Was James Otis Crazy?

Founding Father or Madman?

A random bit of housecleaning regarding a Founding Father.

Over the past 100 years or so, it’s been an axiomatic observation by historians that James Otis was, to some degree, insane by at least the early 1760s.[1] Further, Historians tend to dismiss the assassination attempt by Robinson on Sept 5, 1769 as a sole or primary catalyst behind Otis’ later demonstrated insanity. So, was he insane? If so, when?

First, let’s compare some facts. Prior to Sept 5, 1769, the evidence that Otis was insane includes:

· Some people called him insane

· His actions seemed contradictory and inexplicable to some

· He was threatening to overthrow an empire, which, to some, seems like the pursuit of a madman

Second, let’s consider the post Sept 5, 1769 evidence that Otis was insane:

· He fired his guns publicly and dangerously

· He smashed out the windows of the Boston town hall

· He wore a toga to the Boston Massacre funeral

· He had to be physically restrained many times

· He had to be bound and forcefully relocated many times

· His friends and family sequestered him far from the city (in Barnstable and Andover)

· A judge declared him legally insane (twice)

· A court appointed another adult custody/guardianship of James Otis (twice)

· He argued not a single legal case and did not undertake any substantial legal or political work

· He wrote nothing of substance

· Several conversations he had with people were reportedly nonsensical

· At times, he misspelled (or could not remember) his own name

First, let’s observe a plain fact: these two bodies of evidence are substantially unbalanced with the vast majority of the evidence coming after Sept 5, 1769.

Second, another plain fact: none of the post Sept 5, 1769 evidence of insanity occurred before Sept 5, 1769. There simply are no instances of Otis before Sept 5, 1769 randomly firing off guns, requiring physical restraint (to be subdued or relocated), appearing at official events in a toga or forgetting his name. The kinds of behavior exhibited after Sept 5, 1769 is exclusive to after Sept 5, 1769.

Now, let’s take a factual tour of the pre Sept 5, 1769 evidence.

Some people called him insane.

Any historian studying the 1760s is (or should be) very aware that nearly every politician or public person was, at some point, labeled insane by his or her opponents. Being labeled insane simply meant you had opponents. John Adams was labeled insane by Franklin and Hamilton, and Adams labeled King George insane. Otis was labeled insane by a few speakers in Parliamentary debates. The problem was that Otis’ arguments were largely logically and historically unassailable, so instead of attacking the argument, opponents attacked the person.

These were not clinical diagnoses but short-hand for “I disagree with you.” To take any such assessment seriously would be to uncritically believe 18th century propaganda — not exactly an objective approach to history.

His actions seemed contradictory and inexplicable to some.

Simply because a person’s actions confuse you does not make him or her insane. Simply because a person’s motives are not readily apparent likewise does not make that person insane. As Arsonist details, Otis’ pre Sept 5, 1769 actions are, in fact, incredibly reasonable (for someone who wants to overthrow an empire).[2] Further, some at the time did suspect that Otis’ occasionally contradictory positions were actually part of a master plan to manipulate those around him — Governor Bernard accurately labeled Otis’ positions a “counterwork.”

He was threatening to overthrow an empire, which, to some, seems like the pursuit of a madman.

Perhaps this is the strongest evidence; debaters in Parliament noted that madmen overthrow empires, so Otis must be a madman. That’s the summation of this argument at its tautological best.

The problem with all these pre Sept 5, 1769 insanity arguments is that they fail to consider that Otis was considered Massachusetts’ preeminent politician, lawyer, and writer through all the 1760s. Could an insane man argue complex legal cases (and win them?). John Adams later claimed that Otis had little input in the Corbet 1768 murder case, for which Adams and Otis served as defense counsel. The problem is that the notes, records, etc, of the case belie Adams’ assertion; in truth, Otis led the defense and was instrumental in Corbet being acquitted. Though Adams later attempted to diminish Otis’ role in the late 1760s, the historical record shows that Otis was the same sharp lawyer he’d been a decade earlier. Further, during this period prior to 1769, Otis successfully defended about a dozen cases wherein his clients were accused of murdering Royal officers. This doesn’t sound like the track record of an insane man.

The efforts to label Otis insane pre Sept 5, 1769 were not based on medical analysis but were rather a political campaign to smear his name, dampen his efforts, and diminish the sting of his efforts. Some were very aware of Otis’ tactics while others, including, apparently, most opponents, diagnose insanity to explain their own confusion.

The strongest argument against the Robinson attack being the catalyst is that Otis did not seem to immediately become insane. The attack occurred around 7:30pm on that Tuesday, and Otis, from what we know, did not run home and put on a toga. But such claims ask us to entertain questions regarding the precise nature of Otis’ mental illness and details regarding its onset, which we can’t from the historical record.

None of that contradicts the fact that Sept 5, 1769 is a fairly clear and historically accurate dividing line between a sane, very lucid Otis and one who clearly is not. Unless and until substantial, corroborated evidence is discovered — and it’s very doubtful at this point that such evidence exists — responsible historians should conclude that Otis was not insane prior to Sept 5, 1769.

[1] Prior to 1900 or so, historians generally did not presume that Otis of the 1760s was insane.

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Arsonist-Most-Dangerous-Man-America/dp/0983644608/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1553108129&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

About Nathan Allen

Formerly of Xio Research, an A.I. appliance company. Previously a strategy and development leader at IBM Watson Education. His views do not necessarily reflect anyone’s, including his own. (What.) Nathan’s academic training is in intellectual history; his next book, Weapon of Choice, examines the creation of American identity and modern Western power. Don’t get too excited, Weapon of Choice isn’t about wars but rather more about the seeming ex nihilo development of individual agency … which doesn’t really seem sexy until you consider that individual agency covers everything from voting rights to the cash in your wallet to the reason mass communication even makes sense….