Representatives, the tyranny of the majority. In one of his juvenile
essays, published in 1791, contending against a highly popular work, he
opposed the theory that a State has the right to do what it pleases,
declaring it had no right to do wrong.[15] In his old age he had not
again to encounter the empty hypothesis of Thomas Paine, but the
substantial enactment of the "Representatives" of the people of the
United States. The hypothesis was trying to become a fact. The South had
passed the infamous Gag-Law, which a symbolical man from New Hampshire
had presented, though it originated with others.[16] By that law the
mouth of the North was completely stopped in Congress, so that not one
word could be said about the matter of slavery.
The North was quite willing to have it stopped, for it did not care to
speak against slavery, and the gag did not stop the mouth of the
Northern purse. You may take away from the North its honor, if you can
find it; may take away its rights; may imprison its free citizens in the
jails of Louisiana and the Carolinas; yes, may invade the "Sacred soil
of the North," and kidnap a man out of Boston itself, within sight of
Faneuil Hall, and the North will not complain; will bear it with that
patient shrug, waiting for yet further indignities. Only when the
Northern purse is touched, is there an uproar. If the postmaster demands
silver for letters, there is instant alarm; the repeal of a tariff
rouses the feelings, and an embargo once drove the indignant North to
the perilous edge of rebellion! Mr. Adams loved his dollars as well as
most New England men; he looked out for their income as well; guarded as
carefully against their outgo; though conscientiously upright in all his
dealings, kind and hospitable, he has never been proved generous, and
generosity is the commonest virtue of the North; is said to have been
"close," if not mean. He loved his dollars as well as most men, but he
loved justice more; honor more; freedom more; the Unalienable Rights of
man far more.
He looked on the Constitution as an instrument for the defence of the
Rights of man. The government was to act as the people had told how.
The Federal government was not sovereign; the State government was not
sovereign;[17] neither was a court of ultimate appeal;--but the People
was sovereign; had the right of Eminent Domain over Congress and the
Constitution, and making that, had set limits to the government. He
guarded therefore against all violation of the Constitution, as a wrong
done to the people; he would not overstep its limits in a bad cause; not
even in a good one. Did Mr. Jefferson obtain Louisiana by a confessed
violation of the Constitution, Mr. Adams would oppose the purchase of
Louisiana, and was one of the six senators who voted against it. Making
laws for that Territory, he wished to extend the trial by jury to all
criminal prosecutions, while the law limited that form of trial to
capital offences. Before that Territory had a representative in
Congress, the American government wished to collect a revenue there. Mr.
Adams opposed that too. It was "assuming a dangerous power;" it was
government without the consent of the governed, and therefore an unjust
government. "All exercise of human authority must be under the
limitation of right and wrong." All other power is despotic, and "in
defiance of the laws of nature and of God."[18]
This love of freedom led him to hate and oppose the tyranny of the
strong over the weak, to hate it most in its worst form; to hate
American Slavery, doubtless the most infamous form of that tyranny now
known amongst the nations of Christendom, and perhaps the most
disgraceful thing on earth. Mr. Adams called slavery a vessel of
dishonor so base that it could not be named in the Constitution with
decency. In 1805, he wished to lay a duty on the importation of slaves,
and was one of five senators who voted to that effect. He saw the power
of this institution--the power of money and the power of votes which it
gives to a few men. He saw how dangerous it was to the Union; to
American liberty, to the cause of man. He saw that it trod three
millions of men down to the dust, counting souls but as cattle. He hated
nothing as he hated this; fought against nothing so manfully. It was the
lion in the pathway of freedom, which frightened almost all the
politicians of the North and the East and the West, so that they forsook
that path; a lion whose roar could wellnigh silence the forum and the
bar, the pulpit and the press; a lion who rent the Constitution,
trampled under foot the Declaration of Independence, and tore the Bible
to pieces. Mr. Adams was ready to rouse up this lion, and then to beard
him in his den. Hating slavery, of course he opposed whatever went to
strengthen its power; opposed Mr. Atherton's Gag-law; opposed the
annexation of Texas; opposed the Mexican war; and, wonderful to tell,
actually voted against it, and never took back his vote.
When Secretary of State, this same feeling led him to oppose conceding
to the British the right of searching American vessels supposed to be
concerned in the slave-trade, and when Representative to oppose the
repeal of the law giving "protection" to American sailors. It appeared
also in private intercourse with men. No matter what was a man's
condition, Mr. Adams treated him as an equal.
* * * * *
This devotion to freedom and the unalienable rights of man, was the most
important work of his life. Compared with some other political men, he
seems inconsistent, because he now opposes one evil, then its opposite
evil. But his general course is in this direction, and, when viewed in
respect to this idea, seems more consistent than that of Mr. Webster, or
Calhoun, or Clay, when measured by any great principle. This appears in
his earlier life. In 1802, he became a member of the Massachusetts
Senate. The majority of the General Court were federalists. It was a
time of intense political excitement, the second year of Mr. Jefferson's
administration. The custom is well known--to take the whole of the
Governor's Council from the party which has a majority in the General
Court. On the 27th of May, 1802, Mr. Adams stood up for the rights of
the minority. He wanted some anti-federalists in the Council of
Governor Strong, and as Senator threw his first vote to secure that
object. Such was the first legislative action of John Quincy Adams. In
the House of Representatives, in 1831, the first thing he did was to
present fifteen petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, though, from constitutional scruples, opposed to granting
the petitions. The last public act of his life was this:--The question
was before the House on giving medals to the men distinguished in the
Mexican war; the minority opposing it wanted more time for debate; the
previous question was moved, Mr. Adams voted for the last time,--voted
"No," with unusual emphasis; the great loud No of a man going home to
God full of "The unalienable right of resistance to oppression," its
emphatic word on his dying lips. There were the beginning, the middle,
and the end, all three in the same spirit, all in favor of mankind; a
remarkable unity of action in his political drama.
Somebody once asked him, What are the recognized principles of politics?
Mr. Adams answered that there were none: the recognized precepts are bad
ones, and so not principles. But, continued the inquirer, is not this a
good one--To seek "The greatest good of the greatest number?" No, said
he, that is the worst of all, for it looks specious while it is ruinous.
What shall become of the minority, in that case? This is the only
principle,--"To seek the greatest good of all."
I do not say there were no exceptions to this devotion to freedom in a
long life; there are some passages in his history which it is impossible
to justify, and hard to excuse. In early life he was evidently ambitious
of place, and rank, and political power. I must confess, it seems to me,
at some times, he was not scrupulous enough about the means of attaining
that place and power. He has been much censured for his vote in favor of
the Embargo, in 1807. His vote, howsoever unwise, may easily have been
an honest vote. To an impartial spectator at this day, perhaps it will
be evidently so. His defence of it I cannot think an honest defence, for
in that he mentions arguments as impelling him to his vote which could
scarcely have been present to his mind at the time, and, if they were
his arguments then, were certainly kept in silence--they did not appear
in the debate,[19] they were not referred to in the President's
message.[20]
I am not to praise Mr. Adams simply because he is dead; what is wrong
before is wrong after death. It is no merit to die; shall we tell lies
about him because he is dead? No, the Egyptian people scrutinized and
judged their kings after death--much more should we our fellow-citizens,
intrusted with power to serve the State. "A lavish and undistinguishing
eulogium is not praise." I know what coals of terrible fire lie under my
feet, as I speak of this matter, and how thin and light is the coat of
ashes deposited there in forty years; how easily they are blown away at
the slightest breath of "Hartford Convention," or the "Embargo," and the
old flame of political animosity blazes forth anew, while the hostile
forms of "federalists" and "democrats" come back to light. I would not
disquiet those awful shades, nor bring them up again. But a word must be
said. The story of the embargo is well known: the President sent his
message to the Senate recommending it, and accompanied with several
documents. The message was read and assigned to a committee; the
ordinary rule of business was suspended; the bill was reported by the
committee; drafted, debated, engrossed, and completely passed through
all its stages, the whole on the same day, in secret session, and in
about four hours! Yet it was a bill that involved the whole commerce of
the country, and prostrated that commerce, seriously affecting the
welfare of hundreds of thousands of men. Eight hundred thousand tons of
shipping were doomed to lie idle and rot in port. The message came on
Friday. Some of the Senators wanted yet further information and more
time for debate, at least for consideration,--till Monday. It could not
be! Till Saturday, then. No; the bill must pass now, no man sleeping on
that question. Mr. Adams was the most zealous for passing the bill. In
that "debate," if such it can be called, while opposing a postponement
for further information and reflection, he said, "The President has
recommended the measure on his high responsibility; I would _not
consider_, I would _not deliberate_; I would _act_. Doubtless the
_President possesses such further information as will justify the
measure_!"[21] To my mind, that is the worst act of his public life; I
cannot justify it. I wish I could find some reasonable excuse for it.
What had become of the "sovereignty of the people," the "unalienable
right of resistance to oppression?" Would _not consider_; would _not
deliberate_; would _act_ without doing either; leave it all to the "high
responsibility" of the President, with a "doubtless" he has "further
information" to justify the measure! It was a shame to say so; it would
have disgraced a Senator in St. Petersburg. Why not have the "further
information" laid before the Senate? What would Mr. Adams have said, if
President Jackson, Tyler, or Polk, had sent such a message, and some
Senator or Representative had counselled submissive action, without
considering, without deliberation? With what appalling metaphors would
he describe such a departure from the first duty of a statesman; how
would the tempestuous eloquence of that old patriot shake the Hall of
Congress till it rung again, and the nation looked up with indignation
in its face! It is well known what Mr. Adams said in 1834, when Mr.
Polk, in the House of Representatives, seemed over-laudatory of the
President: "I shall never be disposed to interfere with any member who
shall rise on this floor and pronounce a panegyric upon the chief
magistrate.
'No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,
And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee
Where thrift may follow fawning.'"
Yet the future of Mr. Polk was not so obvious in 1834, as the reward of
Mr. Adams in 1808.
This act is particularly glaring in Mr. Adams. The North often sends men
to Washington who might have done it without any great inconsistency;
men, too, not so remarkable for infirmity in the head, as for that less
pardonable weakness in the knees and the neck; men that bend to power
"right or wrong." Mr. Adams was not afflicted with that weakness, and so
the more to be censured for this palpable betrayal of a trust so
important. I wish I could find some excuse for it. He was forty years
old; not very old, but old enough to know better. His defence made the
matter worse. The Massachusetts Legislature disapproved of his conduct;
chose another man to succeed him in the Senate. Then Mr. Adams resigned
his seat, and soon after was sent minister to Russia, as he himself
subsequently declared,[22] "in consequence of the support he had for
years given to the measures of Mr. Jefferson's administration against
Great Britain." But his father said of that mission of his son,
"Aristides is banished because he is too just."[23] It is easy to judge
of the temper of the times, when such words as those of the father
could be said on such an occasion, and that by a man who had been
President of the United States! When a famine occurs, disease appears in
the most hideous forms; men go back to temporary barbarism. In times of
political strife, such diseases appear of the intellectual and moral
powers. No man who did not live in those times can fully understand the
obliquity of mind and moral depravity which then displayed themselves
amongst those otherwise without reproach. Says Mr. Adams himself,
referring to that period, "Imagination in her wildest vagaries can
scarcely conceive the transformation of temper, the obliquities of
intellect, the perversions of moral principle, effected by junctures of
nigh and general excitement." However, it must be confessed that this,
though not the only instance of injustice, is the only case of servile
compliance with the Executive to be found in the whole life of the man.
It was a grievous fault, but grievously did he answer it; and if a long
life of unfaltering resistance to every attempt at the assumption of
power is fit atonement, then the expiation was abundantly made.
About the same time, Mr. Adams was chairman of a committee of the
Senate, appointed to consider the case of a Senator from Ohio. His
conduct, on that occasion, has been the theme of violent attack, and
defence as violent. To the calm spectator, at this day, his conduct
seems unjustifiable, inconsistent with the counsels of justice, which,
though moving with her "Pace of snail," looks always towards the right,
and will not move out of her track, though the heavens fall.
While Mr. Adams was President, Hayti became free; but he did not express
any desire that the United States should acknowledge her independence,
and receive her minister at Washington,--an African plenipotentiary. In
his message,[24] he says, "There are circumstances that have hitherto
forbidden the acknowledgment," and mentions "additional reasons for
withholding that acknowledgment." In the instructions to the American
functionary, sent to the celebrated Congress of Panama, it is said, the
President "is not prepared now to say that Hayti ought to be recognized
as an independent sovereign power;" he "does not think it would be
proper at this time to recognize it as a new State." He was unwilling to
consent to the independence of Cuba, for fear of an insurrection of her
slaves, and the effect at home. The duty of the United States would be
"To defend themselves against the contagion of such near and dangerous
examples," that would "constrain them ... to employ all means necessary
to their security." That is, the President would be constrained to put
down the blacks in Cuba, who were exercising "The unalienable right of
resistance to oppression," for fear the blacks in the United States
would discover that they also were men, and had "Unalienable rights!"
Had he forgotten the famous words, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience
to God?" The defence of such language on such an occasion is, that Mr.
Adams's eyes were not yet open to the evil of slavery. That is a good
defence, if true. To me it seems a true defence. Even great men do not
see every thing. In 1800, Fisher Ames, while delivering the eulogy on
General Washington, censured even the British government, because, "In
the wilds of Africa, it obstructed the commerce in slaves!" No man is so
wise as mankind. It must be confessed that Mr. Adams, while Secretary of
State, and again, while President, showed no hostility to the
institution of slavery. His influence all went the other way. He would
repress the freedom of the blacks, in the West Indies, lest American
slavery should be disturbed, and its fetters broke; he would not
acknowledge the independence of Hayti, he would urge Spain to make peace
with her descendants, for the same reason--"not for those new
republics," but lest the negroes in Cuba and Porto Rico should secure
their freedom. He negotiated with England, and she paid the United
States more than a million of dollars[25] for the fugitive slaves who
took refuge under her flag during the late war. Mr. Adams had no
scruples about receiving the money during his administration. An attempt
was repeatedly made by his secretary, Mr. Clay, through Mr. Gallatin,
and then through Mr. Barbour, to induce England to restore the "fugitive
slaves who had taken refuge in the Canadian provinces," who, escaping
from the area of freedom, seek the shelter of the British crown.[26]
Nay, he negotiated a treaty with Mexico, which bound her to deliver up
fugitive slaves, escaping from the United States--a treaty which the
Mexican Congress refused to ratify! Should a great man have known
better? Great men are not always wise. Afterwards, public attention was
called to the matter; humble men gave lofty counsel; Mr. Adams used
different language, and recommended different measures. But long before
that, on the 7th of December, 1804, Mr. Pickering, his colleague in the
Senate of the United States, offered a resolution, for the purpose of
amending the Constitution, so as to apportion representatives, and
direct taxes among the States, according to their free inhabitants.
But there are other things in Mr. Adams's course and conduct, which
deserve the censure of a good man. One was, the attempt to justify the
conduct of England, in her late war with China, when she forced her
opium upon the barbarians with the bayonet. To make out his case, he
contended that "In the celestial empire ... the patriarchal system of
Sir Robert Filmer, flourished in all its glory," and the Chinese claimed
superior dignity over all others; they refused to hold equal and
reciprocal commercial intercourse with other nations, and "It is time
this enormous outrage upon the rights of human nature, and the first
principles of the laws of nations, should cease."[27] It is true, the
Chinese were "barbarians;" true, the English carried thither the Bible
and Christianity, at least their own Christianity. But, even by the law
of nations, letting alone the law of nature, the barbarians had a right
to repel both Bible and Christianity, when they came in a contraband
shape--that of opium and cannon balls. To justify this outrage of the
strong against the weak, he quite forgets his old antipathy to England,
his devotion to human freedom, and the sovereignty of the people,
calling the cause of England "a righteous cause."
He defended the American claim to the whole of Oregon, up to 54 deg. 40'.
He did not so much undertake to make out a title to either, by the law
of nature or of nations, but cut the matter short, and claimed the whole
of Oregon, on the strength of the first chapter of Genesis. This was the
argument: God gave mankind dominion over all the earth;[28] between
Christian nations, the command of the Creator lays the foundation of all
titles to land, of titles to territory, of titles to jurisdiction. Then
in the Psalms,[29] God gives the "uttermost part of the earth for a
possession" to the Messiah, as the representative of all mankind, who
held the uttermost parts of the earth in chief. But the Pope, as head of
the visible church, was the representative of Christ, and so, holding
under him, had the right to give to any king or prelate, authority to
subdue barbarous nations, possess their territory, and convert them to
Christianity. In 1493, the Pope, in virtue of the above right, gave the
American continent to the Spanish monarchs, who, in time, sold their
title to the people of the United States. That title may be defective,
as the Pope may not be the representative of Christ, and so the passage
in the Psalms will not help the American claim, but then the United
States will hold under the first clause in the Testament of God, that
is, in Genesis. The claim of Great Britain is not valid, for she does
not want the land for the purpose specified in that clause of the
Testament, to "Replenish the earth and subdue it." She wants it, "That
she may keep it open as a hunting-ground," while the United States want
it, that it may grow into a great nation, and become a free and
sovereign republic.[30]
This strange hypothesis, it seems, lay at the bottom of his defence of
the British in their invasion of China. It would have led him, if
consistent, to claim also the greater part of Mexico. But, as he did not
publicly declare his opinion on that matter, no more need be said
concerning it.
* * * * *
Such was the most prominent idea in his history; such the departures
from it. Let us look at other events in his life. While President, the
most important object of his administration was the promotion of
internal improvements, especially the internal communication between the
States. For this purpose the government lent its aid in the construction
of roads and canals, and a little more than four millions of dollars
were devoted to this work in his administration. On the 4th of July,
1828, he helped break ground for the Chesapeake and Ohio canal,
thinking it an important event in his life. He then said there were
three great steps in the progress of America. The first was the
Declaration of Independence and the achievement thereof; the second, the
union of the whole country under the Constitution; but the third was
more arduous than both of the others: "It is," said he, "the adaptation
of the powers, physical, moral, and intellectual, of the whole Union, to
the improvement of its own condition; of its _moral_ and _political_
condition, by wise and liberal institutions; by the cultivation of the
understanding and the heart; by academies, schools, and learned
institutions; by the pursuit and patronage of learning and the arts; of
its _physical_ condition, by associated labor to improve the bounties
and supply the deficiencies of nature; to stem the torrent in its
course; to level the mountain with the plain; to disarm and fetter the
raging surge of the ocean."[31] He faithfully adhered to these words in
his administration.
He was careful never to exceed the powers which the Constitution
prescribed for him. He thought the acquisition of Louisiana was
"accomplished by a flagrant violation of the Constitution,"[32] and
himself guarded against such violations. He revered the God of Limits,
who, in the Roman mythology, refused to give way or remove, even for
Jupiter himself. No man was ever more conscientious on that ground. To
him the Constitution meant something; his oath to keep it meant
something.