Thesis advisor: Alan Rogers / The following narrative traces the political lives of James Sullivan, Christopher Gore, Rufus King and John Quincy Adams, four Massachusetts men who were actively involved in the creation of state and national policy during the formative years of the new republic. Their years of public service bridged the critical period between the Revolution and the period of Democratic- Republican dominance. Because they knew each other so well, corresponded with one another on a regular basis, and held so many different state and national government posts, their lives provide an ideal vehicle to explore and better understand the changes that were taking place in post-Revolutionary Massachusetts. Their stories help trace the evolution of Massachusetts from a Federalist stronghold into a legitimate multi-party state firmly committed to the national union. The primary figure in this study is Sullivan, the oldest of the four men, who was the state's highest ranking Republican leader during much of the Federalist Era. A staunch opponent of the Federalist assumption that government should be in the hands of the natural gentry and ruling class, he spent his adult life promoting equal access to power. After serving as a member of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress from 1774 to 1776, Sullivan was an active participant in the creation of the new state government. He later served as attorney general for seventeen years, from 1790 to 1807, through several Federalist administrations and served as a member of state legislature for many years. He also was a member of the Supreme Judicial Court and, in the final years of his life, governor of the Commonwealth. Because he participated in or observed firsthand the most significant political events of his day, his words also help trace, as few others could, the gradual transformation of Massachusetts from a one party state to a multi-party state. His election as governor in 1807 was clear evidence of the growing strength of the Republican Party in Massachusetts and of the extent to which the emerging national consensus had grown. Christopher Gore, whose stature and perspective were more deeply rooted in the colonial past, stood in stark personal as well as political contrast to Sullivan. As a conservative Federalist who often served as spokesman for his party during this period, Gore was a major player in the Massachusetts legal community and government between the American Revolution and early years of the nineteenth century. He stubbornly adhered to the aristocratic belief that the government should only be managed by the propertied class and traditional ruling elite. Where Sullivan was a sentimental moralist who hated everything British, Gore was the stern and unyielding spokesman for the merchant class who seemingly admired everything British. Where Sullivan's father had emigrated from Ireland, the victim of oppressive Penal Laws, Gore's father was a Tory, who fled Boston with the British in March 1776. Though Gore himself supported the Revolution, he was never able to shed, or indeed temper, his attachment to Great Britain in later years. As perhaps the most passionate defender of everything British in the years after the Revolution, Gore's habits and customs reflected the old deferential order and embodied everything Sullivan opposed. Despite their personal and political differences, Sullivan and Gore shared a close personal friend. Rufus King was a longtime confidant of both men, corresponding with each of them over many years. Though King's habits and background were more similar to those of Gore than Sullivan, he was less rooted in the colonial past than his conservative friend. Though an ardent Federalist, he was respected by men on both sides of the political aisle and served not only as a bridge between the two parties, but as a bridge between the two branches of his own party. It is because he enjoyed such a close personal relationship with Sullivan and Gore, and corresponded with both men on a regular basis, that King provides a unique vehicle to explore the differences between the two parties during this critical period in Massachusetts political history. The fourth subject of this study is John Quincy Adams. The fiercely independent one-time Federalist, who, though born many years after Gore, King, and Sullivan, became active in politics at a very young age and crossed political paths with all three men on a regular basis. Although born a member of the second generation of political leaders, Quincy Adams identified with the first generation of Revolutionary leaders. He matured early and took part in every critical debate that took place after the ratification of the Constitution. From the beginning, Quincy Adams charted an independent course and played a critical role in the growth of the Republican Party. John Quincy Adams is particularly relevant to this study because his political transformation reflected the change in attitude that was taking place in Massachusetts and the country in the early years of the nineteenth century. He represented a commitment to the interests of union over sectional concerns. A strong and independent unionist throughout his life, Quincy Adams eventually came to represent a new global nationalism. In many respects, Quincy Adams was the `transition man' in post- Revolutionary America. The son of a colonial who was very much a product of the deferential society of the eighteenth century, young Adams came to embrace the principle of majority rule. His elevation to the highest political posts in the country marked the final stage in America's transition from colony to union to nation. James Sullivan, Christopher Gore and Rufus King each played significant roles in the establishment of constitutional government in Massachusetts and in the United States. Though he was considered a member of the so-called Hancock faction, a group viewed as primarily anti-Constitutionalist, Sullivan was an independent thinker. He would call for greater legal safeguards for the benefit of the more vulnerable and for the end of the practice of multiple office holding which had long been a tool of the ruling elite to maintain power and influence.   A vocal proponent of the national government before King, Gore and Hancock, Sullivan had long recognized the importance of strengthening the central government. His embrace of participatory government and of law aimed at protecting all classes of people naturally appealed to a wider audience would continue to contribute to the democratization of Massachusetts politics. With a new national government in place and a new political era begun, Sullivan, King, Gore, and soon Quincy Adams, were uniquely positioned to play significant, if competing, roles in the coming struggle. This narrative differs from other secondary works on post-colonial Massachusetts in several respects. Firstly, the significant role played by Sullivan in the growth of Republicanism in Massachusetts has been largely overlooked by historians. His persistent calls for equal access to power stood in stark contrast to the views of the Federalists who dominated Massachusetts government in the years after the American Revolution. His active participation in regional politics both during and after the Revolution helped the people of Massachusetts in their transition from colony to state. Furthermore, he was one of the first Massachusetts political leaders to insist on placing the new central government on a sound financial footing. Indeed, his call for a strengthened and sufficiently financed national government predated the efforts of Massachusetts Federalists, including King and Gore. He was, I contend, one of the first political leaders of either party to be considered a true `nationalist.' While Quincy Adams' support for Jefferson's Embargo and his conversion to Republicanism have been well documented, this work explores the link between Sullivan and Quincy Adams, and details the critically important role they played in the national debate over how to respond to British aggression towards American shipping and American sailors. Though Gordon Wood and other historians point to the Embargo as the single biggest failure of Jefferson and his Republican supporters, I contend the opposite is true. The Embargo highlighted the central difference between the two parties, and though it provided Federalists with a temporary victory, it also sowed the seeds of their defeat. The Embargo enabled men like Sullivan and Quincy Adams to clarify one of the central issues of the post-Revolutionary period, ... national honor. Though Paul Goodman correctly points out that Republicanism tapped into the growing sense of nationalism in the country, I carry the discussion further and detail the growing disconnect between the Federalist Party and the American people. Quincy Adams, in particular, articulated the need to announce to the world that the United States would not submit to foreign aggression. Furthermore, his call for a stronger and expanded union, even if it meant a loss of power and prestige for Massachusetts, would soon strike a chord with a growing majority of Americans. Quincy Adams personified the shift in the national mood and represented a new national perspective. When John Quincy Adams left the Federalist Party, many Americans left with him. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.