mcclay's disdain is loud and clear and salacious in his diary. this contentious relationship and mcclay's views as expressed in the diary had dominated our understanding of the presidential title controversy at the time that i was thinking about writing my book and doing my doctorate. but the diary alone presents only one voice have a very limited one. in addition his diary wasn't even published or available until about 100 years after the first congress in the late 19th century when it was first published. so other contemporary accounts of the title controversy were extremely valuable. all those letters to and from people, there was a lot of other material out there but the profession really only knew about this very enjoyable fight between adams and mcclay. what i discovered at the congress project archives helped give me voice to a broad array of americans who felt deeply about their new president, the new presidency, federal power and other issues all wrapped up in whether or not to give a high title to the president. it seemed just about eve

and two letters from william mcclay. i contacted the manuscript division and said the two letters you don't have are available. they said, we're not interested. then the first federal congress has had many wonderful supporters like lindy boggs and a senator from west virginia by the name of senator bird. he was very very interested in lindsey clay. i remember the historian of the united states senate took me over to need senator bird at the reception and senator bird was chatting up a very young lady and didn't pay any attention to me at all. he's going on and on. i'm going, why am i here? the historian of the united states senate actually kicked me. calm down. all of a sudden senator bird, spun on his feet and looked me and cited verbatim the last paragraph of clay's diary. i went and grabbed my colleagues and said, listen to this. senator bird turned around and chatted up the young lady again and repeated the whole thing. we managed over 25 years to locate 25 of the 125 letters written to the first federal congress and

this contentious relationship between adams and mcclay and mcclay's views as expressed had dominated our understanding of the presidential title controversy at the time i was thinking about writing my book and doing my doctorate. but the diary alone presents only one voice and a limited one. in addition his diary wasn't even published or available until about 100 years after the first congress in the late 19th century when it was first published. so, other contemporary accounts of the title controversy were extremely valuable and all those letters to and from people there was a lot of other material out there but the profession was really only knew about this very enjoyable fight between adams and mcclay. what i discovered at the time of this project archives helped give me voice to a broad array of americans thought deeply about their new president, the new presidency, federal power and other issues all wrapped up in whether or not to give a high title to the president. it seemed that just about everyone had an opinion, as it turned out, not just clay and adams. in fact, the public

it was an insult we know about because of mcclay's diary. though it wasn't widely known at the time, it was bandied about between senators and congressmen among the political elite, but much more broadly. he became known in the summer of 1789 as the dangerous vice. and this was based on a poem by edward church, first published in boston papers and later in new york and throughout the states and huge, huge very publicly damaging, the way it was written, the dangerous vice, vice dot dot dot dot dot, enough dashes to spell out the word president. in this poem written by edward church as i said, it linked the evils of the vice of monarchy with the vice president. a heartbeat away from the presidency and titles champion. correspondence volumes of the congress project, illusions to the poem abound, and it is obvious it made an immense splash at the time. made such a big splash that later when adams was president, he wrote to abigail and in a letter he refers to thomas jefferson as his dangerous vice. so it was a title that stung for years for adam

adams wrote mcclay was a childish man. a very silly kind of laugh. who was usually wrapped up in the contemplation of his own importance. wherever he looked at adams, residing in his chair with his wig and a small sword, clay said it did not help making of a monkey, just put in to pritchett. >> there's no doubt that adams could appear ridiculous in the eyes of many people. that was never too wrong of jefferson. jefferson was often hated and ridiculed by his political enemies, but no one retired him in quite the way they did atoms. jefferson had a dignity that adams lacked and for many jeffersonwas the model of an 18th century gentleman. learned , genteel and possessed of self-control and serenity of spirit. adams temperaments could not have been more different. he was high strong, irascible, had no serenity of spirit whatsoever and to his great regret, he lacked what he called the gift of silence . something possessed by both jefferson and washington. whereas in the continental congress, adams was always on his feet. arguing, debating, pushing his co

the vice president of the new federal government that adams wrote mcclay was a childish man with a silly type of laugh usually wrapped up in the contemplation of his own importance. so to preside in his chair he could not help but think of a monkey just put into bridges. [laughter] but that wasn't true of jefferson. although he was often hated and ridiculed by his political enemies, nobody made fun of him quite the way they did adams. he possessed a dignity that adams lacked. to possess perfect self-control. and serenity of spirit. adams temperament could not be more different. hi strom and to his great regret is the gift of silence. something possessed by both jefferson and washington. adams was always on his feet arguing and debating jefferson rarely said anything publicly. jefferson hated personal confrontations. even with grace and courtesy. his extreme politeness and the acute sensitivity with his keen desire not to offend one the secret of much of his success in political life. but that could never be an accurate expression of his real feelings. often to the city or deceit or being