John Quincy Adams on 1 January 1823 began his Memoirs with this poem:
All-gracious Parent! On my bended knee
This dawning day I consecrate to Thee
With humble heart and fervent voice to raise
The suppliant prayer and ever-grateful praise.
To Thee the past its various blessings owes,
Its soothing pleasures, its chastising woes;
To Thee the future with imploring eye
Looks up for health, for virtue, for the sky.
Howe’er the tides of joy or sorrow roll,
Still grant me, Lord, possession of my soul,
Life’s checkered scenes with steadfast mind to share,
As thou shalt doom, to gladden or to bear.
And oh, be mine, when closed this brief career,
The crown of glory’s everlasting year.1
In his Memoirs on January 9 he wrote,
The President came at noon about the appointments
to Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Buenos Aires, and Chile,
to all of which he has determined to send Ministers,
and Mr. Provost as Chargé d’Affaires at Peru.
He appeared desirous of sending the
nomination in to the Senate tomorrow.2
On 10 January 1823 Secretary of State Adams wrote in his
Memoirs about a Convention with Britain and Russia:
From the President’s I went to the office at one;
and soon after Mr. Canning came with Mr. Parish
and Mr. Ellisen, the Russian Chargé d’Affaires,
with Baron Maltitz, and we exchanged the ratifications of
the Convention signed at St. Petersburg the 12th July last.
This was the first Convention ever negotiated
by the United States under a mediation, and
of which the exchange was accordingly tripartite.
Mr. Canning was excessively punctilious upon
every point of formality; Mr. Ellisen much less so.
We were employed till six o’clock
before the exchange was completed.
Mr. Canning had two certificates of exchange to execute,
one with me and one with Mr. Ellisen.
That which I had drawn up was tripartite, to be
executed by all three, and each party to retain one.
But after five or six copies of my draft had been made,
and still Mr. Canning wanted some insignificant
transposition of words, requiring new copies,
which there was no longer time to make out, I gave up
altogether my draft, and we merely signed a protocol
in French, proposed by Mr. Ellisen, and which contained
all the substance of the certificate that I had drawn up.
It included, of course, and acknowledgment by Mr. Ellisen
of the receipt of the certified copy of the Convention,
which by the eighth article was to be delivered by each of
the parties to the Minister or Agent of the mediating power.
We compared together all the ratified copies.
I held the English ratified copy, and Mr. Brent
the Russian ratified copy, which we were to receive;
Mr. Canning held our ratified copy, and Mr. Parish
the Russian ratified copy, which were to be delivered
to Mr. Ellisen; Mr. Canning held our ratified copy,
and Mr. Parish the Russian ratified copy, which
were to be delivered to Mr. Canning; and Mr. Ellisen
held our ratified copy, and Baron Maltitz the British
ratified copy, which were to be delivered to Mr. Ellisen;
each party thus collating the two copies which it was
to retain, Mr. Ironside holding at the same time the
original executed treaty transmitted by Mr. Middleton.
There were several slight variations between the copies;
none of any consequence.
But there were three explanatory documents in French only,
which in the English copies and in ours, formed part
of the ratified Convention, but in the Russian were on
separate papers, not within the body of the ratification—
signed and sealed as annexed copies.
Mr. Canning took great exception to this and insisted upon
having a minute of it entered upon the protocol, as it was.
I executed with Mr. Canning also the agreement for the
payment of the Commissioners and Arbitrators.
He accepted the modification proposed by
the President with some slight alterations.3
On 11 January 1823 Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
Smyth had published in the National Intelligencer
of this morning a long reply, addressed to his constituents,
to my answer to his first charges—a renewed attack
upon my father—a panegyric upon Thomas Paine—
a new selection of votes of mine while I was a member of
the Senate—and a dissertation against hereditary honors.
But mistrusting the effect of all this, he came to my office
high charged with this project of arraigning me before
the public for falsification of public papers—and this
conspiracy of colons and capital letters would have
formed a new impeachment of me before the nation,
had he not found me ready to meet him with irrefragable
proof against his infamous imputation, and had not his
own colleague whom he had brought with him for testimony
signified to him that he could not sanction his suspicions
nor support him against the evidence I produced.
This inquisitorial screw lasted at least four hours.
That Providence, without which not a sparrow
falls to the ground, had preserved the papers
from which the book was printed, and preserved
to me the means of complete justification.
Mr. Canning also came and conversed with me
chiefly about the commercial intercourse with the
British Colonies and our discriminating duties,
upon which he said he must write me
a note to ask me a yes or a no.
I asked him if he had any instructions
from his Government concerning it.
He said he had not.4
Secretary of State Adams wrote in his Memoirs on 12 January 1823:
12th. I went to Dowson’s and saw Mr. Macon.
In making the appointments to these South American
missions, the President wishes to distribute them
to citizens of the different parts of the Union.
He wished particularly to take some
distinguished notice of North Carolina.
It happens that the weight of talents in that state is with the
Federalists, so that the politics counteract the geography.
Among the persons recommended to the President was
John Lewis Taylor, now Chief Justice of the State;
and the President had requested me to call upon
Mr. Macon and make enquiries concerning him.
Last evening I received a note from the President
saying it would be proper in these inquiries
to ascertain if Mr. Taylor is of the Republican party.
I made therefore that enquiry among the others.
Mr. Macon spoke of Mr. Taylor as of a man of accomplished
manners, but said nothing of any more elevated
qualifications, and as to his politics, he had understood
him to be among the warmest of Federalists in the State.
But he added that politics had never been so hostile
between the parties in North Carolina as in either of its
neighboring States of South Carolina or of Virginia, and that
Mr. Taylor had been elected to the office of Chief Justice of
the State by a Legislature of different politics from his own.
On returning home I found a note from the President
requesting me to call at his house this day to confer
with him on the proposed nominations of Ministers.
I went to him immediately and found him
very anxious to make the nominations.
I reported to him what Mr. Macon had said of Mr. Taylor,
upon which he said it would not do to nominate him.
He added that it had been a great object of his
Administration to conciliate the people of this Union towards
one another and to mitigate the asperities of party spirit.
But in effecting this he was obliged to consider
how far he could yield to his own dispositions
without losing the confidence of his own party.
He would go as far as the public sentiment
would support him; but to overstep that
boundary would be to defeat his own object.
He had concluded to nominate Hugh Nelson of Virginia
to Spain and Richard C. Anderson of Kentucky to Colombia,
and C. A. Rodney to Buenos Aires.
For Mexico and Chile he was yet undetermined.
I mentioned to him General Jackson for Mexico,
and John Holmes of Maine for Chile.
He received favorably the name of Jackson
but doubted whether he would accept, and made some
question whether his quickness and violence of temper
might not, in the opinion of a great part of the nation,
make the expediency of his appointment questionable.
I said that although the language of General Jackson
was sometimes too impassioned and violent, his conduct
had always appeared to me calm and deliberate.
Acting under responsibility, I did not apprehend he would
do anything to the injury of his country, and even if he
should commit any indiscretion, he would bear the penalty
of it himself, for the nation would not support him in it.
There was another difficulty, which I thought more serious.
He had been unanimously nominated by the
members of the Legislature of Tennessee
as a candidate for the Presidential election.
To send him on a mission abroad would be attributed
by some, perhaps, to a wish to get him out of the way.
The President said there was something in that.
As to Holmes, he said, his conduct in the Senate
had not been friendly to the Administration;
of which I was well aware, as I was that his
dispositions were far otherwise than friendly to me.
But I considered him as perhaps the ablest man
in the delegations from New England
and highly qualified for the public service.
I believed also that he would faithfully discharge
the duties of any public service abroad.
The President took further time to consider of the subject.5
On January 23 John Quincy Adams wrote much in his Memoirs including this
assessment of a presidential candidacy to Mr. Robert Walsh (Mr. W.),
editor of the National Gazette in Philadelphia:
When I said that Mr. W. had indicated in
his editorial capacity no decided preference
for me as a probable candidate for the Presidency,
I spoke with reference to the time when the
last letters between him and me were written.
Since then he has spoken more distinctly;
and if I am to consider him as wishing to support me
for a candidate with his editorial influence,
I would beg to offer him the following advice:
First, to wait till it shall be ascertained
whether I am to be a candidate at all.
Great exertions have for years been systematically
making to exclude me from that position altogether.
I have done and shall do nothing to place myself in it.
Persecuted by calumny in its basest and most insidious
forms, I have more than once defended myself
in the face of the nation; whether successfully or not,
the nation and posterity are to judge.
But surely to parry the daggers and assassins
is not to canvass votes for the Presidency.
In no part of the Union, not even in my native New England,
has there been an unequivocal manifestation of a public
sentiment disposed to hold me up as a candidate.
If that feeling does not exist and in a force which
no effort of intrigue can suppress or restrain, it would
be a useless, and perhaps worse than useless, thing
for a few personal friends of mine to attempt to produce it.
The opinion has gone abroad throughout the Union
that I shall have no support.
I have no decisive evidence that the voice
of the people in any quarter of it is in my favor.
The Richmond Enquirer, the leading paper
of the Presidential canvass, pronounced me,
eight months ago, hors de combat.
And although it has since admitted that it might
possibly be otherwise, it allows me no partisans but those
who think I had been wronged in the diplomatic feud.
In Massachusetts I am no favorite of the (federal) majority.
In the rest of New England the Republicans
are lukewarm and distrustful of success.
My career has attached no party to me precisely
because it has been independent of all party.
“All rising to great place,” says Lord Bacon,
“is by a winding-stair; and if there be factions,
it is good to side a man’s self while he is in the rising;
and to balance himself when he is placed.”
I have neither ascended by the winding-stair
nor sided myself in the rising; and the consequence
has been that all parties disown me—the Federalists
as a deserter, the Democrats as an apostate.
I have followed the convictions of my own mind
with a single eye to the interests of the whole nation;
and if I have no claims to the suffrages of the whole nation;
I have certainly none to those of either party.
This independence of party will always in warm,
factious times be mistaken and misrepresented
by common politicians for unsteadiness of principle;
and the man who acts upon it must make his account
to stand or fall on broader grounds than lie within the
bounds of a geographical subdivision, and with other
props than political sectarianism or individual intrigue.
If your watch has no main spring, you will
not keep time by turning round the minute-hand.
If I cannot move the mass,
I do not wish to trifle with the indicator.
Against me I have in every section the passions and
prejudices peculiar to its own situation and circumstances,
and everywhere party spirit, wielded by personal rivals and
adversaries, and working by misrepresentation and slander.
With all these weights bearing me down,
where is the buoyant principle that is to bring me up?
Is it for me to say, My talents and services?
And what else can be said by any of my friends?
My wishes are out of the question.
If I am to be a candidate, it must be by the wishes,
ardent and active, of others, and not by mine.
Let Mr. W. then first wait for proof that
there is a strong public interest in my favor.
Secondly, if this point should be ascertained
beyond all question, and Mr. W. should think proper
to take an active part in promoting the election,
whatever information he may desire he can obtain either
by direct communication with me or from my friends,
with whom he is also in relations of friendship.
Thirdly, if his disposition be to befriend me,
and the influence of newspapers be as powerful
as you suggest, would it not be advisable to
observe the course of other newspapers, and
endeavor to harmonize, or at least not to conflict with
those which appear disposed to support the same cause?
With this explanation I hope Mr. W. will be satisfied
that any coolness with which I may have received
his proffers and dispositions of kindness has been the
result of a real kindness to himself, as well as of principle.
If my countrymen prefer others to me,
I must not repine at their choice.
Indifference at the heart is not to be won by wooing.
The services that have no tongue to speak for
themselves would be ill-aided by the loudest trumpet.
Merit and just right in this country will be heard.
And in any case, if they are not heard “without my stir,”
I shall acquiesce in the conclusion that
it is because they do not exist.6
John Quincy Adams in his Memoirs briefly mentioned
various concerns on March 14, 15, 17 and 27:
March 14th. Cabinet meeting.
Calhoun absent unwell and Wirt engaged in Supreme Court.
War between France and Spain.
What to be done?
Agent in Cuba, Hernandez; P. U. S. to see him.
Calhoun’s anxiety.
Information to be obtained.
Consistency with what we have done to be observed.
Fears of what England may do.
Prospects of Spain.
Danger of treachery.
15th. The Baron Maltitz was at my house to announce
the arrival of Baron Tuyl, the Russian Envoy at New York.
Expects him here next week.
Cabinet meeting at two;
Cahoun and Thompson only present.
Cuba.
P. U. S. has seen Hernandez, who is going
to the Havanna; not as Agent; what to do?
Calhoun for war with England, if she seems to take Cuba.
Thompson urging the Cubans to declare themselves
independent, if they can maintain their independence.
I assume for granted that they cannot maintain their
independence, and that this nation will not, and could not,
prevent by war the British from obtaining possession
of Cuba, if they attempt to take it.
The debate almost warm.
Talk of calling Congress, which I thought absurd.
Memorandum—to be cool on this subject.
17th. Note from P. U. S.
At the office.
R. S. Coxe with many recommendations
to be appointed Agent under the slave Commission.
Wirt to suggest G. Hay for the same appointment.
Hernandez going to the Havanna.
The Spanish documents at St. Augustine.
He read the pamphlet from Cuba.
Burt about his inventions and projects.
Clay to take leave; going to Philadelphia and to New York.
Wants a special Supreme Court U. S. to try the
Kentucky cause over again; thinks all the
present Judges but one superannuated.
Salvo for the Chief Justice.
European politics—Spain.
Cabinet meeting.
Calhoun, Thompson, Wirt present;
Crawford absent unwell.
Cuba.
Meade’s information about Anduaga’s report
to his Government against H. Nelson.
A letter from one Ross to Thompson.
British projects upon Cuba.
P. U. S. proposes to offer to G. Britain
a mutual promise not to take Cuba.
Objections by Calhoun and me.
Thompson inclines to it.
Wirt unprepared for an opinion.
Calhoun thinks nothing can be obtained by it.
I suppose the answer would be a proposal
of quantity to Spain, and that we should
plunge into the whirlpool of European politics.
No conclusion.
27th. Canning read me three notes—
Duke of Wellington to Montmorency, offering mediation
of Great Britain between France and Spain;
Montmorency’s answer declining the mediation;
and G. Canning’s reply to it,
addressed to the Chargé d’Affaires of France.
Expressed my gratification at the
substance of this correspondence.
Spoke something of the slave-trade note, of the slave
indemnity note, and of the Colonial trade navigation.
Canning earnest about them all.7
Here is commentary by Adams on April 2, 8, and 9 in his Memoirs:
April 2nd. At the office a Captain B. Turner came
with a claim for having brought home ninety-six seaman
prisoners from Jamaica during the late war.
Cabinet meeting; full.
Agent to Cuba.
Calhoun for a war to prevent Great Britain
from taking Cuba if the islanders are united against it.
8th. At the office.
President there.
His note directing me to write to H. Nelson to go to
Norfolk and embark immediately in the Hornet for Spain;
to counteract Anduaga’s misrepresentations.
Dispatches from R. Rush 20th February, and speculations.
President says G. W. Erving wishes to go to France,
and to have some authority as substitute
in Mr. Gallatin’s absence; thinks he cannot be gratified.
9th. I was occupied in preparing the draft of
H. Nelson’s instructions; to answer Anduaga’s invective.
At Secretary of the Navy’s office, enquiring
for several papers, some of which
were furnished me; to wait for others.
Note from the President to write to A. Gallatin,
advising him to stay in the crisis.8
On 28 April 1823 wrote a 52-page letter to Hugh Nelson about the neutrality
and foreign policy of the United States.
This is his concluding paragraph:
An object of considerable importance will be
to obtain the admission of consuls from the
United States in the ports of the colonies,
especially in the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico.
It was incidental to the old colonial system of Spain,
which excluded all commerce of foreign nations with
her colonies, to admit in their ports no foreign consuls.
The special duties and functions of those officers,
consisting in the protection of the commerce, navigation,
and seamen of their respective countries in the ports
where they reside, it was a natural and necessary
consequence of the exclusive colonial principle, that
where no commerce was allowed to foreign nations,
there could be no duties for a foreign consul to perform,
and no occasion for the acknowledgment of such an officer.
But when the colonial ports were opened to foreign trade,
all the reasons which recommend, and all the
necessities which urge the appointment and
admission of foreign consuls to reside in them,
apply as forcibly to those ports as to any others.
The commerce between the United States and
Havana is of greater amount and value than
with all the Spanish dominions in Europe.
The number of American vessels which
enter there is annually several hundreds.
Their seamen from the unhealthiness of the climate
are peculiarly exposed to need there the assistance
which it is a primary purpose of the consular office
to supply; nor is there any conceivable motive for
continuing to maintain the pretension to exclude them,
and to refuse the formal acknowledgment of consuls.
Informal commercial agents have in many of the ports
been allowed to reside, and partially to perform the
consular duties; but as they are thus left much
dependent on the will of the local government,
and subject to control at its pleasure,
they have neither the dignity nor authority
which properly belongs to the office.
There has already been much correspondence
between Mr. Forsyth and the Spanish Department
of Foreign Affairs on this subject.
You will follow it up as there may be opportunity,
till a definitive answer shall be obtained.9
On 10 May 1823 Secretary of State Adams
sent this short letter to President James Monroe:
I enclose herewith for your consideration
and revisal the draft of general instructions
to Mr. Rodney as Minister to Buenos Aires.
I shall now proceed to prepare those for Mr. Anderson
destined to the Republic of Colombia, in which I propose
to take the review of the conduct of this government in
relation to the contest between Spain and her American
Colonies recommended in your note of the 30th of April.
I had the honor of suggesting to you the reasons
for omitting it from the instructions to Mr. Rodney.
The foundations of the future permanent intercourse
political and commercial between the United States
and the new Spanish American nations must be laid
in the instructions for these diplomatic missions,
and they will form in the history of this union a
prominent feature in the character of your administration.
I am exceedingly anxious therefore not only that
they should meet your approbation but that
they should fill up entirely to your satisfaction
the outline of your own ideas and intentions.
I ask the favor therefore of such observations as may occur
to you on the perusal of the drafts and of every suggestion
of addition or omission which you may think advisable.10
On 27 May 1823 Adams wrote 46 pages of instructions for Richardson C. Anderson
of Kentucky who was Minister Plenipotentiary to Colombia and then
was chosen for the Congress of Nations in Panama.
This is the last paragraph:
In all your consultations with the government to which
you will be accredited, bearing upon its political relations
with this union, your unvarying standard will be the spirit
of independence and of freedom, as equality of rights
and favors will be that of its commercial relations.
The emancipation of the South American continent
opens to the whole race of man prospects of futurity,
in which this union will be called in the discharge of
its duties of itself and to unnumbered ages of
posterity to take a conspicuous and leading part.
It invokes all that is precious in hope and all that is desirable
in existence to the countless millions of our fellow creatures,
which in the progressive revolutions of time this
hemisphere is destined to rear and to maintain.
That the fabric of our social connections with our
southern neighbors may rise in the lapse of years
with a grandeur and harmony of proportions
corresponding with the magnificence of the means,
placed by providence in our power and in that of our
descendants, its foundations must be laid in principles of
politics and of morals new and distasteful to the thrones
and dominations of the elder world but coextensive with the
surface of the globe and lasting as the changes of time.11
Anderson had sold his slaves prior to his diplomatic work.
He died on 24 July 1826 while on his way to the Panama Congress of Nations.
John Quincy Adams wrote this in his Memoirs about his conversation with
the British Foreign Secretary George Canning on June 2 and again on June 4:
June 2nd. Mr. Canning came and stayed till
I was called to dinner; coming again tomorrow;
spoke of the appointment of an Arbitrator for the
question under the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent;
urges the nomination of an umpire but names none;
means the King of the Netherlands.
I mentioned the instructions preparing for Mr. Rush;
the Colonial trade intercourse;
suppression of the slave-trade; the Ghent article;
the Russia Ukase about the Northwest coast;
the controversial points of maritime law; Cuba pirates;
South America, and the European alliance.
Asks about the average for the slave indemnity.
I know not how to make it up.
Much conversation upon the Colonial intercourse;
extreme dissatisfaction of the English merchants here
at our retaining the discriminating duties.
Suppose the Order in Council prohibiting the intercourse
should issue, what would be the condition of the trade?
4th. Mr. Canning; at least three hours
of conversation with him.
Went over all the subjects of the negotiation
to be proposed to the British Government—
Colonial intercourse; suppression of the slave-trade;
the Ghent Commission; Boundary; Maritime law questions;
South America, and the Russian Northwest Coast Ukase.
He pressed for the nomination of an Arbitrator.
I named the Emperor of Russia,
to which he was not inclined to accede.
Told him the King of the Netherlands was his King’s cousin.
Proposed to agree upon a line by compromise.
His scruple.
State rights—Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York.
Mode in which the arbitration must be conducted.
Impossible for any sovereign
to examine the question personally.
Told him I was answering his slave-trade letter, and how….
Spoke of the piracy project.
I asked him what had been done
by the allies at Verona about it.
He did not know.
Mentioned the rolled and hammered iron affair.
McLane and the committee were unanimous,
he said, for removing the inequality.
I asked him why, then, they did not report.
Told him I had spoken to Newton, who was against it.
He spoke resentfully of Newton.
Complained of delay by me—unreasonably.
On the search at sea he said that Gorham, Mercer,
and Hemphill were for it; but I had frightened Hemphil
out of his wits by telling him it would surrender the flag.
This conversation was altogether desultory—
excessively guarded, as usual, on his part,
and somewhat provocative on mine; purposely because
nothing is to be got from him but by provoking him.12
On June 5 Adams wrote this in his Memoirs:
5th. Met at the Oratorio at the Unitarian Church, C. F.
Mercer; came here for the Colonization Society’s meeting.
Talk about the slave-trade.
Says he could have carried by a large majority
the resolution at the end of his report.
All the speakers of the House, except some Virginians,
were for it—Gorham, Hemphill, Sergeant, Colden,
Cannon, Cocke, Hamilton of South Carolina,
Mitchell of South Carolina, all for it.
This list is very remarkable, and I thank Mercer for it.
A union of Crawfordites, federalists, Clintonians,
and Lowndesians turned Calhounites, would have had
something else in view besides the slave-trade in that vote.
It is a warning to me to persevere.13
Secretary of State Adams on 10 June 1823 wrote in his Memoirs:
10th. Received a note from Mr. Salazar announcing
his arrival in the city with a commission as
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
from the republic of Colombia, and asking an interview.
I appointed three o’clock to receive him
at the office of the Department of State.
He came and delivered to me a letter from Don Pedro Gual,
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the
republic of Colombia, and a copy of a credential letter
from the Vice President of the republic, acting Executive,
and addressed to the President of the United States.
Mr. Leandro Palacios came with him and brought
a commission as Consul-General of
the republic in the United States.
I told Mr. Salazar I would take the President’s directions
as to the time when he would receive him.
Salazar speaks very little English and a little more French.
He told me he was a literary man
and had read some of my writings.
His Secretary, Mr. Gomez he has left unwell at Philadelphia;
also his wife and child.
Mr. Canning came and had
an hour’s conversation with me.
Showed him R. Rush’s dispatch of 7th April 1822.
Average for the slaves.
I called at the President’s and
mentioned Salazar’s request of an audience.
He appointed the day after tomorrow at one
to receive his credentials.14
Adams wrote this account of the next day:
11th. Began a draft of an instruction to R. Rush upon
the Northern boundary and the disagreement of the
Commissioners under the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent.
Note to Mr. Salazar informing him that the
President would receive his credential letter tomorrow.
Baron Tuyl at the office.
He has a packet to send to Count Lieven.
And he reminded me of my promise about a newspaper
paragraph concerning the Northwest Coast negotiation.
Kankey came, and I dispatched him with a certificate as
Consular Commercial Agent at Barbadoes, and instructions.
He is to sail from Georgetown tomorrow.
Mr. Crawford sent to ask me
to call at the Treasury Office, which I did.
It was to object to drafts upon the Treasury payable to
Mr. Maury, as Agent for disbursements of the State
Department, which under the law of the last session of
Congress, he said, could only be paid as advances and by
express discretion of the President in every particular case.
He said also it was an innovation, excepting as to the
contingent expenses of foreign intercourse.
But the innovation consists only in this, that now
a regular account of all the other disbursements
under the direction of the Department of State
is kept at the Department itself as well as at the Treasury,
while the disbursements were formerly made,
and no account of them kept, but at the Treasury.
The draft to which Mr. Crawford now took exception
was upon the appropriation of a hundred thousand dollars
for carrying into execution the late treaty with Spain,
placed by the law at the disposal of the President,
and by written direction from him charged
to the care of the Department of State.
Crawford asked why it would not have been
better to have left it to the Treasury.
I said because a great portion of the expenditures
being discretionary they could not pass,
according to the ordinary rules of settlement at the
Treasury; but that if the Treasury officers would pass them,
I should be glad to transfer them all over.
I added that, however preferable a different course might
have been, that was the course which had been adopted.
With regard to the expenditures under the Treaty
Commissions, I saw no reason why they should
not be transferred entirely to the Treasury,
and I would direct Mr. Maury to close all those accounts
and refer all future claimants upon them to the Treasury.
Mr. Crawford said he would obtain the President’s order
for the warrant which was required yesterday
upon the Florida Treaty appropriation.15
On June 14 Adams included this in his Memoirs:
I returned Mr. Salazar’s visit at Brown’s Hotel
and left a card for Mr. Palacios.
I gave back to Mr. Salazar the copy and translation
of his speech and the paragraph containing
the substance of the President’s answer.
We had some conversation upon the Constitution
of the republic of Colombia in which he expressed
strong opinions against a federal Government
as inapplicable to that country;
and of the liberty of the press as
dangerous in the present state of things.16
Adams wrote this in his Memoirs on June 16:
16th. I finished the draft of a letter of instructions
to R. Rush upon the disagreement between the
Commissioners under the fifth article of the
Treaty of Ghent and the Northern boundary;
and began one upon the admission of Consuls
into the British Colonial ports.
The importance of all the subjects that
I am discussing grows upon me,
and time sinks under the pressure of my occupations.
I have now less than two years at the utmost extent
to continue in my present office.
The great object of my desire is to leave
the business of the office in a situation
as advantageous as possible for the country.
I task my faculties to their full endurance for this purpose.
The head and heart need aid and guidance.
May they not be wanting!17
On 17 June 1823 Adams conversed with the departing Canning at the President’s:
17th. Dr. Thornton called at my house and told me
that Mr. Salazar had waited here only for the
publication of his speech in the National Intelligencer.
It was published this morning.
He said also that Mr. Salazar had applied to the President,
enquiring if we had not an old frigate
we could sell to the republic of Colombia.
The President had told him there was the Java,
which would be sold at auction and might be purchased
for the republic of Colombia or otherwise:
the Government could not enquire
for whom or on whose account.
At one o’clock I presented to the President
Mr. Stratford Canning, the British Minister,
on his departure for England upon leave of absence.
The interview was rather longer than usual
upon such occasions, but passed as usual
in mere compliments, personal and political.
After we withdrew from the drawing-room,
I had a long conversation with him.
He spoke again of the average value of the slaves
to be paid for by the Convention of 12th July 1822
and upon the suppression of the slave-trade;
also upon the general proposition for negotiation
upon various points which I have in contemplation.
I told him that my answer to his last note upon the
suppression of the slave-trade was before the President for
consideration and gave him the general outlines of my plan.
He appeared to be uneasy at the idea that in my reply
the subject of impressment would be discussed,
and said he hoped in the disposition between the two
Governments so strongly tending towards conciliation,
whatever was of an irritating character might be avoided.
He intimated, as in candor, that the proposition
to Great Britain to pass a law would excite some feeling,
and that in proposing to treat on the subjects of
maritime law, the form of suggestion that Great Britain
might have changed her principles would be
less acceptable than if it were made in general terms.
I observed that in all her negotiations for the suppression
of the slave-trade Great Britain not only asked the powers
with whom she treated to pass laws, but made it a matter
of express stipulation in the treaties; and in supposing that
she might now view more favorably than heretofore the
interests of neutrality, I had no thought of asking her to
change her principles, but supposed that the difference
of her position would necessarily produce different views.
Mr. Canning proposed to introduce me to Mr. Addington,
as the Chargé d’Affaires during his absence.
When he withdrew, I rejoined the President
and told him the substance of his observations.18
On June 18 Adams wrote briefly this in his Memoirs:
18th. At the President’s.
Took with me the draft of instructions for R. Rush on the
Northern boundary, the reports of the two Commissioners,
the two rejected general maps, and the sheet of Mitchell’s
Map containing the boundary line as there marked.
I also desired him to determine something concerning
the average value of slaves, referred to
in the Convention of 12th July 1822.
He wrote a note to the heads of Departments,
requesting a meeting on this subject tomorrow,
and also that the member who should have
the papers relating to the suppression
of the slave-trade would bring them with him.19
This is how Adams described in his Memoirs the Cabinet meeting on June 19:
19th. There was a Cabinet meeting
at the President’s at one o’clock.
Messrs. Crawford, Calhoun, and Thompson were present;
Mr. Wirt was absent.
My project of a Convention for the suppression
of the slave-trade, answer to Canning,
and instruction to R. Rush were first considered.
Mr. Crawford and Mr. Calhoun started objections on
various grounds—Crawford to the argument in the
letter to Canning against the right of search, which he said,
was completely given up in the subject in the project
of Convention, and therefore the argument might be
represented by the British as a mere declamation against
a practice which the project essentially conceded.
This objection had weight, and I had been
fully aware of it in drawing up the papers.
But two objects were to be aimed at in them:
one, fully to justify the repugnance which we have
heretofore manifested against the right of search as
practiced by Great Britain in war; the other, to carry
into effect the resolution in the House of Representatives
recommending negotiation to obtain the recognition
of the slave-trade to be piracy by the law of nations.
To piracy, by the law of nations, search is incident of
course, since wherever there is a right to capture,
there must be a right to search.
The end desired by the resolution of the House of
Representatives cannot be obtained without conceding
the right so far of search, and all that is left us is to keep
it still inflexibly within the class of belligerent rights, as
exercised only against pirates, the enemies of all mankind.
It was therefore that in my project of Convention
the first article assumes as a fact that both parties
have declared the slave-trade piracy, and my
instructions to Mr. Rush are not to offer it but after
an Act of Parliament declaring the slave-trade to be piracy.
Mr. Calhoun’s objection was to the admission
of the right of capture by foreign officers at all,
as weakening us upon the general objection
to conceding the right of search.
Mr. Thompson did not think the right of search
conceded in the project at all.
The search for pirates had, he said, absolutely
nothing in common with the search of neutral vessels.
Much discussion which I cannot record.
Mr. Calhoun thought we should at once say we will never
concede the right of search for slaves unless Britain will
renounce search for her seamen on our vessels in war.
I said I was willing to make one the condition of the other.
It was finally understood by the President that the project,
much as drafted, should be proposed, provided the
British make the offense capital by act of Parliament,
and not be communicated in detail to
the British Government without that.
Crawford hinted at an additional guard:
that lists of the vessels authorized to capture
the slave-traders should be mutually furnished.
But it would be very inconvenient to us,
as instructions of capture are issued to all our cruisers.
The project is to do,
but the letter to Mr. Canning is to be modified.
Upon the subject of the average value of the slaves
carried away, and to be paid for, it was determined
that we have not the necessary information,
and that it must be left to be fixed by the Commissioners
or otherwise according to the Convention.
After the other members of the Administration had
withdrawn, I requested of the President to mark the
passages of the draft to Mr. Canning which he would
have omitted—for which purpose he kept the papers.20
Adams in the five pages of his Memoirs on June 20 included this paragraph:
The minute had also noted my remark that
it had always been the policy of the United States
to keep aloof from the European system of politics,
but had omitted the observation made at the same time,
that this had also been the policy of Europe toward us.
I said that the first part of this position, taken by itself,
might import an unsocial and sulky spirit on the part
of the United States, which I did not intend to apply
to them and which in fact did not belong to them.
It had been quite as much the policy of Europe
to keep us aloof as it had been ours
to keep aloof from them; perhaps more so—
with regard to the slave-trade, for instance.
They had been for the last five years closely
negotiating with all Europe and at the same time with us.
When they had concluded their European treaties,
they invited our accession to them; when they laid their
papers before the Parliament, we obtained sight of them.
But while they were negotiating, not a lisp of anything
that passed had ever been communicated to us.
In all this we had acquiesced,
because it fell in with our own policy.
Had it been otherwise, we should have intimated freely
our expectation that the proceedings of the allies relating to
the slave-trade should be communicated to us while they
were in deliberation, and not after they have been closed.
We were yet to hear from them what had passed
relating to the slave-trade at Verona.21
Also on that day in a discussion with the British Minister Canning,
Adams argued about British policy:
The question was whether she would now
stipulate the principle that she avows.
I foresaw nothing in which she would want concession,
unless upon impressment;
and as to that I had a word to say.
So long as Britain should remain neutral there
was no occasion for any agreement upon the subject.
But it weighed inexpressibly upon my mind;
it would be included among the subjects
for negotiation to be proposed by Mr. Rush.
I could only say that if Great Britain still adhered
to her former views concerning it, and insisted
upon continuing the practice of taking men,
if she would not abandon the practice of beginning
by the exercise of force, my wish was that
Mr. G. Canning would say so, and decline treating about it.
Then if Britain should engage in war, she might
avoid the conflict by instructions to her naval officers.
My hope would rely upon that.
For if impressment of our men was to continue,
my belief was that we should meet it by war as long as
this country could be kept afloat above the sea.22
Mr. Canning responded:
He said they disclaimed the right of
taking any other than British subjects.
“But,” said I, “you actually take others,
and when the late war broke out, turned over
thousands of impressed Americans to Dartmoor prison,
after offering them the alternative
of fighting against their own country.”
He said I was growing warm.
I replied, if I could but prevail upon one British Minister
to put himself and his country for a moment in our place
on this question, I should be sure of success.
However, if the British Government should decline treating
of this concern, it would only be for them to say so.
There were materials enough for the negotiation
without resorting to this.21
With regard to South America and the islands
of Cuba and Porto Rico, I said it appeared from the
published diplomatic papers and from Mr. G. Canning’s
speeches in Parliament, that France at least
was to make no conquests in this hemisphere.
He said he believed the expressions
were “the late Spanish Colonies.”
I said that taking all the documents together,
they included also Cuba and Porto Rico.
He spoke to me of the speech to the President
lately made by Mr. Salazar and now published.
I told him the manner in which the speech was made,
and observed that Salazar had done justice to the
disinterested policy of the United States in the
negotiation of South American independence.23
On 23 June 2023 John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoir:
23rd. Mr. Cutts came and introduced me to
Dr. Shaw of Albany, formerly a member of the Congress
from Vermont and father of Henry Shaw, some time
member of Congress from Berkshire, Massachusetts.
Dr. Shaw is a great canvasser with the Legislature of
New York at Albany for the next Presidential election,
and I suppose is now here upon that affair.
He told me the Governor of New York had it in
contemplation to recommend to the Legislature to pass
a law authorizing the choice of electors for President and
Vice-President to be made by the people by general ticket.
He said when the Legislature should assemble next January,
it would be known in a week who the majority will be for.
Then the majority will be for retaining the choice in their
own hands, and the minority for going to the people.24
John Quincy Adams on 24 June 1823 wrote a 9-page letter to Richard Rush
about the plans of the United States to abolish the African slave trade including this:
A resolution of the House of Representatives,
almost unanimously adopted at the close of the last
session of Congress, requested “the President of the
United States to enter upon, and to prosecute from
time to time such negotiations with the several
maritime powers of Europe and America, as he may
deem expedient, for the effectual abolition of the African
slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy under
the law of nations by the consent of the civilized world.
At the two preceding sessions of Congress committees
of the House had proposed a resolution expressed in
more general terms, that “the President of the
United States be requested to enter into such
agreements as he may deem suitable and proper with one
or more of the maritime powers of Europe for the effectual
abolition of the African slave-trade; and this resolution had
in each case been the conclusion of a report recommending
that the United States should accede to the proposal of
a mutual and qualified concession of the right of search.
The sentiments of the committee were in this respect
different from those which had been expressed
by the executive department of the government
in its previous correspondence with Great Britain.
No decision by the House of Representatives was made
upon these resolutions proposed at the preceding sessions;
but upon the adoption of that which did pass at the last
session, it was well ascertained that the sentiments
of the House in regard to the right of search coincided
with those of the executive, for they explicitly rejected
an amendment which was moved to the resolution,
and which would have expressed an opinion of the
House favorable to the mutual concession of that right.
You have been fully informed of the correspondence
between the governments of the United States
and Great Britain, concerning the suppression of the
slave-trade heretofore; and have been from time
to time effectively instrumental to it yourself.25
Adams on June 28 wrote in his Memoirs about a Cabinet meeting that
discussed policy toward the Russian claim on the Northwest coast:
28th. At one o’clock there was a meeting at the
President’s concerning the instructions to be given
to Mr. Middleton for the negotiation
relating to the Northwest coast of America.
The question was, what he should be
authorized to propose or to agree to.
The Emperor’s Ukase asserts a right of territory
to the fifty-first degree of north latitude,
and interdicts the approach of foreign vessels
within one hundred Italian miles of the coast.
I thought no territorial right could be admitted
on this continent, as the Russians appear to have
no settlement upon it except that in California.
I read the correspondence between Count Romanzoff
and L. Harris on the subject in 1808;
a note from J. Daschkoff to R. Smith in 1810;
a dispatch from R. Smith to me, and parts of
two dispatches from me to him, giving accounts
of conferences which I had with Count Romanzoff.
The President read a letter from
Mr. James Lloyd to him with two enclosures.
After some discussion it was concluded that I should
draft an instruction to Mr. Middleton authorizing him
first to propose an article similar to that in our
Convention with Great Britain of October 1818, agreeing
that the whole coast should be open for the navigation of all
the parties for a definite term of years; and as there would
probably be no inducement for Russia to agree to this,
he should then offer to agree to a boundary line for Russia
at 55° on condition that the coast might be frequented
for trade with the natives, as it has been heretofore.
I received and read a letter from a. Gallatin at New York.26
Here is what John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoirs on July 1, 3, and 6:
July 1st. Finished the draft of instructions to
H. Middleton upon the Northwest Coast question.
My time is swallowed up in the examination of
Cook’s Third Voyage, Coxe’s Russian Discoveries,
Humboldt, Mackenzie, Lewis and Clarke, and the
Annual Register for 1790, for research into this question.
I find proof enough to put down the Russian argument;
but how shall we answer the Russian cannon?
3rd. I began a letter of instructions to R. Rush
upon the Northwest Coast question.
This subject still absorbs my time,
so that I cannot pay attention to many others.
I received a summons about one o’clock
to attend at the President’s immediately.
I found all the members of the Administration there
and also Mr. Peter Hague, the third Auditor.
The business on which the meeting
had been assembled was already done.
It was that the President should approve a partial
adjustment of the Vice-President’s accounts,
making him, as I understood, a new allowance
of about forty-six thousand dollars.
At the office Mr. John Connell came,
recently returned from France.
He had a long conversation with me about claims
of our merchants upon France and also upon Denmark,
which they wish now to revive.
Connell afterwards dined with us
and passed the evening here till ten.
Among other things, he intimated to me that G. W. Erving
was writing against me in the newspapers of New York.
Erving has taken a passion to be Minister in France
in place of Mr. Gallatin, and very erroneously ascribes
to me the President’s indisposition to appoint him.
6th. Mr. George Hay was this morning at my house
with some queries which he said had been put to him,
and which he wished to answer.
They related to his agency before the Commission,
not yet in session under the Slave Indemnity Convention:
whether he would be authorized to act in behalf
of individual claimants; whether they would be
allowed to employ other agents or counsel; and whether
he might accept any compensation from individuals.
I said I presumed he might appear for each
and every claimant; that each claimant would also
have the power to appear before the Commissioners
in person, or by any agent whom he might appoint.
But the Commissioners themselves, I supposed,
would determine whom they would hear,
and in what manner hear the claims.
As to the question whether Mr. Hay could with
propriety receive compensation from individual claimants,
I did not feel myself competent to give an opinion.
Mr. Hay spoke in terms of great severity of Ritchie,
the editor of the Richmond Enquirer, and said he was the
most unprincipled fellow upon earth, whose whole efforts
would be to work himself into the side of the majority.
He was now endeavoring to buy up the newspapers lately
established in Richmond against him, the Virginia Times.
The Richmond Enquirer has been for several years
the political barometer of the State of Virginia.27
Adams wrote in his Memoirs on July 11 and 17:
The Baron de Tuyl called about some dispatches
that he is sending to Count Lieven; and the
Count de Menou left a note written by instructions from
the Viscount de Chateaubriand, expressing regret at
the departure of Mr. Gallatin and professing a readiness
to negotiate concerning the claims of our citizens and
concerning that of France under the Louisiana Treaty.
I told Menou that we should not connect them together;
that the subject of the Louisiana Treaty
claim had been exhausted.
The views of the American Government concerning it
had been fully set forth and were not changed.
If France had anything further to say upon it,
we should always be ready to give it due consideration,
but could not connect it with our claims in negotiation.
I said this more freely, because I knew that Mr. Gallitan
had very explicitly said as much
to the Viscount de Chateaubriand.
17th. At the office Baron Tuyl came and enquired
if he might inform his Government that instructions
would be forwarded by Mr. Hughes to Mr. Middleton
for negotiating on the Northwest Coast question.
I said he might.
He then manifested a desire to know as much as I was
disposed to tell him as to the purport of those instructions.
I told him as much as I thought prudent,
as he observed that it was personally somewhat
important to him to be so far confided in here as to
know the general purport of what he intended to propose.
I told him specially that we should contest the right of Russia
to any territorial establishment on this continent,
and that we should assume distinctly the principle
that the American continents are no longer subjects
for any new European colonial establishments.
We had a conversation of an hour or more,
at the close of which he said that although
there would be difficulties in the negotiation,
he did not foresee that they would be insurmountable.28
This foreign policy later became known as the Monroe Doctrine.
On July 24 and 28 Secretary of State Adams wrote in his Memoirs
how he was promoting his proposal for a peaceful maritime law:
24th. I am deeply engaged in preparing instructions
to R. Rush on maritime, belligerent, and neutral law.
28th. I called at the President’s with the draft of
instructions to R. Rush, to accompany the project
of a Convention to regulate neutral
and belligerent rights in time of war.
The President had suggested a single alteration in the
draft of a Convention which I had sent him on Saturday.
Mr. Calhoun came in while I was reading to
the President the draft of the instruction,
and after I had finished, started several doubts
as to the propriety of proposing this project at all.
He was confident it would not be accepted by Great Britain;
and I have no expectation that it will at this time.
But my object is to propose it to Russia and France,
and to all the maritime powers of Europe,
as well as to Great Britain.
We discussed for some time its expediency.
I appealed to the primitive policy of this country
as exemplified in the first treaty with Prussia.
I said the seed was then sown and had borne a single plant,
which the fury of the revolutionary tempest
had since swept away.
I thought the present a moment eminently auspicious for
sowing the same seed a second time, and although I had
no hope it would now take root in England, I had the most
cheering confidence that it would ultimately bear a harvest
of happiness to mankind and of glory to this Union.
Mr. Calhoun still suggested doubts, but no positive
objections, and the President directed me to send the draft
of the articles round to the members of the Administration,
and to call a meeting of them for tomorrow at one.
I was not surprised at Mr. Calhoun’s doubts.
My plan involves nothing less than a revolution in the
laws of war—a great amelioration in the condition of man.
Is it the dream of a visionary, or is it the great and
practicable conception of a benefactor of mankind?
I believe it the latter; and I believe this to be
precisely the time for proposing it to the world.
Should it even fail, it will be honorable to have proposed it.
Founded on justice, humanity, and benevolence,
it can in no event bear bitter fruits.29
Adams on July 29 included in his Memoirs about the Cabinet meeting this conclusion:
Mr. Thompson declared himself in the most explicit
manner in favor of my whole project; and after the
meeting was over, the President directed me to forward
by express to Mr. Hughes at New York, the whole letter
of instruction as it was, and the whole draft of a Convention
with one alteration suggested by Mr. Crawford.
I had sent to Baron Tuyl requesting him to call
at my office at four o’clock, and I found him there
on my return from the President’s.
I told him that besides the subject of the Northwest Coast
question, Mr. Middleton would be instructed to
communicate with the Imperial Government upon two
other very important subjects—that of constituting the
slave-trade piracy by the law of nations and that
of the regulation of neutral and belligerent rights.
I explained to him briefly, and in general terms,
the principles upon which Mr. Rush was authorized
to negotiate in England upon both these points,
and observed to him that the President proposed
to present the same principles for negotiation with Russia.
I added that I had sent for him to give him notice of this,
that he might have the opportunity
of first communicating it to his Government.
He thanked me in terms of the warmest acknowledgment
and appeared to be exceedingly gratified
at the substance of our proposals in both cases.
He asked me whether he should yet have time to prepare
a dispatch to go by Mr. Hughes, and said he should wish to
have an opportunity of showing it to me before sending it.
I told him I should send my dispatches by an express
to go early tomorrow morning for New York.
If he would write his dispatch and send it to me
at any time this evening before midnight,
I would deliver it in charge of the express.
I should be grateful for the perusal of it,
if he would send it to me open.
He accordingly sent me about ten this evening
a dispatch containing a succinct account of our interview
with the request that after reading and, if necessary,
correcting it, I would send it back to him to seal up; as I did.
He sent it again about midnight sealed
and directed to Count Lieven at London.30
Adams on July 31 reflected in his Memoirs on his current efforts:
The important labor of the month has been
the preparation of instructions to R. Rush and
to H. Middleton upon the Northwest Coast question
and upon the project of a Convention for the
regulation of neutral and belligerent rights.
These are both important transactions, and the latter
especially one which will warrant the
special invocation of wisdom from above.
When I think, if it possibly could succeed,
what a real and solid blessing it would be to
the human race, I can scarcely guard myself from
a spirit of enthusiasm, which it becomes me to distrust.
I feel that I could die for it with joy, and that
if my last moments could be cheered with the
consciousness of having contributed to it,
I could go before the throne of Omnipotence
with a plea for mercy, and with a consciousness
of not having lived in vain for the world of mankind.
It has been for more than thirty years my prayer to God
that this might be my lot upon earth, to render
signal service to my country and to my species.
For the specific object, the end, and the means,
I have relied alike upon the goodness of God.
What they were or would be, I knew not.
For “it is not in man that walks to direct his steps.”
I have rendered services to my country,
but not such as could satisfy my own ambition.
But this offers the specific object which I have desired.
And why should not the hearts of the rulers of mankind
be turned to approve and establish it?
I have opened my soul to the hope,
though with trembling.31
Secretary of State Adams on August 1 wrote this in his Memoirs:
August 1st. I called at the President’s and proposed
that Mr. Middleton should be instructed to communicate
to the Russian Government a copy of the Convention
offered to Great Britain for the regulation of neutral
and belligerent rights, and to ascertain if Russia
would be would be willing to accede to it.
The President consented.
I had begun the draft of an instruction
to Mr. Middleton concerning it.
I asked the President if he proposed to send
a Minister to France in the place of Mr. Gallatin.
He had not determined, nor has Mr. Gallatin
been explicit in declining to return to France.
He cannot return this year, and he is willing that
an appointment should be made to supply his place,
if it is thought that the public service so requires.
The President asked me what I would advise him to do.
I thought the appointment might be postponed
perhaps until winter, but not over that season.
I observed that the Act of Congress of 3rd March 1815,
offering the abolition of discriminating duties,
and all the Acts founded upon it, were so limited that
they would expire during the next session of Congress.
A revision of the whole system would be necessary,
and I would suggest to him the expediency of considering
what notice it will be proper for him to take of it in the
message at the commencement of the next session.
He said that he had already in former messages
recommended perseverance in the system
and has seen no reason for changing his opinion.
I said that before the opening of the session,
we must have some answer from England respecting the
proposed negotiations, and perhaps they might render it
proper that he should also mention them in the message,
particularly the project for regulating the principles
of belligerent and neutral rights in time of war.
He said he would consider of this.32
On August 2 President James Monroe suffered “cramps or convulsions”
and was treated by a doctor who ordered him to sleep.
Adams wrote this in his Memoirs on August 3 and 7:
3rd. I finished this day the draft of a letter
of instruction to H. Middleton to go with the
copy of the project of a Convention for the
regulation of belligerent and neutral rights.
6th. Yesterday was fourteen years since I embarked from
Charlestown for Russia, and this day, six years have passed
since I landed at New York on my return from Europe.
They were both important days in my life—
each the commencement of a career
of high responsibility and momentous trust.
The first signalized by important events,
and in its progress and termination was prosperous
beyond all that I should have dared to ask.
The second is yet unfinished.
It has been and is checkered, as all the scenes
of human life must be with good and evil
but in the main eminently cheering.
Let my heart be grateful for the past and prepared
with resignation and resource for the future!33
This is what Secretary of State Adams wrote in his Memoirs on 8 August 1823:
8th. At the office the Baron de Tuyl came with a
newspaper containing the account of the dinner
given to Captain Hull at Boston upon his appointment
to go and take the place of Stewart as
commander of the squadron in the Pacific.
He was alarmed at the toasts, which smacked
strongly of resistance to the Russian Imperial Ukase,
and was afraid that instructions might be given to Hull
which might lead to actual collisions
with the Russian naval force in that sea.
He expressed himself in the most conciliatory manner,
and with an earnest hope that, as the subject
was in amicable negotiation with the fairest hope
of a satisfactory arrangement, nothing might
occur to increase the difficulties of the case.
I told him I would report his observations and had no
doubt the President would direct that instructions should
be given to Captain Hull to avoid all premature collisions.
This would be done in full confidence of the Emperor’s
sincere disposition to arrange the affair amicably;
and I should candidly assure him that apart from
this consideration, and if the case had been left
on the footing of Mr. Poletica’s last letter to me
on this subject, Captain Hull’s instructions undoubtedly
would have been to protect the citizens of the
United States in the prosecution of their lawful commerce.
The Baron asked me also to explain to him the
meaning of a paragraph in the circular from the
Secretary of the Treasury to the Collectors of the customs
on the admission of foreign prizes into our ports.
I gave him the desired explanation.
I called at the President’s.
He is convalescent.
I left several papers with him and told him of
my conversation this morning with Baron Tuyl.34
On 15 November 1823 John Quincy Adams wrote
in his Memoirs about what he said in a meeting:
After much discussion, I said I thought we should
bring the whole answer to Mr. Canning’s proposals
to a test of right and wrong.
Considering the South Americans as independent nations,
they themselves and no other nation,
had the right to dispose of their condition.
We have no right to dispose of them,
either alone or in conjunction with other nations.
Neither have any other nations the right
of disposing of them without their consent.
This principle will give us a clue to answer all
Mr. Canning’s questions with candor and confidence.
And I am to draft a dispatch accordingly.35
On November 17 Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
My own opinion is confirmed that the alarm was affected;
that the object was to obtain by a sudden movement
a premature commitment of the American Government
against any transfer of the island of Cuba to France,
or the acquisition of it by ourselves;
and, failing in that point, he has returned to
the old standard of British belligerent policy.
I read to the President and gave him
a draft of a dispatch to R. Rush.36
On 21 November 1823 Secretary of State Adams wrote in his Memoirs
about a paper he was writing and his intent:
My purpose would be in a moderate and conciliatory
manner, but with a firm and determined spirit to
declare our dissent from the principles avowed in those
communications; to assert those upon which our own
Government is founded, and while disclaiming all intention
of attempting to propagate them by force, and all
interference with the political affairs of Europe,
to declare our expectation and hope that the European
powers will equally abstain from the attempt to spread
their principles in the American hemisphere, or to
subjugate by force any part of these continents to their will.
The President approved of this idea,
and then taking up the sketches that he had
prepared for his message, read them to us.
Its introduction was in a tone of deep solemnity and of high
alarm, intimating that this country is menaced by imminent
and formidable dangers, such as would probably soon call
for their most vigorous energies and the closest union.
It then proceeded to speak of the foreign affairs,
chiefly according to the sketch I had given him
some days since, but with occasional variations.
It then alluded to the recent events in Spain and Portugal,
speaking in terms of the most pointed reprobation
of the late invasion of Spain by France,
and of the principles upon which it was undertaken
by the open avowal of the King of France.
It also contained a broad acknowledgment of the Greeks as
an independent nation, and a recommendation to Congress
to make an appropriation for sending a Minister to them.37
Secretary of State Adams on November 22 wrote in his Memoirs:
I left with the President my draft for a second
dispatch to R. Rush on South American affairs.
And I spoke to him again urging him to abstain from
everything in his message which the Holy Allies could
make a pretext for construing into aggression upon them.
I said there were considerations of weight which
I could not even easily mention at a Cabinet meeting.
If he had determined to retire from the public service at
the end of his present term, it was now drawing to a close.
It was to be considered now as a whole, and a system
of administration for a definite term of years.
It would hereafter, I believed, be looked back to
as the golden age of this republic, and I felt an
extreme solicitude that its end might correspond with
the character of its progress; that the Administration might
be delivered into the hands of the successor, whoever
he might be, at peace and in amity with all the world.38
On 25 November 1823 John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
The paper itself was drawn to correspond exactly
with a paragraph of the President’s message which
he had read me yesterday, and which was entirely
conformable to the system of policy which I have
earnestly recommended for this emergency.
It was also intended as a firm, spirited, and yet conciliatory
answer to all the communications lately received from the
Russian Government, and at the same time an unequivocal
answer to the proposals made by Canning to Mr. Rush.
It was meant also to be eventually an exposition of the
principles of this Government, and a brief development
of its political system as henceforth to be maintained:
essentially republican—maintaining its own independence,
and respecting that of others; essentially pacific—
studiously avoiding all involvement in the combinations
of European politics, cultivating peace and friendship
with the most absolute monarchies, highly appreciating
and anxiously desirous of retaining that of the
Emperor Alexander, but declaring that, having recognized
the independence of the South American States,
we could not see with indifference any attempt by
European powers by forcible interposition either to restore
the Spanish dominion on the American Continents or to
introduce monarchical principles into those countries,
or to transfer any portion of the ancient or present American
possessions of Spain to any other European power.39
Adams on November 27 expressed these ideas in his Memoirs:
The paper received from Baron Tuyl, and to which
the observations were intended for an answer,
was professedly an exposition of principles.
I had thought it should be met
directly by an exposition of ours.
This was done in three lines in the paragraph in question.
The first paragraph of my paper stated the fact that the
Government of the United States was republican; the
second, what the fundamental principles of this Government
were—referring them all to Liberty, Independence, Peace.
These were the principles from which
all the remainder of the paper was drawn.
Without them the rest was fabric without a foundation.
The positions taken in the paragraph were true.
I could not possibly believe
they would give offense to anyone.
I was sure they would not to the Emperor Alexander,
unless he had determined to invade South America;
and if he had, this paper, which was to be our
protest against it, could not too distinctly set forth
the principles of our opposition to his design.
The object of the paragraph was to set those principles
in the broadest and boldest relief; to compress
into one sentence the foundation upon which the
mind and heart at once could repose for our
justification of the stand we are taking against the
Holy Alliance in the face of our country and of mankind.
I had much confidence in the effect of that paragraph—
first, as persuasion to the Emperor Alexander,
and if that failed, as our manifesto to the world.
I added, by way of apology for the solicitude that
I felt on this subject, that I considered this as the
most important paper that ever went from my hands;
that in this, as in everything I wrote in discharge of
the office that I held, I was the agent of his Administration,
the general responsibility of which rested upon him;
but that, having so long served himself in the Department,
I need not say to him that besides that general
responsibility there was a peculiar one resting upon
each head of a Department for the papers issued
from his own office, and this was my motive for
wishing to retain a paragraph which I considered as
containing the soul of the document to which it belonged.
I should only say further that after making
these observations, I should cheerfully
acquiesce in his decision.40
Notes
1. Memoirs of Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848
by John Quincy Adams, Volume VI ed. Charles Francis Adams, p. 119.
2. Ibid., p. 122.
3. Ibid., p. 123-124.
4. Ibid., p. 127.
5. Ibid., p. 127-129.
6. Ibid., p. 135-137.
7. Ibid., p. 137-139.
8. Ibid., p. 139.
9. Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford,
Volume VII 1820-1823, p. 420-421.
10. Ibid., p. 422-423.
11. Ibid., p. 486.
12. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Volume VI, p. 139-140.
13. Ibid., p. 140.
14. Ibid., p. 142.
15. Ibid., p. 143-144.
16. Ibid., p. 146.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., p. 146-148.
19. Ibid., p. 148.
20. Ibid., p. 148-149.
21. Ibid., p. 152-153.
22. Ibid., p. 153-154.
23. Ibid., p. 154.
24. Ibid., p. 155.
25. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume VII 1820-1823, p. 489-490.
26. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Volume VI, p. 157-158.
27. Ibid., p. 159-160.
28. Ibid., p. 162-163.
29. Ibid., p. 164-165.
30. Ibid., p. 165-166.
31. Ibid., p. 166-167.
32. Ibid., p. 167-168.
33. Ibid., p. 168-169.
34. Ibid., p. 169.
35. Ibid., p. 186.
36. Ibid., p. 188.
37. Ibid., p. 194.
38. Ibid., p. 196-197.
39. Ibid., p. 199-200.
40. Ibid., p. 211-212.
This work has not yet been published as a book;
all the chapters are free in this website.