On 5 January 1802 John Quincy Adams opened a law office on State Street
in Boston in a building that also housed the Columbia Centinel.
He organized the Society for the Study of Natural Philosophy.
On 28 and 29 January he wrote in his Memoirs:
I feel strong temptation and have great
provocation to plunge into political controversy.
But I hope to preserve myself from it by the considerations
which have led me to the resolution of renouncing.
A politician in this country must be the man of a party.
I would fain be the man of my whole country.
29th. Phillips was desirous of information whether I would
accept the office of Judge of the Supreme Court of this State,
vacant by the resignation of Mr. Dawes,
who is appointed to the probate and municipal offices.
But he did not tell me that was the motive for his curiosity.
He said he had heard only three persons mentioned—
Sedgwick, Thomas of Plymouth, and me.
I told him that if the Governor or any member of the
Council whose vote was to concur in the appointment,
wished to know my resolution, they might know it by
applying either personally or by any friend directly to me.
That I would tell him I did not want the place
and wished that no friend of mine would
move a finger to obtain it for me.
But that it would be ridiculous for me to tell anybody
and everybody that I would not accept an office
which there might be no thoughts of offering me.1
On April 5 John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
5th. This day the election of Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, and Senators took place.
The votes in this town were 2372 for
Governor Strong and 1498 for Mr. Gerry.
The federal list of Senators containing the names of
Oliver Wendell, William Tudor,
and Peleg Coffin with mine had 2375.
The opposite list, Benj. Austin Jr., James Bowdoin,
Nathaniel Fellows, and David Tilden had 1498.2
Thus Boston Federalists elected John Quincy Adams as a Senator
in the Massachusetts Legislature on April 5,
and he served from 20 April 1802 to 6 June 1803.
On 26 May 1802 he wrote,
May 26th. This being the day of general election,
at nine in the morning I repaired to the Senate Chamber,
conformably to a summons which I received
from the Governor on the 10th of this month.
In the course of an hour
thirty-four of the Senators chosen had assembled.
The Governor then came and administered
to us the oaths required by the Constitution.3
On May 31 Adams in the Massachusetts Senate
wrote in his diary about a proposal he made:
31st. There was little business done in the Senate.
In the afternoon I made a motion for a joint
committee of both Houses to amend the law
respecting the election of members for the
House of Representatives of the United States.
A committee was ordered accordingly.4
Adams became independent and formed a caucus that included four Republicans.
The State Senate gathered on June 9,
and Adams wrote about his work on two committees:
9th. Attended the Senate upon two committees
before the meeting of the board at eleven o’clock.
The bill for amending the districting law had
its second reading and passed to be engrossed.
It was sent down to the House this afternoon.
We had the subject of banks again all this afternoon
upon a petition for one in the town of Beverly.
It is to be taken up again tomorrow.
10th. The remainder of the day at the Senate,
which was principally occupied with the subject of banks.
A bill for renewing the charter of the Union Bank
for ten years with some changes came from the House.
Being a proprietor in that bank, I took no part in the debate.
The Senate struck out two sections,—
one to tax the bank five per cent on the dividends, and the
other to take off their obligation to loan upon mortgage.
15th. Rest of the day at the Senate.
Debated and passed the Wiscasset Bank bill.
Drew up a new bill for altering the districting law.
They had sent up from the House a new draft,
hasty, incorrect, and almost unintelligible.
In the afternoon the Senate discussed the bill
reported for remitting part of the sentence
on the impeachment of John Vinall.
Adjourned the decision until tomorrow.5
In the election for the Federal House of Representatives on 3 November 1802
John Quincy Adams had 1,496 votes from Boston,
and the Republican Dr. William Eustis had 1,430.
Yet Eustis was re-elected with more votes in other towns
and defeated Adams 1,899 to 1,840.
The State Senate incorporated an insurance company on 2 February 1803.
On February 3 and 8 he wrote in his Diary:
Feb. 3.—The business in Senate this forenoon was of little
consequence—no bills of general interest being before them.
About one o’clock Mr. Otis came up from the House
with a message; that the House had proceeded to
the choice of a Senator in the Congress of the
United States in the room of Jonathan Mason,
whose time of service expires on the 4th of March next;
and that, on the ballots being taken, it appeared that
John Quincy Adams had a majority of the whole number.
The Senate assigned next Tuesday, twelve o’clock,
to act upon this choice, and a nomination list
in the meantime to be put up.
Feb. 8.—The Senate was occupied in discussing
several bills and motions until twelve o’clock—
the time assigned for the choice of a Senator
in Congress for six years after the 4th of March next.
The number of votes was twenty-six
(of course I did not vote at all).
There were nineteen votes for John Quincy Adams
and seven for Thompson J. Skinner.6
On March 3 the Massachusetts legislature approved the Boston Bank bill.
Quincy Adams came to realize that the Federalist Party was dead.
Yet he was elected to a 6-year term as a United States Senator
by the Massachusetts legislature on 3 February 1803.
On the fourth trial he and Thompson J. Skinner were elected over Timothy Pickering.
On April 2 Adams lost money on his investments
and he went to see his parents at Quincy.
John Adams and his son Quincy were trusted to draw money from Holland.
John Quincy Adams began attending the
United States Senate in Washington on October 21.
He talked with the Secretary of State James Madison on October 24.
Rufus King was a Minister in London and negotiated a convention with Britain
on the northern borders of the United States,
and this had its second reading in the Senate on October 27.
The next day Adams discussed with Madison an amendment to the Constitution
for the implementation of the Louisiana Treaty.
Such an amendment was debated in the Senate on October 29.
Amendments by Adams and others were rejected,
and President Jefferson’s decision was confirmed by the House of Representatives.
In early November 1803 the Senate debated
authorizing eleven millions of stock for Louisiana.
Adams voted to ratify the Louisiana Purchase even though he considered it
unconstitutional since people in the territories were not represented
until they became part of a state.
On November 15 the Senate debated four Indian Treaties, and two were ratified.
On the 18th the Senate needed unanimity to declare war against
Emperor Sulayman bin Mohammed of Morocco,
and only the vote by John Quincy Adams stopped that.
He wrote in his Memoirs,
18th. Attended in Senate.
Bill for declaring war against the Emperor of Morocco.
Mr. Dayton moved it should be read
a second time on this day.
Unanimous consent was necessary, and I alone objected.
My principle was, that a declaration of war was the last
thing in the world to be made with unusual precipitation.
Executive business.
The whole day spent in a debate about Abraham Bishop.
Adjourned after three o’clock.
Evening at home.
I am reading the Federalist.
21st. In Senate.
On a bill from the House of Representatives, equivalent
to a declaration of war against the Emperor of Morocco;
Mr. Wright moved the addition of a clause recognizing
the principle that free ships make free goods;
which was debated until almost three o’clock,
when the Senate adjourned.
Took from the library the first volume of
Raynal’s History of the East and West Indies, of which
I read the Introduction to the ladies in the evening.7
On 7 December 1803 Adams noted in his Diary that
Vice President Aaron Burr was attending as President of the Senate.
All business was postponed, and they soon adjourned.
On the 9th Adams proposed that a committee “inquire and report further
measures to carry into effect the Louisiana Treaty,” but it was rejected.
On December 28 Adams presented his report
from the Committee on the Treaty with England.
Burr presided that day, and nothing important was transacted.
On the last day of 1803 Adams reflected and wrote in his Diary:
The year now closing has been made remarkable
as a part of my life, by one very unfortunate
occurrence and by several events which call
for gratitude to an overruling Providence.
The failure of a commercial house in London
with which I had deposited a considerable part
of my father’s property, brought upon him a loss
which is more distressing to me than to himself.
It put me to great inconvenience to make the
provisions to supply the chasm created by this
circumstance; but its effects in diminishing the
comforts of my father’s age have been among
the most painful things that ever happened to me.
I have in some degree shared in the loss and have
done all in my power to alleviate its evils to him.
But it has been and remains a continual source
of uneasiness to me; nor have I any prospect
that it will ever be removed.
In the disposal of my property, however, to meet
the necessities which arose from the protest and return
of the bills I had drawn on the house, I met with several
facilities and advantages which I had no right to expect.
The calamity has fallen the lighter for this, and my
own property has remained nearly in its former state.
In my family I have been highly favored by the
birth of a second son, and the unusual degree
of health which we have all enjoyed.
The restoration of my mother, too, from the gates
of death and from confinement of five months,
has filled my heart with the purest of enjoyments.
My election as a Senator of the United States for six years
has been the only important incident of my political career.
It has opened to me a scene in some sort though
not altogether new, and will probably affect
very materially my future situation in life.
I have already had occasion to experience,
what I had before the fullest reason to expect,
the danger of adhering to my principles.
The country is so totally given up to the spirit of party,
that not to follow blindfold the one
or the other is an inexpiable offense.
The worst of these parties has the popular torrent in its
favor and uses its triumph with all the unprincipled fury of
a faction; while the other gnashes its teeth and is waiting
with all the impatience of revenge for the time when its turn
may come to express and punish by the people’s favor.
Between both, I see the impossibility of pursuing the
dictates of my own conscience without sacrificing
every prospect, not merely of advancement, but even
of retaining that character and reputation I have enjoyed.
Yet my choice is made, and, if I cannot hope to give
satisfaction to my country, I am at least determined
to have the approbation of my own reflections.8
On 10 January 1804 Senator John Quincy Adams
presented a motion to adopt the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the people of the United States,
have never, in any manner delegated to this Senate,
the power of giving its legislative concurrence to
any act for imposing taxes upon the inhabitants
of Louisiana without their consent.
Resolved, That by concurring in any act of legislation
for imposing taxes upon the inhabitants of Louisiana
without their consent, this Senate would assume a power,
unwarranted by the constitution and dangerous to
the liberties of the people of the United States.
Resolved, That the power of originating bills for
raising revenue, being exclusively vested in the
House of Representatives, these resolutions be
carried to them by the Secretary of the Senate:
that whenever they think proper they may
adopt such measures as to their wisdom
may appear necessary and expedient for
raising and collecting revenue from Louisiana.9
Only Adams and three others voted for the first two resolutions,
and the third was unanimously rejected.
Adams made detailed notes for a speech on the motion, and this was his conclusion:
The objections which I have urged hitherto
against the passage of this bill have been either
to particular details or to points of expediency
and consideration of justice and equity.
Powerful as those are to my mind they are, however, of an
order inferior to that which I now feel it my duty to make.
I cannot prevail upon myself to vote for a law with a
clear and undoubting conviction of my own mind that
Congress has not the shadow of a right to pass it.
Such is my conviction with regard to the act
upon which we are now to decide.
I long indulged the hope that the discussion of this question
would have been avoided, that no alteration in the laws,
and more especially no attempt to tax the people of
Louisiana would have been made, until in some shape or
other their formal assent to our authority and acquiescence
to our jurisdiction should have been obtained.
I have been disappointed, and we are now called upon
at one and the same time to make a Constitution of
government for a people who have never recognized
our supremacy over them, and to tax for our own
benefit a people of strangers, without admitting them
to representation and without asking their consent.
The act upon which we are now to vote
is an act to tax and very heavily to tax the
people of Louisiana without their consent.
This I apprehend Congress has no right to do.
1. Because it violates the natural rights of the people.
2. Because it violates the third Article
of the Treaty of cession.
3. Because no such authority was
or could be delegated by the Constitution.
4. Because it violates the principle
of our national independence.
5. It violates the natural rights
of the people of Louisiana.10
On 14 January 1804 the United States Senate finally passed
the Louisiana Revenue bill by a vote of 29 to 3.
On February 20 Adams wrote in his Memoirs,
20th. Dr. Logan gave notice on Saturday that he should
this day move for leave to bring in a bill or laying a duty
on the importation of Negro slaves into the United States.
This morning Mr. Tracy moved to expunge from
the journals the record of this notice—it being a
bill to raise revenue, which therefore cannot,
by the Constitution, originate in the Senate.
It was amusing to observe
the perplexity which this occasioned.
Some were for expunging upon the principle,
that notice of an intention to bring a bill
ought not in any case to be inserted in the Journals.
Others bravely stood to it that it would not be a bill to
raise revenue, among whom was Dr. Logan himself, who
said he would show it when the bill came to be debated.
This I suppose will be ad Kalendas Graecas.
On the question for expunging,
the Doctor called for the yeas and nays.
It passed in the negative—yeas five, nays twenty-one.
But the Doctor did not ask leave according to his motion,
and I think will find it most expedient to let it sleep.11
In March 1804 the United States Senate was busy with a Court of Impeachments,
and the Massachusetts Legislature asked the two United States Senators Adams
and Timothy Pickering for a proposed amendment
to remove the “three-fifths” clause from the Constitution.
On March 25 Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
25th. Attended at the Capitol and heard Mr. Parkinson.
I wish to remember and practice on his advice,—
to forget and forgive all the resentments and injuries
which have been excited and occasioned
during the session of Congress.12
John Quincy Adams had predicted that Napoleon Bonaparte
would become France’s Emperor, and on 18 May 1804
the French Senate made that proclamation.
On 22 July 1804 Senator John Quincy Adams wrote in a letter to his wife
Louisa Catherine about Alexander Hamilton and Vice President Aaron Burr
and then about the current rulers in France:
We have now seen the correspondence between
Mr. Burr and General Hamilton which led to their
fatal meeting, and I am fully confirmed in the
opinion I had entertained of the transaction before.
Mr. Burr began by making a demand of
General Hamilton which he must have known
Hamilton could not, and ought not to answer.
To make the matter more sure he couched
the demand in terms at which a much cooler
man than Hamilton must have spurned.
The substance was so vague and indefinite, as to
render impossible the very avowal it affected to require.
The form was studied to provoke and insult,
by an assumption of superiority which a
man of spirit could not submit to.
Hamilton saw through the artifice, and yet had not
sufficiently control over his passions, or a sufficient
elevation over the prejudices of the world to parry it.
Had he omitted half a line in his first answer which
must be considered as inviting a challenge,
I see nothing on his part of the correspondence
against which any reasonable objection can be raised.
The conduct of Mr. Burr through the whole affair
appears to me strongly to corroborate that opinion of his
character which his enemies have long ascribed to him.
You remember they used to joke at Berlin
about Prince Louis (Bonaparte), but in sober
sadness it has come to the same thing.
This is the turn of one tire more in the wheel of the
French Revolution, but it has not yet got completely round.
Poor Jerome, who is so cavalierly left out of the line
of aggrandizement and succession, must be content
to sing to the tune of “All for Love, or the world well lost.”
And well lost in my opinion it really will be for him.
I have been told, however, that in his marriage
articles there is an express provision made for
the possible case of his getting sick of his bargain
and casting off the lady—a stipulation which is equally
marked with humility and with prudence on her part.
As to titles, if what we see in the papers be true,
the French are going to plunge into them with
all the fondness of children for a new rattle.
There is Imperial Majesty Josephine, Imperial Highnesses
Joseph and Louis, Grand Elector, and High Constable,
Serene Highness, Arch Chancellor Cambacérès,
and Arch Treasurer Lebrun, etc., etc.
Was there ever so horrible a tragedy
concluded with so ridiculous a farce?13
Adams wrote a speech on the issue that was published as “Publius Valerius”
in five essays from October 26 to 6 November 1804 that
took up 32 pages in Volume III of his Writings.
This is his summary of the problem in No. V and his concluding paragraph:
The rule of representation prescribed by the
Constitution of the United States is universally
admitted to be unequal, and when combined
with the practice under the Constitution is
oppressive on all the States holding few or no slaves.
At present the people of the
United States consist of two classes.
A privileged order of slave-holding Lords,
and a race of men degraded to a lower station
merely because they are not slave-holders.
Every planter South of the Potomac has one vote
for himself, and 3 votes in effect for every 5 slaves
he keeps in bondage; while a New England farmer,
who contributes tenfold as much to the support
of the government, has only a single vote—
our share of representation is only proportionate
to numbers, their share is in the same proportion of
numbers, and their property is represented besides.
At the time when the Constitution was formed
this provision was submitted to on the ground
that the burden of taxation should be
apportioned to the benefit of representation.
The experience of fifteen years however
has proved the error of these calculations.
The experience of fifteen years has proved that
four fifths of the burdens of this government
must be supported by the States,
which have no representation for slaves.
The benefit pledged to us, as compensation
for inadequate taxation is not secured to us;
we are doubly taxed, and they are doubly represented….
An anxious concern for the liberties and interests of
my fellow citizens has been the sole inducement to
these remarks which I shall now bring to a conclusion.
On three important occasions in the Legislature of the State
we have seen the leaders of the party running counter
to the manifest and momentous interest of the State.
It was conceived an injunction of public duty to show
first—that the arguments and pretended facts alleged
for this strange dereliction of principle were not
founded in truth and secondly—That those party leaders,
were under the influence of certain partial and
personal inducements different from and in
opposition to the interests of their constituents.
The singularity of their conduct necessarily led to
an investigation of its motives, and the discovery of
the motives furnishes a clear elucidation of the conduct.
It is with the most cordial satisfaction, I have observed,
that on every one of those occasions, many individuals
of the party, in the House of Representatives refused to go
the lengths to which the leaders would have impelled them.
The motion for a panegyric on Mr. Jefferson
was hence withdrawn.
The insult upon the majority of the Legislature was
disavowed by many of those who in an unguarded
hour had signed it—and on the final question upon
Mr. Ely’s motion, the small number of those who dared
to vote against it, was a proof that all were not equally
prepared to abandon their country to please their patron.
I am sorry to have seen no such signs
of compunction in the minority of the Senate.
To those who thus staggered at the sacrifice of
duty required of them, and started back from the
threshold of guilt to which they had been drawn,
the present recess of the Legislature gives a
favorable opportunity for the reflection.
Let us fervently hope that they will see the precipice
into which interested and artful men have been struggling
to push them, and by their future conduct will prove
that they are determined to pursue the path of their
duty and cling to the true interest of their country.14
Senator J. Q. Adams wrote this letter about the current British Navy
to his father John Adams on November 3:
Since my arrival here I have called upon the President,
who had some conversation with me respecting
the conduct of the British frigates on our coast
during the course of the last summer,
and respecting the trade of arms and ammunition
principally carried on from New York to St. Domingo.
He said nothing relative to the controversies
with Spain as to the murmurs of Louisiana.
As to the British frigates there is no official
information of that disapprobation by the
British government upon the conduct of their officers,
which has been announced in the newspapers.
Nor does it appear that the captains of the Cambrian
and Leander, or either of them, have been recalled.
But they have not given any recent cause of complaint,
and by the letters from Mr. Monroe the ministry
give him perfect satisfaction upon every
representation made by him on the subject.
The conduct of their ships and officers in the European
seas is also generally such as is satisfactory to him.
The disposition of the present Ministry is also very amicable.
The trade from New York to St. Domingo is a subject of
glorious complaint to the French Minister, who peremptorily
demands that or government should interfere to suppress it.
The blacks give such excessive prices for arms and
ammunition, that general merchants in New York
have fitted out, and are still fitting out, vessels to
send them these articles; in some instances they
have armed the ships in force sufficient to force their
way through in case of attack by the French privateers.
Mr. Jefferson thinks that on the return of any of these
armed vessels, if they should have fought with a French
privateer and killed one of her men, our judges ought to
hang every man on board the American vessel for murder.
But common law rules should not be applied to the
objects which essentially belong to the laws of nations.
I questioned the accuracy of his argument, but asked him
why the government had not interposed to prevent
the arming of these vessels at New York.
He said the law would not bear them out in
such interference, though he admitted it had
been done at an early period of the late war.
This he first said was by virtue of a temporary law;
but afterwards recollecting himself said it had
been done without a law, and submitted to.
But that had it been contested, the authority
of the government would not have been
supported for the measure.
Hence I conclude we shall have a law for
such an authority at the approaching session.
I have seen General Wilkinson, who has
taken a house here to reside during the session.
I imagine he waits for an answer from you to his letter.
His power to prescribe round heads to his officers
is denied at the War office, and therefore the
court-martial on Major Butler hangs heavily upon him.
Colonel Burrows is also here, and I hear
has fully and honorably settled his accounts.
But his health is very low.15
This is what Senator Adams wrote in his Memoirs
for November 5, 6, 12 and 16 in 1804:
November 5th. This was the day to which
the session of Congress was adjourned.
I attended at the Capitol at eleven in the morning.
Only thirteen Senators attended with the Vice President,
and not being a sufficient number to form a quorum,
barely met and adjourned.
Mr. Giles appeared and took his seat instead of Mr. Venable,
who has resigned since the last session.
The Vice President also gave notice that
he had received a letter from Mr. Wells of
Delaware containing the resignation of his seat.
After the adjournment I went into the Representatives’
chamber, which is where the Library was formerly kept.
They formed a quorum and agreed to the
appointment of the usual standing committees.
N.B.—The Vice President, Mr. Burr, on the 11th of July
last fought a duel with General Alexander Hamilton,
and mortally wounded him, of which he died the next day.
The coroner’s inquest on his body found a verdict of willful
murder by Aaron Burr, Vice President of the United States.
The Grand Jury in the County of New York found an
indictment against him under the statute for sending
the challenge; and the Grand Jury of Bergen County,
New Jersey, where the duel was fought,
have recently found a bill against him for murder.
Under all these circumstances Mr. Burr appears and takes
his seat as President of the Senate of the United States.
6th. Seventeen members attended in the Senate,
besides the Vice President.
One member more was wanting to make a quorum;
whereupon the House barely met and adjourned.
12th. Senate met; received a list of renominations
of persons appointed to office during the recess.
Mr. Monroe is appointed Envoy Extraordinary to Spain,
Mr. Pinckney intending to return.
16th. The races at length are finished,
and the Senate really met this day.
Mr. Bradley moved to go into the consideration
of executive business, merely for the sake of
having on the printed Journals an appearance of
doing business, though there was really none to do.
This vote passed, for mine was
the only voice heard against it.
My reason was a natural abhorrence of tricks to save
appearances, contrary to the real truth of things.16
On November 23 Senator Adams dined
with President Jefferson and wrote in his Diary:
I had a good deal of conversation with the President.
The French Minister just arrived had been this day
first presented to him, and appears to have displeased
him by the profusion of gold lace on his clothes.
He says they must get him down to a plain frock coat,
or the boys in the streets will run after him as a sight.
I asked if he had brought his Imperial credentials,
and was answered he had.
Mr. Jefferson then turned the conversation towards the
French Revolution and remarked how contrary to all
expectation this great bouleversement had turned out.
It seemed as if everything in that country for the last
twelve years or fifteen years had been A DREAM;
and who could have imagined that such
an ébranlement would have come to this?
He thought it very much to be wished that
they could now return to the Constitution of 1789,
and call back the Old Family.
For although by that Constitution the Government
was much too weak, and although it was defective
in having a Legislature in only one branch,
yet even thus it was better than the present form,
where it was impossible to perceive any limits.
I have used as near as possible his very words;
for this is one of the most unexpected phases
in the waxing and waning opinions of this
gentleman concerning the French Revolution.
He also mentioned to me the extreme difficulty
he had in finding fit characters for appointments in
Louisiana, and said he would now give the creation
for a young lawyer of good abilities, and who could
speak the French language, to go to New Orleans as
one of the Judges of the Superior Court in the Territory.
The salary was about two thousand dollars.
We had been very lucky in obtaining one such
Judge in Mr. Prevost of New York, who had accepted
the appointment and was perfectly well qualified,
and he was in extreme want of another.
I could easily have named a character fully
corresponding to the one he appeared so much to want.
But if his observations were meant as a consultation
or an intent to ask whether I knew any such person
I could recommend, he was not sufficiently explicit.
Though if they were not, I know not
why he made them to me.
He further observed that both French and Spanish
ought to be made primary objects of acquisition
in all the educations of our young men.
As to Spanish, it was so easy that he had learned it
with the help of Don Quixote lent him by Mr. Cabot,
and a grammar, in the course of a passage to Europe,
on which he was but nineteen days at sea.
But Mr. Jefferson tells large stories.17
On 20 December 1804 John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
20th. In Senate the principal subject considered was
the report of the Committee for Rules on Impeachments.
Mr. Giles gave us his theory of impeachments
under our present Constitution.
According to him, impeachment is nothing more than an
enquiry by the two Houses of Congress whether the office
of any public man might not be better filled by another.
This is undoubtedly the source and object of
Mr. Chase’s impeachment, and on the same principle
any officer may easily be removed at any time.18
On the last day of 1804 Senator Adams wrote this in his Diary:
Dec. 31.— The year which this day expires
has been distinguished in the course
of my life by its barrenness of events.
During its first three and last two months I was here
attending my duty as a Senator of the United States.
The seven intervening months were passed
in travelling to and from Quincy and
in residence at my father’s house there.
The six months spent at Quincy were not idle.
Indeed I have seldom in the whole course
of my life been more busily engaged.
I gave some attention to agricultural pursuits,
but I soon found they lost their relish, and that
they never would repay the labor they require.
My studies were assiduous and seldom interrupted.
I meant to give them such a direction as should be useful
in its tendency; yet on looking back, and comparing the
time consumed with the knowledge acquired, I have
no occasion to take pride in the result of my application.
I have been a severe student all the days of my life;
but an immense proportion of the time I have dedicated
to the search of knowledge has been wasted upon subjects
which can never be profitable to myself or useful to others.
Another source of useless toil is the want
of a method properly comprehensive and
minute in the pursuit of my inquiries.
This method has been to me a desideratum for many years;
I have found none in books;
nor have I been able to contrive one for myself.
From these two causes I have derived so little use
from my labors that it has often brought me
to the borders of discouragement, and I have
been tempted to abandon my books altogether.
This, however, is impossible; for the habit has
so long been fixed in me as to have become a passion,
and when once severed from my books, I find
little or nothing in life to fill the vacancy of time.19
On 21 and 29 January 1805 Adams noted in his Memoirs,
21st. In Senate Dr. Logan presented the petition of
certain Quakers, requesting the interference of Congress
as far as they have power to check the slave trade.
A question was made, whether the petition should
be received, and very warmly debated for about
three hours; when it was taken by yeas and nays—
yeas nineteen, nays nine.
A motion of reference to the committee who have the
petition from Louisiana in favor of the slave trade
before them—taken without yeas and nays—
was negatived, fourteen ayes, thirteen nays;
and the President, who has got over his scruple
against voting, by forming a tie, prevented its passing.
This same petition was presented to the
House of Representatives, read, and
referred to a committee without any objection.
The reason for this difference of treatment to the same
papers I take to be because the debates of that House
are always published, and those of the Senate very seldom;
nor were there any stenographers this day present.
29th. A treaty with the Creek Indians was debated
until past four o’clock without coming to any decision.
It is a difficult thing to determine
whether it ought to be ratified or not.
My inclination is in its favor.20
After the British seized the American merchant ship Essex with impunity,
Senator Adams in Washington met with President Jefferson, Secretary of State Madison,
and Navy Secretary Robert Smith to discuss foreign policy.
On January 31 Adams wrote this in his Memoirs:
31st. The Committee on the Articles of War
met and made a little progress.
General Wilkinson came and offered an Article ready
drawn to exempt the militia from the rules of uniform.
In Senate, Mr. Gaillard, the Senator from South Carolina,
appointed instead of Mr. Butler, took his seat; and for the
first time since I have been in Congress the whole Senate
was assembled—the Vice President only being absent.
He is, however, returned to the city.
The Treaty with the Creek Indians was again taken up and
debated until half-past four without coming to a decision.21
On 1 February 1805 Senator Adams wrote at length about his conversation
with Virginia Senator William Branch Giles:
February 1st. I attended early this morning at the Capitol.
In Senate Mr. Giles’s new bill for the
government of Louisiana was debated
at the second reading and postponed.
The Treaty with the Creeks was taken up,
and I expressed my opinion in favor of its ratification.
This opinion, I believe, surprised almost every
member of the Senate and dissatisfied almost all.
It is a sincere and honest,
though not perhaps a prudent opinion.
Mr. Bradley, who has heretofore been warm in favor
of the ratification, appears to shiver in the wind.
He offered this day an amendment equivalent
to a conditional ratification, and intimated that
he would not vote for the Treaty without it.
Adjourned without taking the question.
After Senate adjourned, I sat some time with Mr. Giles,
waiting for General Dayton with whom I had agreed
to go to General Turreau the French Minister’s,
where we all were to dine;
and Mr. Giles gave me his opinions very freely
on various subjects of a public nature;
with an evident view to draw from me my opinions.
I hope I was sufficiently upon my guard.
He talked about his own Louisiana bill and disapproved
of Mr. Randolph’s report to the House of Representatives,
which he said was a perfect transcript
of Randolph’s own character.
It began by setting the claims of the Louisianans
at defiance, and concluded with a proposal
to give them more than they asked.
Mr. Randolph was undoubtedly a man of very correct
theories; but for his part he wished above all things
to be in matters of government a man of practice.
From this subject he passed to that of the Georgia
Land claims, which for some days have been
debated with great heat and violence in the
House of Representatives, and are not yet decided.
In this case his theory and his practice agree entirely
with those of Mr. Randolph—vehemently opposed
to the claims, and urging against them suspicions,
jealousies, and menaces instead of arguments.
He said if those claims were not totally and forever rejected,
Congress would be bribed into the sale of the United States
lands, as the Georgia Legislature was to that sale;
that nothing since the Government existed had so deeply
affected him as this subject; that the character of the
Government itself was staked upon its event.
In the State of Virginia there was but one voice of
indignation relating to it; that not a man from that State,
who should give any countenance to the proposed
compromise, could obtain an election after it.
Mr. Jefferson himself would lose an election
in Virginia if he was known to favor it.
And there was a gentleman in the House
who had voted for the resolution and
who certainly would lose his election by it.
(I understood him to mean Mr. Jackson,
who married Mr. Madison’s wife’s sister.)
He then proceeded to speak with much severity
of Mr. Granger, the Postmaster-General—
intimated strong suspicions that he had bribed
members of Congress to support him in these claims.
He said by the list of the contracts for carrying the mail
it appeared that several members of Congress had
contracted for that purpose—Matthew Lyon to the
amount of several thousand dollars; a Mr. Claiborne,
a member from Virginia, a man of ruined fortune and
habitual intoxication, was another; that the Constitution
forbids any member of Congress from holding any office
of honor or profit under the United States; that the contract
to carry the mail was not indeed an office of honor,
but to such men as Lyon and Claiborne it must be
considered as an office of profit, for that they could
have made the contracts with no other view than to profit;
that, for his part, he never trusted a man who had nothing
but professions to support him; that Mr. Granger was a
man of too many professions, and he must take the
liberty to suspect him; that those people were perpetually
clamoring for reward on account of their services to the
republican cause—eternally laboring to keep up the
memory and resentment of past times and dissensions,
which ought now to be but of secondary consideration;
that the President had told him he never had received
from the State of Virginia one application to remove
a single federal officer, while from other States he
had been harassed by them without number and had
letters and certificates and affidavits, and God knows what
in support of them; that such insatiable avidity for office
was no proof of merit; and he told such people, Gentlemen,
if you supported republican principles because you
thought them essential to the welfare of your country,
you surely cannot expect personal reward for that;
if from merely interested and selfish purposes,
you have no right to reward.
He said much more to the same effect.
His tongue runs fast when once a going, and
he slides from one subject to another by light
and successive transitions which generally
land his discourse wide from where it started.
From the specimens I have had of his conversation, he is
very free in his animadversions both on men and things.
This is what some men may be with impunity;
but I am not one of them.
At General Turreau’s he renewed the subject of the
Georgia Land claims, and said over again to Mr. Madison
all he had said to me and much more against them.
Mr. Madison appealed to the agreement between the
United States and Georgia, and the reservation of lands
made for the express purpose of quieting those claims.
Giles said that was a very incorrect and improper
proceeding, and ought not to be sanctioned by us.
General Turreau’s dinner was to the heads of Departments
with their ladies—General Mason and Mr. Taylor with their
ladies—Messrs. Giles, Dayton, and Logan of the Senate
and Messrs. Nicholson and Eppes of the House.22
On February 13 the United States Senate announced that President Thomas Jefferson
and Vice President George Clinton had 162 electoral votes over the 14 electoral votes
of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney for President and Rufus King for Vice President.
After retiring for a half hour the two houses of Congress
returned to continue the trial of impeachment.
Then he described the speech of Vice President Burr who explained why he was resigning.
From the last days of November 1804 to early days in January 1805
Adams spent most of about nine pages in his diary on the Republicans charges of
impeachment against the Federalist Justice Samuel Chase
in the House of Representatives and on his trial in the Senate.
Finally on 1 March 1805 the Senate voted 18 to 16 that Chase was not guilty
on five of the eight charges, and the Senate President Burr pronounced him acquitted.
On March 2 and 3 Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
2nd. The Senate, having only this day and tomorrow
left for finishing all their legislative business,
sat from ten this morning until seven in the evening
with the interval of an hour from three to four.
They passed a great number of acts,
postponed many others, and confirmed the
nominations of Robert Smith as Attorney-General
and Jacob Crowninshield as Secretary of the Navy….
3rd. Thus has terminated the second session of the
Eighth Congress; the most remarkable transaction of which
has been the trial of impeachment against Samuel Chase.
This is a subject fruitful of reflections,
but their place is not here.
I shall only remark that this was a party prosecution,
and has issued in the unexpected and total disappointment
of those by whom it was brought forward.
It has exhibited the Senate of the United States
fulfilling the most important purpose of its institution
by putting a check upon the impetuous violence
of the House of Representatives.
It has proved that a sense of justice is yet strong enough
to overpower the furies of faction; but it has at the same
time shown the wisdom and necessity of that provision
in the Constitution which requires the concurrence
of two-thirds for conviction upon impeachments.
The attack upon Mr. Chase was a systematic attempt upon
the independence and powers of the Judicial Department,
and at the same time an attempt to prostrate the
authority of the National Government before
those of the individual States.
The principles first started in the case of John Pickering
at the last session, have on the present occasion
been widened and improved upon to an extent
for which the spirit of party itself was not prepared.
Hence, besides the federal members, six out of the
twenty-five devoted to the present administration
voted for the acquittal of Judge Chase on all the charges,
and have for a time arrested the career of political frenzy.
The resolutions for amending the Constitution brought
forward by two of the managers of the impeachment
immediately after the decision, and the proceedings
of the House upon them are ample indications
that this struggle will be renewed with redoubled
vehemence at the next session of Congress.
How far the firmness of the Senate or of individual
Senators will support the promise of this time,
I presume not to conjecture.23
Senator Adams wrote in his Diary about 4 March 1805,
the day Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated for his second term:
March 4. I called this morning at Stelle’s Hotel and paid a visit
to our new Vice President, Mr. Clinton, and had some
conversation with him, in which he contrasted the
appearance of this part of the country with
that of New England and New York,
much to the advantage of the latter.
I then called upon Mr. Tracy, who has been for the
last ten days very dangerously sick of peripneumony,
and at no small hazard was brought out on the 1st instant
to give his vote on the sentence to the impeachment.
It was a good deed, and he suffered
no injury from the effort it required.
He is now in recovery, and went with me to
the Senate chamber, where we saw the
President and Vice President sworn into office.
The President previously delivered an inaugural address
in so low a voice that not half of it was heard
by any part of this crowded auditory.24
In June 1805 Harvard College hired Quincy Adams to teach Rhetoric and Oratory,
and they accepted his scheduling which enabled him to continue as a United States Senator.
His salary as a Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard was only $348 per quarter.
He bought a house in Boston for $15,000.
Senator Adams wrote in his Diary at Quincy in August:
Quincy, August 1st.—Mr. S. Dexter, Dr. Kirkland,
Mr. Holmes, of Cambridge, Mr. Storer, and Judge Davis
as a committee of the Corporation of the University,
came this morning to give me notice of my being elected the
Professor of Oratory on the foundation of Nicholas Boylston.
I mentioned to them the impossibility I should be
under of performing all the duties assigned to the
professor in the Rules and Statutes, and that I could
neither bind myself to residence at Cambridge,
nor to attendance more than a part of the year.
They supposed that the Statutes might be so modified
as to accommodate me in these particulars and requested
me to state my own wishes in this respect to the chairman
of the committee in a letter, to which I agreed.25
Senator Adams wrote this in his Diary on 30 November 1805:
Washington, 30th.—Paid visits this morning to the
President, whom I found at home, and the Secretaries
of State and of the Navy, whom I did not see.
Called also on Mr. Otis at his office, where I met Mr. Plumer.
At the President’s door I met Mr. Israel Smith and
Mr. Gaillard, who were on the same visit as myself.
The President mentioned a late act of hostility
committed by a French privateer near Charleston,
South Carolina and said that we ought to assume as a
principle that the neutrality of our territory should extend to
the Gulf Stream, which was a natural boundary, and within
which we ought not to suffer any hostility to be committed.
Mr. Gaillard observed that on a former occasion in
Mr. Jefferson’s correspondence with Genêt, and by
an Act of Congress at that period, we had seemed only
to claim the usual distance of three miles from the coast;
but the President replied that he had then assumed
that principle because Genêt by his intemperance forced
us to fix on some point, and we were not then prepared
to assert the claim of jurisdiction to the extent we are
in reason entitled to; but he had then taken care expressly
to reserve the subject for future consideration with
a view to this same doctrine for which he now contends.
I observed that it might be well, before we ventured
to assume a claim so broad, to wait for a time when
we should have a force competent to maintain it.
But in the meantime, he said, it was advisable
to squint at it, and to accustom the nations of Europe
to the idea that we should claim it in the future.26
On 17 January 1806 Senator John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
17th. Met the committee on revising the rules for
conducting the business of the Senate, at ten this morning.
We merely entered upon some general conversation
on the subject, and had come to no determination,
when we were called in to a message from the President.
In the meantime Mr. Bidwell and Mr. Early had been in
as a committee from the House of Representatives
with a confidential message, and a bill appropriating
and placing at the President’s disposition
two millions of dollars to purchase the Floridas.
This is the great result of a month’s closed doors
in the House, and is to be the end of all the vaporing
against Spain at the beginning of the session.
The message from the President was accompanied
by very voluminous documents on the subject of
our differences with Great Britain; and particularly
a letter from Mr. Monroe, our Minister in London,
to the Secretary of State, full of bitterness against
England and urging strong and decisive measures.
Some few of the papers were read and one or two bills.
Adjourned early.
In the evening I read part of Mr. Madison’s pamphlet.27
Senator Adams in a letter to his father John Adams
on 11 February 1806 wrote in his Memoirs:
There is only one doubt yet remaining upon my mind as to
the ruling principle of our foreign policy, and that is whether
in the terrors we are assuming against Great Britain there
is not as much or more of vapor than of substance.
There are some indications which might lead to the
conclusion, that when we come to the critical moment
we shall not be so terrible as we now threaten.
The tables of both Houses are loaded with motion
upon motion for non-intercourse, for non-importation,
for navigation acts, for retaliation and reprisal,
for confiscation of debts, and for everything
that can exhibit temper against the British; but to all
this there is besides the opposition which it will meet
from reasonable quarters, a vast body of opposition
lurking among the friends of the administration itself.
All the quakerish members of both Houses are averse
to anything that looks even by a squint toward energy.
Being for peace all the world over, they begin to discover
that these measures may give offense to Great Britain,
and they think the only course to be pursued is negotiation.
Besides this the members for the Southern states
discover reluctance to agree upon anything which may
obstruct the freedom of their trade in foreign ships
or affect the exportation of their cotton.
It is obvious that great efforts are making to
stimulate the passions of the people, and to
lash into fermentation the blood of their representatives;
but it is not yet equally clear that this plan will be
so far successful as to show itself in the form of law.28
On 25 February 1806 Senator Adams wrote in his Diary:
Feb. 25. — I dined at the President’s with a
company of fifteen members of both Houses,
all federalists and consisting chiefly of the
delegations from Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Mr. White of Delaware was also there.
I came home early in the evening and spent it in writing.
Conversing with the President on public affairs,
he told me that he understood Mr. Gregg’s proposition
was to be abandoned, and that the question would
be between Mr. Nicholson’s resolutions or nothing.
I said it seemed probable that nothing
would eventually have the preference.
He said that then we must abandon our carrying trade,
for that unless something were done in aid of negotiation
Great Britain would never yield on this point.
His own preference is manifestly for Nicholson’s resolution,
which is indeed a renewal of his own project in 1794,
then produced in Congress by Mr. Madison.
He appeared not well pleased when I intimated
the suspicion that nothing would be done.
So he probably counts on the
success of Nicholson’s motion.29
His first lecture would be on 12 June 1806,
and his lectures would be published in two volumes in 1810.
Other professors and visitors such as William Emerson,
father of Ralph Waldo Emerson, also attended his lectures.
Adams extended his reading to Plato, Aristotle,
and Ovid, and he studied Cicero’s orations.
The House of Representatives approved President Jefferson’s
Non-Importation Act by a 93 to 32 vote on 25 March 1806.
Senator Adams on April 15 voted for it as it passed the Senate 19 to 9,
and the President signed it into law on April 18.
Senator Adams on 11 July 1806 wrote in his Diary:
July 11th. I enter this day upon my fortieth year.
And I this day commenced my course of lectures on
Rhetoric and Oratory—an undertaking of magnitude and
importance for the proper accomplishment of which I pray
for patience and perseverance, and that favor from above,
without which no human industry can avail, but which,
without persevering industry, it is presumption to ask.
I have devoted all the time which I can borrow
from the necessary business of life for seven years,
if so much of life is granted me, to this object.
Of these seven years, one has already elapsed.
My progress has been slow, and my own improvement,
upon which is to depend much of the improvement
of others, has been very small.
Yet the beginning is now made,
and its success is not without encouragement.
My lecture was well received, and could
I hope that the issue of the whole course
would but bear a proportion to the effect
of this introduction, I should be fully satisfied.
Few persons except the scholars
(the three senior classes) attended.30
On 10 and 19 February 1807 Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
10th. The business in Senate is transacted with
a degree of indifference and carelessness which
I never witnessed in any public assembly before.
Bill after bill passes without any remark,
and even without explanation of its subject.
The only appearance of a debate this day was upon a bill
reported by Mr. Bayard, for selling land to the Delaware
and Schuylkill Canal Company for shares in their stock.
I objected to its passage to the second reading,
as being a bill to raise revenue, but without any effect….
19th. The Senate received this morning a
message from the President, containing
three important articles of intelligence.
1. A letter from the Ministers at London, announcing
that they had agreed upon a Treaty with Great Britain,
which would be signed in a few days.
2. A letter from Mr. Armstrong, enclosing his
correspondence with the French Minister of Marine,
respecting the decree to blockade the British Islands—
the Minister assuring Mr. Armstrong that the Treaty between
France and the United States would be respected. And
3. A letter from Cowles Mead, Secretary and acting
Governor of the Mississippi Territory with information that
Mr. Burr had surrendered himself, his men, and his boats.31
On 3 March 1807 Senator Adams wrote in his Diary:
Mar. 3. — The Senate sat until past five p.m., then
adjourned to seven, and sat again until almost midnight.
About ten o’clock the joint committee of the two Houses,
Dr. Mitchell and myself from the Senate, Mr. Varnum,
Mr. Allston, and Mr. Gregg from the House were sent
with the usual notification of the recess to the President.
He was not, as usual at the closing of the sessions
in the committee room at the Capitol,
being detained by indisposition at his own house.
The joint committee, excepting Mr. Gregg,
went in a carriage together, and carried
eight or ten bills for his signature.
After he had done this, he said he had expected
to receive this evening the Treaty lately signed
by our Ministers with the Commissioners of
Great Britain at London; but it had not arrived.
He had, however, seen a copy received this afternoon by
Mr. Erskine, which he had been so obliging as to lend him.
Dr. Mitchell said we had been requested by several
members of the Senate, who had heard of this copy
received by Mr. Erskine, to enquire whether there
would probably be a call of the Senate at an early
day to consider the Treaty; as some of them
would in that case prefer to remain here.
The President replied in emphatic tone, “Certainly not!”
He then added that there were two things,
either of which would prevent him from troubling
the Senate with the consideration of this Treaty.
The one was that it contained no satisfactory article
respecting the impressment of men from our ships—
not even what they had offered at a previous stage
of the negotiation; and the other was a declaration
delivered by the British Commissioners at the time
when the Treaty was signed, purporting that the
King reserved the right of retaliating against the
decree of the French Emperor of 21st November last;
unless the United States should resist it.
This, the President said, would involve us in the war and
compel us to make a common cause with Great Britain;
and the only way he could account for our Ministers’
having signed such a Treaty with such circumstances was
by supposing that in the first panic of the French Imperial
decree they had concluded a war would be inevitable,
and that we must make a common cause with England.
He should, however, continue amicable negotiations
with England, and continue the suspension of the
Non-Importation Act; and instructions had been
sent in January to our Ministers, which he supposed
they had by this time received, to give notice,
even if they should have signed the Treaty without the
article to protect our seamen from impressment, that it
should not be ratified, and to renew the negotiation.32
On 22 June 1807 the British warship Leopard attacked
the USS Chesapeake killing three men and wounding 18.
On November 3 Senator Adams wrote in his Diary:
Washington Nov. 3. — Dined at the President’s with
a company consisting chiefly of members of Congress—
Messrs. Mitchell, Van Cortlandt, Verplanck,
Van Allen, Johnson, Key, Magruder, Taylor,
Calhoun, Butler, Thompson, and Eppes.
I mentioned to Mr. Jefferson that the publishing committee
had a letter from him to the Earl of Buchan,
sent by him to the Massachusetts Historical Society
with a view to its publication.
But the committee thought it most consistent
at least with delicacy to ascertain whether
the publication would be not disagreeable to him.
He asked whether it did not contain some
free sentiments respecting the British Government.
I told him it did.
He then desired that it might not be published,
at least while he remained in public office;
and said he could not conceive why Lord Buchan
could have sent it for publication, unless it were
because it contained some compliments to himself.
At dinner there was much amusing conversation
between him and Dr. Mitchell, though altogether desultory.
There was as usual a dissertation
upon wines, not very edifying.
Mr. Jefferson said that the Epicurean philosophy
came nearest to the truth, in his opinion,
of any ancient system of philosophy, but that
it had been misunderstood and misrepresented.
He wished the work of Gassendi
concerning it had been translated.
It was the only accurate account of it extant.
I mentioned Lucretius.
He said that was only a part—only the natural philosophy.
But the moral philosophy was only to be found in Gassendi.
Dr. Mitchell mentioned Mr. Fulton’s steamboat
as an invention of great importance.
To which Mr. Jefferson assenting added,
“and I think his torpedoes a valuable invention too.”
He then enlarged upon the certainty of their effect, and
adverted to some of the obvious objections against them,
which he contended were not conclusive.
Dr. Mitchell’s conversation was very various of chemistry,
of geography, and of natural philosophy; of oils, grasses,
birds, petrifactions and incrustations; Pike and Humboldt,
Lewis and Barlow, and a long train of et cetera—for the
Doctor knows a little of everything and is communicative
of what he knows—which makes me delight in his company.
Mr. Jefferson said that he had always been extremely fond
of agriculture and knew nothing about it, but the person
who united with other sciences the greatest agricultural
knowledge of any man he knew was Mr. Madison.
He was the best farmer in the world.
On the whole, it was one of the most agreeable dinners
I have had at Mr. Jefferson’s.33
Adams on November 9 wrote in his Memoirs:
9th. Mr. Bradley’s resolution respecting the act for the
preservation of peace in the ports and harbors was adopted,
and referred to the committee of five on the part of the
President’s message relative to the same subject;
to which committee, upon my motion, two new
members were added, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Sumter.
No other business was done.
After the adjournment I went into the
House of Representatives and heard a
debate on the Naval Appropriation bill.
I spent the evening in looking over the Treaties and
examining the articles respecting the admission
of armed ships into our ports and harbors.
I drew the sketch of an article to present for consideration
of the committee, adopting the principle of exclusion.34
This is what Senator Adams wrote in his Diary on 14 November 1807:
14th. In the evening I received a letter
from Governor Sullivan.
From the intelligence this day received from Europe,
the opinion I have entertained for some months, that
this country cannot escape a war, is very much confirmed.
It is a prospect from which I would gladly turn my eyes—
to my parents, to my children, to my country,
full of danger if not of ruin—yet a prospect
which there is scarce a hope left of avoiding.
May I meet it as becomes a man.35
On November 25 Senator J. Q. Adams proposed
this motion on impressments by the British:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be
requested to cause to be laid before the Senate a return of
the number of American seamen impressed or detained by
British armed vessels, whose names have been reported to
the Department of State since the last statement made to
Congress; mentioning the names of the persons impressed,
the time and place of their impressment, the names of the
ships, and, as far as may be known, of the officers by whom
they were impressed, together with any material facts or
circumstances in relation to the same; stating also the whole
number of seamen impressed since the commencement of
the present war, what number of the persons impressed,
according to the last statement of the Secretary of State,
has since been restored, and the numbers still detained
by the British, since demand of their restoration made;
with the reasons assigned for their detention.36
On December 14 John Quincy Adams was approached by Josiah Quincy
with a petition from Boston, and J. Q. Adams about that wrote this in his Diary:
14th. Mr. Quincy brought me a transcript of
the petition from Boston for the modification,
suspension, or repeal of the Non-Importation Act,
signed by upwards of eight hundred names.
I had told General Smith of Maryland that this
petition was coming and asked him
what should be done with it.
He said it would be best to let it die
on the table with the petition from Philadelphia.
I have conversed lately several times with him
and Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Anderson, and told them that
I believed the best thing that could be done by the
administration would be to give up this law and repeal it
at once; but that, as the Executive would finally be the
responsible party, and as it had been passed for the purpose
of aiding in negotiation, so long as the President believed
it would assist him, I would not countenance anything that
should attempt to weaken the Government by opposition.37
Senator Adams worked on President Jefferson’s Embargo Act that banned
imports and exports and which passed the House 82 to 44 on 21 December 1807.
On 1 January 1808 Senator Adams wrote in his Diary:
January 1st, 1808. At noon I went with the ladies
to pay the customary visit to the President.
There was a very numerous company of
men, women, and children but no Indians.
Mr. Monroe and General Wilkinson were
the strangers of principal note present.38
Adams attended the Republican congressional caucus on 23 January 1808
that nominated James Madison for President and George Clinton for Vice President.
On January 27 Senator Adams wrote in a letter to his father John Adams:
Your answers and observations upon my inquiries
respecting the impressment of our seamen
by the British are of the highest interest.
But this general question has been absorbed by the
new decrees of the great contending belligerent powers.
Right and wrong are no longer subjects of
discussion in our concerns with European nations.
They appear to be agreed in the determination
that there shall be no more neutrality, and our
only choice is which of the two we will resist.
I am very sensible of that situation in which
you consider me to stand, and that being now
wholly unsupported by any great party the
expiration of my present term of service
will dismiss me from my public station.
By this event my vanity may be affected,
but in every other respect it will be a relief.
Deeming it inconsistent with my duties ever to shrink
from the service of my country, I have always adhered
to the principle that I should not solicit any of its favors.
The present time and the prospects of the nation
are such that a seat in the public councils
cannot be an object of my desire.
My literary profession and the education of
my children will occupy all my time in a manner
which will furnish me duties enough to discharge.
I shall also resume the practice of the law as far as
that will resume me, and although this is a business
for which I know myself to be indifferently qualified,
I shall still pursue it as far as any circumstances will admit.
Notwithstanding the critical situation of the country
the two Houses of Congress are acting very much
at their leisure, and from their present proceedings
one would imagine we were in a state of profound peace.
The presidential election engrosses the
principal attention of the members.
About one-half the members of both houses
here have declared in favor of Mr. Madison
and to re-elect the Vice President.
In the legislature of Virginia also the friends of Mr. Madison
have outnumbered those of Mr. Monroe nearly three to one.
I understand that by way of making a temporary provision
for Mr. Monroe, he is to be chosen Governor of Virginia.39
On February 1 Josiah Quincy asked Senator Adams to consult with the
Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin. Adams wrote in his Memoirs:
Mr. Quincy asked me to have some conversation with him;
which I did at his chamber.
He enquired into the motives of my late conduct
in Congress, which I fully detailed to him.
He said my principles were too pure for those with whom
I was acting, and they would not thank me for them.
I told him I did not want their thanks.
He said they would not value me the more for them.
I told him I cared not whether
they valued me for them or not.
My character, such as it is, must stand upon its own ground,
and not upon the bolstering of any man or party.
I fully opened to him my motives for supporting the
administration at this crisis, and my sense of the danger
which a spirit of opposition is bringing upon the Union.
I told him where that opposition in case of war
must in its nature end—either in a Civil War,
or in a dissolution of the Union,
with the Atlantic States in subservience to Great Britain.
That to resist this I was ready, if necessary,
to sacrifice everything I have in life and even life itself.
I intimated to him that he would be called, perhaps ere long,
to make the election which side he would take, too.40
On 31 March 1808 Senator Adams published in Boston a 26-page
“Letter to the Hon. Harrison Gray Otis, a member of the Senate of Massachusetts
on the Present State of Our National Affairs with Remarks upon
Mr. Pickering’s Letter to the Governor of the Commonwealth.”
This is the last portion of the letter:
Both these parties are no doubt willing,
that we should join them in the war of
their nation against France and her allies.
The late administration would have drawn us into it
by treaty, the present are attempting it by compulsion.
The former would have admitted us as allies,
the latter will have us no otherwise than as colonists.
On the late debates in Parliament, the lord chancellor
freely avowed that the orders of Council of 11th November
were intended to make America at last sensible
of the policy of joining England against France.
This too, Sir, is the substantial argument
of Mr. Pickering’s letter.
The suspicions of a design in our own administration to
plunge us into a war with Britain, I never have shared.
Our administration has every interest and
every motive that can influence the conduct
of man to deter them from any such purpose.
Nor have I seen anything in their measures
bearing the slightest indication of it.
But between a design of war with England, and
a surrender of our national freedom for the sake of war
with the rest of Europe, there is a material difference.
This is the policy now in substance recommended to us, and
for which the interposition of the commercial States is called.
For this, not only are all the outrages of Britain
to be forgotten, but the very assertion of our rights
is to be branded with odium.
Impressment—Neutral trade—British taxation—
Everything that can distinguish a state of
national freedom from a state of national vassalage,
is to be surrendered at discretion.
In the face of every fact we are
told to believe every profession.
In the midst of every indignity, we are
pointed to British protection as our only
shield against the universal conqueror.
Every phantom of jealousy and fear is evoked.
The image of France with a scourge in her hand is
impressed into the service to lash us into the refuge
of obedience to Britain “with her thousand ships of war,”
has not destroyed our commerce, it has been owing
to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened
in her name with the “destruction of our fairest cities.”
Not one act of hostility to Britain has been committed
by us; she has not a pretense of that kind to allege.
But if she will wage war upon us,
are we to do nothing in our own defense?
If she issues orders of universal plunder upon our
commerce, are we not to withhold it from her grasp?
Is American pillage one of those rights which
she has claimed and exercised until we are foreclosed
from any attempt to obstruct its collection?
For what purpose are we required to make this sacrifice
of everything that can give valor to the name of freemen.
This abandonment of the very right of self-preservation?
Is it to avoid a war?
Alas! Sir, it does not offer even this
plausible plea for pusillanimity.
For, as submission would make us to all substantial
purposes British colonies, her enemies would unquestionably
treat us as such, and after degrading ourselves into
voluntary servitude to escape a war with her, we should
incur inevitable war with her enemies, and be doomed
to share the destinies of her conflict with a world in arms.
Between this unqualified submission and offensive
resistance against the war upon maritime neutrality waged
by the concurring decrees of all the belligerent powers,
the Embargo was adopted and has hitherto continued.
So far was it from being dictated by France, that it was
calculated to withdraw and has withdrawn from within
her reach all the means of compulsion which her
subsequent decrees would have put in her possession.
It has added to the motives both of France and England
for preserving peace with us
and has diminished their inducements to war.
It has lessened their capacities of inflicting injury upon us,
and given us some preparation for resistance to them.
It has taken from their violence the lure of interest.
It has dashed the philter of pillage from the lips of rapine.
That it is distressing to ourselves—that it calls
for the fortitude of a people determined to
maintain their rights, is not be to be denied.
But the only alternative was between that and war.
Whether it will yet save us from that calamity
cannot be determined, but if not, it will prepare us
for the further struggle to which we may be called.
Its double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for
war, in its operation upon both the belligerent rivals, is the
great advantage, which more than outweigh all its evils.
If any statement can point out another alternative,
I am ready to hear him, and for any practicable
expedient to lend him every possible assistance.
But let not that expedient be submission to
trade under British licenses and British taxation.
We are told that even under these restrictions
we may yet trade to the British dominions to Africa and
China and with the colonies of France, Spain, and Holland.
I ask not how much of this trade would be left,
when our intercourse with the whole continent
of Europe being cut off would leave us
no means to purchase and no market for sale?
I ask not what trade we could enjoy with the
colonies of nations with which we should be at war?
I ask not how long Britain would leave open to us
avenues of trade, which even in these very orders of
Council, she boasts of leaving open as a special indulgence?
If we yield the principle
we abandon all pretense to national sovereignty.
To yearn for the fragments of trade which might be left,
would be to pine for the crumbs of commercial servitude.
The boon which we should humiliate ourselves to
accept from British bounty would soon be withdrawn.
Submission never yet set boundaries to encroachment.
From pleading for half the empire
we should sink into supplicants for life.
We should stipulate in vain.
If we must fall, let us fall, freemen.
Of we must perish, let it be in defense of our Rights.
To conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any necessity
for the extraordinary interference of the commercial States,
to control the general Councils of the nation.
If any interference could at this critical extremity of our
affairs have a kindly effect upon our common welfare,
it would be interference to promote union and not a
division—to urge mutual confidence and not universal
distrust—to strengthen the arm and
not to relax the sinews of the nation.
Our suffering and our dangers, though differing
perhaps in degree are universal in extent.
As their causes are justly chargeable, so their removal
is dependent not upon ourselves, but upon others.
But while the spirit of Independence shall
continue to beat in unison with the pulses
of the nation, no danger will be truly formidable.
Our duties are to prepare with concerted energy
for those which threaten us, to meet them without dismay,
and to rely for their issue upon Heaven.41
On 13 April 1808 Senator Adams wrote in his Diary about what he did in a committee:
April 13. — A variety of business as done in Senate,
but none which occasioned much debate.
The Court-Martial bill, after having once passed to a
third reading, was again taken up as at the second,
and amended; after which it passed to the third reading.
After the adjournment, Mr. Anderson’s committee
on the negotiation message met, and considered a
proposition for authorizing the President to suspend
the Embargo during the recess of Congress,
if circumstances to justify the measure should occur.
I submitted a proposition for prohibiting all intercourse
with France, Spain, Holland, and Great Britain, and
repealing the Embargo with respect to the dominions
of all foreign States not having issued decrees in
violation of the laws of nations against us.
This was rejected.
I then proposed that the President should be authorized to
suspend the Non-Importation Act as well as the Embargo.
This was agreed to.42
Senator Adams had become a Republican, and Federalists made sure
that he would not be nominated again for the Senate in 1808.
He resigned his seat in the United States Senate on 8 June 1808 with this letter:
“To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
It has been my endeavor, as I have conceived it was
my duty, while holding a seat in the Senate of the Union,
to support the administration of the general government
in all necessary measures within its competency,
the object of which was to preserve from seizure
and depredation the persons and property of our citizens,
and to vindicate the rights essential to the independence
of our country against the unjust pretensions
and aggressions of all foreign powers.
Certain resolutions recently passed by you have
expressed your disapprobation of measures to which,
under the influence of these motives, I give my assent.
As far as the opinion of a majority in the Legislature
can operate, I cannot but consider these resolutions
as enjoining upon the representation of the State in
Congress a sort of opposition to the national administration
in which I cannot consistently with my principles concur.
To give you, however, the opportunity of placing in the
Senate of the United States a member who may devise
and enforce the means of relieving our fellow citizens from
their present sufferings without sacrificing the peace of the
nation, the personal liberties of our seamen, or the neutral
rights of our commerce, I now restore to you the trust
committed to my charge, and resign my seat as a Senator
of the United States on the part of this Commonwealth.43
In his diary on July 11, his 41st birthday, he explained that his change of party
from the Federalists, who have the majority in his state, to the Republicans,
meant that he would likely be defeated in the next election.
He wrote in his Diary on that day:
July 11. — I enter this day upon my forty-second year.
I employed it from early in the morning until the dusk of
evening assiduously writing at my lecture and reading.
The day was dull and rainy until towards night,
when the sky cleared, and the sun with
“farewell sweet” made its appearance.
I walked nearly an hour in the Mall.
The return of my birthday is one of the seasons
which call upon me for reflection.
In the course of the last year I have been called
by my duties as a citizen and man to act and to
suffer more than at any former period of my life.
To my duties I have steadfastly adhered.
The course I pursued has drawn upon me much obloquy,
and the change of parties in the State, with an
accumulated personal malignity borne me,
both on my father’s and my own account, by those who
rule the State, produced in the first instance the election
of a Senator to fill my place after the third of March next.
The election was precipitated for the
sole purpose of specially marking me.
For it ought, in regular order, not to have been
until the winter season of the Legislature.
They also passed resolutions enjoining upon
their Senators a course of conduct which neither
my judgment could approve nor my spirit brook.
I therefore resigned my seat.
For my future prospects I have no reliance
but on the Disposer of events.44
In November and December 1808 John Quincy Adams in letters to Ezekiel Bacon
proposed reducing the complete embargo to nonintercourse with the British and the French.
Notes
1. Memoirs of Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848
by John Quincy Adams ed. Charles Francis Adams, Volume I, p. 249-250.
2. Ibid., p. 251.
3. Ibid., p. 253-254.
4. Ibid., p. 255.
5. Ibid., p. 273.
6. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, ed. Allan Nevins, p. 17-18.
7. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 282-283.
8. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 20-21.
9. Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford,
Volume III 1801-1810, p. 25-26.
10. Ibid., p. 29-30.
11. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 314-315.
12. Ibid., p. 315.
13. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume III, p. 42-43.
14. Speeches & Writings by John Quincy Adams ed. David Waldstreicher, p. 125, 130-131.
15. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume III, p. 77-79.
16. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 316-317.
17. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 24-25.
18. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 321.
19. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 27.
20. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 342.
21. Ibid., p. 336.
22. Ibid., p. 342-344.
23. Ibid., p. 370-371.
24. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 36.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., p. 37-38.
27. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 373.
28. Ibid., p. 373-374.
29. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 40.
30. Ibid., p. 42.
31. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 375-376.
32. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 45-46.
33. Ibid., p. 46-47.
34. Ibid., p. 452.
35. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 47-48.
36. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume III, p. 163.
37. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 48-49.
38. Ibid., p. 51
39. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume III, p. 188-189.
40. Memoirs by John Quincy Adams, Volume I, p. 458.
41. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume III, p. 220-223.
42. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 55-56.
43. Writings of John Quincy Adams, Volume III, p. 237-238.
44. The Diary of John Quincy Adams 1794-1845, p. 57.
This work has not yet been published as a book;
all the chapters are free in this website.