Summary
John Adams' "Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law" argues that the canon and feudal legal systems were contrived by the "great" for the gratification of an encroaching, grasping, and ungovernable power, leading to systems of iniquity, cruelty, and tyranny. He contends that these systems, particularly the canon law devised by the Romish clergy for their order's aggrandizement, and the feudal law adopted by European princes for tyranny and lust, were instrumental in chaining human nature in servitude and instilling a religious horror of letters and knowledge in the populace. Adams asserts that these systems, though mutilated in England, pose a threat to America through a design to enslave the continent by subverting the "system of our Fathers."
Adams highlights that the ignorance and timidity fostered by these systems prevent the populace from asserting their rights. He identifies "rights" as antecedent to all earthly government, derived from the "great Legislator of the universe," and asserts that these inherent rights cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. The author's work is presented as essential for anyone opposed to ecclesiastical and civil tyranny, demonstrating his early capability to support the formation of republics based on justice and virtue, and serving as a defense against the potential introduction of canon and feudal law into America.
Key concepts
- Canon Law — A legal system framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their order.
- Feudal Law — A code of laws formed for defense against invasions but adopted by princes for tyranny, investing the general with sovereign propriety of all lands.
- Rights — Inherent entitlements, antecedent to all earthly government and unrepealable by human laws, derived from the "great Legislator of the universe."
- System of our Fathers — Refers to the foundational principles and legal structures established by early settlers, which are threatened by the introduction of canon and feudal law.
From the book
When sound policy dictated to Congress the precaution of sending persons
If there was ever among nations a natural alliance, one may be formed
A similitude of religion, although it is not deemed so essential in this
Popular questions readers ask
- The text states that John Adams "brought about these important events" concerning the Dutch acknowledgement of U.S. sovereignty. Explain, as if to a contemporary who knew nothing of the American Revolution, precisely *why* the first official acknowledgement of the United States' sovereignty by a European power, specifically the Netherlands, was considered such a profoundly significant diplomatic victory.
- John Adams is praised for his "eminent abilities and probity of character" and his "Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Laws" is highlighted. How did these personal attributes and his theoretical work on tyranny and republics directly contribute to his practical success in securing the diplomatic recognition and commercial treaty mentioned in the text?
- The introduction describes Governor Barnard's attempts to "seduce" Adams and, failing that, resorting to "calumny, menaces, and the height of power." What does this conflict reveal about the internal and external pressures faced by those advocating for American independence, and how might Adams's steadfast resistance have influenced the perception of the nascent American state on the international stage?
- Adams's "Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Laws" is characterized as being against "ecclesiastical and civil tyranny" and supportive of "republics on the principles of justice and virtue." Explain the logical connection between these philosophical ideals and the concrete act of a newly declared nation seeking international recognition and a commercial treaty. How does one uphold the other?
- If John Adams had succumbed to Governor Barnard's "seduction," as implied by the text, how might the trajectory of American diplomacy and its quest for international legitimacy have been fundamentally altered? Beyond Adams's personal career, what larger historical consequences could have arisen from such a compromise, given the stakes described?