The gentry will fear this.”[15]. Yet despite its inadequacies, the Common Herd could not be ignored.
In Russia, Lenin, too, had issues within the ranks of the Communists. For many of his Bolsheviks were opposed to government bureaucrats. “As revolutionaries, all Bolsheviks were against ‘bureaucracy.’ They could happily see themselves as party leaders or military commanders, but what true revolutionary could admit to becoming a bureaucrat, a chinovnik of the new regime? When they discussed administrative functions, their language became full of euphemisms: Communist officials were ‘cadres’ and Communist bureaucracies were ‘apparats’ and ‘organs of Soviet power.’ The word ‘bureaucracy’ was always pejorative: ‘bureaucratic methods’ and ‘bureaucratic solutions’ were to be avoided at all costs, and the revolution must be protected from ‘bureaucratic degeneration.’”[16]
Lenin understood, that working class revolutionaries, for the most part, were not government functionaries. Revolutionaries, while capable within the ranks of the party and Red Army, could not, for the most part, be counted on to keep the government functioning. Bureaucrats could. Whether under the Czarist government or Bolshevik administration, experienced government bureaucrats were required to maintain the day-to-day functions of government . . . even if some of the bureaucrats were bourgeois.
Mussolini took a different approach of reining in the Common Herd. Fascism, based on the corporations controlling the economy, was overseen by Il Duce and his Fascist Council. Mussolini saw Fascism as, anti-individualistic; that the right of the state supersedes the right of the individual. The liberty of the individual existed for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the state. “And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the state and of the individual within the state. The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”[17]
* * * * *
Manage the Mass
“Sons of Liberty: (Revolutionary) was organized in the American colonies at the time of the Stamp Act controversy. Societies sprang up simultaneously in scattered communities, an indication that while leadership was an important factor in agitating for American independence, there existed among the people a considerable discontent which had been aggravated by parliamentary interference. New York and Boston had two of the most energetic and spirited chapters. The Sons of Liberty constituted the extralegal enforcement arm of the movement for colonial self-government. Members circulated patriotic petitions, tarred and feathered violators of patriotic decrees, and intimidated British officials and their families. They stimulated a consciousness of colonial grievances by propaganda. They conducted funerals of patriots killed in street brawls.[18] They promoted picnics, dinners and rallies, drank toasts to the honor of historic leaders of liberty, sang songs, denounced British tyranny and hanged unpopular officials in effigy. Upon discovery of governmental impotency they issued semiofficial decrees of authority, and impudently summoned royal officials to Liberty Trees to explain their conduct to the people. Notwithstanding faults, the organization was a vigorous recrudescence in man’s age-long struggle to improve his economic and political conditions.”[19]
The group noted above was emblematic of how the masses can be directed. For instance, “Collections of colonists gathered themselves into a number of small groups with such colorful names as the Liberty Boys, Mohawk River Indians, Sons of Neptune and the Philadelphia Patriotic Society. Not to mince words, they were terrorist organizations. Working outside the law and at cross purposes with existing authorities, they tarred and feathered would-be sellers of tax stamps, assaulted customs inspectors, dumped tea into the sea, ran blockades, coerced juries, or prevented courts from sitting. Under these attacks, administrations virtually ceased to function.”[20]
To continue with the Sons of Liberty, we can refer to James Truslow Adams, who wrote, “While the more cultivated and thoughtful colonists were writing pamphlets discussing constitutional points, and the minorities privileged to share in the political administration were passing resolutions in the assemblies, leaders among the lower classes—some sincere and some merely agitators seeking personal influence—began to organize the un-enfranchised elements into secret societies under the name of ‘Sons of Liberty’. . . It was this organization, extending throughout many of the colonies, and composed for the most part of the least educated, least responsible and most unruly elements among the people, that carried out most of the mob violence and outrages of the next ten years; though in the beginning, at least, the responsibility must be shared by some of the more important radicals who took part in the movement.”[21]
Many members were merchants, artisans and shopkeepers, who had a direct economic reason for joining groups like the Sons of Liberty, from such cities as New York, Boston and Baltimore. Yet this budding Middle Class flavor could not replace the political and economic power of the privileged. Yet at the same time, the privileged needed the growing Middle Class to successfully effect the transfer of power from the Crown to the colonists.
Though some twenty percent of the colonists were poor, which boasted of a poverty rate less than most of Europe, it was the opportunities available that will spur some of those not wealthy to join in the revolutionary quest. Economic liberty would be the lure: The promise of land and it was there for the taking, the essence of Economic Liberty, the foundation of the American Republic; that is, of course, once the colonies were free from the imperialism of the British crown and usurpation by British bankers and mercantilists. And even though the wealthy were seeking to increase their holdings, those lower in the caste system had the opportunity to improve their lot. The colonies, soon to become a nation, was founded on Economic Liberty. Soon, too, to become an economic Shangra La for those with the desire to take part. This would eventually translate into limited government, with representation from those who owned land. Land, then, was the essence of Social Mobility in colonial America, soon to be the United States. And this enabled participation in the political process.
“The charter of Massachusetts Bay provided that only men owning a ’40 shilling freehold (land that would rent for 40 shillings a year) or other property valued at 50 pounds could vote in provincial elections. In Virginia the situation was similar; few White men failed to fulfill voting requirements: owning 25 acres of improved land, 100 acres of unoccupied land, or a house or lot in a town. Even in colonies like South Carolina and New York, where property qualifications were stiffer, a much larger percentage of the people could vote than in England.[22]
Yet it was the men of wealth and repute who organized, for the most part, the growing backlash against the crown. A number supported the mobs and groups like the Sons of Liberty. “John Morin Scott of New York, the son of a wealthy merchant, a graduate of Yale, a popular lawyer, and the owner of an ‘elegant seat’ on Manhattan Island as well as extensive holdings in the Schoharie Valley, was deeply implicated in the mob uprisings in New York City. John Hancock of Boston, one of the richest men in America and the financial ‘angel’ of the Massachusetts patriots, was much more intimate with the Boston mobsters than the Tories deemed any gentleman ought to be. William Livingston, one of the principle lawyers and landowners of New York, worked hand in hand with the mob leaders of the colony. At the head of the Philadelphia mob marched William Allen, son of the Chief Justice of the province, ‘animating and encouraging the lower class.’ It is possible that the Charleston, South Carolina riots were directed by Christopher Gadsden, one of the wealthiest merchants in the province.”[23]
Again directed, for the most part, by those of wealth and means, such efforts as organizing the mob as well as sitting in session and drafting legislation, the divorce from the crown was, to a large extent, a difference of opinion between factions of privileged both politically and economically. From the colonial side, the masses were used and were important cogs in a dangerous game with the world’s largest empire; yet in the end, the masses would take part in an economically-based Republic that would include them, but marginalize their power, since those who controlled the reins of power learned through the Sons of Liberty, the American insurgency, the mutinous elements of the Continental Army, Sheas’ Rebellion, that the Common Herd can act as a check on government, but at the same time, could not run a country.
* * * * *
Democracy is only an experiment in government, and it has the obvious disadvantage of merely counting votes instead of weighing them. . . Dean Inge.[24]
Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of these excesses. . . Aristotle,[25]
I always voted at my party’s call. . . And never thought of thinking for myself at all. . . W.S. Gilbert.[26]
And the insatiable desire for wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?
True.
And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?
What good?
Freedom, I replied, which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State—and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
Yes, the saying is in everyone’s mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny. . . Plato.[27]
Endnotes
[1] See page 129, “A Citizen of America,” by Noah Webster, Philadelphia, October 17, 1787, Debate on the Constitution, Part One.
[2] Despite the constant refrain of Democracy by many in this nation, that word will not be found anywhere in the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights or the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
[3] See page 2, Chapter 1, “The Myth of Morality,” The Forging of the American Empire, by Sidney Lens.
[4] See page 844, “Our Confederacy . . . The Nest,” To Archibald Stuart, Paris, Jan. 25, 1786, by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, Writings.
[5] See page 215, “The Dangers of Liberty and Happiness,” Cato III, New York Journal, October 25, 1787, Debate on the Constitution, Part One.
[6] See page 51, “Three,” Inventing a Nation, by Gore Vidal. As far as the Rich and the Wellborn forever maintaining good government, history demonstrates unequivocally that such is not the case.
[7] See page 49, Vidal. Indeed, here, John Adams is prognosticating the eventual dominance of the Southern Aristocracy, the Plantation Owners, who will usurp the Jeffersonian notion of the farmer as the Salt of the Earth to forge their version of Agrarian Capitalism with the slave as the engine for profit and political control of what will eventually be called the Confederacy.
[8] See page 247, Viewpoint 1: “The War for Independence Was Not a Social Revolution,” by Howard Zinn, The American Revolution, Opposing Viewpoints, William Dudley, Book Editor.
[9] See pages 248 and 249, Zinn (Dudley).
[10] See pages 73-75, Chapter 5, “Thomas Jefferson and the Philosophy of Agrarianism,” The Federalist Era, by John C. Miller.
[11] Rome certainly comes to mind here.
[12] Certainly present day America. But then, how long has been the present day . . . ?
[13] See pages 80 and 81, Miller.
[14] See page 1, “The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism,” by Richard Hofstadter.
[15] See page 2, Hofstadter.
[16] See page 93, Chapter 4, “NEP and the Future of the Revolution,” The Russian Revolution, 1917-1932, by Sheila Patrick.
[17] See pages 146-147, Document No. 18, “Fascist Doctrine as Presented Officially by Mussolini, June 1932,” Mussolini and Italian Fascism, by S. William Halperin.
[18] This was done by Hitler’s Storm Troopers (SA) in their street battles with the Communists.
[19] See pages 884 and 885, “Sons of Liberty,” Concise Dictionary of American History, Editor, Wayne Andrews.
[20] See page 6, Chapter 1, “The American Insurgency,” Violent Politics, by William R. Polk.
[21] See pages 318 and 319, Chapter XIV, “The Insoluble Problem,” Revolutionary New England, 1601-1776, The Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1923.
[22] See page 50, Chapter 2, “The Colonial World,” The American Nation, by John A. Garraty.
[23] See page 130 and 131, Chapter Six, “The Stamp Act Crisis,” Origins of the American Revolution, by John C. Miller.
[24] See page 270, “Dean Inge,” The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Oxford University Press.
[25] See page 12, “Aristotle,” The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, The Oxford University Press.
[26] See page 228, “W.S. Gilbert,” The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, The Oxford University Press.
[27] See pages 308 and 309, “Book Eight,” The Republic, by Plato.
Bibliography
Adams, James Truslow, Revolutionary New England, 1601-1776, The Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1923.
Andrews, Wayne, Editor, Concise Dictionary of American History, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1962.
Debate on the Constitution, Part One, September 17, 1787-January 12, 1788, The Library of America, Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., New York, NY., 1993,
Dudley, William, Book Editor, The American Revolution, Opposing Viewpoints, Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, California, 1992.
Garraty, John A., The American Nation: A History of the United States to 1877, Fourth Edition, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London, 1979.
Halperin, S. William, Mussolini and Italian Fascism, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1964.
Handlin, Oscar and Lilian, A Restless People: Americans in Rebellion, 1770-1787, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1982.
Hofstadter, Richard, “The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism,” The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made it, 1967.
Lens, Sidney, The Forging of the American Empire: A History of American Imperialism, From the Revolution to Vietnam, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1974.
Miller, John C., The Federalist Era, Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc, New York, Evanston and London, 1960.
Miller, John C., Origins of the American Revolution, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1943.
Patrick, Sheila, The Russian Revolution, 1917-1932, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1982.
Plato, The Republic, The World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York, 1946.
Polk, William R., Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism & Guerrilla War, From the American Revolution to Iraq, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY., 2007.
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, 1979. First published 1941.
Thomas Jefferson, Writings, The Library of America, Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., New York, NY., 1984.
Vidal, Gore, Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2003.
