The death of John Adams on July 4th, 1826, is more than just a historical footnote; it’s a remarkable event intertwined with the very fabric of American identity. Adding to the mystique, his passing occurred on the exact same day as Thomas Jefferson, another Founding Father and former President. This extraordinary synchronicity, happening on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, has captivated historians and the public alike for nearly two centuries. While the fact of their same-day demise is widely known, the underlying reasons and potential explanations remain a subject of intense scrutiny. This article delves into the various theories surrounding John Adams’ death and the coinciding passing of Thomas Jefferson, exploring whether it was mere chance, divine orchestration, or something more intricately human.
Exploring the Unexplained: Theories Surrounding John Adams’ Death
The sheer improbability of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two towering figures of the American Revolution, dying on the same day, specifically July 4th, the nation’s most symbolic date, immediately begs for explanation. Dismissing it as pure coincidence feels inadequate, prompting a deeper investigation into the potential factors at play. Several theories have been proposed, ranging from the mundane to the metaphysical, each offering a unique lens through which to understand this historical enigma.
1. Coincidence: A Statistical Anomaly?
The most straightforward explanation is coincidence. Statistically, the probability of any individual dying on a specific day is roughly 1 in 365. However, when considering the confluence of factors – same day, same significant date (July 4th), and the 50th anniversary – the idea of mere chance becomes less convincing. While statistically possible, it’s a coincidence of considerable magnitude. In 19th-century America, mortality rates fluctuated with seasons, often peaking in winter and summer. Both Adams, at 90, and Jefferson, at 83, were advanced in age and experiencing health issues, although Adams was reported to be in relatively good health until shortly before his death. Calculating the exact statistical probability of both dying on the same day, particularly this specific day, is complex, but intuitively, it feels like more than just random chance at work. The convergence on Independence Day, a date of profound national significance, especially for former presidents, and the historical weight of the 50th anniversary, amplifies the sense that this was no ordinary coincidence.
2. Divine Intervention: A Sign from Above?
News of the simultaneous deaths of Adams and Jefferson resonated deeply with a public inclined to see divine meaning in significant events. Many at the time interpreted it as a clear sign of divine intervention, a deliberate act by Providence. John Quincy Adams, John Adams’ son and then-President, recorded in his diary that the synchronicity of his father’s and Jefferson’s deaths on July 4th was not mere chance but a “visible and palpable” demonstration of “Divine favor.” Similarly, eulogies delivered across the nation echoed this sentiment. In Baltimore, Samuel Smith attributed the timing to an “All-seeing Providence” as a sign of approval for their “well spent lives.” Daniel Webster, in a lengthy eulogy in Boston’s Faneuil Hall, proclaimed the deaths on the nation’s 50th birthday as “proof” from heaven that “our country, and its benefactors, are objects of His care.” This interpretation aligns with the religious sensibilities of the era, where God’s hand was often seen in major historical events, particularly those concerning the nascent American republic.
3. “Hanging On”: The Power of Will and Anniversary Dates
Another compelling theory suggests that both Adams and Jefferson, consciously or unconsciously, “hung on” to life, driven by the significance of the 50th anniversary of Independence Day. This theory posits that the “will to live,” a concept explored in the biopsychosocial model of health, can exert a powerful influence on the timing of death. Several variations of this “hanging on” explanation exist:
- Independent Will: Each man, independently aware of the approaching anniversary, subconsciously willed himself to live until that momentous day.
- Anniversary Focus: Both were nearing death but were motivated to persevere due to the approaching anniversary, consciously or subconsciously delaying their passing.
- Subconscious Competition: Perhaps a deeper, unspoken rivalry persisted, even in their later years, leading each to subconsciously strive to outlive the other, or at least to reach this symbolic milestone.
Intriguingly, John Adams’ reported penultimate words were, “Thomas Jefferson survives,” though the very last word was unclear. Jefferson, on the evenings of July 3rd and after midnight on July 4th, repeatedly asked, “Is it the 4th?” These anecdotes suggest a keen awareness of the date’s importance. Both men had been invited to participate in 50th-anniversary celebrations, underscoring the day’s significance in their minds and in the public consciousness. Jefferson, despite his failing health, even penned a final letter, a defense of self-government, intended for the celebrations.
Historical anecdotes and some studies lend credence to the “hanging on” phenomenon. Studies examining mortality patterns around birthdays, religious holidays, and other significant events have shown statistical anomalies suggesting that individuals may sometimes postpone death until after personally meaningful dates. However, it’s crucial to note that while these observations are intriguing, they don’t definitively explain how such a phenomenon occurs biologically, and some studies have challenged these findings.
4. Assisted Dying? The Role of Physicians and Caregivers
A more controversial and less explored avenue of explanation involves the potential role of physicians and caregivers in the deaths of Adams and Jefferson. This theory raises the delicate question of whether medical intervention, intentional or unintentional, might have influenced the timing of their deaths.
One possibility is a “silent conspiracy” among physicians, family, and caregivers to ensure both men lived to see the 4th of July, with efforts ceasing once the day arrived. Alternatively, a more active scenario considers whether their physicians, Dr. Amos Holbrook for Adams and Dr. Robley Dunglison for Jefferson, might have played a more direct role. This isn’t to suggest malicious intent, but rather the possibility of actions aimed at alleviating suffering, with the symbolic anniversary inadvertently or deliberately becoming a factor in end-of-life decisions.
In 1810, Adams himself alluded to the potent substances physicians were becoming comfortable using, writing to Benjamin Rush about “Hemlock, and Arsenick, and Mercury Sublimate, and Laudanum.” Could Adams or Jefferson have been administered pain-relieving substances, perhaps laudanum (an opium tincture), with dosages potentially increased on July 4th? Adams’ granddaughter, Susan Boylston Clark, reported that his doctor gave him “medicine” the day before he died, suggesting a possible intervention. Dr. Holbrook also mentioned Adams “suffered much” the night before his death, further hinting at the potential use of strong pain relief.
The concept of “double-effect” in medical ethics, where interventions intended to relieve suffering may unintentionally hasten death, is relevant here. Furthermore, in a time when euthanasia was not openly discussed but potentially practiced discreetly, could physicians or family have taken steps to ease their passing on a symbolically appropriate day?
John Randolph of Roanoke, in a letter from The Hague dated August 8, 1826, wrote of Adams’ death on the 4th, “This is Euthenasia, indeed. They have killed Mr. Jefferson, too, on the same day, but I don’t believe it.” While no direct evidence supports intentional euthanasia, the possibility of “double-effect” or actions to “allow” death, influenced by the symbolic date, cannot be entirely dismissed. Notably, Jefferson reportedly refused laudanum the night before he died, which could be interpreted in various ways in this context.
5. Allowing Oneself to Die: Acceptance and the Desire for Release
A less direct but still significant factor could be that both Adams and Jefferson, facing the infirmities of old age, may have, in some sense, “allowed themselves to die.” This concept explores the psychological and emotional aspects of end-of-life acceptance.
In 1813, Adams, at 77, wrote a metaphorical letter imagining his horse, Hobby, contemplating whether it would be a “charity to stumble” and end his master’s life, burdened by age and declining health. This reveals Adams’ awareness of the burdens of aging and perhaps a contemplation of death as a release.
Jefferson, in a letter to Adams in 1822, explicitly questioned the value of prolonged life in old age, describing a life devoid of senses and pleasures as “but the life of a cabbage, surely not worth a wish.” He included a poignant poem expressing a longing for death as a “kindest boon” when life becomes filled with debility and loss. John Tyler, in a eulogy for Jefferson, stated that Jefferson “often expressed the wish to die on the day,” further suggesting a conscious desire for his life to conclude on July 4th. Jefferson’s reported refusal of medication in his final hours might also be interpreted as a form of “allowing to die,” or what modern bioethics terms “withholding or withdrawing treatment.” While not active hastening of death, it represents a passive acceptance and perhaps even an embrace of its arrival.
6. Causing Oneself to Die? Suicide and Self-Deliverance
The most provocative and least substantiated theory is that either Adams or Jefferson, or both, actively hastened their own deaths, potentially through what might be considered suicide or self-deliverance. Both men had faced personal tragedies and hardships in their later years. Adams experienced the early death of his son Charles due to alcoholism, and potential suicide in his grandson George Washington Adams. Jefferson faced significant financial distress and declining health in his final years.
While suicide carried a strong negative stigma in the religious context of the time, the concept of “self-deliverance” in the face of unbearable suffering or indignity might have been viewed differently, particularly by figures like Jefferson with more unorthodox religious views.
Some contemporary commentators hinted at this possibility. Eulogist Caleb Cushing suggested lines that could be applied to both men: “Nothing in his life Became him like the leaving it. He died As one that had been studied in his death.” Joseph Ellis described Adams expiring on the 4th as “the last and most symbolic act of his life.” Fawn Brodie went further, stating, “If ever two men in history chose and controlled the moment of their dying, they were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.”
Adams was known to be aware of lethal drugs, mentioning in a letter to Rush in 1811 a “Table of Cyder and Health and Poison and Death.” Jefferson, in 1813, wrote to Dr. Samuel Brown about a “preparation of the Jamestown weed” used for suicide during the French Revolution, describing it as a peaceful and struggle-free way to die, preferable to other methods. However, crucially, there is no historical evidence to suggest either man actually employed such means on July 4th, 1826.
The Enduring Mystery and its Modern Relevance
Each of these explanations for the same-day deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson has limitations and lacks definitive proof. The coincidence seems too remarkable to be mere chance, divine intervention relies on faith-based interpretations, “hanging on” requires further biological understanding, and direct causation theories lack concrete historical evidence. Importantly, the explanation for Adams’ death may not be the same as for Jefferson’s, yet the synchronicity remains a central puzzle.
Beyond the individual explanations, the overarching question of coordination arises. Did Adams and Jefferson, perhaps through shared beliefs or even unspoken agreement, somehow orchestrate this remarkable timing? Could their physicians or families have acted independently or in concert to influence the events? Or was there a deliberate manipulation of dates after the fact to enhance the historical narrative? The fact that James Monroe, the fifth president, also died on July 4th (in 1831), adds another layer to this intriguing pattern.
While the definitive answer to why John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on the same day remains elusive, exploring these possibilities is profoundly relevant today. The questions raised – about coincidence, the will to live, end-of-life care, and self-determination – are at the heart of contemporary bioethical debates surrounding withdrawing treatment, assisted dying, and euthanasia.
Our interpretation of Adams’ and Jefferson’s deaths, even without conclusive historical evidence, reflects our own perspectives on these complex issues. Do we see them as passively accepting death, or as active agents in its timing? Did they simply “let death come,” or did they, in some way, “design” or “cause” their own deaths? These questions mirror the competing viewpoints in modern debates about end-of-life choices.
In a society that often reveres the intentions of the Founding Fathers, understanding their deaths, however speculative, can inform our contemporary discussions about the “right to die.” Ultimately, what we believe about the deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may reveal more about our own values and beliefs regarding life, death, and the enduring human quest for meaning in the face of mortality.
References
Battin, Margaret P. “July 4, 1826: Explaining the Same-Day Deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (and What Could This Mean for Bioethics?)” Historically Speaking: The Bulletin of the Historical Society, vol. VI, no. 6, July/August 2005.
Biddle, Alexander, ed. Old Family Letters. Philadelphia, 1892.
Bergh, Albert Ellery, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Definitive Edition. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907.
Brodie, Fawn M. Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History. Norton, 1974.
Burstein, Andrew. America’s Jubilee: How in 1826 a Generation Remembered Fifty Years of Independence. Alfred A. Knopf, 2001.
Cambreleng, C. C. Selection of Eulogies, Pronounced in the Several States, In Honor of Those Illustrious Patriots and Statesmen, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Hartford, 1826.
Cappon, Lester J., ed. The Adams-Jefferson Letters. University of North Carolina Press, 1988.
Clark, Susan Boylston Adams. Letter to Abigail Louisa Smith Adams Johnson, July 9, 1826. A. B. Johnson papers, Massachusetts Historical Society.
Cushing, Caleb. Selection of Eulogies, Pronounced in the Several States, In Honor of Those Illustrious Patriots and Statesmen, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Hartford, 1826.
Ellis, Joseph J. Passionate Sage. The Character and Legacy of John Adams. Norton, 1993.
Garland, Hugh A. The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke. New York, 1850.
Nevins, Allan, ed. The Diary of John Quincy Adams, 1794-1845. Scribner, 1951.
Ray, Oakley. “How the Mind Hurts and Heals the Body.” American Psychologist 59 (January 2004).
Randolph, Sarah N. The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia, 1978.
Tyler, John. Selection of Eulogies, Pronounced in the Several States, In Honor of Those Illustrious Patriots and Statesmen, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Hartford, 1826.
Young, Donn C. and Erin M. Hade. “Holidays, Birthdays, and Postponement of Cancer Death.” Journal of the American Medical Association 292 (2004).
