J. Q. Adams to Richard Rush, York, Pennsylvania, 1831 September 17

Richard Rush Esqr. York—Pennsylvania
Quincy 17. September 1831
My dear Sir.
I sent you some days since a copy of my Eulogy upon Mr Monroe, intending to have enclosed with it a reply to your two kind Letters of 31. July and 18 Augt. The Volume of Eulogy will apologise to you for occupations which necessarily suspended functionality of correspondence, even where I was most anxious to preserve it—But the Eulogy was not my only task—You will have seen by the Newspapers that the masons have stumped me out, by an impudent attempt to make my father one of their champions—A man by the name of Sheppard, of whom I knew nothing, but said to be an Englishman, now settled as a Lawyer in the State of Maine, delivered on the last St. John's day—24 June, an Address to the Grand Lodge of that State, which has been published and widely circulated under the Title of Defence of Masonry. It is a string of scurrilous personal abuse upon you, me, and all the Anti Masons of the Country—concluding with a true Masonic exhortation to the brotherhood, to avoid all controversy and not return railing for railing. Of this pamphlet, he or some one else, I know not who, sent me a Copy, and this is one of many coaxing cajoling and threatening anonymous communications that I have received from Masons in the bush for the last five years—I read enough of the Defence of Masonry to see and despise its drift, without reaching the impositure of my father's garbled Letter or the ribaldry upon you and me—and threw it aside. The Editor of the Boston Press however, after commencing a Review in that Paper of this Tom Thumb of Masonry wrote to me that Sheppard had cited my father a a patronizer of the order, and given for voucher an extract of a Letter from him to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, in answer to an address received from them, in 1798. and enquired of me whether this paper was authentic, and if I knew any thing concerning it. I found no copy of the answer among my father's books or Papers; but had no doubt the extract was authentic. But I was determined they should not use my father's name, for purposes which he would have abhorr'd, and I answered the Reviewer's enquiries by the Letter which I take it for granted you have seen. It has brought upon me another blast of masonic rage, which I receive with what meekness I may—I have already informed you that in this State Masonry has had the address to link itself in with all the ruling political parties—with Federalism, Clayism, and Jacksonism—with the National Republicans—the <…> harmony Republicans, the working men's party, and with the numerous tribe of fence riders. It happens that in this my native Town the Anti Masons have a small majority over all these combined parties—and that in the County where I reside, and the District which I am to represent Antimasonry is stronger than in any other part of the Commonwealth—But in Boston, which politically rules the State Masonry with its allies is as four or five to one, and an Anti mason is pointed at with the finger, and the old Roman warning "Hic Niger est, hunc tu Romana caveto." Of all this I have been aware in every step I have taken; but as I have never trim'd my sail to the prevailing breeze of the day, my only resource is when it increases to a gale to clue up my canvass by degree and when it blows a hurricane to put myself under bare Poles, and lash my helm.
In my recent Oration and Eulogy, I have had opportunities to touch upon other topics of public interest, and of expressing opinions more in concurrence with those here in fashion—But I have spoken with too much freedom of all Parties, to make myself acceptable with any, and delivering the Eulogy in Boston though I had a crowded, attentive and even applauding, it was by no means an approving auditory.
Your third Letter upon Masonry like its Predecessors, works well, and contributes to strengthen and consolidate the cause—I concur in opinion with you that Free Masonry and its influence are now by far the most pernicious evils and dangers which afflict and threaten the condition of our Country, and this is one reason of my regret that you declined the nomination of the Anti masonic Convention, about to assemble at Baltimore. I believe it would have been unanimous, which it will not be, of any other person—There have been correspondences with Mr Calhoun and Judge M' lean, of the result of which I am not fully apprized; but Calhoun's nullification, has nullified all possibility of supporting him in this quarter, and his character has not issued altogether unscathed from his double controversy with Jackson and Crawford.
You have seen the long laboured replication of this last personage to Calhoun's pamphlet of last Winter—The State of Crawford's mind is a physiological phenomenon. He now relies almost exclusively for the support of his own veracity, while directly impeaching that of Mr Calhouns upon testimony of Mr Crowninshield, abandoned as erroneous by that Gentleman himself, and proved to have been impossible by a comparison of dates—Crawford still clinging to Crowninshield's error attempts to substantiate its truth, by transposing the time back from July to April, or May—without perceiving that this would demolish root and branch his own fabulous change of opinion by the production of the famous confidential Letter at the Cabinet Meetings in July. Crawford's rancour against Calhoun, and his cringings to Jackson, may admit of mitigating apology; but his treatment of Mr Monroe is unpardonable.
Mr Monroe's declaration in the Message of 2 Decr. 1823. to which you allude was my own work. I wrote that paragraph of the Message, and I think he adopted it without alteration—The Declaration itself was first made in a secret communication from me to Baron Tuyll the Russian Minister. I proposed to Mr Monroe that it should be made, and after some hesitations and deliberate reflection he agreed to it—Your secret conferences with Mr. Canning and mine with Baron Tyull, both concurred in leading to it—Its first object was to present to the Emperor Alexander a prevailing motive, to recede from his pretensions on the North west Coast of America by presenting a principle which he would consider as bearing chiefly upon Great Britain, and which would fall in with his feelings towards her at that time. Its second purpose was as you judged—a warning to Great Britain herself. I believed the principle itself perfectly sound, and that it comported with the dignity and Justice of the United States to assume it—With the Emperor of Russia, it was completely successful—you know what its effect was upon Canning.
If you receive the Boston Press—look to the paper of 19. August for an Ode called The grave of Morgan and say when you have read more beautiful Poetry—If it were not anti-masonic, it would have been ere this reprinted in 300 newspapers within the United States—
Truly your's
J. Q. Adams.