A <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/luxury/books-&amp;-manuscripts/book?locale=en&amp;Book%20Subject=Fine%2520bindings" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">finely bound</a> second edition of <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=The+Wealth+of+Nations&amp;pfilters.dateRange=upcoming" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Wealth of Nations</a> by <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=Adam+Smith&amp;pfilters.dateRange=upcoming" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Adam Smith</a>.<ul><li>Sold as a set of 2 volumes.</li><li>Adam Smith (Scottish).</li><li>London: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1778.</li><li>Part of an edition of 500.</li><li>Quarto.</li><li>viii, 510; [viii], 589, [1] pages.</li><li>Half title to volume II as issued.</li><li>Bound in contemporary tree calf, contrasting Morocco lettering pieces and volume labels to spine.</li></ul> The scarce second edition of Adam Smith's masterpiece, the 'first and greatest classic of modern economic thought.' Smith spent ten years writing and perfecting The Wealth of Nations, the popularity of which surpassed even its publisher's expectations upon release and soon led to the preparation and publication of this second edition. Only 500 copies were printed, and this edition was the last to be issued in an expensive quarto format, priced at £2 2s. As the title explains, the work is fundamentally an investigation into what makes certain nations prosperous. Smith's originality lies in locating the roots of this comparative wealth in the specialization of labor which had occurred in developed economies, for the 'annual labor of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always, either in the immediate produce of that labor, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.'

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Second Edition

Fine Manuscript and Printed Americana

Adams, John Autograph letter signed (“Your affectionate father John Adams”), 3 pages (246 x 200 mm) on a bifolium of laid paper (watermarked posthorn), Quincy, 12 March 1802, to his son Thomas Boylston Adams, reception and file dockets on verso of second leaf; a few short tears along bottom margins and fore-edge of first leaf, light browning and traces of guard mount on blank verso of second leaf. An extraordinary letter—both academic and affectionate—by the second president to his youngest son, offering Thomas advice on his budding legal career, analyzing common law and natural rights, and reminiscing about his own participation in the development of the Declaration of Independence. In a letter of 3 March 1802, Thomas Boylston Adams consented to his father’s suggestion that he study common law—with the stipulation that John Adams assist him with the task. Thomas also noted his satisfaction with U.S. district judge Alexander Addison’s statement that the common law arose from the laws of nature and dictates of God. In this response, John Adams reassures his son, a fledgling lawyer in Philadelphia, that he should not misconstrue a suggestion made in an earlier letter as his setting a chore or criticizing his practice: “I recd. last night, your Letter of the 3d.—It was far from my thoughts to assign you a task. I meant only to turn your mind to a Subject, which must necessaryly engage much of your contemplations, as long as you live. The Folc Right [i.e, folkright, the aggregate of rules, some unwritten, that express the juridical consciousness of the people at large, a concept dating back to the Anglo-Saxon period], the Peoples Right, the common law, is the natural, Inheritance of Us all. It is our Birth Right.” Adams, far more widely read than any public man of his day, insisted that no statesman could act wisely without a deep understanding of the principles of government and the nature of man (Elkins & McKittrick, The Age of Federalism, p. 530). He recognized, however, that these natural rights could be misinterpreted by the common public, and that a thorough and applied reading of the law would allow those in the profession to become conversant with the principles governing personal and political liberty. As he explained to Thomas, “But precious as it is, and dear as it ought to be to all our hearts, it is likely to be a subject of controversy in this country, untill an examination of it, on a large Scale, Shall be undertaken and accomplished by you or Some other, whose Industry may be equal to the Subject.” Yet Adams deprecates his own ability to help his son in this course of study: “The assistance to be expected from me, must be very Small. I have Scarcely a Law Book of any kind left in my office. It is almost 30 Years since I abandoned my Office and Law Library, and now I have none. My Recollections of the contents of Law Books, you may well Suppose to be very faint confused and incorrect.” (Adams’s involvement in politics and the rigors of the judicial circuit—the radius of his travels comprised more than 200 miles in all directions, taking him as far as Martha's Vineyard and the reaches of Maine—decided him to abandon his practice altogether in the 1770s. Oddly enough, about a fortnight after penning this letter to Thomas, Adams wrote several friends that he was toying with the idea of resurrecting his practice.) But despite this display of modesty, Adams does not stint on advising his son of the pragmatic steps necessary to make a success at the law. “A Lawyer, Should have in his Desk, or Bureau, more pidgeon holes, than a Coiner of constitutions. In these he should deposit, in exact, numerical or Alphebetical order, all the Effects of his Researches into moot Points, as well as the States of his Cases and his notes of Arguments or Authorities relative to them. One of these Apartments in your Scrutoire or your Case or Drawers for writings you may dedicate to the common Law, and fill it up with your disquisitions as Slowly or as Swiftly as you please.— And if it Should be growing upon you at intervals for fifty Years; instead of injuring your mind body or estate, it may be of great benefit to the first and last, at least. Hæc Olim meminisse juvabit.— Indocti discant, et ament meminisse periti. The Plan indeed is vast, and will require a long time: but nothing presses for haste. The United States and the State of Pennsylvania are now within your reach. See what progress you make in ascertaining the common Law in them. You may pursue the Clue when you shall have Seized it, into other States at your Leisure.” The encouraging Latin epigram Adams provides is a hybrid, with the initial phrase taken from the first book of the Aeneid (“Some day, perhaps, remembering even this will be a pleasure”), while the second (“Let the unlearned learn, and let the experienced love to remember”) is a motto traditionally, if erroneously, attributed to Horace that appeared on the title-page of an anthology Adams was then reading, Jean François de La Harpe’s Lycée; ou, Cours de littérature ancienne et modern (16 vols. in 19, Paris, 1799–1805). Despite his earlier claim that his “Recollections of the contents of Law Books [is] very faint confused and incorrect,” John Adams recommends a number of specific texts by classic jurists for Thomas’s study of common law: “Judge Addisons thoughts may be of Use to you: but figures of Spech are not always Science of Law. Passion Politicks and Eloquence Should always be Studied with diffidence and Jealousy in discussions of Laws and Government. Avail yourself however of every thing that can afford you any light. “Lord Chief Justice Hale, wrote a Book under the Title of An History of the common Law I had it, and Suppose you have it now among my Law Books that I lent you. In this Work, an Octavo Volume well worth your reading, you will find much perhaps to your purpose. Fortesque Aland’s Reports You have among my Books. In a Preface to that Work there is much concerning the Saxon Language and the Saxon Folc Right. Ther is the best Deffinition, or description, or History if you will of the common Law, in that Preface, which I remember to have read. Blackstone took his Account of the common Law from that preface. Reeves’s History of the Law will probably assist you.” John Adams’s familiarity with these texts was well earned. He contracted to read law with James Putnam of Worcester in August 1756 for a period of two years. Once his studies were completed, he moved back to Braintree where he continued to prepare for the bar. In between chores on his father's farm, he translated Justinian and slowly read (by his own admission), Sir Geoffrey Gilbert's dense Treatise of Feudal Tenures (McCullough, John Adams, pp. 42–43). After his interview with Jeremiah Gridley, the dean of the Boston bar, Adams was invited to read in Gridley's law library. Shortly thereafter in November 1758 Gridley sponsored Adams's admission to the bar. After his admittance, Adams forged on with his rigorous reading regimen. The burgeoning success of his practice spurred an interest in assembling a legal library of the first degree. In a diary entry dated 30 January 1768 he records that he is "mostly intent at present upon collecting a library and I find that a great deal of thought and care, as well as money, are necessary to assemble an ample and well chosen assortment of books" (Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, I:337). McCullough states that for Adams, like Jefferson, "books [were] an extravagance he could no longer curb (with one London bookseller he had placed a standing order for 'every book and pamphlet, of reputation, upon the subjects of law and government as soon as it comes out'" (McCullough, John Adams, p. 64). His library, comprising some 3,500 volumes, is now housed at the Boston Public Library. Of these, 254 volumes are legal treatises, including four of the works mentioned in the letter to Thomas, some of which are found in multiple editions. A copy of Sir Matthew Hale’s Historia Placitorum Coronæ, perhaps distinct from the copy given to Thomas, is part of the collection. Fortescue Aland's Reports bears Adams's ownership inscription and is dated 1770. Reeve's History of the Common Law not only contains Adams's signature but also that of Thomas Boylston's son John Quincy (dated 1853) and the bookplate of another grandson, Charles Francis Adams. Adams also owned two editions of Blackstone's famous Commentaries as well as a set of his law tracts which survive in the collection. Adams at last recommends some his own writings to his son, staking a claim for having provided “the rough materials of the Declaration of Independence.” Adams later chafed at the idea that his Declaration of Rights was overlooked as the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence, having been eclipsed by Jefferson's authorial contributions. In his own copy of his Discourses on Davila, which recognized the dangers of an unbalanced democracy then unfolding in France, he privately fumes in an annotation: “The Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 contained Nothing but the Boston Declaration of 1772 and the Congress Declaration of 1774. Such are the Caprices of Fortune. This Declaration of Rights was drawn by the little John Adams. The mighty Jefferson by the Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776 carried away the glory both of the great and the little.” In a less agitated mood, he here informs his son, “If you look into the Journal of Congress for 1774 you will find a Declation [sic] of the Rights of the Colonies and another of the Violations of those Rights— These declarations or Lists were drawn up by two Committees. I was one of the first Committee and drew up the Report. in this you will See, not only the rough materials of the Declaration of Independence made two years after, but you will See in what Light the common Law was Seen by that Congress and by all America at that time. Extracts from these Journals, Should go into your common Law Pidgeon hole. There is a public printed declaration of the Town of Boston Some time anteriour to the meeting of the first congress which will deserve your Attention.” A footnote to this letter in The Adams Papers explains that “The Declaration of Rights and Grievances was adopted by the Continental Congress on 14 Oct. 1774 and listed ten rights that the Congress determined all colonists held, including the right ‘to life, liberty, and property.’ It also detailed recent parliamentary acts that were deemed ‘infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists’ and noted the pending implementation of a trade boycott and the preparation of an address to the inhabitants of Britain and ‘a loyal address’ to George III. [John Adams] successfully argued that the document should emphasize the relatively unassailable tenets of natural law over the more tenuous and variable precepts of common law. To support his claim [Adams] pointed to the Nov. 1772 resolutions of the Boston committee of correspondence, which listed grievances against Parliament and detailed colonists’ constitutional rights as Britons. The resolutions were published as The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, Boston, [1772]” (Evans12332; ESTC W29680). Adams concludes the letter with an admonition regarding Thomas’s safekeeping of their correspondence, “I can keep no Copies of my Letters to you and therefore I pray you to keep them Safely or to burn them, that they may not fall into the hands of the Ennemy of all good.” Thomas Boylston Adams, third son and youngest surviving child of John and Abigail (Smith) Adams, was born 15 September 1772. He graduated from Harvard in 1790 and studied law in the Philadelphia office of Jared Ingersoll for three years. He was admitted to the bar in 1793 but embraced the practice of law with far less enthusiasm than his father or siblings. When the opportunity arose in 1794 to serve as secretary to his brother John Quincy on the latter's first diplomatic mission to The Hague, he seized the moment, returning to Philadelphia four years later in the middle of his father's presidency. While his parents would have preferred him to settle in Quincy, they both recognized that Philadelphia offered more opportunities for a young lawyer with a recognizable name, but both evidently doubted their son's ability to succeed in the fast world of the capital (Ferling, John Adams, p. 388). He practiced law and contributed to Joseph Dennie's Port Folio in Philadelphia for some years thereafter. He was still in Philadelphia struggling with his practice in 1802. At the urging of his parents, he moved back to Quincy in 1803 and opened a law office there (Ferling, John Adams, p. 420) and sat in the Massachusetts legislature, 1805-1806. In 1811 he was appointed chief justice of the circuit court of common pleas for the southern circuit of Massachusetts. In spite of his participation in government and judicial appointment, Thomas's law practice never equaled the success of his father's. In later years Thomas sank into alcoholism like his brother Charles before him; and by the 1820s Thomas was employed chiefly as a caretaker for his father and the farm. He died 13 March 1832, in Quincy. REFERENCE The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, ed. Woodward, Martin, Minty, et al., 15:185–188

View 1 of Lot 502: Adams, John | A learned disquisition on the common law and natural rights and the roles those concepts played in Adams's own contributions to the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States

adams, john | a learned disquisition on the common law and natural rights and the roles those concepts played in adams's own contributions to the declaration of independence and the founding of the united states

Adams, John Autograph letter signed (“your Friend John Adams”), 2 pages (233 x 175 mm) on a bifolium of laid paper (watermarked crowned fleur-de-lis | L V C), Philadelphia, 30 September 1775, to James Warren, autograph address on verso of second leaf, “To the Hon. James Warren Esqr | Speaker of the House of Representatives | of the Massachusetts Bay | Watertown” and with autograph endorsement, “favoured by Dr. Franklyn”; seal tear and repair costing a few letters, lightly silked closing some short marginal tears and fold separations. Half red morocco folding-case gilt, chemise. George Washington was elected to the Continental Congress as a delegate from Virginia on 5 August 1774, serving in the First Congress from September to October. On 25 March 1775, he was reelected to the Second Congress, which he served from 10 May to 15 June—the brevity of his tenure being the result of his having been unanimously appointed by his peers as commander in chief of the newly formed Continental Army. During the congressional debate about whether a standing army should replace the militias that had rallied to Lexington and Concord, Washington is supposed to have remarked, “To place any dependence on the militia is assuredly resting on a broken staff.” Despite misgivings, Washington accepted the post, declining a salary (he did ask that his expenses be reimbursed) and pledging to operate under the civilian authority of Congress. Before departing for the besieged city of Boston, he told his fellow delegates, “Tho’ I am truly sensible of the high Honour done me in this Appointment, yet I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities & Military experience may not be equal to the extensive & important Trust: However, as the Congress desire it I will enter upon the momentous duty, & exert every power I Possess In their service & for the Support of the glorious Cause” (Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, ed. Chase, 1:1–3). Once in the field, however, Congress provided the General with little guidance, despite his repeated entreaties. After three frustrating months at his headquarters in Cambridge, Washington wrote a lengthy letter to President of Congress John Hancock, essentially demanding cooperation, if not direction, on a number of pressing issues, including pay, equipment, rations, retention of troops, and appointment and precedence of officers: “I have been in daily Expectation of being favoured with the Commands of the Honbl. Congress, on the Subjects of my two last Letters. The Season now advances so fast, that I cannot any longer defer laying before them, such farther Measures, as require their immediate Attention, & in which I wait their Direction. The Mode, in which the present Army has been collected, has occasioned some Difficulty, in procuring the Subscription of both Officers & Soldiers to the Continental Articles of War. … It gives me great Pain, to be obliged to sollicit the Attention of the Honorable Congress, to the State of this Army, in Terms which imply the slightest Apprehension of being neglected: But my Situation is inexpressibly distressing, to see the Winter, fast approaching upon a naked Army: The Time of their Service within a few Weeks of expiring, & no Provision, yet made for such important Events. Added to these, the Military Chest is totally exhausted. The Paymaster has not a single Dollar in Hand. The Commissary General assures me, he has strained his Credit for the Subsistance of the Army to the utmost. The Quarter Master General is precisely in the same Situation: And the greater Part of the Troops are in a State not far from Mutiny, upon the Deduction from their stated Allowance. I know not to whom I am to impute this Failure, but I am of Opinion, if the Evil is not immediately remedied & more punctuality observed in future, the Army must absolutely break up …” (Papers, Revolutionary War Series, 2:24–30). Washington’s pointed letter was read in Congress on 29 September and sparked an immediate response. The following day Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, and Thomas Lynch of South Carolina were appointed a committee to meet with General Washington and representatives of the New England colonies to address the commander’s concerns and determine “the most effectual method of continuing, supporting, and regulating a continental army.” On the same day, 30 September, John Adams, the most respected delegate from New England—and a strong supporter of Washington’s appointment despite some of his compatriots preferring a candidate, such as William Heath, from the northern states—wrote a series of letters of introduction for the committee: to Jonathan Trumbull Sr., Rhode Island Deputy Governor Nicholas Cooke, the Massachusetts Council, the New Hampshire Convention, and two related letters to James Warren, Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and President of the Massachusetts Provincial Council. (Over the next few days, Adams sent similar introductory letters as well to William Sever, John Winthrop, and Brigadier General William Heath.) One of the letters to Warren is now in the collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. That letter gives little insight into the purpose or significance of the committee (George Washington is not even referenced), but rather provides personal details about the committee members: Lynch is “an oppulent Planter”; Harrison, “the Friend and Correspondent of the General [with] some degree of Prejudice against our dear New Englandmen”; while of “Dr Franklyn needs nothing to be said. There is no abler or better American, that I know of.” (For the full text of this letter, see The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, ed. Taylor: 3:172–173.) The present letter, by contrast, makes clear the gravity of the committee’s mission and impresses on Warren the importance of his cooperation. Moreover, the original of this letter was evidently unknown to the editors of both The Adams Papers and Letters of Delegates to Congress, both of which publish only a summary text taken from a 1941 auction catalogue. The full text has evidently never before appeared: “The Congress have this Day appointed a Committee, consisting of Dr. Franklin, Mr Lynch, and Coll Harrison, to proceed to Cambridge, there to confer with the governors of Rhode Island and Connecticutt, the Council of Massachusetts and the President of the Provincial Congress of New Hampshire, together with General Washington concerning various Matters of Importance.— Such as a Plan for continuing the Army this Winter, and another for raising one next Spring. &c. &c. &c. “I hope our Province, in every Part of it, will treat these Gentlemen with every possible Demonstration of Respect, Confidence and Affection—indeed I think our General Court should make a modest Entertainment for, the Committee of this Congress, the Governors, or Committies of the three other N. England Colonies and the General officers at least—" Adams reveals that Harrison will need some extra consideration. In a 21 July letter to Washington, Harrison had made a sharp remark about the New England delegations in Congress while commiserating with the General: “your Fatigue and various Kinds of Trouble, I dare say are great, but they are not more than I expected, knowing the People you have to deal with by the Sample we have here.” Unfortunately, the letter had been intercepted and published in the 17 August issue of the Massachusetts Gazette by Loyalists hoping to foment regional antagonisms. Adams writes, “Let me instruct you, Sir, to be particularly attentive to these Gentlemen,—to Coll Harrison particularly—convince him, that the only narrow, selfish People belonging to our Province, the only ones actuated by Provincial Prejudices and Attachments, compass the Sample here—” The letter closes with Adams pressing two financial concerns. First he notes that he “cannot conclude without beseeching you to communicate to the General Court the vast Importance of sending us, immediately your Accounts and Vouchers— Expenses are ac[cumu]lating so fast, that we shall be afraid to pay o[ur] Debts, anon—” And his final thought is about the urgency of Massachusetts settling her accounts with Franklin, who had served as provincial agent in London from October 1770 to March 1775: “Will it not be excellent Politicks to make Dr Franklin welcome by making him a grant of what is due to him from the Province? if you grant it in your provisional Paper, I suppose you can change it for him into continental.” On 23 October, the Massachusetts General Court resolved to pay Franklin £1,854 sterling for his services as agent. Franklin, Harrison, and Lynch held two conferences, first with General Washington and representatives from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire at Cambridge on 18–22 October, and then the following two days, 23–24 October, with Washington alone. For the proceedings of the conferences, which did resolve, at least in the short term, many of the obstacles facing the commander in chief, see, respectively, American Archives, 4th Series, 3:1156–61, and the “Committee of Conference Minutes of Proceedings, October 23–24, 1775,” in Letters of Delegates to Congress 2:233–238. A vitally important letter from the foment of Revolution, responsible in part for salvaging the Continental Army; with distinguished provenance. PROVENANCE John Gribbel (Parke-Bernet, 22 January 1941, lot 2) — The Elsie O. and Philip D. Sang Foundation (Sotheby Parke-Bernet, 3 June 1980, lot 865); purchased by — Robert L. McNeil Jr., of Philadelphia — Jay T. Snider (acquired from the McNeil estate through the offices of Joe Rubinfine American Historical Autographs) REFERENCE cf. The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, ed. Taylor, 3:173, and Letters of Delegates to Congress, ed. Smith, 2:80–81 note, for cursory summaries of the letter based on the Gribbel auction catalogue.

View 1 of Lot 501: Adams, John | Establishing an American Army: John Adams introduces a congressional committee charged with meeting with General Washington “concerning various Matters of Importance”

adams, john | establishing an american army: john adams introduces a congressional committee charged with meeting with general washington “concerning various matters of importance”

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. New York: Printed and sold by J[ohn]. and A[ndrew]. M'Lean, 1788

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. New York: Printed and sold by J[ohn]. and A[ndrew]. M'Lean, 1788 2 volumes, 12mo (162 x 99 mm [vol. 1]; 159 x 95 mm [vol. 2]). Volume 1 from the library of Bushrod Washington, with his signature on title-page (ruled through but legible) and ownership cipher on leaf B1 (an inked W added to the printed quire letter B), subsequently signed by Washington's brother-in-law, Henry Smith Turner at head of title-page (just shaved), scattered marginalia in pencil, attributing authorship of some essays, ink notation in margin of p. 1:105 (possibly in Bushrod Washington’s hand). Volume 1 bound in early American marbled sheep, smooth spine elaborately gilt-tooled and -ruled with gilt-lettered brown morocco title and volume labels, yellow-coated endpapers, brown sprinkled edges; joints and head and foot of spine neatly restored. Volume II in a brilliant near-twin retrospective binding. A fine association copy of the rare thick-paper first edition of The Federalist, with the ownership signature of Bushrod Washington in the first volume, a delegate in the Virginia Ratification Convention, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court whose tenure helped shape the federal judiciary and national government. Written as expedient political propaganda for the purpose of supporting New York's ratification of the Federal Constitution, the essays in The Federalist are now recognized as one of America's most important contributions to political theory and a "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" (Bernstein). Alexander Hamilton was the principal force behind the entry of "Publius" (the pen name shared by all three authors) into the ratification pamphlet wars, but he enlisted Virginian James Madison and fellow New Yorker John Jay as collaborators. Each was assigned an area corresponding to his expertise. Jay naturally assumed responsibility for foreign relations. Madison, knowledgeable in the history of republics and confederacies, wrote on those topics. Having drafted the Virginia Plan, it also fell to him to outline the structure of the new government. Hamilton took on those branches of government most congenial to him: the executive and the judiciary; and he also covered military matters and taxation. In the printers' preface, the M'Leans state that their intention was to assist "the public judgment on the momentous question of the Constitution of the United States, … promote the cause of truth, and lead to a right judgment of the true interests of the community." At the time of the writing of the essays, Hamilton and Madison "were so close in style and outlook that scholars find it hard to sort out their separate contributions" (Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, p. 251). The Library of Congress attributes with certainty fifty-one essays to Hamilton, fifteen to Madison, and five to Jay, three to Hamilton and Madison together, and nine as being written by either Hamilton or Madison. The first thirty-six Federalist papers were collected and published by the M'Lean brothers in March 1788, and the final forty-nine—together with the text of the Constitution, a roster of its signers, and the resolution submitting it to the consideration of Congress—followed in a second volume two months later. In fact, the final eight essays were printed in book form before they appeared serially in newspapers. George Washington, who would shortly chair the Constitutional Convention, praised the collection of essays in a letter to Hamilton, 28 August 1788: "As the perusal of the political papers under the signature of Publius has afforded me great satisfaction, I shall certainly consider them as claiming a most distinguished place in my library. I have read every performance which has been printed on one side and the other of the great question lately agitated (so far as I have been able to obtain them) and, without an unmeaning compliment, I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiassed mind, as the Production of your Triumvirate. When the transient circumstances & fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society" (Papers, Confederation Series, ed. Abbot, 6:480–482). In 1825 Thomas Jefferson urged the adoption of The Federalist as a required text at the University of Virginia, describing it as "an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all … as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning." The significance of the work remains unchallenged: constitutional scholar Michael I. Meyerson wrote in his study that "The Federalist not only serves as the single most important resource for interpreting the constitution, it provides a wise and sophisticated explanation of the uses and abuses of governmental power from Washington to Baghdad" (Liberty's Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World, 2008, p. ix). The Federalist—whose essays have "a timeless, trans-historical quality" (Bailyn)—is without question the most important commentary on the Constitution, the most significant American contribution to political theory, and among the most important of all American books. The present copy is one of the small number of copies printed on thick paper and is further distinguished by its provenance. Bushrod Washington, at 26, was elected in March 1788 to represent Westmoreland County at Virginia's ratification convention. The oldest son of George Washington's brother, he had recently begun his public career in the Virginia House of Delegates. A skilled attorney who studied law at William and Mary College and served under James Wilson, Bushrod became a staunch Federalist and supporter of the Constitution, influenced by his illustrious uncle. During the Virginia Ratification Convention in June 1788, Bushrod attended every session and played a crucial role in the narrow ratification victory. It is uncertain when Bushrod came into possession of this book, but is conceivable that it was around the time of the Virginia Ratification Convention. In the decade following the convention, Bushrod became a prominent attorney and was appointed to the Supreme Court by President John Adams in 1798, filling James Wilson's seat. Serving for thirty-one years, he was a key ally of Chief Justice John Marshall, contributing significantly to constitutional interpretation in landmark cases. Known for his judicial skill and steady temperament, Bushrod Washington's influence on American constitutional law remains notable. REFERENCES Bailyn, The Federalist Papers (Library of Congress, 1998); Bernstein, Are We To Be a Nation?, pp. 239–242; Church 1230; ESTC W5416; Evans 21127; Federal Hundred 19; Ford, Bibliotheca Hamiltoniana 17; Grolier/American 19; Printing and the Mind of Man 234; Reese, The Federal Hundred 19; Sabin 23979; Streeter 2:1049 PROVENANCE Volume 1: Bushrod Washington (signature on title-page, ruled through but legible; ownership cipher on B1) — Henry Smith Turner (signature on title-page). Turner was married to the sister of Bushrod Washington’s wife; it is possible that he received this copy after Bushrod inherited the Mount Vernon library of his uncle, George Washington, which included a thick-paper copy. — “Private Collection” (Freeman’s, 10 September 2024, lot 34)

View 1 of Lot 504: (Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay) | Bushrod Washington's Federalist, praised by George Washington as a "work [that] will merit the notice of Posterity"

(hamilton, alexander, james madison, and john jay) | bushrod washington's federalist, praised by george washington as a "work [that] will merit the notice of posterity"

Results for "Adam Smith"