^
0'
'^o^
.* .0
o'l
.0'
o "
'>^o^
.-^^
.f"'
» .e^..?
T O
2..
> •^^.
,^^
0*
o V
,* _ V •'^^ ^^^^^>*1*
.0^
^*/
.-\
< o
■<>
\
^
^'^ ^<^'^ *.^^''* '^^ ^^ *i^
' ^^^^^^ •
r <J^. * O 1. o ' ■?)
0^
o "/
WRITINGS
OF
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO ■ DALLAS
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., Limited
LONDON • BOMBAY ■ CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA. Ltd.
TORONTO
WRITINGS
OF
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
EDITED BY
WORTHINGTON CHAUNCEY FORD
VOL. VII
1 820-1 823
Npui fork
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1917
All frights reserved
^337
«5:J
Copyright, iqi?
By MARY OGDEN ADAMS
Set up and printed. Published October, 1917.
CONTENTS
1820
PAGE
March 4. To the President i
Opinion on the power of Congress over slavery in a
territory, and on the admission of Missouri.
March 20. Paper Submitted to the President . . 2
Interest of the Russian government in the affairs of
the United States and Spain. Representations made.
General Vives named as minister from Spain to the
United States. The taking of Florida. A message to
Congress suggested.
April 21. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives • • • 5
Surprise that he does not bring a ratification of the
treaty. Explanations and delay. No discussion re-
quired.
May 3. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives ... 8
Explanations given and delay unnoticed. The neu-
trality of the United States in South American dis-
turbances. Existing laws suflicient, if treaty be rati-
fied. No relations with South America. No new
conditions in treaty admissible. The annulled land
grants. Hopes for immediate ratification, or indem-
nity will be claimed.
May 8. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives ... 15
An unconditional promise declined. The absolute
obligation of the king to ratify the treaty. Present
aspect of the relations between the United States and
Spain. Misreading of authorities. Vattel on keeping
faith. Delay on the part of Spain. An impossible con-
PAGE
vi CONTENTS
dition required. Proposed recognition of Buenos
Ayres. No conditional promise will be accepted.
Papers to be submitted to Congress.
May 1 8. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives ... 28
Reason for granting further delay.
A4ay 25. To John Forsyth 29
Correspondence with the Spanish minister and ex-
planation of granting delay. Want of power in the
king to ratify.
May 28. To Albert Gallatin . . .... 34
The correspondence with Vives. The interview
with Baron Pasquier. Influence of France at Madrid.
June 5. To Josiah Quincy 36
Accepts an election as president of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences.
June 7. To Henry Middleton 37
The arbitration by the Emperor of Russia of in-
demnity for slaves. Powers and precedence.
June 8. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives . . . 40 ^
Rights of the United States against Spain. Sym-
pathy of the United States in the constitutional gov-
ernment in Spain. Trusts for speedy action on treaty.
t
June 15. To the President 43
Execution and pardon for pirates.
July 5. To Henry Middleton 46
Political relations between the United States and
Russia. The League of Peace. The Emperor Alex-
ander. American policy is extra-European. Its posi-
tion towards the League. Commerce with Russia,
and the Russian American Company.
CONTENTS vii
PAGE
July 17. To Jonathan Jennings S^
The removal of Mr. Erving. Indiana and slavery.
July 24. To John Clark 54
Instructions to the Indian agent not found. Jackson
to serve as commissioner. Cobb and the Indian
treaties.
July 28. To THE President S^
Reprieves for pirates. Instructions to Forbes. Some
matters for decision.
July 29. To THE President 57
Pirates and the courts. Almeida to be captured.
August 2. To the President 59
Case of the Cameleon. Baltimore officials. The
boundary survey.
August 21. To THE President 61
The pardon of Ralph Clintock. The case of the Bul-
locks. Favors a reprieve for Cornell. The Abbe Correa
and his American system.
August 24. To Albert Gallatin 64
Hopes for a conciliatory disposition in France. Her
treatment of the just claims of the United States.
Privileges in ports of Louisiana.
August 26. To THE President ^^
Discovery of lands in the Pacific. Intercedes for
Jeremy Robinson.
August 30. To THE President 68
Correa on complaints of Portuguese subjects and
the courts of the United States. Ill feeling created by
acts of privateers from American ports.
viii CONTENTS
PAGE
September 8. To the President 71
The negotiations with France on navigation duties.
Publication of Gallatin's letters. Subjects for instruc-
tions to him.
September 30. To the Chevalier Correa de Serra . 73
Limit of the judicial power. Neutrality in the war
in South America. Asks for documents.
October 4. To Albert Gallatin 75
Exclusion of American ships from French ports by
extra duties. The surcharge a. prohibitory duty on
American interests, but negligible to French commerce.
Baron Pasquier's proposal not acceptable. Arrest and
return of deserters. Suggestion of divided interests.
»
November 6. To Henry Middleton 82
Obstacles to the arbitration of the slave indemnity.
Emancipation as a right of war.
December 30. To Stratford Canning .... 84
On acceding to treaties for the suppression of the
slave-trade. Reasons against. Right of search and
character of tribunals. Proposed mutual assistance
by commanders of cruisers.
1821
January 20. To George Sullivan 88
Question on the Overseers of Harvard College. His
indebtedness to the institution. The Dartmouth
College case. Religious opinions and religious liberty.
February 6. To Richard Rush 92
The English proposition on suppressing the slave-
trade. Publication of instructions and comments.
The proposal of the United States.
CONTENTS ix
PAGE
February 28. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives . . 94
Indemnity for Spanish claimants. Compensation
for land grants. Pleasure of the President on the
ratification.
March 31. To Albert Gallatin 97
Arrival of Hyde de Neuville and his course. The
Apollon and a pretended port of entry. The case of the
Edmond and the questions of the French minister.
April 2. To Richard Peters 100
A request relating to Dupre and his privilege in an
almshouse.
April 26. Memorandum sent to Hyde de Neuville . loi
Reciprocity the first principle in commercial negotia-
tion. Repeal of surcharges and discriminating duties
the proper course. Objections by France. Specific
proposals asked.
May 3. To the Earl of Carysfoot 105
Sends a copy of his report on weights and measures.
Desires to see the reports of Carysfoot's father in 1758
and 1759.
May II. To Hyde de Neuville 107
Examination of proposed articles for a commercial
convention. A counter proposition. Reciprocity
should control.
July 9. To THE President iii
The suit of Levett vs. Harris.
July ID. To Robert Walsh, Jr. 113
Sends a copy of his oration of July 4. Question of
discretion. Animosity of the British government and
how fed by literature. Warfare of the mind. The ref-
erence to the religious reformation.
X CONTENTS
PAGE
July 17. To THE President 118
The answer to the French minister. Is convinced
of the legality of the seizure of the Apollon.
July 23. To Charles Jared Ingersoll . . . .119
Is pleased by his opinion of his oration. Intended
to speak out. Comment on its features. The madness
of George III. Defaming America. Gleig's assertion.
July 25. To the President 123
Changes in the French note. The conduct of Cap-
tain Edou. His defence by Baron de Neuville insult-
ing. Proof of Edou's knowledge of criminality.
July 25. To Alexander Hill Everett . . . .126
Reasons against a commercial agreement with the
Netherlands.
July 27. To Robert Walsh, Jr. . . . . .127
Flattery. Is satisfied with the notice of his address.
Matters of style. The reference to King George Ill's
calamity. Liberties founded on grant and those on ac-
knowledgment. An omitted sentence. The treaty of
peace. Byron, Moore and romances. A misunderstood
reference.
July 28. To Hyde de Neuville 137
Reasons for not replying to his note. The "grave
error" of the United States. Acts of subordinate of-
ficials under orders. Instructions to the collector at
St. Mary's. Project to evade the payment of duties.
A false port constituted. Seizure of the Apollon.
Merits of the question. Edou's violation of customs
regulations. No reference to Florida possible. The
Apollon engaged in irregular commerce. Privileges of
vessels in Europe. On what Edou depends for his
justification.
CONTENTS xi
PAGE
July 31. To THE President 160
Neuville inclined to change his ground of complaint.
The United States will get nothing by concession.
Satisfaction not to be asked from Spain, Adams' offer
for a settlement. Propositions on commerce.
August 3. To THE President . . . . . . 164
Canning renews his proposa s on the slave-trade.
Sends draft of a reply. Notice of his departure for
Quincy.
August 7. To Charles Jared Ingersoll .... 165
Conduct of Onis in the Spanish negotiations. Writ-
ings on international law. Removal of Andre's body.
Irving's Sketch Book.
August II. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 170
Is not a popular man but envies none. The Fox-
Randall duel. The theatre.
August 15. To Stratford Canning 171
Suppression of the slave-trade. The United States
cannot grant right to search vessels. Trial of offenders.
The American proposal better adapted to secure the
end.
August 16. To the President 176
Clay's claim for a half outfit. Asks to be freed
from preparing a statement. No feeling because of
Clay's request.
September 19. To Daniel Brent 178
Stockton and the Jeune Eugenie. Will return to
Washington. No French seamen on the Alligator.
September 22. To Daniel Brent , • . . . . 179
Surrender of the Jeune Eugenie and Stockton's jus-
tification.
xii CONTENTS
PACE
September 25. To Don Francisco Dionisio Vives . 180
Construction of two articles in the treaty of 18 19.
Intentions of one party. Provisions and ordnance.
October 26. To Robert Walsh, Jr 182
Jackson in Florida. Oration still being criticised.
November 2. To Don Joaquin de Anduaga . . .183
Jackson's treatment of Callava. Callava not a
public agent at the time. Delay in carrying treaty
into effect. Offense of Callava. The Spanish archives.
December 12. To John Thornton Kirkland . . . 189
Repeal of customs duties on books.
December 15 To Hyde de Neuville .... 190
A Correspondent of the Royal Academy of France.
1822
January 7. To John D, Heath 191
Has no reason to complain of his country's ingrati-
tude. Has never solicited office. Is in the line of pro-
motion. Purpose of the early discussion of presidential
succession. The legislative caucus in South Carolina,
Is grateful for testimonials from strangers.
January 8. To Henry Alexander Scammell Dearborn 196
A congressional caucus is preparing.
January 31. To Edward Everett 197
A Boston critic of his July oration. A former expe-
rience recalled. Corrupting the public taste. On style.
Doctrine of sympathy. Colonial establishments. A
change from liberty to power. Erroneous moral prin-
ciple. The Eastern politicians. His Fire Society ad-
dress. The letter on the embargo. Favored by Vir-
ginians. Onis' pamphlet.
CONTENTS xiii
PAGE
February 20. To Joel Lewis 208
System of secret defamation directed against him-
self. To answer false charges would occupy his whole
time. His future public service.
February 22. To Hyde de Neuville 210
The United States has always disclaimed a right of
search in peace. Case of the Jeune Eugenie. The
vessel delivered up to the French consul. France can
alone silence the voice of slander.
February 25. To Pierre de Poletica . . . 212
Claims of Russia on the northwest coast of America
questioned. Asks for explanations.
March 30 To Pierre de Poletica 214
Limits to the Russian claims. The United States
cannot admit the justice of restrictions on commerce
with the natives of northwest America.
April 6. To Don Joaquin de Anduaga .... 216
Friendly disposition towards Spain. Question of
independence of a nation. The recognition of the
states of South America. Effect of example,
April 15. To Don Joaquin de Anduaga .... 219
Complaints against General Jackson. Regrettable
occurrences due to Spanish officers. Order for evacua-
tion of province and delivery of archives. Col. Forbes'
mission. Errors in order for delivering the province.
Documents and archives withheld, and fraudulent
grants of lands made. Duty of General Jackson to
protect individual rights. Conduct of Colonel Callava.
No special privilege could be claimed by him. Docu-
ments in the keeping of Souza and the efforts to obtain
them. Transferred to Callava's house. Jackson's
measures to seize them. Order for withdrawal from
the province of Spanish officers. Exciting discontent
PAGE
XIV CONTENTS
among the inhabitants. Del very of archives of the
Floridas. Colonel Coppinger's behavior. Claim of
Don Juan de Entealgo. Captain Biddle to be sent to
receive the documents.
April 24. To Pierre de Poletica 245
Impossible that the United States should acquiesce
in the Russian claims on the northwest coast.
April 30. To Chevalier Amado Grehon .... 247
Relations between the United States and Portugal.
Damages claimed by Portuguese citizens for piratical
acts. Laws and tribunals of the United States ade-
quate. Commercial relations.
May 12. To Robert Walsh 250
Jonathan Russell's letter not an exact copy.
May 20. To Robert Walsh 252
Sends the various versions of Russell's letter. The
editorial comments. The morality of Russell's pro-
cedure. The treaty of 1783 and the war.
May 28. To Joseph Hopkinson 255
Is grateful for his cheering voice. Trusts all his ac-
cusers may have as little foundation as Russell.
May 30. To Robert Walsh 256
A third version of Russell's letter. How the letter
was published by Congress. The National Gazelle im-
posed upon. The navigation of the Mississippi.
June 3. To Charles Jared Ingersoll .... 261
Russell's subfluvial torpedo. Value of the privilege
of navigating the Mississippi. The fishing rights of
great importance. Clay's responsibility. Pickering's
remark.
CONTENTS XV
PAGE
June 8. To Robert Walsh 266
Treatment accorded to Russell's letter. Misuse of
Bayard's name Gallatin and Clay's contributions.
Information of the Ghent commission on the fisheries.
They belong to France, Great Britain, and the United
States.
June 21. To Robert Walsh 270
Persecution of Jefi"erson. Attitude of the Richmond
Enquirer. Undercurrent of calumny and its purpose.
Great concern is for principles. The participation of
the United States in the fisheries. Not secured by in-
dependence. No exclusive jurisdiction asserted in
treaty of 1783. The treaty not abrogated by the war.
July 5. To Peter Paul Francis Degrand . . . 280
Will treat Russell as mercifully as possible con-
sistent with exposure. The friendship of Barney Smith.
July 15. To Robert Walsh 281
The great heat. Wishes him to remain neutral in
the Russell controversy.
July 22. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 283
Feud between Colonel Cumming and Mr. Mc-
Duffie. Judge Johnson's explanation. The contro-
versy with Russell. A French farce.
July 25. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 285
Russell and Walsh's contradiction.
August 2. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 286
No ill will towards Russell. Western papers on the
controversy. Clay's position. Booth's acting.
August 5. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 288
Place-hunters. Controversy becomes more difficult.
The character of the Enquirers.
xvi CONTENTS
PAGE
August II. To Robert Walsh 289
Russell's part only ministerial. Incloses what will
be said of Walsh's part. The forthcoming publication.
August 15. To RuFus King 292
British act of Parliament on West Indian trade of
the United States. Question of a restriction. Open-
ing of the ports of the United States to British ships.
August 19. To Henry Alexander Scammell Dearborn 294
The controversy with Russell a painful duty. The
American question at Ghent. Russell's a subordinate
part.
August 23. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 296
The Russell duplicate and treatment of place hunt-
ers. Criticism of his dress.
August 28. To Louisa Catherine Adams .... 297
Articles in the Franklin Gazette. A donkey playing
the lap-dog. His book on the Duplicate Letters. His
love for the theatre.
September 2. To Louisa Catherine Adams . . . 299
Richard's writings against him. The City Gazette and
Jonathan Elliot.
September 6. To Louisa Catherine Adams . . 301
Floyd active in the Cabal. Wants a friendly adviser.
Unmasking his assailants. The first move not yet
disclosed.
September 7. To Albert Gallatin 303
Public sentiment rendering full justice to Russell.
Object of the attack. Gallatin free from blame.
September 12. To Louisa Catherine Adams . 304
The Washington Republican and Calhoun. De-
fenders not wanted.
CONTENTS xvii
PAGE
September 15. To Louisa Catherine Adams . . . 305
The appointment of Judge McLean to the Land
Office. Property in a whale. The theatre and Cooper.
September 24. To John Adams 307
Sends a copy of his book on the Duplicate Letters.
Asks a confidential opinion.
September 29. To Louisa Catherine Adams . . . 308
Sends the book for Walsh and desires his revised
opinion. The presidential election and principles for
Walsh's guidance. Death of Londonderry.
October i. To James Lloyd 310
Reasons for continuing the controversy with Russell.
The possibilities of the western country. Physical
improvements, government and morals. What re-
mains to be done.
October 4. To Asbury Dickins 313
The presidency of the Columbian Institute.
October 5. To the President 314
The republic of Colombia desires government sup-
port for a loan. Feeling and events in Colombia.
October 7. To Louisa Catherine Adams . . . -315
The warning of friends on his conduct. His own
position stated. Services performed by the Depart-
ment of State. Secret history of the administration.
October 9. To George Mifflin Dallas . . . 319
Return of his address on graduating at Harvard
College. Its history retold.
October 12. To Robert Walsh 320
Publication of the Duplicate Letters. Publication of
an extract in the National Gazette. The importance of
the fisheries.
xviii CONTENTS
PACE
November II. To Stratford Canning .... 323
Trade with the British colonies in America. Meas-
ures taken by the United States. Privileges under the
act of parliament. Discriminating duties. The British
West Indies.
November 19. To Joseph Hopkinson .... 327
His severity towards Jonathan Russell. National
■ politics of Pennsylvania. A horse-race.
November 27. To Robert Walsh 330
Influence of a good newspaper. Has treated the
Boston Daily Advertiser harshh'. The question of the
presidency in Pennsylvania. His own destiny. Has
ever crossed partial interests. A sample calumny based
on correspondence with Vives.
December 18. To the Editors of the National Intel-
ligencer 334
Reply to Clay's note on the Ghent negotiations.
December 28. To the Freeholders of Washington,
Wythe, Grayson, Russell, Tazewell, Lee
AND Scott Counties, Virginia .... 335
Reply to attack by General Alexander Smyth. Re-
lation with his father. Reply to Paine's Rights of Man.
Ridicule of Jefferson. Charge of being no statesman.
Votes as United States Senator. The Louisiana bills
and constructive powers under the constitution. Exe-
cution of a treaty. Government of the territory.
Novelty of the situation. As to being a friend to the
slave-trade. Wearing crape for Adams and Pendleton.
Protection of commerce and the Mediterranean fund.
Defense of his character as a public man.
1823
January 3. To John Forsyth 354
A messenger on the Algiers incident. Correspond-
ence with Anduaga. An expedition against Porto
CONTENTS xii
PAGE
Rico. Complaints against the privateers fitted out in
ports of the United States.
January 23. The Macbeth Policy 356
Chance and the choice by agents of ten millions of
people. The law of friendship. Why he checked Mr.
Walsh. His own position with the parties.
March 12. To Stephen Row Bradley .... 363
Opinion on impressment of American seamen by the
British. General Samuel Smith's erroneous recollec-
tion.
April 7. To RuFus King 366
Smith Thompson and the Supreme Court.
April 21. To RuFus King 366
Corrects a mistaken impression about Smith Thomp-
son.
April 28. To Daniel Cony 367
Lands of the United States under the Ghent treaty.
Boundary between Maine and the British Provinces.
Situation of Spain.
April 28. To Hugh Nelson 369
The neutral policy of the United States. Maritime
wars of Europe and American interests. Cuba and
Porto Rico involved. Cuba can gravitate towards the
North American Union. Dangerous situation of Cuba
as Spanish territory. Great Britain against the inten-
tions of the European Alliance towards Spain. Prob-
able transfer of Cuba to Great Britain. Such a transfer
will be an event unpropitious to this Union. His cre-
dentials addressed to Ferdinand, constitutional King
of Spain. The United States have no designs upon
Cuba. The return of Anduaga not desired. Transfer
of Cuba to another power and its independence. An
PAGE
XX CONTENTS
illegal blockade and measures to protect commerce.
Privateers and piracy. Captures and Anduaga's re-
monstrances. The case of Escandell and the Neptune.
Of the Palmira. Illegal blockades. Right of search.
Lieutenant Wilkinson's capture. The Carmen. An-
duaga's conduct. Recognition of South American re-
publics. Claims for restitution or indemnity. Piracy
in Cuba. Question of cannon and provisions. Archives
of the Floridas. Boundary with Mexico. Consuls.
May 4. To the President 421
Erving's resignation. Meade's documents on the
treaty with Spain.
May 10. To the President 422
Instructions for Rodney and Anderson. Importance
of the matter.
May 16. To Hugh Nelson 423
Uniform worn by diplomatic officers of the United
States.
May 17. To Caesar Augustus Rodney .... 424
Political relations with Buenos Ayres. A hankering
after monarchy. Congress of America proposed.
Situation of Peru. Uncertainties about Buenos Ayres.
Princes from Europe. Special commercial favors. A
commercial treaty. The carrying trade. Privateering.
Basis of equality. Information wanted.
May 27. To Richard C. Anderson 441
Only legitimate source of just government. Spain as
an example. Independence of her colonies. Position of
the United States. Efforts of Spain to reduce rebellion.
Recognition by other powers and the United States.
Resolutions of the Cortes. The European policy. The
republic of Colombia. Treaty of commerce. Discrim-
inating against the United States. Place of negotiation
I
CONTENTS xxl
PAGE
and models to be followed. Liberty of conscience and
religious worship. The future of the republic. Pro-
posed isthmian congress. Insinuations of Molien.
European recognition. A Peruvian question. Restor-
ing deserters from vessels. Commercial agent Lowry.
Free ships and free goods. Information on Colombia
wanted. Rule of guidance.
June 19. To Charles Jared Ingersoll .... 487
Comparison between American and European insti-
tutions. Superiority in political science and morality.
Prospects of change in Europe. Peace desired.
June 24. To Richard Rush 489
Abolition of the slave-trade as piracy. Action of
Congress. Propositions by the British government.
Objections stated. The right of search. Trial for
piracy. A convention sent. Desires knowledge of
European negotiations.
June 24. To Stratford Canning 498
Great Britain's proposals on suppressing the slave-
trade. The right of search and trial of captured ves-
sels. Reasons for rejecting the suggested measures.
Past experience under a practice of search. Dangers
involved in conceding a conventional recognition of it.
Disadvantages of neutrality.
WRITINGS
OF
lOHN OUINCY ADAMS
WRITINGS OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
TO THE PRESIDENT!
[James Monroe]
Department of State,
Washington, March 4, 1820.
Sir:
In answer to the question upon which you have done me
the honor to require my written opinion in the words
following:
"Has Congress a right under the powers vested in it by
the Constitution to make a regulation prohibiting slavery
in a territory?"
My opinion is that it has.
And in answer to the question in the words following:
"Is the eighth section of the act,^ which passed both
Houses on the 3d instant for the admission of Missouri into
the Union, consistent with the Constitution?" ^
My opinion is that it is.
Which is respectfully submitted.
John Quincy Adams.
'In his Memoirs for 1820 Adams has recorded the impressions made upon his
mind by the Missouri question and the formation of a conviction may be there
traced. See especially the entries for February 23, 24, and March 3 and 5, 1820.
* Interdicting slavery forever in the territory north of latitude 36° 30'.
' The original form of this question was, whether the eighth section was applicable
only to the territorial state, or could extend to it after it should become a state.
The discussion and reasons for changing the question are given in Memoirs, March 3,
1820.
2 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
We are of opinion that Congress has a right under the powers
vested in it by the Constitution to make a regulation prohibiting
slavery in a territory.
We are also of opinion that the eighth section of the act which
passed both houses on the 3d instant for the admission of Missouri
into the Union is consistent with the Constitution, because we
consider the prohibition as applying to territories only and not to
states.
Wm. H. Crawford.
J. C. Calhoun.
Wm. Wirt, Attorney Genl. U. S.
My answer to the within questions is in the affirmative, and
would add that in my opinion the eighth section of the act applies
only to Territories.
Smith Thompson.
Deposited by the President in the Department of State. ^
PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT 2
20 March, 1820.
By the communications lately received from St. Petersburg
and Madrid, as well those of an official character from Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Forsyth as others more indirect and in-
formal, it appears that the Russian government takes an
earnest interest in the late transactions between the United
States and Spain; that they have a full knowledge of the
facts relating to the negotiation of the Florida treaty, and
have manifested unequivocally the opinion that Spain was
bound in good faith to ratify it.^ In consequence of which
^ The original paper was not found in the Department of State when search was
jnade for it about 1870. lb., v. 1571.
^ Adams, Memoirs, March 18, 20-25, 1820.
'See "Correspondence of the Russian Ministers in Washington, 1818-1825,"
in American Historical Review, XVIII. 309, 537.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 3
it appears that the Russian minister to Spain, who was at
St. Petersburg upon a leave of absence, had been ordered to
return to Madrid. That in the meantime the Russian charge
d'affaires there had made such representations to the Spanish
government as had drawn from them the strongest assur-
ances of the king's desire and determination to settle ami-
cably the differences with the United States. That Mr. Onis,
who is known since his return to Europe to have declared
uniformly and explicitly that he understood the grants to
have been declared null by the treaty, has been appointed
Spanish minister to Russia, and that the appointment by
the king of Spain of General Vives to come as Minister to
the United States has been officially communicated by the
Duke of San Fernando to Mr. Forsyth, but that he had not
left Madrid on the loth of January. The information from
Mr. Everett that General Vives was at Paris in December
having proved to be erroneous, though given on the author-
ity of the Spanish charge d'affaires at The Hague, Mr. For-
syth thinks that General Vives will not arrive here earlier
than the month of May.^
^ Vives had, in February passed through Paris, on his way to Liverpool, and
had conferred with Pasquier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on his mission to the
United States. Pasquier on February 12 informed Gallatin of this conference, who
reported to Adams as follows: "General Vives had told him that the principal
points with Spain were that the honor of the Crown should be saved (mis a convert)
in the business of the grants, and to receive satisfactory evidence of our intention
to preserve a fair neutrality in the colonial war. Mr. Pasquier had observed to
him that it would be a matter of deep regret that private interest should prevent
the conclusion of such an important arrangement, and that when it was clear that
there had been at least a misunderstanding on the subject, the King's dignity could
not be injured by a resumption of the grants or by an exchange for other lands. . . .
He had expressed to General Vives his opinion of the impropriety of asking from the
United States any promise not to recognize the independence of the insurgent
colonies,- and had told him that, on that subject, Spain could only rely on the
moral effect which a solemn treaty, accommodating all her differences with the
United States would have on their future proceedings." From Vives Gallatin
4 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
It is also ascertained that the Emperor of Russia earnestly
wishes that no act of hostility on the part of the United
States may in the present state of things intervene to en-
danger the general peace of Europe,
The sentiments of France in this respect are known to
coincide with those of Russia, and the recent disturbances
in Spain, although they may render it more certain that
possession might be taken of Florida without hazarding a
war, yet In the reasoning of a generous policy, may plead
for a new proof of moderation and forbearance on the part
of the United States.
It is suggested in Mr. Forsyth's dispatch that Spain may
herself wish that the United States take forcible possession
of Florida, with the expectation that she might under that
circumstance contend with a better grace for a confirmation
of the grants. It may be worthy of consideration whether
the occasion even for this pretext should not be withheld
from her.
There Is a delicacy and some danger in making some of
the important facts publicly known at this time, but it is
submitted to the President's judgment, whether in the
present aspect of affairs It would be advisable by a message
to Congress ^ to state that while the most recent Information
from Europe forbids the expectation of the arrival of the
Spanish minister before the close of their present session,
learned that he was not the bearer of the certificates of ratification of the treaty,
but he could "in case of an arrangement, give satisfactory security to the United
States, and that it would consist in consenting that they should take immediate
possession of Florida, without waiting for the ratification of the treaty." Adams,
Writings of Gallatin, II. 134. Almost a month passed after Vives' visit before the
King of Spain declared his acceptance of the constitution, which gave opportunity
to urge its restriction on his power to alienate national territory as a reason for
delaying ratification of the treaty with the United States.
' See Monroe's message to Congress, March 27, 1820. Messages and Papers of
the Presidents, II. 69; Adams, Memoirs, March 31, 1820.
1
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS S
Incidents have arisen which In the opinion of the President
make It expedient that no step for the forcible occupation of
Florida should be taken before the next meeting of Congress,
and that he Is not without hopes that amicable arrangements
may during the recess be made with Spain, which will pre-
clude the necessity of resorting to that measure.^
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES ^
Department of State, ^
Washington, April 21, 1820.
Sir:
I am directed by the President of the United States to ex-
press to you the surprise and concern with which he has
^ "I return you the note of the Spanish minister with your draft of a reply, with
such modifications as the short time I have had it in my possession has enabled
me to make. . . . Among those proposed is the entire omission of what relates to
Mr. Forsyth. The minister does not press his complaint, and as we cannot al-
together justify Mr. F., and know that the public have disapproved the tone he
assumed, I am inclined to think that perfect silence in regard to him is the most
advisable." Monroe to Adams, April 15, 1820. Ms. Poletica reported to Nessel-
rode (February 12, 1820): "Le ton de la correspondance de Mr. Forsyth avec le
Ministre Espagnol est maintenant presque generalement desaprouve et Ton at-
tribue la faute a Mr. Adams, qui en avait donne le premier exemple dans sa corre-
spondance avec le chevalier Onis anterieurement a la conclusion du Traite."
"It is worthy consideration whether it will not be most advisable to decline all
discussion with the Spanish minister and simply to consider his government in
the wrong in not having ratified the treaty within the time stipulated, and to call
on him for the proper reparation at this time. I fear if you enter on the subject
at all, by replying to his specific heads, that he will prolong the discussion to in-
definite length. I wish you to reflect on this, and to bring with you a short note to
this effect, to be taken into view at the same time, as an alternate plan, provided
it will not occasion improper delay." Monroe to Adams, April 17, 1820. Ms.
^ He arrived in Washington, March 9, as Spanish minister in succession to Onis,
but did not present his credentials to the President until April 12. See Gallatin to
J. Q. Adams, February 15, 1820, Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 133; Adams,
Memoirs, April 7.
' Adams had prepared, on April 19, the draft of a note to the Spanish minister.
6 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
learned that you are not the bearer of the ratification by
his Catholic Majesty of the treaty signed on the 22d Febru-
ary, 1819, by Don Luis de Onis, by virtue of a full power
equally comprehensive with that which you have now pro-
duced, a full power, by which his Catholic Majesty prom-
ised " on the faith and word of a king, to approve, ratify,
and fulfil whatsoever might be stipulated and signed by
him."
By the universal usage of nations, nothing can release a
sovereign from the obligation of a promise thus made, except
the proof that his minister, so impowered, has been faithless
to his trust, by transcending his instructions.
Your sovereign has not proved, nor even alleged, that
Mr. Onis had transcended his instructions; on the contrary,
with the credential letter which you have delivered, the
President has learned that he has been relieved from the
mission to the United States only to receive a new proof of
the continued confidence of his Catholic Majesty in the ap-
pointment to another mission of equal dignity and im-
portance.
On the faith of this promise of the king, the treaty was
signed and ratified on the part of the United States, and it
contained a stipulation that it should also be ratified by
his Catholic Majesty, so that the ratifications should,
within six months from the date of its signature, be ex-
changed.
In withholding this promised ratification beyond the stipu-
having positively learned from Vives that he did not bring the Spanish ratification
of the treaty of 1819, and could give only pledges for a future performance condi-
tional upon satisfactory answers to proposals to be submitted to the United States.
Calhoun objected that this would mean a new negotiation which might be long
continued, and suggested it would be best to refuse to negotiate again and insist
on bringing the matter to a close. Accordingly a new note was prepared, as above,
approved by the cabinet and sent to Vives.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 7
lated period, his Catholic Majesty made known to the Presi-
dent that he should forthwith dispatch a person possessing
entirely his confidence to ask certain explanations which
were deemed by him necessary previous to the performance
of his promise to execute the ratification.
The Minister of the United States at Madrid was enabled,
and offered, to give all the explanations which could justly
be required in relation to the treaty. Your government de-
clined even to make known to him their character; and they
are now, after the lapse of more than a year, first officially
disclosed by you.
I am directed by the President to inform you that ex-
planations which ought to be satisfactory to your govern-
ment will readily be given upon all the points mentioned in
your letter of the 14th instant; but that he considers none
of them in the present state of the relations between the
two countries, as points for discussion. It is indispensable
that, before entering into any new negotiation between the
United States and Spain, that relating to the treaty already
signed should be closed. If, upon receiving the explanations
which your government has asked, and which I am prepared
to give, you are authorized to issue orders to the Spanish
officers commanding in Florida to deliver up to those of the
United States who may be authorized to receive it, imme-
diate possession of the province, conformably to the stipu-
lations of the treaty, the President, if such shall be the
advice and consent of the Senate, will wait (with such posses-
sion given) for the ratification of his Catholic Majesty till
your messenger shall have time to proceed to Madrid; but
if you have no such authority, the President considers it
would be at once an unprofitable waste of time, and a course
incompatible with the dignity of this nation, to give explana-
tions which are to lead to no satisfactory result, and to re-
8 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
sume a negotiation the conclusion of which can no longer
be deferred.
Be pleased to accept, etc.^
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES ^
Department of State,
Washington, 3 May, 1820.
Sir:
The explanations upon the points mentioned in your letter
of the 14th ultimo, which I have had the honor of giving you
at large in the conference between us on Saturday last,^ and
the frankness of the assurances which I had the pleasure of
receiving from you, of your conviction that they would prove
satisfactory to your government, will relieve me from the
necessity of recurring to circumstances which might tend to
irritating discussions. In the confident expectation that
upon the arrival of your messenger at Madrid, his Catholic
Majesty will give his immediate ratification to the treaty of
22 February, 18 19, I readily forbear all reference to the
delays which have hitherto retarded that event, and all dis-
quisition upon the perfect right which the United States
have had to that ratification.
^ The reply of the Spanish Minister, dated April 24, is In the American State
Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 682. Adams thought this reply "seems to leave
the possibility of coming to an agreement with him [Vives] desperate."
* Printed In American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 683. The first draft
of a note was prepared, April 26, and after some changes was approved by the
cabinet on the 28th. The French minister had arranged for a conference between
Adams and Vives, and the note was held back to await the result. The conference
took place on the 29th and made a new and different note necessary. This was pre-
pared April 30 and submitted to the cabinet on the next day. A second conference
with Vives modified it, but on May 3 It was sent, without signature.
' Adams, Memoirs, April 29.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 9
I am now instructed to repeat the assurance which has
already been given you, that the representations which ap-
pear to have been made to your government of a system of
hostiHty in various parts of this Union against the Spanish
dominions and the property of Spanish subjects; of decisions
marked with such hostiUty by any of the courts of the United
States, and of the toleration in any case of it by this govern-
ment, are unfounded. In the existing unfortunate civil war
between Spain and the South American provinces, the
United States have constantly avowed and faithfully main-
tained an impartial neutrality. No violation of that neu-
trality by any citizen of the United States has ever received
sanction or countenance from this government. Whenever
the laws previously enacted for the preservation of neutrality
have been found by experience in any manner defective,
they have been strengthened by new provisions and severe
penalties. Spanish property, illegally captured, has been
constantly restored by the decisions of the tribunals of the
United States, nor has the life itself been spared of individ-
uals guilty of piracy, committed upon Spanish property on
the high seas. Should the treaty be ratified by Spain, and
the ratification be accepted by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, the boundary line recognized by it
will be respected by the United States, and due care will be
taken to prevent any transgression of it. No new law or
engagement will be necessary for that purpose. The existing
laws are adequate to the suppression of such disorders, and
they will be, as they have been, faithfully carried into effect.
The miserable disorderly movement of a number not ex-
ceeding seventy lawless individual stragglers, who never
assembled within the jurisdiction of the United States, into
a territory to which his Catholic Majesty has no acknowl-
edged right other than the yet unratified treaty, was so far
lO
THE WRITINGS OF [1820
from receiving countenance or support from the government
of the United States, that every measure necessary for its
suppression was promptly taken under their authority; and
from the misrepresentations which have been made of this
very insignificant transaction to the Spanish government,
there is reason to believe that the pretended expedition itself,
as well as the gross exaggerations which have been used to
swell its importance proceed from the same sources, equally
unfriendly to the United States and to Spain.
As a necessary consequence of the neutrality between
Spain and the South American provinces, the United States
can contract no engagement, not to form any relations with
those provinces. This has explicitly and repeatedly been
avowed and made known to your government both at
Madrid and at this place. The demand was resisted both
in conference and in written correspondence between Mr.
Erving and Mr. Pizarro, and afterwards the Marquis of
Casa Yrujo. Mr. Onis had long and constantly been in-
formed that a persistence in it would put an end to the pos-
sible conclusion of any treaty whatever. Your sovereign
will perceive that, as such an engagement cannot be con-
tracted by the United States consistently with their obliga-
tions of neutrality, it cannot justly be required of them.
Nor have any of the European nations ever bound them-
selves to Spain by such an engagement.
With regard to your proposals, it is proper to observe that
his Catholic Majesty in announcing his purpose of asking
explanations of the United States gave no intimation of an
intention to require new articles to the treaty. You are
aware that the United States cannot consistently with what
is due to themselves stipulate new engagements as the price
of obtaining the ratification of the old. The declaration
which Mr. Forsyth was instructed to deliver at the exchange
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ii
of the ratification of the treaty, with regard to the eighth
article, was not intended to annul, or in the slightest degree
to alter or impair the stipulations of that article. Its only
object was to guard your government, and all persons who
might have had an interest in any of the annulled grants,
against the possible expectation or pretence that those grants
would be made valid by the treaty. All grants subsequent
to the 24th of January, 18 18, were declared to be positively
null and void; and Mr. de Onis always declared that he
signed the treaty, fully believing that the grants to the Duke
of Alagon, Count Punon Rostro, and Mr. Vargas, were sub-
l sequent to that date. But he had in his letter to me of
i6th November, 1818, declared that those grants were null
and void, because the essential conditions of the grants had
! not been fulfilled by the grantees. It was distinctly under-
stood by us both that no grant, of whatever date, should
be made valid by the treaty, which would not have been
: valid by the laws of Spain and the Indies, if the treaty had
not been made. It was, therefore, stipulated that grants
prior to 24 January, 18 18, should be confirmed, only "to the
I same extent that the same grants would be valid, If the
! territories had remained under the dominion of his Catholic
: Majesty." This, of course, excluded the three grants above
mentioned, which Mr. Onis had declared invalid for want
of the fulfilment of their essential conditions — a fact which
is now explicitly admitted by you. A single exception to the
principle that the treaty should give no confirmation to any
imperfect title was admitted; which exception was, that
owners in possession of lands, who by reason of the recent
: circumstances of the Spanish nation and the revolutions In
i Europe, had been prevented from fulfilling all the conditions
of their grants, should complete them within the terms lim-
i ited In the same, from the date of the treaty*. This had ob-
12 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
viously no reference to the above mentioned grants, the
grantees of which were not In possession of the lands, who
had fulfilled none of their conditions, and who had not been
prevented from fulfilling any of them by the circumstances
of Spain or the revolutions of Europe. The article was
drawn up by me, and before assenting to It, Mr. Onis en-
quired what was understood by me as the import of the
terms "shall complete them." I told him that in connection
with the term, "all the conditions," they necessarily implied
that the indulgence would be limited to grantees who had
performed some of the conditions, and who had commenced
settlements which it would allow them to complete. These
were precisely the cases for which Mr. Onis had urged the
equity of making a provision, and he agreed to the article
fully understanding that it would be applicable only to them.
When after the signature of the treaty there appeared to be
some reason for supposing that Mr. Onis had been mistaken
In believing that the grants to the Duke of Alagon, Count
Pufion Rostro, and Mr. Vargas, were subsequent to the
24th of January, 18 18, candor required that Spain and the
grantees should never have a shadow of ground to expect
or allege that this circumstance was at all material, in re-
lation to the bearing of the treaty upon those grants. Mr.
Onis had not been mistaken In declaring that they were in-
valid because their conditions were not fulfilled. He had
not been mistaken in agreeing to the principle that no grant
invalid as to Spain should by the treaty be made valid
against the United States. He had not been mistaken in j
the knowledge that those grantees had neither commenced
settlements, nor been prevented from completing them by
the circumstances of Spain, or the revolutions in Europe.
The declaration which Mr. Forsyth was instructed to de-
liver, was merely to caution all whom it might concern, not
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 13
to infer from an unimportant mistake of Mr. Onis as to the
date of the grants, other Important mistakes which he had
not made, and which the United States would not permit
to be made by any one. It was not, therefore, to annul or
to alter, but to fulfil the eighth article as It stands, that the
declaration was to be delivered; and It Is for the same pur-
pose that this explanation is now given.
As by the eleventh article of the treaty, the proceeds of
the sales of lands In the ceded territories are expressly desig-
nated as the source of the funds from which the just claims
of the citizens of the United States, acknowledged and pro-
vided for by the treaty, are to be paid, no other disposition
of any part of the lands by Spain could In any event be
assented to by the United States; and the only effect of their
acquiescence in the diversion of them to any other purpose
would be, to give them a just and indispensable claim upon
Spain, to provide for those indemnities by other means. It
was with much satisfaction, therefore, that I learnt from you
the determination of your government to concur in the con-
struction of the article as understood by this government,
and to assent to the total nullity of the above mentioned
grants.
As I flatter myself that those explanations will remove
every obstacle to the ratification of the treaty by his Catholic
Majesty, it Is much to be regretted that you have not that
ratification to exchange, nor the power to give a pledge which
would be equivalent to the ratification. This six months
within which the exchange of the ratifications was stipulated
by the treaty having elapsed, by the principles of our con-
stitution the question whether It shall be now accepted must
be laid before the Senate for their advice and consent. To
give a last and signal proof of the earnest wish of this gov-
ernment to bring to a conclusion these long-standing and
14 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
unhappy differences with Spain, the President will so far
receive that solemn promise of immediate ratification upon
the arrival of your messenger at Madrid, which, in your
note of the 19th ultimo, you declare yourself authorized in
the name of your sovereign to give, as to submit to the
Senate of the United States, whether they will advise and
consent to accept it for the ratification of the United States
heretofore given.
But it is proper to apprize you that if this offer is not ac-
cepted, the United States, besides being intitled to resume
all the rights, claims, and pretensions, which they had re-
nounced by the treaty, can no longer consent to relinquish
their claims of indemnity, and those of their citizens, from
Spain, for all the injuries which they have suffered, and are
suffering, by the delay of his Catholic Majesty to ratify the
treaty. The amount of claims of the citizens of the United
States which existed at the time when the treaty was signed
far exceeded that which the United States consented to
accept as indemnity. Their right of territory was, and yet
is, to the Rio del Norte. I am instructed to declare, that
if any further delay to the ratification by his Catholic
Majesty of the treaty should occur, the United States will
not hereafter accept either of five millions of dollars for the
indemnities due to their citizens by Spain, nor of the Sabine
for the boundary between the United States and Spanish
territories.^
Please to accept, etc.
* This note, dated May 3, was not signed until May 5, and the interchange of
views upon it between the Secretary of State and the Spanish and French ministers
will be found in the Memoirs, May 4 and 5, 1820. The President determined to
submit the correspondence to Congress, and leave action to that body. The matter
was discussed in a meeting of the Cabinet on the 6th, leaving the President in
doubt what course he should pursue. Adams believed that some reply should be
sent to Vives to his latest note, and the note of May 8 was accepted. The message
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS is
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES ^
Department of State,
Washington, May 8, 1820.
Sir:
In the letter which I had the honor of writing to you on
the 3d instant, it was observed that all reference would
readily be waived to the delays which have retarded the
ratification by his Catholic Majesty of the treaty of the
22d February, 1819, and all disquisition upon the perfect
right of the United States to that ratification, in the con-
fident expectation that it would be immediately given upon
the arrival of your messenger at Madrid, and subject to
your compliance with the proposal offered you in the same
note, as the last proof which the President could give
of his reliance upon the termination of the differences
between the United States and Spain by the ratification of
that treaty.
This proposal was, that, upon the explanations given you
on all the points noticed in your instructions, and with which
you had admitted yourself to be personally satisfied, you
went to Congress on the 9th. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, II. 71; Adams,
Memoirs, May 6-9, 1820.
Poletica had intimated to Nesselrode in February, 1820, that the Missouri ques-
tion would interfere with a settlement of the Florida question, and added : " II est
malheureux pour Monsieur Adams d'y compter des ennemis tres influents dans les
deux Chambres [of Congress] et d'avoir en meme temps a se garder des antagonistes
•meme dans le Cabinet. Depuis quelque temps Monsieur Adams parait fort a battre
et plus reserve que jamais: personne ne doute que ses chances pour arriver un jour
a la Presidence ne soient presque entierement detruites. On s'attend meme a le
voir deplace apres la reelection du President actuel I'annee prochaine. Dans ce cas
je serai du nombre de ceux qui auront quelques raisons de le regretter. Mes re-
lations personelles avec ce Ministre continuent a etre tres amicales: mais depuis la
reunion du Congres elles sont devenues tres rares."
* Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 685.
i6 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
should give the solemn promise, in the name of your sover-
eign, which by your note of the 19th ultimo,^ you had de-
clared yourself authorized to pledge, that the ratification
should be given immediately upon the arrival of your mes-
senger at Madrid; which promise the President consented
so far to receive as to submit the question for the advice
and consent of the Senate of the United States, whether the
ratification of Spain should, under these circumstances, be
accepted in exchange for that of the United States heretofore
given. But the President has, with great regret, perceived
by your note of the 5th instant ^ that you decline giving
even that unconditional promise, upon two allegations: one,
that, although the explanations given you on one of the
points mentioned in your note of the 14th ultimo are satis-
factory to yourself, and you hope and believe will prove so
to your sovereign, they still were not such as you were au-
thorized by your instructions to accept; and the other, that
you are informed a great change has recently occurred in
the government of Spain, which circumstance alone would
prevent you from giving a further latitude to your promise
previous to your receiving new instructions.
It becomes, therefore, indispensably necessary to show the
absolute obligation by which his Catholic Majesty was
bound to ratify the treaty within the term stipulated by
one of its articles, that the reasons alleged for his withholding
the ratification are altogether insufficient for the justification
of that measure, and that the United States have sufi"ered
by it the violation of a perfect right, for which they are
justly entitled to indemnity and satisfaction — a right fur-
ther corroborated by the consideration that the refusal of
ratification necessarily included the non-fulfilment of an-
^ Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 68i.
» lb., 684.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS \^
other compact between the parties which had been ratified —
the convention of August, 1802,
While regretting the necessity of producing this proof, I
wilHngly repeat the expression of my satisfaction at being
relieved from that of enlarging upon other topics of an un-
pleasant character. I shall allude to none of those upon
which you have admitted the explanations given to be satis-
factory, considering them as no longer subjects of discussion
between us or our governments. I shall with pleasure forbear
noticing any remarks in your notes concerning them, which
might otherwise require animadversion.
With the view of confining this letter to the only point
upon which further observation is necessary, it will be proper
to state the present aspect of the relations between the
contracting parties.
The treaty of 22d February, 18 19, was signed after a suc-
cession of negotiations of nearly twenty years' duration, in
which all the causes of difference between the two nations
had been thoroughly discussed, and with a final admission
on the part of Spain that there were existing just claims on
her government, at least to the amount of five millions of
dollars, due to citizens of the United States, and for the pay-
ment of which provision was made by the treaty. It was
signed by a minister who had been several years residing in
the United States in constant and unremitted exertions to
maintain the interests and pretensions of Spain involved in
the negotiation — signed after producing a full power, by
which, in terms as solemn and as sacred as the hand of a
I sovereign can subscribe, his Catholic Majesty had promised
to approve, ratify, and fulfil whatever should be stipulated
and signed by him.
You will permit me to repeat that, by every principle of
natural right, and by the universal assent of civilized nations,
i8 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
nothing can release the honor of a sovereign from the obliga-
tion of a promise thus unqualified, without the proof that
his minister has signed stipulations unwarranted by his
instructions. The express authority of two of the most
eminent writers upon national law to this point were cited
in Mr. Forsyth's letter of 2d October, 18 19, to the Duke of
San Fernando. The words of Vattel are: "But to refuse
with honor to ratify that which has been concluded in virtue
of a full power, the sovereign must have strong and solid
reasons for it; and, particularly, he must show that his minister
transcended his instructions." ^ The words of Martens are:
Every thing that has been stipulated by an agent in conformity
to his full powers, ought to become obligatory on the state from
the moment of signing, without ever waiting for the ratification.
However, not to expose a state to the errors of a single person,
it is now become a general maxim that public conventions do not
become obligatory until ratified. The motive of this custom clearly
proves that the ratification can never be refused with justice,
except when he who is charged with the negotiation, keeping within
the extent of his public full powers, has gone beyond his secret
instructions, and consequently rendered himself liable to punish-
ment, or when the other party refuses to ratify.^
In your letter of the 24th ultimo, you observe that these
positions have already been refuted by your government,
which makes it necessary to inquire, as I with great re-
luctance do, how they have been refuted.
The Duke of San Fernando, in his reply to this letter of
Mr. Forsyth, says, maintains, and repeats "that the very
authorities cited by Mr. Forsyth literally declare that the
sovereign, for strong and solid reasons, or if his minister has
* Liv. 2, ch. 12, § 156.
*Liv. 2, ch. 3, § 31.
<
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 19
exceeded his instructions, may refuse his ratification; (Vattel,
book 2, chap. 12,) and that pubHc treaties are not obligatory
until ratified." Martens, book 2, chap. 3. In these citations
the Duke of San Fernando has substituted for the connective
term and, in Vattel, which makes the proof of instructions
transcended indispensable to justify the refusal of ratifica-
tion, the disjunctive term or, which presents It as an alterna-
tive, and unnecessary on the contingency of other existing
and solid reasons. Vattel says the sovereign must have
strong and solid reasons, and particularly must show that
the minister transcended his instructions. The Duke of San
Fernando makes him say the sovereign must have strong
and solid reasons, or if his minister has exceeded his instruc-
tions. Vattel not only makes the breach of Instructions in-
dispensable, but puts upon the sovereign the obligation of
proving it. The Duke of San Fernando cites Vattel not
only as admitting that other reasons, without a breach of
instructions, may justify a refusal of ratification, but that
the mere fact of such a breach would also justify the refusal,
without requiring that the sovereign alleging should prove it.
Is this refutation.''
The only observation that I shall permit myself to make
upon It Is, to mark how conclusive the authority of the pas-
sage In Vattel must have been to the mind of him who thus
transformed it to the purpose for which he was contending.
The citation from Martens receives the same treatment.
The Duke of San Fernando takes by Itself a part of a sen-
tence — "that public treaties are not obligatory until rati-
fied." He omits the preceding sentence, by which Martens
asserts that a treaty signed In conformity to full powers Is
in rigor obligatory from the moment of signature, without
waiting for the ratification. He omits the part of the sen-
tence cited, which ascribes the necessity of a ratification to
20 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
a usage founded upon the danger of exposing a state to the
errors of its minister. He omits the following sentence,
which explicitly asserts that this usage can never be resorted
to in justification of a refusal to ratify, unless when the
minister has exceeded his secret instructions; and thus, with
this half of a sentence, stripped of all its qualifying context,
.the Duke brings Martens to assert that which he most ex-
plicitly denies.
Is this refutation.^
While upon this subject, permit me to refer you to another
passage of Vattel, which I the more readily cite, because,
independent of its weight as authority, it places this obHga-
tion of sovereigns upon its immoveable foundation of eternal
justice in the law of nature. M
It is shown by the law of nature that he who has made a promise
to any one has conferred upon him a true right to require the
thing promised; and that, consequently, not to keep a perfect
promise is to violate the right of another, and is as manifest an
injustice as that of depriving a person of his property. All the
tranquillity, the happiness, and security of the human race rest
on justice, on the obligation of paying a regard to the rights of
others. The respect of others for our rights of domain and property
constitutes the security of our actual possessions. The faith or
promise is our security for the things that cannot be delivered or
executed on the spot. There would be no more security, no longer
any commerce between mankind, did they not believe themselves
obliged to preserve their faith and keep their word. This obliga-
tion is then as necessary as it is natural and indubitable between
nations that live together in a state of nature, and acknowledge
no superior upon earth, to maintain order and peace in their
society. Nations and their conductors ought, then, to keep their
promises and their treaties inviolable. This great truth, though too
often neglected in practice, is generally acknowledged by all nations.^
* Liv. 2, ch. 12, § 163.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 21
The melancholy allusion to the frequent practical neglect
of this unquestionable principle would afford a sufficient
reply to your assertion that the ratification of treaties has
often been refused, though signed by ministers with un-
qualified full powers, and without breach of their instruc-
tions. No case can be cited by you in which such a refusal
has been justly given; and the fact of refusal, separate from
the justice of the case, amounts to no more than the as-
sertion that sovereigns have often violated their engage-
ments and their duties: the obligation of his Catholic
Majesty t6 ratify the treaty signed by Mr. Onis is therefore
complete.
The sixteenth and last article of this treaty is in the follow-
ing words: "The present treaty shall be ratified, in due form,
by the contracting parties, and the ratifications shall be ex-
changed in six months from this time, or sooner if possible^
On the faith of his Catholic Majesty's promise, the treaty
was, immediately after its signature, ratified on the part of
the United States, and, on the i8th of May following, Mr.
Forsyth, by an official note,^ informed the Marquis of Casa
Yrujo, then minister of foreign affairs at Madrid, that the
treaty, duly ratified by the United States, had been intrusted
to him by the President, and that he was prepared to ex-
change it for the ratification of Spain. He added that, from
the nature of the engagement, it was desirable that the
earliest exchange should be made, and that the American
ship of war Hornet was waiting in the harbor of Cadiz, des-
tined in a few days to the United States, and affording an
opportunity peculiarly convenient of transmitting the rati-
fied treaty to the United States.
I No answer having been returned to this note, on the 4th
of June Mr. Forsyth addressed to the same minister a sec-
^ Printed in the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 654.
22 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
ond,^ urging, In the most respectful terms, the necessity of
the departure of the Hornet, the just expectation of the
United States that the ratified treaty would be transmitted
by that vessel, and the disappointment which could not fail
to ensue should she return without it.
After fifteen days of further delay, on the 19th of June,
Mr. Forsyth was informed by a note from Mr. Salmon, suc-
cessor to the Marquis of Casa Yrujo, that "his Majesty, on
reflecting on the great importance and interest of the treaty
in question, was under the indispensable necessity of exam-
ining it with the greatest caution and deliberation before he
proceeded to. ratify it, and that this was all he was enabled
to communicate to Mr. Forsyth on that point." ^
Thus, after the lapse of more than a month from the time
of Mr. Forsyth's first note, and of more than two months
from the time when your government had received the
treaty, with knowledge that it had been ratified by the
United States, the ratification of a treaty which his Catholic
Majesty had solemnly promised, so that it might be ex-
changed within six months from the date of its signature, or
sooner if possible, was withheld merely to give time to his
Catholic A4ajesty to examine it; and this treaty was the
result of a twenty years' negotiation, in which every article
and subject contained in it had been debated and sifted to
the utmost satiety between the parties, both at Washington
and Madrid — a treaty in which the stipulations by the
Spanish minister had been sanctioned by successive refer-
ences of every point to his own government, and were, by
the formal admission of your own note, fully within the com-
pass of his instructions.
If under the feeling of such a procedure on the part of the
^ Printed in the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 654.
» lb., 654.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 23
Spanish government, the minister of the United States ap-
■ pealed to the just rights of his country in expressions suited
more to the sense of its wrongs than to the courtesies of
European diplomacy, nothing had till then occurred which
could have restrained your government from asking of him
any explanation which could be necessary for fixing its de-
termination upon the ratification. No explanation was
asked of him.
Nearly two months afterwards, on the lOth of August,
Mr. Forsyth was informed that the king would not come
to a final decision upon the ratification without previously
entering into several explanations with the government of
the United States, to some of which that government had
given rise, and that his majesty had charged a person pos-
sessed of his full confidence, who would forthwith make known
to the United States his majesty's intentions. Mr. Forsyth
offered himself to give every explanation which could be
justly required; but your government declined receiving
them from him, assigning to him the shortness of the
time — a reason altogether different from that which you
now allege, of the disrespectful character of his communi-
cations.^
From the loth of August till the 14th of last month, a
period of more than eight months passed over, during which
no information was given by your government of the nature
of the explanations which would be required. The govern-
ment of the United States, by a forbearance perhaps un-
exampled in human history, has patiently waited for your
arrival, always ready to give, in candor and sincerity, every
explanation that could with any propriety be demanded.
What, then, must have been the sentiments of the President
upon finding, by your note of the 14th ultimo, that instead
^ Printed in the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 655, 656.
24
THE WRITINGS OF [1820
of explanations, his Catholic Majesty has instructed you to
demand the negotiation of another treaty, and to call upon
the United States for stipulations derogatory to their honor,
and incompatible with their duties as an independent nation?
What must be the feelings of this nation to learn that, when |
called upon to state whether you were the bearer of his j
Catholic Majesty's ratification of the treaty to be exchanged |
upon the explanations demanded being given, you explicitly 1
answered that you were not? and, when required to say i
whether you are authorized, as a substitute for the ratifica-
tion, to give the pledge of immediate possession of the
territory from which the acknowledged just claims of the
citizens of the United States were stipulated to be indemni-
•fied, you still answer that you are not; but refer us back to a
solemn promise of the king, already pledged before in the
full power to your predecessor, and to a ratification as soon
as possible, already stipulated in vain by the treaty which he,
in full conformity to his instructions, had signed?
The ratification of that treaty can now no longer be ac-
cepted by this government without the concurrence of a
constitutional majority of the Senate of the United States,
to whom it must be again referred. Yet even this promise
you were, by my letter of the 3d instant. Informed that,
rather than abandon the last hope of obtaining the fulfilment
of his Catholic Majesty's promise already given, the Presi-
dent would, so far as was constitutionally within his power,
yet accept.
The assurances which you had given me, in the first per-
sonal conference between us, of your own entire satisfaction
with the explanations given you upon all the points on which
you were instructed to ask them, would naturally have led
to the expectation that the promise which you was author-
ized to give, would, at least, not be withheld. From your
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 25
letter of the 5th instant,^ however, it appears that no dis-
cretion has been left you to pledge even his Majesty's prom-
ise of ratification in the event of your being yourself satisfied
with the explanations upon all the points desired; that the
only promise you can give is conditional, and the condition
a point upon which your government, when they prescribed
it, could not but know it was impossible that the United
States should comply — a condition incompatible with their
independence, their neutrality, their justice, and their honor.
It was also a condition which his Catholic Majesty had
not the shadow of a right to prescribe. The treaty had been
signed by Mr. Onis with a full knowledge that no such
engagement as that contemplated by it would ever be ac-
ceded to by the American government, and after long and
unwearied efforts to obtain it. The differences between the
United States and Spain had no connection with the war
between Spain and South America. The object of the treaty
was to settle the boundaries, and adjust and provide for the
claims between your nation and ours; and Spain, at no time,
could have a right to require that any stipulation concerning
the contest between her and her colonies should be connected
with it. As his Catholic Majesty could not justly require
it during the negotiation of that treaty, still less could it
afi"ord a justification for withholding his promised ratification
after it was concluded.
The proposal which, at a prior period, had been made by
the government of the United States to some of the principal
powers of Europe for a recognition, in concert, of the inde-
pendence of Buenos Ayres, was founded, as I have observed
to you, upon an opinion then and still entertained that this
recognition must, and would at no very remote period, be
made by Spain herself; that the joint acknowledgment by
^ American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 684.
26 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
several of the principal powers of the world at the same time
might probably induce Spain the sooner to accede to that
necessity, in which she must ultimately acquiesce, and would
thereby hasten an event propitious to her own interests, by
terminating a struggle in which she is wasting her strength
and resources without a possibility of success — an event
ardently to be desired by every friend of humanity afflicted
by the continual horrors of a war, cruel and sanguinary al-
most beyond example; an event, not only desirable to the
unhappy people who are suffering the complicated distresses
and calamities of this war, but to all the nations having re-
lations of amity and of commerce with them. This proposal,
founded upon such motives, far from giving to Spain the
right to claim of the United States an engagement not to
recognise the South American governments, ought to have
been considered by Spain as a proof at once of the modera-
tion and discretion of the United States; as evidence of their
disposition to discard all selfish or exclusive views in the
adoption of a measure which they deemed wise and just in
itself, but most likely to prove efficacious by a common
adoption of it, in a spirit entirely pacific, in concert with
other nations, rather than by a precipitate resort to it on
the part of the United States alone.
The conditional promise, therefore, now offered by you,
instead of the positive one which you have declared yourself
authorised to give, cannot be accepted by the President, and
I am constrained to observe that he can consider the pro-
cedure of your government, in thus providing you with
powers and instructions utterly inefficient for the conclusion
of the negotiation with which you are charged, in no other
light than as proceeding from a determination on its part
still to protract and baffle its final successful issue. Under
these circumstances, he deems it his duty to submit the
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 27
correspondence which has passed between us, since your
arrival, to the consideration of the Congress of the United
States, to whom it will belong to decide how far the United
States can yet, consistently with their duties to themselves,
and the rights of their citizens, authorize the further delay
requested in your note of the 5th instant.
In the conclusion of that note, you have remarked, alluding
to a great change which appears to have taken place since
your departure from Madrid in the government of Spain,
that this circumstance alone would impose on you the obliga-
tion of giving no greater latitude to your promise previous to
your receiving new instructions. If I have understood you
right, your intention is to remark that this circumstance
alone would restrain you, in any event, from giving, without
new instructions, the unconditional promise of ratification,
which, in a former note, you have declared yourself author-
ized, in the name of your sovereign, to give. This seems to
be equivalent to a declaration that you consider your powers
themselves, in the extent to which they were intrusted to
you, as suspended by the events to which you thus refer.
If I am mistaken in taking this as your meaning, will you
have the goodness to inform me how far you do consider
your powers affected by the present state of your information
from Spain? ^
Please to accept the assurance, etc.
^ The reply of the Minister, May 9, is in American State Papers, Foreign Rela-
tions, IV. 688.
28 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES
Department of State,
Washington, 18 May, 1820.
Sir:
The Congress of the United States having, conformably to
the recommendation of the President, postponed acting upon
the subject of the relations between the United States and
Spain, it becomes important to know as speedily as possible
the final determination of your government concerning
them. From the correspondence and conferences between
us your personal satisfaction upon all the points concerning
which you had been instructed to require explanations has
been declared; and I am now directed to inform you that
the further delay in which the government of the United
States has acquiesced in the just pursuit of their rights, was
suggested by the spirit of the most friendly conciliation to-
wards your country, and with a special regard to the in-
teresting circumstances in which it is now placed. At all
times, could the government of this Union indulge its earnest
inclinations, undisturbed by the collision of duties to the
just rights and interests of its own citizens, it would be to
maintain the most friendly and harmonious intercourse with
Spain. At this moment in particular, so far as the late
changes in your government, of which every nation is its
own exclusive judge, may contribute to the happiness, the
prosperity, and the glory of your country, so far will they
continue to be attended by the most friendly sympathies
and good wishes of the United States. Presuming that you
are now prepared to transmit to Spain the result of your
mission, the President directs me to request of you the com-
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 29
municatlon as soon as possible of the decision of your gov-
ernment upon it.^
I seize the occasion, etc.
TO JOHN FORSYTH
Department of State,
Washington, 25 May, 1820.
You will perceive by the result,- that although General
Vives declares himself personally satisfied upon all the points
concerning which he had been Instructed to ask for explana-
tions, yet Inasmuch as upon one point, that of the demand
that the United States should engage not to form any polit-
ical relations with the South American provinces, they had
not entirely met the expectations of the King, he declines
giving more than a conditional promise In the name of his
Catholic Majesty that the treaty shall be ratified Imme-
diately upon the arrival of the messenger whom he now dis-
patches to Madrid.
This proposal could obviously not be accepted; and had
the government of Spain continued to this time essentially
the same as when General Vives received his instructions
and proceeded upon his mission, there would have remained
for the United States no other course than that of asserting
their rights by the occupation of the territory ceded to them
by the treaty. But the revolution which has since occurred
* A paragraph, expressing in "too strong terms approbation" of the revolution
in Spain, was omitted at the suggestion of the President. Adams, Memoirs, May i8,
1820. On May 28th Vives announced that the ancient title of the king of Spain
had been altered to "Don Ferdinand the Seventh, By the Grace of God and by
the Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, King of Spain."
^ Correspondence on the Spanish treaty, submitted to Congress, May 9, 1820.
30
THE WRITINGS OF [1820
in that government, having in the opinion of the President
rendered forbearance on the part of the United States proper
and expedient, In communicating to Congress the corre-
spondence with General Vives, he repeated the recommenda-
tion to postpone the consideration of the subject by that
body until their next session, trusting that In the Interval
all necessity for their acting In a manner otherwise than
amiable towards Spain will be removed by the ratification
of the treaty.
You will understand, therefore, that If the Spanish gov-
ernment shall immediately upon the arrival of the messenger
now dispatched by General Vives determine to ratify the
treaty, the ratification will be accepted by the President
subject to the advice and consent of the Senate on the ques-
tion whether It shall be received in exchange for the ratifica-
tion of the United States heretofore given. The exchange,
therefore, if made, must take place here, as It can no longer
be made without the express and renewed assent of the
Senate,
It is presumed that from the report made by General
Vives all the difficulties which have hitherto been alleged as
obstacles to the ratification will be removed; but from a
suggestion in your dispatch of 9 March which has been
received. It is not Impossible that a new objection may be
started, namely of a want of power in the King under the
constitution to which he has now sworn to consummate by
his ratification the compact to which he had already pledged
his solemn promise. Should this suggestion be made, it will
not fail to occur to you, and If necessary to be duly urged,
that the right of the United States, having been clearly per-
fect by the unqualified promise, could not be affected by any
subsequent engagement of the King; and that the faith of
the nation having been already bound by his engagement
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 31
while possessed of unlimited power, continues as much
pledged under any internal change of government, as if no
such change had happened. Thus much is unquestionable
upon the principles universally recognized by the law of
nations. But in urging this principle as a motive for requir-
ing an immediate decision, you will add that the President
has no intention to avail himself of it to fasten an unequal
or a hard bargain upon Spain. He always has considered
and still views the treaty as highly advantageous to Spain;
and would not now desire its ratification if in the just and
reasonable estimation of Spain herself it could be viewed in
any other light. He instructs you, therefore, to manifest
no peculiar earnestness to obtain the ratification; but to
observe that the right of the United States to it within the
stipulated six months having been perfect, and they having
hitherto consented to waive any claim to further satisfaction
and indemnity, for injuries sustained by them in consequence
of the ratifications being withheld, they can extend this in-
dulgence no longer, and that upon any subsequent adjust-
ment with Spain they will insist upon further indemnity;
that an additional provision will be indispensable for the
existing claims of citizens of the United States upon the
Spanish government; and that the right of the United States
to the western boundary of the Rio del Norte will be re-
asserted and never again relinquished. Notice to the same
effect has been given as you will observe to General Vives,
and you will take such further occasion as may be suitably
offered, in terms as moderate and conciliatory as may be
consistent with propriety, to make it known as the unalter-
able determination of the President.^
I am, etc.
* See Monroe to Gallatin, May 26, 1820, in Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 140.
32 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO JOHN HOWARD MARCH ^
Washington, 25 May, 1820.
Dear Sir:
I have received your obliging letter of 16 March, and the
Hogshead and ^ cask of wine to which it refers, for your kind
attention in sending which I pray you to accept my best
thanks.
I must at the same time request you to have the goodness
to send me a bill for them, charged at the price which you
would affix to the same articles to your regular commercial
correspondents in this country, with information to whom
it shall be paid for you.
This request is founded upon a principle which I have al-
ways considered as resulting from the spirit if not the letter
of the Constitution of the United States.
While holding an employment in the public service I have
always felt myself interdicted from the acceptance of any
present of value, not only from foreign sovereigns but from
any other person. As the observance of this practice is nec-
essary to the consciousness of my faithful discharge of my
public duties, I shall in paying the bill receive your com-
pliance with my request as an obligation added to that for
which I am indebted to you for this mark of regard.
I am, etc.
1 United States consul at Madeira.
M
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 33
TO ALBERT GALLATIN
Department of State,
Washington, 26 May, 1820.
Sir:
Mr. de Neuvllle goes to France upon a leave of absence
for a few months, and with the expectation of returning to
resume his station here before the approaching winter.^
His conduct here has been so satisfactory to the President
and so universally acceptable to the country, that I am di-
rected to request that you would particularly make known
to the French government the favorable sentiments enter-
i tained concerning it. His return here, should it continue
to be conformable to his own wishes, and suitable to the
views of his government, will be agreeable to the President;
and if any other employment of him should be thought more
useful to the service of his sovereign, or more adapted to
his own prospects and convenience, while acquiescing in
such a new destination to him from our good wishes for
himself and his nation, we should have reason to desire
nothing more promotive of the friendship and good under-
:| standing which we would earnestly cultivate with France,
than that his dispositions and deportment should form an
example for those of his successor.
I have, etc.
^ He sailed from Annapolis, May 30.
34 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO ALBERT GALLATIN
Department of State,
Washington, 28 May, 1820.
Sir:
I have the honor of enclosing herewith copies of the public
documents relating to the negotiation with Spain, which
have been recently communicated to Congress; together with
copies of letters which have since passed between General
Vives and this Department.^
Upon the result of that minister's mission and the defi-
ciency of his powers, no comment can now be necessary or
useful. You will observe that he has not only denied that
he was authorized in any event to give a pledge of the rati-
fication of the treaty by consenting to the immediate occupa-
tion of Florida by the United States, but also that he ever
stated either to you or to Baron Pasquier that he had such
an authority.^ In communicating the documents to Con-
gress, as the material question for their consideration arising
from them was, whether the case under all its circumstances
required that the legislature in the exercise of their exclusive
constitutional powers should substitute action to negotiation
in our relations with Spain, it was thought necessary to make ;
known to them every fact in the possession of the executive
which might have an important bearing on the question.
The facts stated in your letter of 15 February,^ as asserted
by General Vives to Baron Pasquier and to you in separatCi j
conversations at different times, apparently further con-
firmed by intimations from the Spanish Ambassador, the^
^ Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 650.
* See Gallatin to Adams, August 7, 1820, in Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 165.^
* lb., 678. See Adams, Memoirs, May 9, 1820.
M
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 35
Duke of Fernan Nuiiez, were of such a character, compared
with the expHcit declarations of General Vives here, that
the communication of them to Congress was thought ad-
visable. Even on the supposition that General Vives had
been misunderstood both by Baron Pasquier and yourself,
it appeared to be more expedient that the apparent disagree-
ment between his declaration at different times and places
should be publicly known, subject to such elucidations as
might afterwards be offered, than that the disclosure of
what he had been understood to say at Paris should be with-
held, with the chances of its being disavowed hereafter, and
appearing to be an incident of material significancy to the
real objects of the General's mission, and to the attitude of
the two nations with reference to each other.
It is proper to advise you that in the communication of
these representations of General Vives by Baron Pasquier
to the French legation here, he is understood to have ex-
pressed himself in terms not altogether positive, but to have
intimated that he had reason to believe the General possessed
the power above mentioned. . . .
Under the change of government which has taken place
in Spain, it appears to be uncertain how the diplomatic rela-
tions between that country and the other European states
will be affected. As the events which produced the revolution
appear to be considered in a published speech of Baron
Pasquier, chiefly with reference to their bearing upon mili-
tary discipline, probably the intercourse between France and
Spain may be less cordial for some time than it has been;
and the influence of the former at Madrid less ostensibly re-
spected. It is to be presumed, however, that a main object
of the Cortes government will be to conciliate the acqui-
escence of their neighbors, and that they will be particularly
disposed to cultivate the friendship of France. We are con-
36 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
vinced that through the whole of this negotiation the inten-
tion and good offices of France have been friendly to both
parties; and although they have been inefficacious to operate
upon Spain, and cannot be expected to carry with them here-
after even so much weight as before, we have no doubt they
will be used as far as they can with propriety be applied, and
the President requests a continuance of the useful attention
which you have constantly bestowed upon these concerns.
I have, etc.
TO JOSIAH QUINCY
Washington, 5 June, 1820.
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter of the 30th ult. informing me
of my having been elected President of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences,
Under the encouragement of your obliging promise to
supply in the discharge of the duties of this office the defi-
ciencies unavoidable, from the circumstances of my present
situation, I accept it with a grateful sense of the favor by
which it has been conferred upon me.
If an ardent attachment to the arts which contribute to
the comfort and elegance of life, and a deep veneration for
the sciences which adorn and dignify the human character,
could alike supply the deficiences which admit of no substi-
tution, I should receive with unmingled pleasure this allot-
ment of one of the highest distinctions to which virtuous am-
bition can aspire. I am, etc.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 37
TO HENRY MIDDLETONi
Washington, 7 June, 1820.
Private.
Dear Sir:
As it will be impossible to prepare for the mail of tomorrow
the papers and documents which are to be furnished you,
those only which will be indispensably necessary to enable
you to proceed upon your mission will be now forwarded to
you, and the rest will be transmitted to you in duplicates
one to London, which it is hoped may arrive there soon after
yourself, and the other directly to St. Petersburg to meet
you there.
The Emperor of Russia has consented to act as the arbitra-
tor between the United States and Great Britain on the
question relating to the slaves. A joint application from the
ministers of the two governments will be necessary to intro-
^ The mission to Russia had been offered to Middleton in January, for the follow-
ing reason:
"Mr. Rush has been instructed to propose to the British government the Em-
peror of Russia, as the sovereign the common friend to both parties, who by an
article of the convention of 20 October, 1818, is to decide on the claim of restitution
or indemnity to the owners of the slaves carried away by British officers after the
late war, and as we contend in violation of the first article of the treaty of peace.
As this question is of considerable importance, as it affects exclusively the interests
of the citizens of the southern section of the Union, and as the President is anxious
not only that all possible justice should be done to their claims, but that the person
selected for maintaining it should possess with all other necessary qualifications
the local sympathies with the sufferers which may be peculiarly adapted to give
them confidence in the ardor as well as in the ability of his exertions in their behalf,
he has thought he could look to no person so well suited by his qualifications to
satisfy all the requirements of this mission as yourself. . . . Mr. Charles Pinkney
of Baltimore is already commissioned at St. Petersburg as Secretary to the Legation,
and will continue there in that capacity, if agreeable to you." To Henry Middleton,
January 17, 1820. Ms.
38 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
duce the subject to him in form. Mr. Bagot, as you know,
is the British ambassador newly appointed to Russia, and
as he was to leave London to proceed upon his mission in
May, he will probably reach St. Petersburg not long before
you. As you pass through London it may be convenient
that you should see Lord Castlereagh, and either directly or
through the medium of Mr. Rush, prepare in concert with
him the form of an application to be signed, either jointly or
in the same terms separately by you and the British pleni-
potentiary.
A full power is enclosed among your papers to perform
any act or acts relating to this transaction. It is appre-
hended that a similar full power will be necessary for Mr.
Bagot, but this may perhaps not have occurred to the
British government. Have the goodness to suggest it to
Lord Castlereagh. Should he accede to the idea and furnish
Mr. Bagot with such a power, copies of both should be
interchanged between you and him and also communicated
to the Russian government. Mr. Bagot by his diplomatic
rank as Ambassador will of course in all ordinary cases take
precedence of yours; but as a plenipotentiary for the transac-
tion of this business he will have no such pretension, and
you will take care to observe, in the signature of all papers
and the arrangement of the parties in all documents, the
rules prescribed by your instructions of insisting upon the
alternative. In all cases of mediations, it is an admitted prac- j
tice that papers requiring the signature of all the parties
should be signed _/irj-/ by the mediators. The principle will
undoubtedly extend to this case, and will no doubt be readily
agreed to on the part of the British government. You will
claim the alternative, therefore, only with regard to the
British plenipotentiary, and not to the persons representing
the empire. .
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 39
The most important documents relating to this claim are
contained in the printed message of the President of 7 Febru-
ary, 1817, a copy of which is now transmitted. The amount
of property involved in it is so considerable, and the right of
the case is so clear on our side, that the President feels a
deep interest in its successful termination. I beg leave to
recommend it to your most earnest attention and that noth-
ing may be omitted to present It in the clearest possible light
to the Emperor's government. It is also desirable that it
should be pursued without delay, and therefore that your
detention in England should be as short as possible. In
the proceedings relating to this affair everything is com-
mitted to your discretion, and every reliance placed upon
the vigilance and care with which it will be managed by you.
I regret exceedingly to be deprived of the opportunity of
a personal Interview with you before your departure, and
of the satisfaction with which I should have communicated
to you every information which might be useful to you on
your arrival at St. Petersburg. I shall write you further as
soon as possible, and in the meantime have only to assure
you of my most earnest good wishes that your voyages may
be prosperous to yourself and your family, and your mis-
sion equally satisfactory to you and advantageous to our
country.^
I am, etc.
^ Middleton embarked at New York, June lO, on the packet Amity, for Liverpool.
His instructions were not ready until July 5.
4
40 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES
Department of State,
Washington, 8 June, 1820.
Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your note of the 28th
ultimo, communicating the Information hy order of your gov-
ernment, that his CathoHc Majesty, being divested by the
political constitution of the Spanish monarchy of 1812,
adopted and sworn to by him, of all power to "alienate, cede,
or exchange any province, city, town or place, or any portion
whatever thereof of the Spanish territory without the con-
sent of the Cortes," will lay before that body which Is to
meet In July next, the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819,
in which the cession of the Florldas to the United States is
stipulated.
From the correspondence which had passed between the
governments of the United States and of Spain upon this
subject before his Catholic Majesty had assented to this
limitation of his powers, you are aware that the United States
have maintained their perfect right to the ratification of
that treaty within the term of six months from its signature,
limited by one of its stipulations. This right was derived
from the solemn and unqualified promise of his Catholic
Majesty, contained In the full power which he had com-
mitted to your predecessor, Don Luis de Onis, who, by virtue
of that power, signed in his name and behalf the treaty. The
same promise which with the sanction of his oath, his Maj-
esty has pledged to his people, of adherence to the constitu-
tion of 18 1 2, had already been pledged to the United States
for the ratification of the treaty; and it cannot be necessary
to urge to you the undeniable principle that the rights of the
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 41
United States in their relations with Spain can in no wise
be affected or impaired by any engagement of the king to
his own people subsequent to an engagement equally sacred
contracted with them.
The assurance of the earnest wish of his Majesty to estab-
lish on a solid basis the closest amity and most perfect har-
mony with the United States, corroborated by that sym-
pathy which may be expected from congenial sentiments of
liberty, is in a high degree acceptable to the President; and
as there is no nation upon earth more qualified than these
United States by their own experience to feel the connection
between sentiments of liberty and national happiness, so
there is no one which will more sincerely rejoice to find that
the same connection will result from the experience of a con-
stitutional government to the people of Spain.
In the firm conviction that the Cortes will feel every dis-
position to do justice in their political relations with this
Union, and that they will immediately perceive the justice
of enabling his Alajesty to perform the promise already
pledged to the United States, the President is gratified with
the reflection that by the performance of this promise the
Cortes will be called to no sacrifice incompatible with the
honor, or derogatory to the interests of the Spanish nation.
The sacrifices made by the United States in assenting to
that treaty were neither inconsiderable, nor at the time of
its conclusion unconsidered. They were agreed to in the
spirit of concession, of harmony, and of magnaminity, which
in the opinion of the President and Senate by whose concur-
rence it was ratified, ought to preside in all the important
negotiations between independent nations. It was neither
their policy nor their desire to obtain burdensome or unequal
conditions from Spain. They believed the treaty would be
eminently advantageous to both nations, and in the anticipa-
42 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
tlon of mutual benefit and mutual satisfaction to be derived
from It, they looked forward to its execution for results more
permanent, comprehensive, and salutary, than could ever
be foreseen from a compact in which concession would
have been all on one side, with extortion or delusion on
the other. ■*
While the United States, therefore, have Insisted, and yet
insist, upon their perfect right to the ratification of that
treaty, there is no unwillingness on their part that it should
be decided upon by the Cortes on its merits as a compact
involving the interests of Spain. Their decision, however,
it is expected, will be without delay; and as you have been
informed, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate
of the United States, on the question whether it shall now
be accepted In exchange for the ratification of the United
States. That the willing assent of both parties may tend to
the stability of the stipulations between them, to the general
harmony of their future intercourse, and to the internal con-
tentment of both nations, is the earnest desire of the Presi-
dent, as it is the motive to every measure which has been
adopted by his direction, or at his recommendation.
Be pleased to accept, etc.^
^ "It escaped my attention before I left the city to make an arrangement under
your direction, for the publication of the secret journal of Congress, for the interval
between the definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain, and the adoption of the
present constitution, for which I understand that an act or resolution had passed
the last session. It is very important that this be done in the most correct and
faithful manner, and I shall be glad that you will take charge of it." Monroe to
John Quincy Adams, June 5, 1820. Ms. See Adams, Memoirs, September 9, 1820.
Upon the Secretary of State also fell at this time the burden of preparing the in-
structions to marshals for taking the census of 1820, and the two forms of blanks to
be used in the process. lb., June 10, 1820.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 43
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 15 June, 1820.
Dear Sir:
On receiving your letter of the 9th instant by the return
of the messenger, I immediately sent to request the Secre-
taries of the Treasury and of War, the only other members
of the administration then in the city, to call at the office of
this Department; when your letter concerning Rosewaine ^
and the papers relative to the case were considered, and the
opinion in concurrence with yours being unanimous I an-
swered the letter of Marshal Prince ^ accordingly.
Under the instructions in your letter of the 2nd instant,
and in pursuance of the principles decided by you after full
deliberation heretofore, pardons were made out for Samuel
Poole and Francis Oglesbee (whose real name is Speir), under
sentence of death for piracy at Richmond.^ It had been de-
termined that the whole number convicted at that place
should be reprieved with the exception of two, and the Chief
Justice and the district attorney were requested to give in-
formation, if there were extenuating circumstances in the
cases of any of the individuals recommending them to mercy
more than the others. The letters received from those officers
are herewith inclosed.
In the Richmond Enquirer of the 6th, received here on the
morning of the 9th, there was a long statement and repre-
' Edward Rosewaine, convicted at Boston of piratical murder and sentenced
to be hanged. The sentence was executed.
^ James Prince.
^ Adams, Memoirs, June 9 and 12, 1820.
44 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
sentation addressed to you Invoking the exercise of mercy
In behalf of all the persons under sentence at Richmond. On
consideration of that paper, together with the letters of the
Chief Justice and Mr. Stanard,^ which left It scarcely pos-
sible to distinguish who should be the two sufferers of four-
teen, and that those indicated by the order of the list were,
one a foreigner, and the other a man of color, it was presumed
by Mr. Crawford, Mr. Calhoun, and me, that you would
approve the extension of the reprieve to them all: and as
there would have scarcely been time to give you this Informa-
tion, to receive your orders, and then to transmit the re-
prieve to Richmond before the day fixed for the execution,
a respite till further order was made out for the whole four-
teen, and forwarded to the marshal on the nth.
After it was gone Mr. Fenwick ^ of Richmond came with
petitions, signed by many highly respectable names, praying
for the extension of clemency to all those unfortunate men.
It was his Intention to have proceeded with them to your
residence In Albermarle; but upon my Informing him that
the pardon and reprieve had issued, he concluded to return
to Richmond, leaving with me the petitions and other papers
herewith enclosed.
I have now the honor to forward a statement of all the per-
sons who were under sentence at the time when you left the
city, and of the disposal which has been made of them.
There have been two executions at Baltimore, two at
Charleston, one at Savannah, two at New Orleans, and this
day is fixed for three at Boston. Seven have been pardoned
and thirty-four are under reprieves till further order, to be
kept in close confinement until you shall give further direc-
tions concerning them. This was thought safer as well as
* Robert Stanard.
2 William Fenwick.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 45
more convenient than further definite respites for two
months, which would have required the issuing of new war-
rants every time that the term for a final decision concerning
them should have been prolonged.
A letter from the mother of Ralph Clintock, respited till
further order at Savannah, has been received by me, and is
likewise among the papers herewith forwarded, Clintock is
the person by whose disclosures the conduct of the collector
of Savannah, and still more that of his brother, have been so
deeply implicated.^ Colonel Freeman called a few days since
to enquire if the confidential papers submitted by him could
be returned to him. When you shall have come to a decision
whether any, and if any, what measure is to be taken upon
these indications, I request the return of the papers which
you will recollect you took with you.
From the evidence on the trial it appeared that the in-
structions to the captain of the privateer in which Clintock
sailed were, if they took any vessel other than Spanish, they
should send her in with orders to the prize master to per-
sonate the original captain of the vessel in making the entry
at the custom house. The Nordberg, a Danish vessel, was
taken and the prize master did personate the Danish captain
in making entry of her at Savannah. Clintock's story is that
these instructions were in the handwriting of the brother of
the collector at Savannah. These instructions were among
the papers produced and filed in court upon the trial. But
when searched for after Clintock's disclosures, they had dis-
appeared from the files and were not to be found. I have,
etc.2
' Archibald S. Bullock and James S. Bullock,
j * "The cases of piracy continue to accumulate. You will see in the newspapers
one lately committed at the mouth of the Chesapeake, within the jurisdiction of
the United States, by a vessel which had been several months refitting at Norfolk
46 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO HENRY MIDDLETON^
Department of State,
Washington, 5 July, 1820.
The relations of the United States with the Russian empire
and its government, and which in their several bearings will
require your constant and earnest attention are: i, political;
2, commercial; 3, special, resulting from the reference by the
United States and Great Britain to the Emperor Alexander,
of the question between them upon the construction of the
first article of the treaty of Ghent.
I. Political. The present political system of Europe is
founded upon the overthrow of that which had grown out
under a spurious name and captain. And another, of a privateer called the General
Rondeau, a Buenos Ayres commission, and a Baltimore captain. The case re-
sembles that of the Irresistible, the crew took the vessel from their captain, and
sent him off in an open boat, with alL their officers except one, whom they killed.
Thirty or forty of them have been taken up in various parts of the United States
and are to be tried.
"In the instructions to Commodore Perry the articles in the privateering regu-
lations of Buenos Ayres, which give rise to these atrocious acts, were pointed out,
and he was directed to remonstrate against them. If these articles are not revoked,
and the sham court at the island of Margarita is not set aside, no laws of ours will
check this disorder till the imposter South American flags are totally excluded from
our ports. By imposter flags I mean the vessels with South Anrierican commissions,
Baltimore captains, and not a South American among their crews. I take the
liberty of submitting to your consideration whether it will not be proper to instruct
Mr. Prevost, Mr. Forbes, and Colonel Todd, to give formal notice to the govern-
ment of Colombia, and of Buenos Ayres, that if they will not put an end to this
crying scandal, it will be necessary to exclude all their private armed vessels from
our ports." To the President, July ii, 1820. Ms.
^ Almost a month was required for the preparation of the instructions for Middle-
ton, and the importance of the questions involved is discussed in the Memoirs,
June 26-29, 1820. Only a portion of the instructions are now printed.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 47
of the French Revolution, and has assumed its shape from
the body of treaties concluded at Vienna in 1814 and '15, at
Paris, towards the close of the same year 18 15, and at Aix la
Chapelle in the autumn of 1818. Its general character is
that of a compact between the five principal European
powers, Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia,
for the preservation of universal peace. These powers having
then just emerged victorious from a long, portentous and
sanguinary struggle against the oppressive predominancy of
one of them, under revolutionary sway, appear to have bent
all their faculties to the substitution of a system which should
preserve them from that evil; the preponderancy of one
power by the subjugation, virtual if not nominal, of the rest.
Whether they perceived in its full extent, considered in its
true colors, or provided by judicious arrangements for the
revolutionary temper of the weapons by which they had so
long been assailed, and from which they had so severely suf-
fered, is a question now in a course of solution. Their great
anxiety appears to have been to guard themselves each
against the other.
The League of Peace, so far as it was a covenant of organ-
ized governments, has proved effectual to its purposes by an
experience of five years. Its only interruption has been in
this hemisphere, though between nations strictly European,
by the invasion of the Portuguese on the territory claimed
by Spain, but already lost to her, on the eastern shore of the
Rio de la Plata. This aggression too the European alliance
have undertaken to control, and in connection with it they
have formed projects, hitherto abortive, of interposing in
the revolutionary struggle between Spain and her South
American colonies.
As a compact between governments it is not improbable
that the European alliance will last as long as some of the
48 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
states who are parties to it. The warlike passions and pro-
pensities of the present age find their principal aliment, not
in the enmities between nation and nation, but in the internal
dissensions between the component parts of all. The war
is between nations and their rulers.
The Emperor Alexander may be considered as the prin-
cipal patron and founder of the league of peace. His interest
is the most unequivocal in support of it. His empire is the
only party to the compact free from that internal fermenta-
tion which threatens the existence of all the rest. His terri-
tories are the most extensive, his military establishment the
most stupendous, his country the most improvable and
thriving of them all. He is, therefore, naturally the most
obnoxious to the jealousy and fears of his associates, and his
circumstances point his policy to a faithful adhesion to the
general system, with a strong reprobation of those who
would resort to special and partial alliances, from which
any one member of the league should be excluded. This
general tendency of his policy is corroborated by the mild
and religious turn of his individual character. He finds a
happy coincidence between the dictates of his conscience
and the interest of his empire. And as from the very cir-
cumstance of his preponderancy partial alliances might be
most easily contracted by him, from the natural resort of the
weak for the succor to the strong, by discountenancing all
such partial combinations, he has the appearance of discard-
ing advantages entirely within his command, and reaps the
glory of disinterestedness, while most efficaciously providing
for his own security.
Such is accordingly the constant indication of the Russian
policy since the peace of Paris in 181 5. The neighbors of
Russia, which have the most to dread from her overshadow-
ing and encroaching powers are Persia, Turkey, Austria, and
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 49
Prussia, the two latter of which are members of the European
and even of the Holy Alliance, while the two former are not
only extra-European in their general policy, but of religions,
which excluded them from ever becoming parties, if not from
ever deriving benefit from that singular compact.
The political system of the United States is also essentially
extra-European. To stand in firm and cautious inde-
pendence of all entanglement in the European system, has
been a cardinal point of their policy under every adminis-
tration of their government from the peace of 1783 to this
day. If at the original adoption of their system there could
have been any doubt of its justice or its wisdom, there can
be none at this time. Every year's experience rivets it more
deeply in the principles and opinions of the nation. Yet in
proportion as the importance of the United States as one
of the members of the general society of civilized nations in-
creases in the eyes of the others, the difficulties of maintain-
ing this system, and the temptations to depart from it in-
crease and multiply with it. The Russian government has
not only manifested an inclination that the United States
should concur in the general principles of the European
league, but a direct though inofficial application has been
made by the present Russian minister here, that the United
States should become formal parties to the Holy Alliance.
It has been suggested as inducement to obtain their com-
pliance, that this compact bound the parties to no specific
engagement of any thing; that it was a pledge of mere prin-
ciples; that its real as well as its professed purpose was merely
the general preservation of peace, and it was intimated that
if any question should arise between the United States and
other governments of Europe, the Emperor Alexander, de-
sirous of using his influence in their favor, would have a sub-
stantial motive and justification for interposing, if he could
so THE WRITINGS OF [1820
regard them as his allies, which as parties to the Holy Al-
liance he would be.
It is possible that overtures of a similar character may be
made to you; but whether they should be or not it is proper
to apprize you of the light in which they have been viewed
by the President. No direct refusal has been notified to Mr.
Poletica. It is presumed that none will be necessary. His
instructions are not to make the proposal in form, unless
with a prospect that it will be successful. It might perhaps
be sufficient to answer that the organization of our govern-
ment is such as not to admit of our acceding formally to
that compact. But it may be added that the President ap-
proving the general principles, and thoroughly convinced of
the benevolent and virtuous motives which led to the con-
ception and presided at the formation of this system by the
Emperor Alexander, believes that the United States will
more effectually contribute to the great and sublime objects
for which it was concluded, by abstaining from a formal par-
ticipation in it, than they could as stipulated members of it.
As a general declaration of principles, disclaiming the im-
pulses of vulgar ambition and unprincipled aggrandizement,
and openly proclaiming the peculiarly christian maxims of
mutual benevolence and brotherly love, to be binding upon
the intercourse between nations no less than upon those of
individuals, the United States, not only give their hearty
assent to the articles of the Holy Alliance, but will be among
the most earnest and conscientious in observing them. But
independent of the prejudices which have been excited
against this instrument in the public opinion, which time
and an experience of its good effects will gradually wear
away, it may be observed that for the repose of Europe as
well as of America, the European and American political
systems should be kept as separate and distinct from each
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 51
other as possible. If the United States as members of the
H0I7 Alliance could acquire a right to ask the influence of its
most powerful members in their controversies with other
states, the other members must be entitled in return to ask
the influence of the United States for themselves or against
their opponents. In the deliberations of the league they
would be entitled to a voice, and in exercising their right
must occasionally appeal to principles, which might not
harmonize with those of any European member of the bond.
This consideration alone would be decisive for declining a
participation in that league, which is the President's absolute
and irrevocable determination, although he trusts that no
occasion will present itself rendering it necessary to make
that determination known by an explicit refusal.
2. Commercial. The aversion of the Emperor Alexander
to the negotiation of any commercial treaties has probably
undergone no change since the instructions to Air. Campbell
were prepared. We have no motive for desiring that it
should.^ You will however pay suitable attention to the
actual state of our commerce with Russia, and particularly
to the condition and prospects of the Russian establishments
on the Black Sea. Voyages of circumnavigation and of
discovery have been since the late general peace in Europe
fitted out partly on account of the government, and partly
under the direction and at the expense of Count Nicholas
Romanzoff, late Chancellor of the empire. Of the objects
of those voyages, and of the information obtained from them
so far as it is of a public nature we shall be gratified in re-
ceiving any communication which you may think proper to
transmit. . . . The movements of the Russian American
Company may, perhaps, occasionally deserve your atten-
^ No general treaty of commerce and navigation between the two powers was
negotiated until 1832.
52 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
tion, as they are connected with the Russian establishments
on the north west coast of this continent; but they will
probably be found less important than they have been
imagined. A translation of the whole ukase ^ by which that
company was constituted, if you can obtain and forward it to
this department, would be acceptable. . . .
TO JONATHAN JENNINGS ^
Washington, 17 July, 1820.
Private.
Sir:
Several months have elapsed since I had the honor of
receiving your letter of 27 January last, with its enclosure.
That it has remained so long unanswered I entreat you to
attribute to any other cause than personal disrespect to you,
or insensibility to the importance of the subject to which it
relates.
With regard to the removal of Mr. Erving, his office having
been dependent upon the Department of the Treasury, nei-
ther the event nor its causes were known to me when they
happened, nor do I yet know the precise grounds of com-
plaint upon which he was removed. From my general con-
fidence in the justice, equity and tenderness to the charac-
ters of executive officers, as well of the President as of the
Secretary of the Treasury, I am entirely convinced that
they were influenced in their proceedings on this occasion
by motives of public duty alone; and that if Mr. Erving has
suffered injustice, it has been owing to misrepresentations,
the incorrectness of which could not be corrected by them.
^ Of July 8, 1799. It is summarized in Moore, International Arbitrations, I. 755.
* (f. 1 776-1 834), first governor of the state of Indiana.
1
I
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 53
Your letter being confidential, I have not thought myself
at liberty to communicate it even to the President, uncertain
as I have been whether that was your intention. But permit
me now to say, that if as the friend of Mr. Erving you would
wish that any representation should be made to the Presi-
dent tending to show that he has labored under unfounded
imputations, and that such representation should be made
through me, I will very cheerfully make it and offer every
service in my power to vindicate his reputation from any
suspicion which may have been erroneously cast upon him.
I was aware of the disposition existing in a portion, I hope
a very small portion, of the inhabitants of Indiana to recede
from the principles upon which the northwestern territory
was founded, and to remove the salutary prohibition of
slavery which I consider as among the choicest blessings of
their condition. The virtuous feeling and sound judgment
of the great majority of the people will, I trust, preserve the
state and the union from the calamity of such an apostasy.
In this Union I consider slavery as the misfortune but not
the fault of the states where it exists, and exemption from
it as the happiness but not the merit of those where it does
not exist. The abolition of slavery where it is established
must be left entirely to the people of the state itself. The
healthy have no right to reproach or to prescribe for the
diseased; but that slavery should dare to claim legislative
sanction in an American state where it has once been pro-
hibited passes my comprehension. If a member of the legis-
lature of the state of Massachusetts, or of Indiana, should
move to bring in a bill for a nursery of rattle-snakes for the
purpose of propagating the breed, or to import the yellow
fever for the benefit of the infection, I should pronounce him
wise, benevolent and patriotic, in comparison with him who
should propose a bill for the establishment of slavery. I
54 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
hope and believe that this sentiment will become from day
to day more prevalent in the Union, and that you will have
the pleasure of seeing every contrary disposition In your
state hide its head for shame, and ultimately vanish.
That you have been among the most distinguished of its
citizens, by whose steady opposition the Introduction of this
portentous evil has been discountenanced and prevented. Is
well known to me, and Is one of the sources of that high and
sincere esteem and personal respect with which I am, etc.^
TO JOHN CLARK 2
Washington, 24 July, 1820.
Private.
Sir:
I had some time since the honor of promising your Excel-
lency, conformably to your request, copies of the instructions
to the Indian Agent, by which I understood you to mean the
^ "A writer in the Richmond Enquirer recommends a penitentiary system for
the United States. It seems to me that this idea deserves to be well considered.
You will shortly have to pass upon slave-traders as well as patriots. Sixteen of
those fiends of humanity have been exported from the coast of Africa by the Cyane,
to Boston, and are waiting for trial. By the reports we receive hundreds more
may be expected. They spawn like fish on the coast of Labrador, and when they
get their passports for the gibbet, you will have, I suppose, rolls as long as a chan-
cery suit oi female petitioners for mercy. The females petitioned you to spare the
pirates at Richmond. The females at Baltimore petitioned Governor Sprigg to
spare Hull and Hutton, mail robbers and murderers in cold blood. It is impossible
to pass a censure upon the ladies; and my conclusion from these singular facts is,
that the feeling of the country, male and female, is against all capital punishments.
"Duane is endeavoring to give a false color to the application of Colonel Johnson
in his behalf last winter, but I believe he imposes upon no one. He is drowning and
grasps around him with instinctive desperation at any one to carry down with
him. I have copies of his two letters to Colonel Johnson, so that I presume it will
not be necessary to write to that gentleman." To the President, July 22, 1820. Ms.
On the Duane letters, see Adams, Memoirs, January 18, 1820, and later entries.
^ Governor of Georgia. See Adams, Memoirs, July 22, 1820.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 55
instructions transmitted to him at the time of his appoint-
ment. After repeated examinations at the War Department
it was found that no such instructions were issued to him,
excepting as contained in the certificate of his appointment,
a copy of which is herewith enclosed. He is therein referred
to the instructions which had been forwarded to his prede-
cessor. The Chief Clerk in the War Department states that
"on turning the records for the general instructions to
Colonel Hawkins, it is found that he was appointed previous
to the year 1800, at which time all the books and papers be-
longing to the Department were burnt, and there is no copy
of them now in its possession from which one could be
furnished."
You have observed in the public prints that General Jack-
son has been appointed a Commissioner to treat with certain
Indians within the state of Mississippi. It is proper for me
to inform you that when I had the honor of writing you that
an application to the President for his appointment to that
service had been declined on the ground of his own wish
urgently expressed, I was under the impression that it had
been positively declined. In that, however, I was mistaken.
It had been suspended, subject to the determination of
General Jackson himself, who as I now learn, yielded re-
luctantly to the request of the whole delegation from the
state of Mississippi and consented to serve in that case. I
feel this explanation to be necessary from me to you, and
trust it is unnecessary for me to add how much I should
have been gratified by his appointment conformably to your
proposal.
I have received under blank cover two or three Georgia
newspapers containing speculations upon speeches and reso-
lutions of Mr. Cobb's ^ at the two sessions of Congress last
» Thomas W. Cobb (1784-1830).
S6 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
elapsed. I have not the honor of a personal acquaintance
with Mr. Cobb, but am well assured of the earnestness of
his zeal for the Interests of the state, one of whose Repre-
sentatives he is. I believe he was informed when he made
the motion for an appropriation to hold Indian treaties, that
a message from the President, founded on your communica-
tion of 19 January, had already been determined upon,
recommending the same thing. It certainly had been before
his motion was made, and when it was not anticipated.
There was assuredly no 7nerit in the promptitude of attention
in the general administration to the interests and wishes of
the state of Georgia, so earnestly and forcibly recommended
by you. As little reason was there for the insinuation that
such promptitude had not been exercised.
This letter is marked as private, though relating altogether
to transactions of a public nature. I am desirous that its
explanations may be personally satisfactory to you, con-
vinced as I am that I do but concur with you in the wish that
to whomsoever the palm of preeminent ardor in the public
service may belong, all its competitions may redound to the
general prosperity of the Union, and to the special welfare
of each and everv one of its confederated states.
I am, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 28 July, 1820.
Dear Sir:
I had the honor of receiving yesterday your letter of 24th
instant which came by express. The reprieve for twelve
months of both the men under sentence of death at Alexandria
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 57
had already been made out and transmitted to the Marshal
of the District.
Copies are now enclosed of all the instructions which have
been forwarded to Mr. Forbes.^ As they were on various
subjects, and I was under no small pressure of current busi-
ness, I sent them in several successive letters. Upon the
case of Lord Cochrane's capture I have not had the time to
draw up a formal memorial. The letter of the 6th of July to
Forbes, and the memorial of the complainants to which it
refers, contain all the principles and all the reasoning that
occur to me as applicable to the affair.
A letter from R. W. Habersham, the District Attorney in
Georgia, received yesterday, likewise enclosed, calls for an
early answer and presents for consideration several questions
of great importance. ^ First, of the dispositions to be made
of the slaves; and secondly, of the Baltimore South American
patriots, who figure again in our courts. The first however
is the only one upon which immediate decision is necessary,
land I am to ask your directions.^
I am, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
I Washington, 29 July, 1820.
Pear Sir:
I • Three letters from Mr. Parker, United States District
Attorney at Charleston, South Carolina, upon which I beg
^ James Grant Forbes, commissioner to carry the order from the King of Spain
;o the Governor and Captain General of Cuba for the delivery of the Floridas and
f the archives belonging to them.
* The revenue cutter Dallas had captured a brig under the colors of Artigas with
bout 275 Africans on board.
* Monroe's reply is in Writings of James Monroe, VI. 145.
S8 THE WRITINGS OF I1820
to be honored with your Instructions. Judge Johnson seems
to have discovered an agent from Buenos Ayres here, of
whom I never heard — a Mr. La Borde. But the Wilson
alias the United States brig Enterprise, alias the Bolivar,^ Is
not now a Buenos Ayrean but a Colombian. Weedon, the
surgeon, whom they caught at Charleston, Is pleading his
cause in the newspapers, and Insists that no court has a right
to try him but the court at Margarita. He is for being
tried only by his peers. I hope Judge Johnson will show a
little of his indignation in his decision of the case, and also
in that of the mutineers of the General Rondeau, and above
all that the Indignation will be pointed to the right quarter.
I take the liberty to propose that orders should be given to
the Navy Department to purchase the Valiente and send
her to cruise for Baltimore South Americans, and especially
for any vessel commanded by Jose Almeida, be her name or
flag what It may. I would also suggest that the collector at
Norfolk be requested to give Information how so notorious a
pirate as Almeida could be permitted to refit his vessel and
recruit men and go to sea, under the nose of all the revenue
officers of the United States, merely by the paltry evasion
of calling his vessel the Wilson, and his co-pirate George
Wilson her commander. Weedon says that the ship from
Porto Rico bound to Baltimore which they took in the
waters of the United States was a slave trader. That if
true is some consolation.-
^ A "Baltimore South American privateer," which after refitting and recruiting
at Norfolk, sailed under the name of the Wilson, Captain Wilson, but committed
an act of piracy as the Bolivar, Captain Almeida.
^ Monroe's reply, dated August 4, is in Writings of James Monroe, VI. 152.
.<
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 59
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 2 August, 1820.
. . • • •
A letter from the Collector of Baltimore ^ of 28 ultimo,
enclosing one to him and extract of another from Mr. R. M.
Harrison at St. Thomas, concerning the case of the Cameleon.
As my impressions on the perusal of these papers happen to
diifer both from those of the collector and of Mr. Harrison,
I take the liberty of submitting them to you for considera-
tion. By the collector's own showing the Cameleon was
either a pirate or a slave trader, and very probably both.
The expression of surprise by the Governor of St. Thomas,
that in time of profound peace the collectors of our ports
should clear out armed merchant vessels with guns mounted
and guns in the hold, is in my judgment altogether natural.
The facility with which both pirates and slave-traders have
year after year cleared out from the port of Baltimore has
long struck many others besides the Governor of St.
Thomas, and his meaning in the remark is not at all
offensive to the United States, however it may be to
Mr. McCuUoh.
I wish to cast no reflection upon the collector of Baltimore,
but his indignation like that of Mr. Harrison is not pointed
to the right quarter.
Vigilant, zealous, and energetic revenue officers at Balti-
more would have saved the United States not only from such
1 James H. McCulloh.
6o THE WRITINGS OF [1820
remarks as that of Mr. Von Scholten, but from an enormous
load both of slave trading and piracy.^
I have had the honor of receiving your letters of 24 and
28 ultimo with the enclosures. I have written to Governor
King conformably to your directions, and to Mr. Van Ness,
the Commissioner, enclosing copies of the Governor's letter
and of the resolution of the legislature. I see no reason for
doubting your power to appoint a person to assist the agent,
if he wants assistance. But Governor King's letter strongly
insinuates neglect of duty or incompetency on the part of the
American agent, and the appointment of an assistant such
as he proposes might be attended with great inconvenience.
It has more the complexion of a superintendent or overseer
than of an assistant, and I should think it doubtful whether
Mr. Bradley, if he is conscious of having discharged his duty,
could either accept such an assistant, or hold his office en-
cumbered with him. It may however be otherwise. He
may possibly readily consent to receive an auxiliary, and
may need one. The resolution of the legislature as well as
the letter of the Governor imports dissatisfaction at the slow
progress of the business of the commission. ^
• ••••••
I am, etc.
* "I have long suspected that there was a remissness in the revenue officers at
Baltimore to perform all that might have been justly claimed of them under the
laws for the suppression of the slave-trade and piracy. The collector [McCulloh]
enjoys the reputation of being an honest man, and a patriot. He was badly wounded
in the late war, and had, I think, merit in our revolutionary struggle. His defect,
therefore, may be imputed, in respect to the latter object especially, to zeal in favor
of the colonies." Monroe to Adams, August li, 1820. Ms.
^ On the north eastern boundary.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 6i
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 21 August, 1820.
Dear Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your two letters of the
14th instant, together with the papers enclosed in them.
I shall attend particularly to your instructions, as far as
may be practicable in the absence of the Secretaries of the
Treasury and of War and of the Attorney General.
This circumstance will of course preclude me from the
means of consulting them with regard to the issuing of a
pardon to Ralph Clintock, and makes it necessary to recur
again to you for directions in that respect.^ I have no doubt
that the sentence of death passed upon him was just; yet if
my impression of the evidence against him in the case is
correct, there is nothing in it contradictory to his own state-
ment to me in his letter. He admits that he did give orders
to the men whom he commanded to fire upon the island
where they landed the crew of the Nordherg, but affirms that
he had previously given them the most positive orders to
fire over their heads, and the fact was that no person was
hurt by the firing.
There seems to me also to be this difference in his favor,
between his case and that of Ferguson: that he did not per-
sonate the captain of the Nordherg to enter the vessel at the
Custom House at Savannah, and that Ferguson did. He
saj^s that Smith the Captain proposed it to him, and that
he refused. There is nothing in the evidence to confirm
this, but there is nothing to contradict it.
1 Adams, Memoirs, June 14, 1820.
62 THE WRITINGS OF [1820 ^
With regard to the Bullocks, I take the offence of James
S. Bullock and of the collector to have been that of acces-
sories to the piracy committed upon the Nordberg both be-
fore and after the fact, and that of the clerk of the court,
who made the instructions in James S. Bullock's handwriting
to disappear from the files of the court, to be misprision of
piracy. Whether either of the three is guilty of the crime
is not for me to say. The charge against James S. Bullock
rests not alone upon Clintock's declaration. One of the
witnesses against Clintock says Smith read the instructions
to the crew, and told them they were written by Bullock.
Clintock, when he wrote me that they were in Bullock's
handwriting, did not know that they had been purloined
from the files. He appealed to them as being there, and
supposed they might be produced and testified to by others. M
Their disappearance, Bullock's brother being the officer in
whose custody they were, is a fact stronger than Clintock's
declaration or oath. So the admission of the Nordberg to
entry in violation of the law, and the compromise by which
45,000 dollars was paid to the supercargo to get rid of his
suit, are facts far more significant than would be the testi-
mony of Clintock. By the laws of the United States the
punishment of the crime of James S. Bullock, if he was the
author of the instructions, is capital. Whether the proof is
sufficient to convict him is another consideration. But
whether questions of law or questions of evidence might be
started to save them from the gibbet or not, I believe the
very exposure of the facts which a trial of the case would
bring forth, would do more to put down piracy than the
execution of a whole navy of common sailors.
Since I began this letter, your favor enclosing the papers
relating to the case of Cornell, the young man under sentence
of death in Rhode Island, have come to hand. Last week
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 63
I transmitted to you a letter from Mr. Hunter, the Rhode
Island Senator, to the Attorney General, which perhaps will
suggest additional reasons for a reprieve. As the impression
of that letter upon the mind of Mr. Wirt himself may have
weight, I now inclose his letter to me transmitting it, which
ought indeed to have been forwarded to you with it. After
having advised Mrs. Cornell not to go to Virginia to present
herself personally to you as a petitioner for her son, I cannot
resist the impulse of becoming myself a petitioner in her
I stead. There seems to me little, if anything, to discriminate
' the case unfavorably with regard to the convict from that
of the man in Alexandria under similar sentence, who has
been reprieved for twelve months.
The Abbe Correa is here, and called upon me this morning.
His conversation is moderate, and he professes to be satisfied
with the disposition of the executive; but he broached some-
thing about his American system which I noticed in the
manner suggested by your letter by saying, that it would
be taken into serious consideration by you, and something
of complaint against the District Judges at Baltimore and
Charleston, South Carolina, as well as against several officers
of our navy (midshipmen), who he says have been concerned
in the piratical privateers, and whom he told me he should
i in an official note indicate to me by name.^
1 "Mr. Correa will, I presume, soon be with you. He intimated to a friend
[Jefferson] in this neighborhood that a proposition had been made in the Brazil
cabinet, either to declare war against the United States, or that the United States
I were in a state of war with Brazil. He has in his intercourse in this neighborhood,
as I have understood, spoken much of an American system of politics, in contra-
distinction to the European; illustrating the idea by an example of this kind: that
we, that is, the United States and Portugal, would undertake to suppress piracy in
the neighboring seas, if the powers of Europe would suppress it in Africa. The idea
has something imposing in it, but I am inclined to think that the effect would be to
connect us with Portugal in some degree against the revolutionary colonies. Their
governments are badly organized; those who profess friendship for them easily
64 THE WRITINGS OF [1820'
A letter from you to Mr. Rush is among the present en-1
closures.
I am, etc.
TO ALBERT GALLATIN^
Department of State,
Washington, 24 August, 1820.
It Is sincerely hoped by the President that this counter-
acting and countervailing system will give way to the dis- '
position for an amicable arrangement in a conciliatory spirit
and with a view to the interests of both parties. The temper
which has been manifested in France, not onlv on this
occasion - but in relation to all the just claims of citizens of
the United States upon the French government could not
possibly terminate without coming to a crisis. And at the
same time that a positive rejection of the most indisputable
demands of our citizens for indemnity was returned for an-
swer to every note which you presented in their behalf, upon
the untenable pretence that the government of the Bourbons
cannot be responsible for the outrages of Its immediate prede-
cessors, claims equally untenable were advanced and re-
iterated with the most tenacious perseverance of privileges
contrary to our constitution In the ports of Louisiana,
impose on them, and under their name commit piracy on other powers. It requires
time to get them in the right road. We must allow them some time and point out
the road to them. In this way I think we shall suppress piracy sooner and more
effectually than by any aid to be derived from Portugal, and certainly more con-
sistently with our general scheme of policy." Monroe to Adams, August ii, 1820.
See Adams, Memoirs, September 19, 1820.
^ Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V. 646.
^ Tonnage duties and the act of Congress of May 15, 1820.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 65
founded on an inadmissible construction of an article in the
treaty for the cession of Louisiana.^
If the construction contended for of that article by France
were even correct, how can the present government claim
any advantage from a compact made with Napoleon, after
an explicit declaration that they hold themselves absolved
from all obligation of indemnities due to the United States
and their citizens for his acts? I mention this now, because
Mr. Roth ^ informs me that he has directed the French con-
sul at New Orleans to protest against the execution of the
act of 15 May, 1820, specially in the ports of Louisiana.
There was a long and elaborate note from Mr. de Neuville
on this subject, to which a distinct and explicit answer was
given by me. That minister replied, but as there was nothing
new in the shape of argument in his second note, a second
answer from me was postponed, merely for the purpose of
avoiding altercation, where it could be no possible object to
us to have the last word. The pretence is that by the 8th
article of the Louisiana treaty, French vessels are to be for-
ever treated in that province on the footing of the most
favored nation; and on the strength of this they claim to be
admitted there, paying no higher duties than English vessels.
Our answer is that English vessels pay there no higher or
other duties than our own, not by favor but by bargain.
England gives us an equivalent for this privilege; and a
merchant might as well claim of another, on the score of
equal favor, that he should give a bag of cotton or a hogshead
of tobacco to him, because he had sold the same articles to
a third, as France can claim as a gratuitous favor to her that
which has been granted for valuable consideration to Great
^ This argument is considered in Gallatin's reply, in Adams, Writings of Gallatin,
II. 175.
^ French charge d'affaires at Washington.
66 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
Britain. The claim to which we admit that France is en-
titled under that article is to the same privilege enjoyed hy
England upon her allowing the same equivalent. That is
completely and exclusively our treatment of the most
favored nation, and to that we are not only willing but de-
sirous of admitting France. But even to that she can have
no pretence while she refuses to be responsible for the deeds
of Napoleon. If she claims the benefit of his treaties, she
must recognize the obligation of his duties, and discharge
them. . . .^
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 26 August, 1820.
Dear Sir:
The enclosed letter from I. Byers of New York to General
Parker was delivered to me by that officer, and relates to a
^ "The act of Congress of 15 May last was passed on the last day of the session;
but had been presented by the Committee on the 15th of February. At the time
when it was proposed its commencement on the first of July would have given
ample time for the owners of all French vessels in Europe to be made acquainted
with its provisions, before fitting out or dispatching any vessel which would have
been subject to them. Other subjects absorbed the attention and feeling of both
houses till the close of the session, and a motion to postpone the commencement
of the act to the first of October was made on the last day and lost only from an |
apprehension that as an amendment requiring the concurrence of both Houses it
was not at that stage of the bill in order, and might endanger its passage. . . .
The Committee of Commerce who reported the bill intended to levy a tonnage duty
at least counter-balancing all the surcharges of the French law. Your letters, I
believe, formed the principal substratum of the evidence upon which they acted.
The Executive had contemplated a duty of twelve dollars, but the Committee, as
you know all committees of Congress do, consulted the Executive and followed their
own ideas. The call for the law from the merchants was loud and urgent, and the
Committee, as usual, sympathized with the feelings of their constituents." To
Gallatin, September 13, 1820. Ms.
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 67
subject of very considerable importance. To give you a
more perfect understanding of its contents, I enclose with
it a letter of 15 November, 18 19, from Jeremy Robinson, at
Valparaiso. General Parker says that more than twenty
vessels have been fitted out from New York, and have sailed
or are about to sail upon sealing and whaling voyages to this
newly discovered island or continent.^ Byers says they will
be on the spot before the English, but whether they can reach
latitude 61° 40' south in October, which answers to our
April, is to be seen. I much doubt it. If they do, and the
English adventurers come there afterwards, we shall hear
more of it. Nootka Sound and Falkland Island questions
may be expected. I beg leave to recommend the affair to
your particular consideration. The British government
just now have their hands so full of coronations and adul-
teries, liturgy, prayers, and Italian sopranos, Bergamis and
Pergamis, high treasons and petty treasons, pains, penalties
and paupers, that they will seize the first opportunity they
can to shake them all off; and if they can make a question
of national honor about a foothold in latitude 61° 40' upon
something between rock and iceberg, as this discovery must
be, and especially a question with us, they will not let it
escape them.
I desired General Parker to advise Mr. Byers to see the
Secretary of the Navy and confer with him about this project
of a settlement and sending a frigate to take possession. I
hope this plan will meet your approbation. There can be no
doubt of the right, and the settlement is a very good ex-
^ "The discovery of land in the Pacific, of great extent, is an important event,
and there are strong reasons in favor of your suggestion to aim at its occupancy
on our part. Communicate the documents to the Secretary of the Navy and suggest
the motive, asking how far it would be practicable to send a frigate there, and
thence to strengthen our force along the American coast. I shall also write him on
the subject." Monroe to Adams, September i, 1820.
68 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
pedient for protecting the real objects — to catch seals and
whales. The idea too of having a grave controversy with
Lord Castlereagh about an island latitude 61° 40' south is
quite fascinating.
I send also another letter from Jeremy Robinson of 17
January, 1820, very long and interesting. This man has
given us so much valuable information, and sees things with
so much more impartiality and therefore accuracy than
some others who have been there, that I almost wish you
would forget his indiscretion by which he forfeited the com-
mission he had obtained, and restore him to some subordinate
agency. I shall have a translation made of the long letter
from the Director O'Higgins ^ to you which was forwarded
through Robinson, and to which I suppose the Director will
expect an answer verbal or written.
With perfect respect, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT 2
[James Monroe]
Washington, 30th August, 1820.
Dear Sir:
I had an interview yesterday with Mr. Correa, the Portu-
guese Minister, according to his request. He strongly urged
the proposal contained in his note which I forwarded to you,
for the appointment of commissioners to investigate the com-
plaints of Portuguese subjects, owners of vessels and cargoes
taken by privateers fitted out in our ports, and chiefly ofh-
^ Bernardo O'Higgins (1778-1842), ruler of Chile.
^ Adams, Memoirs, August 29, 1820.
I
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 69
cered and manned by citizens of the United States. I sug-
gested to him that there were difficulties opposed to the
appointment of such a commission. That it would be in its
nature a judicial tribunal. That the constitution and laws
of the United States had already provided tribunals for the
trial of all such cases as could be brought before such a
commission. That if there had been any misconduct in the
judges of the existing courts, they were liable themselves
to trial by impeachment; but that it was hardly to be ex-
pected commissioners should be appointed to perform the
duties of those judges without any allegation of complaint
against them. He insisted that it was impossible for Portu-
guese subjects to obtain justice from our courts as now con-
stituted.^ That to impeach and remove the judges would
be no satisfaction, if it could take place. That whether they
should be impeached and punished was for the exclusive
consideration of this government itself. But what Portu-
gal had a right to claim was indemnity for the wrongs of her
subjects committed by citizens of the United States. It
was notorious that great numbers of Portuguese subjects
had been ruined by these depredations, and that at the very
moment when the message of the President at the com-
mencement of the last session of Congress was sent to that
body, there were seven privateers in the port of Baltimore,
^ "I do not recollect any previous example of an attack on the integrity, as this
seems to be, of the judiciary, of any power by a foreign minister. The error and
inconsistency of judicial decisions with the law of nations may fairly be urged as
a cause of complaint against the government; but beyond the government I do not
think that the minister has a right to go. The government is responsible to foreign
powers for the conduct of the court; the court is responsible to the nation for any
misconduct, fairly imputable to it, in a constitutional way. If the Portuguese
minister has erred in this respect, he will have no right to complain, if it should be
adverted to in a suitable way in the close of the correspondence." Monroe to
Adams, September 4, 1820. Ms.
70 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
known to be privateers waiting only for a wind to sail.
These things had produced such a temper both in Portugal
and in Brazil against the people and government of the
United States that he was unwilling to tell me the proposal
which had been formally made in the king's council con-
cerning them. That five or six years ago the people of the
United States were the nation of the earth for whom the
Portuguese felt the most cordial regard and friendship. They
were now those whom they most hated, and if the govern-
ment had considered the peace of the two countries as at
an end, they would have been supported in the declaration
by the hearty concurrence of the people. That if no other
consequence should follow from this disposition, commercial
restrictions would be certain. That if the feelings of resent-
ment should remain unallayed, and should even not disclose
themselves in overt acts at present, they would rankle and
occasions always present themselves in a course of time when
they may produce effect. The desire of the king was to be
upon good terms with the United States, but the property
of his subjects was robbed upon the high seas by pirates
sallying from the ports of the United States, without the
trouble to assume a disguise. This practice was continued
year after year, in the midst of professions of friendship from
the American government. It was impossible that he should
put up with it. I told him that you would take the proposal
into the most serious consideration, but probably would
come to no final determination until after returning to this
city and consulting the members of the administration, after
which I should answer his note. He said he should be obliged
to embark in the course of next month for Rio de Janeiro,
but should present Mr. Amado as charge d'affaires, and the
answer might be transmitted through him.
The enclosures herewith are a letter and a recommendation
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 71
to mercy in behalf of W. Cornell, from one or two of the
jurymen by whom he was tried, and a second letter from
Mr. Byers to General Parker concerning the new discovered
island in the South Seas.
I am, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 8 September, 1820.
Dear Sir:
I now enclose a dispatch from Mr. Gallatin, No. 151 of
II July, with a note which he had already addressed to Baron
Pasquier concerning the extra duties on both sides in the
navigation between the United States and France.^ It
appears from his letter that he was doubtful whether they
would enter into a negotiation with him at all, but that as
soon as the Legislative Assemblies should rise, the king would
lay a duty of 100 francs a ton upon American vessels which
shall have entered the French ports after the first of July.
There will be very few, if any, of them, for such a measure
was apprehended by our merchants after the act of Congress
passed, and scarcely any vessel went. Their numbers had
been declining every year, I might say almost every month,
and another year of the French system unresisted would
have excluded them almost as effectually as the hundred
francs tonnage duty. If after laying this new tonnage duty
they decline negotiating, there will be neither French nor
American vessels in the trade, which will all be carried by
^ Adams, Memoirs, September 5, 1820. Gallatin's letter is in Adams, Writings
of Gallatin, II. 150.
72 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
the English. I regret the pubUcation of parts of Mr. Galla-
tin's letters, as they may affect his personal consideration
there. But they were necessary to justify the act of Con-
gress and the nation.^ It is proper to observe to you that,
excepting with regard to the question of special privilege in
Louisiana, I have neither sent nor drawn up the special in-
structions concerning the negotiation which Mr. Gallatin
expects. Indeed they could not be prepared without par-
ticular directions from you, nor probably without a general
consultation of the members of the administration by you.
The general principles which we proposed were reciprocity
of equal duties, as in our convention with Great Britain.
But there were
1. The above mentioned Louisiana privilege question.
2. The restoration of deserting mariners.
3. The consular convention.
4. The claims of our citizens for indemnities.
5. The question about the brokers at Havre.
6. Questions about the admission of our cotton and to-
bacco upon favorable terms in France.
On all of which it has been impossible for me to send
detailed instructions, until the principles on which they were
to be predicated should be settled by you. Concluding that
this could not be done in the dispersion of the summer months
I have not attempted to draft those special instructions for
the formation of a treaty, and I have trusted they would be
in time, after we should know that the French government
would negotiate. I now mention these particulars, that you
1 The French government, wrote Gallatin, " were already irritated, and will be
more so with those sentences in my correspondence in which I suggest that they
will do nothing unless compelled by our acts. ... I fear that the expressions in
question will wound the pride of government, and I wish they had been omitted
in the publication."
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 73
may revolve them In your mind and determine what course
with regard to them you will think best to take in the draft
of special instructions for negotiation.
If they lay the hundred franc tonnage duty, which it seems
the king does not venture to propose to the chambers, and
cannot do of his own authority while they are in session, after
having gratified their spleen, I suppose they will begin to
think of coming to terms, and if so, it will be important that
Mr. Gallatin should be instructed upon all the points above
noted, and perhaps some others.
With perfect respect, etc.
TO THE CHEVALIER CORREA DE SERRA '
Department of State,
Washington, 30 September, 1820.
Sir:
The proposal contained in your note of the i6th of July
last^has been considered by the President of the United
^ "On further consideration of the temper manifested by Mr. Correa in your
last conference with him [Memoirs, August 29, 1820], I am led to presume that
when he wrote you the letter from Philadelphia, proposing the institution of a board
to liquidate the claims of Portugal against the United States, he was altogether
ignorant of the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hammond in the
commencement of the French revolution, and that the change in his tone was pro-
duced by the information given him on that subject, and the opinion expressed on
his proposition by his friend in the country. I have no doubt that had he had the
advantage of that communication before he wrote his letter, he would not
have written it. If this presumption is well founded, it is very natural that he should
be willing to withdraw himself from the discussion and leave it to his successor.
The demand by him will, I fear, lay the foundation for Spain to make a similar one,
and in case it be not granted, to refuse to pay us the five millions which she has
already admitted to be due. If he has not sailed, I think it would be advisable for
you to reject the proposition as utterly inadmissible on principle, and particularly
unreasonable in his case from the amendment of the law respecting our neutrality
74 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
States with all the deliberation due to the friendly relations
subsisting between the United States and Portugal, and with
the disposition to manifest the undeviating principle of jus-
tice by which this government is animated in its intercourse
with all foreign governments, and particularly with yours.
I am directed by him to inform you that the appointment of
commissioners to confer and agree with the ministers of his
Most Faithful Majesty upon the subject to which your letter
relates, would not be consistent either with the constitution
of the United States, nor with any practice usual among
civilized nations.
The judicial power of the United States is by their con-
stitution vested in their Supreme Court, and in tribunals
subordinate to the same. The judges of these tribunals are
amenable to the country by impeachment, and if any Por-
tuguese subject has suffered wrong by the act of any citizen
of the United States, within their jurisdiction, it Is before
those tribunals that the remedy is to be sought and obtained.
For any acts of citizens of the United States committed out
of their jurisdiction and beyond their control, the govern-
ment of the United States is not responsible.
To the war in South America, to which Portugal has for
several years been a party, the duty and the policy of the
United States have been to observe a perfect and impartial
neutrality. The government of the United States has neither
countenanced nor permitted any violation of that neutrality
by their citizens. They have by various and successive acts
obtained by him, and his knowledge of our efforts to prevent its abuse, as declared
by himself." Monroe to Adams, September 25, 1820. Ms. It was with reluctance
that Adams carried out these suggestions of the President, believing that "we have
something to answer for to Portugal in this case on the score of justice, and that
we shall answer for it, soon or late, by our own sufferings. I reluct at the idea of
supporting our cause upon the weakness or maladdresse of the adversary's counsel.
Adams, Memoirs, September 26, 1820.
,82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 75
of legislation manifested their constant earnestness to fulfil
their duties towards all the parties to that war, and they have
repressed every intended violation of them which has come
to their knowledge, and punished every transgression of
them which has been brought before their courts and sub-
stantiated by testimony conformable to principles recognized
by all tribunals of similar jurisdiction.
But I am instructed to request that you would furnish
me with all the documents upon which the complaints in
your notes of the i6th of July and 26th of August are
founded; as well relating to the vessels mentioned in the
former, as to the naval officers in the service of the United
States, and to the judges whom in the latter you accuse of
having in your belief disgraced the commissions which they
bear. And I am further commanded to assure you that if
these documents shall be found to contain evidence upon
which any officer, civil or military of the United States, or
any of their citizens, can be called to answer for his conduct
as injurious to any subject of Portugal, every measure shall
be taken to which the executive is competent, to secure full
justice and satisfaction to your sovereign and his nation.
I pray you to accept, etc.
TO ALBERT GALLATIN
Department of State,
Washington, October 4, 1820.
Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your dispatches Nos. 155,
156 and 157, with their enclosures. The preceding numbers
subsequent to 151 have not yet come to hand. Your letter
enclosing the two ordinances of the King of France, of 24
76 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
July, laying an additional tonnage duty of ninety francs per
ton upon American vessels, and securing a bounty of ten
francs for 100 kilogrammes upon cotton imported from any
part of America out of the United States in French vessels,
is, of course, among those not yet received, but the ordinances
themselves have appeared in our public journals.
The effect of the French indirect tonnage duties upon ar-
ticles of our produce, carried to France in our own vessels,
before the act of Congress of 15 May last, was a gradual total
exclusion of our vessels laden with any of those productions.
This exclusion was taking place so rapidly that from the
experience of its operation as now ascertained, as well as
from the apparent deduction which must necessarily follow
from the excessive burden of the discriminating duties upon
our shipping, there is no doubt it would have been before
the lapse of another year complete. It was taking place in
a manner the most injurious to us both nationally and in-
dividually considered — disguised under the form of a duty
of trifling amount upon the articles of merchandise and not
upon the tonnage, the operation of the duty 'became sensible
only by the ruin that it brought upon those of our merchants
who adventured in the trade. It had been thus circulating
like a poison in the veins of our commerce with France many
months before it was discovered; and when detected in the
heavy losses incurred by individuals, still remained but par-
tially known, until the disastrous issue of every voyage to
France exhibited its course so generally that at the last
session of Congress, besides the information received from
you, memorials from the chambers of commerce of New
York and Philadelphia stated to that body the injuries which
had already been sustained by these enormous charges of
France, pointed out the consequences which must follow,
unless some counteracting measure should be taken, and
1
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ^^
called for some act of the legislature for the protection of
their interests and those of the country perishing under the
pressure of these insupportable charges. . . .
Upon every calculation which can be made the result was
the same. The French surcharges were a prohibitory duty
upon American shipping; and they were just so much worse
than would have been a positive and express prohibition, as
a slow and torturing death is worse than extinction at a
sudden stroke. They left hope, and enterprise, and unwary
ardor to pursue their speculations, until they found their
inevitable termination in ruin. Such was the necessary
operation of the French surcharges upon our merchants.
What was the operation of ours upon the merchants of
France.!* You have stated them after the fact in your letter
of 31 July. The French shippers were making rapid fortunes
upon the same trade by which ours were rushing to destruc-
tion. Our surcharges were to the French shipper absolutely
nothing; for under them he was sure of making a profitable
voyage. The French surcharges upon ours were invariably
oppressive, the voyage without exception disastrous. That
they did persist in fitting them out was so much the worse
for themselves and their country. If instead of laying a
countervailing tonnage duty. Congress had passed an act
prohibiting the exportation of our own produce in our own
vessels to France, from the commencement of the present
year, every shipper in the United States who has sent an
American vessel laden to France would have been saved a
heavy loss. In this point of view, and it is believed a just
one, the French surcharge is a whole amount from which no
deduction ought to be made: and for this the tonnage duty
of ten dollars a ton was not even an equivalent.
The tonnage duty levied upon French vessels by the^act
of Congress of 15 May was also prohibitory; but it was direct,
78 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
and gave notice of itself. If the shortness of time between
its passage and the commencement of its operation could
be objectionable elsewhere, you have shown that it could
not be to the French government, who are in the habitual
practice of levying increased duties without giving any pre-
vious notice to those from whom they are to be exacted.
Prohibitory duties existing in both countries against the
admission of the shipping of the other, the material question
to be settled is what shall be done.
The proposal of the United States is, as it has been, per-
fect reciprocity — the principles of our convention with
Great Britain. The proposal of Baron Pasquier is, that,
without a treaty, the duties of each of the two countries upon
the navigation of the other should be so adjusted that the
benefit of freighting should be shared in equal proportions
by the shipping of both.
To this proposal we cannot accede.
First. Because it supposes an agreement to be binding on
the two governments without treaty or convention. We are
not aware how such an agreement could be made.
Second. Because it supposes that this informal agreement
shall be binding on the legislatures of both nations. The
executive of the United States has no power to make such
a compact.
Third. Because the principle itself of the arrangement is
inadmissible. It calls upon us to consent that our shipping
should bear one-half the burdens which France by her regu-
lations thinks proper to impose upon her own. If we lay
no such onerous burdens upon our own shipping interest,
it is not to be expected that we shall submit to have them
laid upon it by a foreign power. The shipping of France in
fair competition with ours has the great advantage of
cheaper outfits and a lower rate of seamen's wages. If, not-
1820] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 79
withstanding that, the French shipping cannot stand the
competition with ours, the remedy for France is to remove
the burden from her own shippers which she has laid upon
them, and not to ask us to assist her in laying half of it upon
ours.
With regard to the claim of special and unconstitutional
privileges for the vessels of France in the ports of the state
of Louisiana, the pretension is utterly unfounded. I have
already written to you upon this subject, and now enclose
copies of Mr. de Neuville's two letters to me concerning it,
and of my answer to the first of them. The reply contains
no new argument. The pretension that France has any
claim of right whatever in the ports of Louisiana, one of the
states of the American Union, which she has not in the other
states, is not only without any support from the treaty of
cession, but is in direct contravention to it.
The claim which Baron Pasquier advances of a right to
the assistance of this government in arresting and trans-
porting to the French vessels in our ports seamen deserters
from them, is equally unfounded. No such right is recog-
nized by the laws of nations. If France by her municipal
ordinances restores all deserting seamen to their vessels, it
gives her no right to claim the same restoration from others.
France, you know, has refused to deliver up a seaman, not
merely a deserter from a vessel of the United States, but
charged with murder and robbery committed in her; not
indeed in a port of France, but at sea. The principle upon
which she gave this refuge to the robber and murderer of
the Plattshurg applies with double force to the case of sea-
men guilty at the worst of nothing more than a breach of
contract. We do not complain of this refusal of France, but
we say its principle leaves her not the shadow of a claim to
the restoration of deserters as a right.
8o THE WRITINGS OF [1820
The President is nevertheless willing that you should agree
to an article of a convention stipulating the delivery of de-
serting seamen. The ninth article of the old consular con-
vention of 14 November, 1788, may serve as a model. But
we can make such an engagement no otherwise than by con-
vention; and far from conceding it as a right, we consider it
as giving us a just claim to a valuable equivalent in some
other article. At least to the reciprocity of equal duties.
We know that the reciprocity in the article itself will in point
of fact yield us nothing. If it were not already a general
internal municipal regulation of France, our ship-owners and
masters of vessels would not need it. Our seamen have no
temptation to desert in France. What should induce them
to desert.'' Lower wages.'' A strange language.^ Shackles
upon their personal freedom.'' The article, therefore, will
be of no beneficial use to us. The concession is all from us,
the reciprocity is merely formal. The solid benefit to France
of the stipulation may be estimated by the eagerness with
which her ministers call for it. We return for it nothing but
reciprocity in the article of duties.
To the proposal of Baron Pasquier it may be sufficient to
answer that the President can bind the faith of this nation
upon either of these articles, no otherwise than by stipula-
tions in form, subject to the constitutional sanction of the
Senate.
He has noticed with regret the insinuations which were
made in your conference with Baron Pasquier and the Duke
de Richelieu; that for the success of their recent measures
the French government rely upon supposed collisions of
interest between the citizens of different portions of the
Union. Such insinuations are not matter of argument; they
must receive their answer from time. He regrets them be-
cause they may be imputed to a spirit neither amicable nor
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 8i
conciliatoiy, the existence of which he has not suspected, and
because they are not reciprocal to those which he has felt,
and would fain yet feel towards France. Had her recent
ordinance been merely retaliatory, however unjust and in-
judicious it might have appeared, there might have been
found some apology for it in the irritation of momentary
feeling. But France had in substance excluded American
laden shipping from her ports before, A hundred francs of
additional tonnage duty could do no more. But the pre-
mium for South American cotton over that of the United
States, indirectly given in the second ordinance, and the
temptations held out to citizens of the United States to
violate or evade the law of their country by shipments to
Florida or the West Indies, indicate a spirit neither war-
ranted by any thing done on the part of the United States,
nor calculated to promote or encourage the friendly feeling
which under every vicissitude they have cherished towards
France. Should the policy of that country, however, find
its account in the mutual exclusion of each other's ships from
the carriage of the commerce between them, the consolation
will remain to us that while France was the first to com-
mence this unexpected course of policy, so we shall be ever
ready to welcome her recovery from it to what we deem
sounder and juster views not only of our interests but of her
own. I am, etc.
82 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO HENRY MIDDLETON
Department of State,
Washington, 6 November, 1820.
Sir:
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches
Nos. I and 2 from London with their enclosures. By a letter
since received from Mr. Rush I have learnt that you left
London on the 20th of September, and I trust that you have
by this time safely arrived at St. Petersburg. The course of
your negotiation at London, merely with a view to settle the
mode in which the subject of the controversy relating to
the slaves should be brought before the Emperor, has suffi-
ciently shown the obstacles which will beset every part of
its progress. The pretension that the United States should
be limited to the claim of indemnity for one list furnished of
slaves taken from Cumberland Island alone, was so extraor-
dinary that I should scarcely have believed it possible that
it should have been advanced. The proposal that if the
award should be in our favor, a certain sum should be settled,
to be paid for every individual carried away was more rea-
sonable, and if the British government should be so inclined,
might be agreed between you and Mr. Bagot, without refer-
ring it either to the Emperor, or to the commission. I will
at an early day write you further on this subject.
It was precisely from a desire, if possible, to narrow down
the part of the Emperor as umpire to a mere opinion of the
just construction of the treaty, that you were authorized to
confer with the British government, and ascertain whether
they were prepared, if the decision should be in our favor,
to carry it into effect without starting other questions, which
might as effectually defeat our claim with a decision that
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 83
it Is just, as if the award should be against us. The result
has been to show that it will be highly important to reserve
every question that can arise till full performance of the
award for the eventual decision of the Emperor. We give
full credence to the declaration of Lord Castlereagh, that his
personal dispositions would be to carry into immediate ex-
ecution the determination, if It should be in our favor, and
that he would aflFord every facility depending upon him for
that purpose. But as the whole subject is submitted to the
Emperor by the convention, the most effectual security that
we can have, for agreeing with Great Britain upon the means
of execution, will be by retaining the right to have them also
in case of disagreement settled by the arbitrator.
In the statement of the British ground of argument upon
the claim in the submission, they have broadly asserted the
right of emancipating slaves, private property, as a legiti-
mate right of war. This is utterly incomprehensible on the
part of a nation whose subjects hold slaves by millions, and
who in this very treaty recognized them as private property.
No such right is acknowledged as a law of war by writers who
admit any limitation. The right of putting to death all
prisoners in cold blood and without special cause might as
Well be pretended to be a law of war; or the right to use
poisoned arrows, or to assassinate. I think the Emperor
will not recognize the right of emancipation, as legitimate
warfare; and am persuaded you will present the argument
against it in all its force, and yet without prolixity.^
I am, etc.
1 In the decision of the Emperor no judgment was rendered on this point: "The
Emperor . . . does not think himself called upon to decide here any question rela-
tive to what the laws of war permit or forbid to the belligerents," and rested solely
on the "grammatical interpretation" of the article of the treaty. Moore, Inter-
national Arbitrations, I. 362.
84 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
TO STRATFORD CANNING ^
Department of State,
Washington, 30 December, 1820.
Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your note of the
20th instant, in reply to which I am directed by the President
of the United States to inform you that, conformably to
the assurances given you in the conversation to which you
refer,- the proposals made by your government to the United
States, inviting their accession to the arrangements con-
tained in certain treaties with Spain, Portugal and the
Netherlands, to which Great Britain is the reciprocal con-
tracting party, have again been taken into the most serious
deliberation of the President, with an anxious desire of con-
tributing to the utmost extent of the powers within the com-
petency of this government, and by means compatible with
its duties to the rights of its own citizens, and with the prin-
ciples of its national independence to the effectual and final
suppression of the African slave-trade.
At an earlier period of the communications between the
two governments upon this subject, the President, in mani-
festing his sensibility to the amicable spirit of confidence
with which the measures concerted between Great Britain
and some of her European allies had been made known to
the United States, and to the free and candid offer of ad-
mitting the United States to a participation in those meas-
ures, had instructed the minister of the United States residing
near your government, to represent the difficulties resulting
1 Stratford Canning, first Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe (1786-1880), first
cousin of George Canning. He arrived in Washington, September 28, 1820.
2 Adams, Memoirs, October 2, 20 and 26; December 23 and 30, 1820. flj
n
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 85
as well from certain principles of international law, of the
deepest and most painful interest to these United States, as
from limitations of authority prescribed by the people of
the United States to the legislative and executive depositaries
of the national power, which placed him under the necessity
of declining the proposal. It had been stated that a compact
giving the power to the naval officers of one nation to search
the merchant vessels of another, for offenders and offence
against the laws of the latter, backed by a further power, to
seize and carry into a foreign port, and there subject to the
decision of a tribunal composed of at least one-half for-
eigners, irresponsible to the supreme corrective tribunal of
this Union, and not amenable to the control of impeachment
for official misdemeanor, was an investment of power over
the persons, property, and reputation of the citizens of this
1 country, not only unwarranted by any delegation of sov-
ereign power to the national government, but so adverse to
the elementary principles and indispensable securities of
individual rights interwoven in all the political institutions
of this country, that not even the most unqualified appro-
bation of the ends, to which this organization of authority
was adopted, nor the most sincere and earnest wish to concur
i{ in every suitable expedient for their accomplishment, could
reconcile it to the sentiments or the principles of which in the
estimation of the people and government of the United States
no consideration whatsoever could justify the transgression.
In the several conferences which since your arrival here
I have had the honor of holding with you, and in which this
subject has been fully and freely discussed between us, the
incompetency of the power of this government to become a
party to the institution of tribunals organized like those
stipulated in the conventions above noticed, and the incom-
patibility of such tribunals with the essential character of
86 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
the constitutional rights guaranteed to every citizen of the
Union, have been shown by direct references to the funda-
mental principles of our government; in which the supreme,
unlimited, sovereign power is considered as inherent in the
whole body of its people, while its delegations are limited and
restricted by the terms of the instruments sanctioned by
them, under which the powers of legislation, judgment and
execution are administered; and by special indications of the
articles in the constitution of the United States which ex-
pressly prohibit their constituted authorities from erecting
any judicial courts by the form of process belonging to which
American citizens should be called to answer for any penal
offence without the intervention of a grand jury to accuse,
and of a jury of trial to decide upon the charge. [It has
been shown that the trial of an American citizen for offences
against the laws of his country, not by a jury of his peers and
neighbors, but in a foreign land, by judges and arbitrators
strangers both to him and his country, would be a sub-
version of these liberties to which in our estimation life
itself is an object of secondary consideration; and that to
be made amenable to tribunals thus constituted would be as
repugnant to the general feelings and principles of this
nation as to the express letter of several articles of their
constitution.] ^
But while regretting that the character of the organized
means of cooperation for the suppression of the African
slave-trade, proposed by Great Britain, did not admit of our
concurrence in the adoption of them, the President has been
far from the disposition to reject or discountenance the
general proposition of concerted cooperation with Great
Britain to the accomplishment of the common end, the
suppression of the trade. For this purpose armed cruisers
^ The sentence in brackets was struck out.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 87
of the United States have been for some time kept stationed
on the coast which is the scene of this odious traffic, a meas-
ure which it is in the contemplation of this government to
continue without intermission. As there are armed British
vessels charged with the same duty constantly kept cruising
on the same coast, I am directed by the President to propose
that instructions, to be concerted between the two govern-
ments with a view to mutual assistance, should be given to
the commanders of the vessels respectively assigned to that
service. That they may be ordered, whenever the occasion
may render it convenient, to cruise in company together, to
communicate mutually to each other all information ob-
tained by the one, and which may be useful to the execution
of the duties of the other; and to give each other every as-
sistance which may be compatible with the performance of
their own service, and adapted to the end which is the com-
mon aim of both parties.^ [It is hoped that by these means
the flag of the United States may be effectually shielded
from the disgrace of screening the slave trader from punish-
' Canning, in transmitting this note to Castlereagh, expressed his concern that
the British proposals were not accepted, but added: "I sincerely hope that the
counter proposal contained in the latter part of Mr. Adams's note, for the purpose
of establishing a system of cooperation, grounded on common instructions, between
his Majesty's cruisers and those of the United States, employed on the African
coast, may be found worthy, on examination of being carried in effect. An opening
once made, it may perhaps be found practicable at a later period to improve it into
some arrangement more nearly approaching to that which has been offered by his
Majesty's government. Your Lordship may be assured in the meantime that I
shall endeavor, as opportunities arise, to encourage whatever disposition may exist
in the House of Congress to favour the establishment of a more substantial coopera-
tion on this head between the two countries; but I see no advantage likely to re-
sult from my pursuing for the present a further correspondence on this subject with
the Secretary of State." Canning to Castlereagh, January 2, 1821. Castlereagh
feared the American proposal would be "in its operation wholly inefficient as to the
object, and can never be considered in the light of a substitute " for that made by
Great Britain. See Adams, Memoirs, January 2, 1821.
88 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
ment without subjecting the standard oj this nation to the
humiliation of witnessing the search by a foreign officer of an
American vessel^ for transgressors of American laws; to be
tried and doomed by the decision of foreign arbitrators and
judges.^
The President is further disposed, should it be satisfactory
to your government, to stipulate by a convention the number
of cruisers to be kept stationed on the African coast by both
parties, and the time during which and latitudes within
which thev shall cruise, with a view to the end to be ac-
complished by these concurrent operations.] ^
These measures congenial to the spirit which has so long
and so steadily marked the policy of the United States in
the vindication of the rights of humanity will, it is hoped,
prove effectual to the purposes for which this cooperation is
desired by your government, and to which this Union will
continue to direct its most strenuous and persevering
exertions.
I pray you, etc.
TO GEORGE SULLR^AN
Washington, 20 January, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I have duly received your favor of the nth instant, with
a copy of Mr. Webster's report to the convention,^ concern-
ing the University at Cambridge, and of the discussion of
the question, who are now the rightful Overseers of Harvard
College .''
^ For the words italicised the follovring were substituted: "incurring the incon-
veniences which seem to be inseparable from the other course of proceeding."
* The sentences within brackets were struck out.
* For framing a new constitution for Massachusetts.
(
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 89
My sentiments with regard to that institution have uni-
formly been those of the most ardent attachment and the
deepest reverence. Indebted to instruction there received
for a large portion of the intellectual faculties which I con-
sider as the most precious of worldly possessions, and to the
friendships there formed for many of the most pleasing recol-
lections that have accompanied me through life, indebted
to its government for the first introduction to the notice of
my fellow citizens, and for some of the dearest distinctions
ever conferred upon me, my affection and gratitude have
been further stimulated by the remembrance that the same
institution has been for ages a fountain unexhausted of the
same blessings to my forefathers of five generations, and by
the hope that it will be alike beneficial of good to my children
and with the blessing of Providence to theirs.
With these impressions I have sincerely lamented the dis-
cordance of opinions respecting the organization and man-
agement of the college government, indicated by the succes-
sive changes in it prescribed during the last ten years by
the legislature of the state. Of the merits of those changes,
however, my situation has not permitted me to obtain that
thorough knowledge which would alone warrant me in form-
ing and expressing an opinion. I have sorrowed over changes
which I feared might be traceable to political prejudices, or
to the spirit of sectarian proselytism; but I have fondly
hoped that through all these changes the essential character
of the institution as a seminary of wisdom and virtue would
remain unimpaired, and I have felt that the first of all events
in the sanctuary of the Muses is peace.
It neither has been, nor is now in my power, critically to
examine the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the Dartmouth College case, nor to investigate its
bearings upon the question discussed in your pamphlet.
90
THE WRITINGS OF [1821
The reasoning of the counsellor at law has the appearance
of sound argument, but T should wish to hear the other side,
before I could make up a definite opinion upon it, and even
then I might hesitate at the ulterior question, whether in
this case it could not be more conducive to the public weal
to endure the wrong than to extort the right? ^
With regard to religious opinions, I have felt it my duty
to make up my own upon the Hght of such evidence as per-
haps too busy a life has allowed me to obtain. I have sought
that evidence rather in the text of the Scriptures than in the
glosses or the disputes of commentators, and I have drawn
my conclusions rather from the operations of my own mind
than from the argumentations of others. The result has
been that there is no denomination of Christians with whose
devotions I cannot cheerfully associate, and none to whose
peculiar doctrines I can conscientiously subscribe. I have
followed with very imperfect and much interrupted atten-
tion the progress of the Unitarian controversy which has
been for some years maintained with so much zeal and
ability on both sides in our country. Of what I have seen
it appears to me that as a question upon the meaning of
certain passages of Scripture, the disputants on each side
have been more successful in combating the doctrines of
their adversaries than in maintaining their own. I consider
it as an unprofitable controversy. The only importance of
religion to my mind consists in its influence upon the conduct;
and upon the conduct of mankind the question of Trinity or
Unity, or of the single or double personal nature of Christ,
has or ought to have no bearing whatsoever.
1 Sullivan claimed that Webster sought to confirm by constitutional provision
the law framed by Parsons in 1810, reenacted in 18 14, the intention of which was
to make the University "a powerful engine in the hands of politicians and polemical
divines."
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 91
I am sorry to learn that you have met with any opposition
from the Unitarians in the establishment of the Episcopal
Church of which you have become a member. There seems
to be an excess of zeal among the younger partisans of the
Unitarian creed, but it may perhaps be attributed to the
impression that they are themselves persecuted. Religious
liberty for ourselves, religious salvation for the opinions of
others, are the only doctrines which I deem essential to all,
and the only creed which I earnestly hope may become
universal.
Lest you should possibly prefer to this long letter a short
and explicit answer to your inquiry, I conclude with the
remark that my distance from the scene, and my inability to
make myself thorough master of the merits of the college
question, forbid my taking part in a dispute upon which I
should be afraid of performing only the part of chaos,
"And by decision more embroil the fray."
I am, etc.^
' On January 26 a sharp encounter between the Secretary of State and the British
Minister occurred on the subject of settlements on the Columbia River. Adams
has recorded in his Memoirs (V. 243) the interview, and Canning in a dispatch to
Castlereagh showed the effect produced*^upon him. His biographer wrote: "Lord
Castlereagh — or the Marquis of Londonderry as he had then become — decided to
let the matter drop, and Canning himself acknowledged that there were faults in
his own manner of raising the question." Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning,
L 308. Of Adams Canning wrote in his "Memoirs," compiled in part after he had
entered his ninety-third year: "Mr. Adams was naturally the official of whom I saw
most. He was more commanding than attractive in personal appearance, much
above par in general ability, but having the air of a scholar rather than a states-
man, a very uneven temper, a disposition at times well-meaning, a manner too of-
ten domineering, and an ambition causing unsteadiness in his political career. My
private intercourse with him was not wanting in kindness on either side. The
rougher road was that of discussion on matters of business. The irritation of a
sensitive temper had much to excuse it in the climate. . . . Under much wayward-
ness on the surface there lay a fund of kindly and beneficent intentions which
ought to go down the stream of time with the record of his life and characteristic
92 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
TO RICHARD RUSH
Department of State,
Washington, 6 February, 1821.
Sir:
Among the documents published in the files of the Intelli-
gencer, which will be transmitted to you by this opportunity,
you will observe two messages from the President to the
House of Representatives, communicating in answer to a
call from them the correspondence which has taken place
with the British government relative to the suppression of
the slave-trade.
From the zeal and earnestness with which Mr. Canning
since his arrival here has pressed the proposal of the British
government that we should accede to the mutual right of
search and anomalous tribunals of their treaties with Por-
tugal and the Netherlands, it would seem that they had not
in any adequate manner understood the force and insuper-
able character of our objections to that proposal. Mr.
Canning urged and reiterated the wishes of his government
on the subject until it became necessary to manifest a con-
cern ^ which we had at every previous stage of this negotia-
qHalities." lb. Adams' opinion of Canning is in his Memoirs, June 24, 1823. Of
it Lane-Poole says: "For an opponent the judgment is singularly just and clear-
sighted."
1 The draft read "a feeling on the protracted and persevering efforts to obtain
our acquiescence in measures, not less odious to us than the slave-trade itself."
On this Monroe wrote, suggesting the word "concern" for "feeling" and added:
"I think it probable that all that may be written on the subject will come before the
public, and as Mr. C[anning] may make representations to his government of what
passed in late interviews, corresponding with the temper which he indicated in
them, which may, connected with the interfering claims of the two governments,
finally produce some unpleasant results, it seems advisable to be on our guard not
to furnish them with any pretext for improper conduct." Monroe to Adams,
February 3, 1821. Ms.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 93
tion from motives of conciliation anxiously endeavored to
avoid. From the first moment that this proposal had been
suggested to us, there had been neither doubt nor hesitation
shown in our manner of receiving it. The nature of our ob-
jections had been disclosed in terms as explicit and with a
purpose as obviously fixed as we thought candor to require
and good humor to permit. In the discussion with Mr.
Canning his tenacious adherence to the expedient which had
been so unequivocally and repeatedly declined by us elicited
remarks upon the character of that expedient, and its close
analogy to the causes of our late conflict with Great Britain,
which, though deemed indispensable, were very reluctantly
made.
He has expressed some sensibility at the publication of the
instructions to Mr. Gallatin and you, and of your letter to
me alluding to the speech of Lord Castlereagh in Parlia-
ment.^ The necessity for the communication to the house
and consequent publication of those documents with the
others arose from the feeble impression which the direct
correspondence between the two governments was found to
have made upon the minds of the British cabinet in their
estimate of our sentiments upon the main proposition. It
is not supposed probable that the British government will
renew the same proposal, but if any intimation of such an
intention should be suggested to you, candor will require
that with everything conciliatory in the manner, you should
leave no sort of doubt upon the substance of the President's
determination, but let it distinctly be understood that the
right of mutual search can, on our part, under no circum-
stances whatsoever be admitted.
You will observe that as a substitute for this proposal we
have offered a concert of operations between the armed
^ Adams, Memoirs, January 9, 1821.
94
THE WRITINGS OF [1821 i
vessels of the two nations stationed upon the coast of Africa,
for the suppression of the slave-trade. This concert, It Is
believed, may be effected without a formal convention, but
by Instructions to be given on both sides to the commanders
of the vessels. Such instructions will be given to our officers
employed on that service, in general terms and with a dis-
cretionary power to apply them in such a manner as their
experience may point out as best adapted to the attainment
of the end. In the course of the last year four vessels en-
gaged In the trade have been captured by our cruisers, sent
into our ports and condemned. There Is good reason to
expect that the measures which have been taken, and will
be perseveringly pursued by this government for the execu-
tion of the laws, will effectually suppress the abuse of the
flag of the United States to cover a traffic which has in-
curred the general indignation of mankind. I am, etc.
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES ^
Department of State,
Washington, 28 February, 1821. J
Sir: "
I have submitted to the consideration of the President of
the United States the observations which, in conformity to
the instructions of your government, were verbally made
by you at the conference which I had the honor of holding
with you, when you notified me of your readiness to exchange
1 Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 703. The treaty, rati-
fied by Spain, reached Washington February 10, though the Cortes had acted in
November. The bearer of the treaty sailed from Bordeaux and after a passage of
eighty-eight days landed at Wilmington, Delaware. Vives had his conference with
Adams on the I2th. No reply to his observations was made until the end of Feb-
ruary. Adams, Memoirs, February 12 and 28, 1821.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 95
the ratifications of the treaty of 22 February, 18 19, between
the United States and Spain.
With regard to the omission on the part of the Spanish
negotiator of the treaty, to Insist upon some provision of
indemnity In behalf of Spanish claimants to whom a pledge
of such indemnity had been stipulated by the previously
ratified convention of 1802, an omission stated by you to
have been peculiarly dissatisfactory to the Cortes, I am di-
rected to observe, that as in all other cases of the adjustment
of differences between nations, this treaty must be consid-
ered as a compact of mutual concessions in which each party
abandoned to the other some of Its pretensions. These con-
cessions on the part of the United States were great; nor
could it be expected by the Spanish nation that they would
be obtained without equivalent. Probably the Spanish
negotiator considered the claims of Spanish subjects em-
braced by that convention as so small in amount, as scarcely
to be worthy of Inflexible adherence to them. He certainly
considered the whole treaty as highly advantageous to
Spain; a sentiment in which the government of the United
I States always entirely participated, and still concurs.
I This also furnishes the reply which most readily presents
itself to the proposition which you have also been Instructed
to make, that some compensation should be allowed by the
United States for the benefit of the grantees of lands, recog-
I nized by the treaty to have been null and void. While ap-
preciating In all Its force the sense of justice, by which after
the maturest deliberation and the fullest examination, the
I Cortes have declared that those grants were so, as at the
signature of the treaty they had been clearly, explicitly and
unequivocally understood to be, by both the plenipoten-
tiaries who signed It, the President deems It unnecessary to
press the remark which must naturally present Itself, that to
96 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
grantees whose titles were in fact null and void, and by all
parties to the negotiation were known to be null and void,
no indemnity can be due, because no injury was done. Nor
can it be admitted that this is one of the cases of misunder-
standing from which the grantees could be entitled to the
benefit of a doubtful construction. The construction of the
article was in no wise doubtful. For any construction which
would have admitted the validity of the grants, would have
rendered impossible the fulfilment of other most important
stipulations of the treaty.
The discussion of this subject having already been a sub-
ject of correspondence between the minister of foreign af-
fairs of your government and Mr. Forsyth, could now be
continued to no profitable purpose. I take much more sat-
isfaction in assuring you of the pleasure with which the
President has accepted the ratification of the treaty as an
earnest of that cordial harmony which it is among his most
ardent desires to cultivate between the United States and
Spain. This disposition he cherishes the hope will be further
promoted by the community of principle upon which the
liberal institutions of both nations are founded, and by the
justice, moderation and love of order which they combine
with the love and the enjoyment of freedom,
I pray you, etc.^
1 The Secretary of State prepared the instructions for Major General Jackson,
commissioner to receive possession of the Floridas, governor of the same, and
commissioner "vested with special and extraordinary powers" to carry the stipu-
lations of the treaty of cession into effect. These instructions and letters from
Adams to Jackson during his governorship are in the American State Papers,
Foreign Relations, IV. 750 et seq. Adams also prepared, for the House Committee
on Foreign Relations, the minutes of an act for carrying the Florida treaty into •
execution; "which I did, combining the precedents of the Acts for taking possession
of Louisiana with provisions for the establishment of the commission for claims."
These minutes were returned to the Secretary of State with a request that he should
draft a bill, which he did. Adams, Memoirs, February 26 and 27, X821.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 97
TO ALBERT GALLATIN ^
Department of State,
Washington, 31 March, 1821.
Sir:
The latest dispatches received from you are of 8 January,
No. 170. The newspapers and public documents, which
have since my last letter been forwarded to you, will have
informed you of the final ratification of the Florida treaty,
of the termination of the session of Congress, and of the
second inauguration of the President.
The Baron Hyde de Neuville arrived here so shortly be-
fore the 4th of March, that had the prospects of a satisfactory
commercial arrangement with him been more favorable than
they were, it would scarcely have been possible to bring
them to a close in time to have submitted the convention to
the consideration of the Senate. It was very soon after his
arrival perceived that the conjectures in your No. 169 were
corroborated by every indication to be drawn from his course
of proceeding. He began by manifesting a degree of irrita-
tion at the seizure of the Apollon,"^ for which neither the
importance of the case, nor the circumstances which had
attended it, appeared to call. Besides the claim to exclusive
privileges for French ships, under color of the eighth article
of the Louisiana cession treaty, he intimated doubts whether
he could enter upon the discussion of merely commercial
interests, until satisfaction should be given for this seizure
of the Apollon, and for another vessel, the Eugene, which
1 Adams, Memoirs, November i, 1820; January 5, February 24.
^ The draft of a letter to de Neuville in reply to his representations was returned
by the President on March 29, with some suggested alterations. It is printed in
American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V. 163, 650. See Adams, Memoirs,
March 29.
98 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
had been required to depart from the same south side of
St. Mary's River. He gave even some countenance to an
idea which Mr. Roth/ in one of his written communications,
had suggested with some hesitation: that the flag of France
had in these cases been insulted. This manifest effort to
give a coloring to those transactions entirely different from
their real character could not but excite some surprise, until,
in the course of the verbal discussion between us, he dis-
closed the fact that the French government had been con-
sulted by some of their merchants to enquire whether this
expedient to evade our tonnage duties would be effectual;
and had been answered by his own advice, that it would be.
It thus appears that the project of Captain Edou was part
of a system which the French merchants would have found
very convenient, had it succeeded, but which was altogether
disconcerted by the seizure of the Apollon. |
The Spanish minister, General Vives, at the Instigation of
Mr. Roth, had also addressed notes of complaint for the
alleged violation of the territorial rights of Spain by the
seizure of the Apollo7i. Written answers to these notes had
been delayed from an unwillingness to pursue, at the mo-
ment when the ratification of the Florida treaty was ex-
pected, a correspondence which necessarily required recrim-
ination upon officers of the Spanish government; upon the J
governor of East Florida, for this establishment of a pre-
^ On January 6 the Secretary of State wrote to Gallatin of a letter from Roth
on tht Apollon and Eugene, "expressed in terms so insulting to this government that
it has required some forbearance to abstain from sending it back to Mr. Roth, with
an intimation that its language forfeited all claim to an answer. In the hourly
expectation of the arrival of Mr. Hyde de Neuville and the hope that with him the
discussion may proceed in the spirit of conciliation which the President has not
ceased to cherish in the conduct of our relations with France, he has directed me to
overlook the character of these communications with Mr. Roth, so far as to confine
to verbal conference with him the remarks to which they have necessarily given
rise." lJ i
i82il JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 99
tended port where there was no town or settlement for
trade, for purposes so obviously hostile to the United States;
and upon the Spanish acting vice-consul at Savannah, whose
purposes thus hostile were not merely to be inferred from
his conduct in this transaction, but were explicitly avowed
in letters written by himself, which had come to the pos-
session of this government. The Baron de Neuville, after
his arrival, urged again General Vives to press his complaint;
and since the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty an
answer has been sent him, of which a copy is inclosed.
Copies are also now transmitted of the correspondence
between the Baron and this department, both in relation to
the claim under the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty,
and to the cases of the Apollon and Eugene, to which a third
case, that of the Edmond, Captain Mestre, has recently been
added. This vessel, by a general order from the War De-
partment issued shortly after Amelia Island was taken into
our possession in 1817, could not have entered there with a
cargo. It happened, very opportunely for her admission,
that she touched on the bar at St. Augustine, had been only
saved by unloading her cargo there, and then resorted in
distress to Amelia Island to repair her damages. Admitted
on the principle of humanity, the extreme good faith of
Captain Mestre induces him to inquire of the French consul
at Charleston, whether he can take in a cargo, to be carried
to him there from the United States, without payment of
any duties of entry. And the Baron has addressed two suc-
cessive letters to this Department, reiterating that inquiry.
These anxious exertions to interest the honor of the French
flag, and the sanctity of the territorial immunities of Spain,
in defense of gross and glaring projects of fraud upon the
laws and revenue of the United States, portend a disposition
little favorable to any arrangement upon principles of reci-
loo THE WRITINGS OF [1821
proclty. It is believed to be the first example of a govern-
ment's being called upon by a foreign minister to mark the
precise point to which the smugglers of his nation may
venture, without danger of being molested. . . .^
TO RICHARD PETERS
Washington, 2 April, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I have received a second letter from the poor man whom
I mentioned to you here, and in whose favor you were kind
enough to promise to take an interest. His name is Dupre,
and he claims my good offices on the score of having thirty-
five years ago purchased for me a foundered horse at New
York. I have a distinct recollection of the horse and of the
man, though I have never seen him since the time to which
he refers, and his name had escaped my memory. He was
then the La Fleur of Mr. Le Ray de Chaumont, with whom
I travelled from New York to Boston, He is now in the
almshouse at Philadelphia owing, as he says, to cramps and
rheumatisms which have disabled him from acquiring sub-
sistence by his own industry. His complaint is that by some
new rule of discipline at the house he is restricted in the
privilege of walking out which he enjoyed until lately, and
that it debars him of exercise essential to his health.
I have so kindly a recollection of the man and of his serv-
ices to me, both in the affair of the horse and upon the jour-
ney, that it would gratify me to be able to render him the
service which he now requires of me. He is a Frenchman,
^ Gallatin addressed a note to Baron Pasquier on the case of the Apollon, which
is in Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 187. In a letter to Adams, July 2 {lb., 194),
he raises some question on the argument advanced by the United States. I \\
1821] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS loi
and of course delights in glory. He assigns this in his second
letter as one of his reasons for applying to me, promising
himself much glory by obtaining the indulgence for which
he pleads from the interposition of the Secretary of State.
I would willingly petition the managers of the almshouse
in his favor, but as they might justly entertain different
ideas from those of poor Dupre with regard to the inter-
ference of a Secretary of State in their concerns, I avail my-
self of your obliging offer to solicit in his behalf the permis-
sion of walking out at his own discretion, so far as It may be
consistent with the necessary order of the house.
I am, etc.
MEMORANDUM SENT TO HYDE DE NEUVILLE ^
Department of State,
Washington, 26 April, 1821.
In the commercial regulations established merely by law,
the basis upon which every nation proceeds is its own in-
terest, without reference to that of other nations. But com-
merce being an interchange of commodities, in the disposal
of which both parties are interested, it is just in itself, and
conformable to the practice of nations, that the regulation
of it should be by arrangements to which both parties con-
sent, and in which due regard is paid to the interests of both.
• The first principle, therefore, of all negotiation upon such
' The French minister, dissatisfied by the reply to his representations made on
returning to the United States, sent a confidential letter to the Secretary, dated
April 4, "written in a spirit requiring such an answer as would lead to the imme-
diate rupture of the negotiation." The resulting correspondence, dealing with the
case of the Apollon, a^commercial treaty, and other special subjects, is printed in
the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V. i66. See Adams, Memoirs,
April 6-24, 1821.
102 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
interests is reciprocity; and wherever a collision of interests
exists, it is apparent that they can be conciliated only by
reciprocal concession.
In the subject upon which a collision of interest between
the United States and France has arisen, the two parties
have heretofore enacted respectively, each with exclusive
reference to its own interest, certain regulations securing,
so far as its power extended, certain advantages to its own
shipping, by certain special charges within its jurisdiction,
direct or indirect, upon the shipping of the other; the result
of which counteracting legislation on both sides has been, in
a great measure, the exclusion of the shipping of both parties
from the carriage of the commerce between them.
This result is injurious to the interests of both parties;
and the effort now made by both is to agree upon some
arrangement by which the conflicting interests of both par-
ties may be conciliated. It is further to be observed that no
concession, the effect of which would be to sacrifice the in-
terest of either party more, or as much as it is sacrificed by
the existing state of things, could either be durable or satis-
factory by both parties.
The difference between the parties having originated al-
together from the surcharges upon shippi?ig, the natural and
obvious principle of reciprocity applicable to the case would
be that of repealing all discriminating duties and surcharges
on both sides; and this is what has been repeatedly offered
and urged on the part of the United States.
It is represented on the part of France, that this principle
is inadmissible; but for this refusal no reason has been as-
signed. No objection on the ground of natural justice or
general policy has been, or it is believed can be alleged. It
has been assumed without proof that the effect of it would
be to throw the whole commerce into the channel of Amer-
I
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 103
ican shipping, although it is notorious that all the outfits of
navigation and the wages of seamen are much cheaper in
France than in the United States.
Whatever disadvantages French navigation may labor
under in competition with that of the United States are
believed to be within the control of France to remove.
Nevertheless, the opinion of the French government of the
subject being stated by the Baron de Neuville to be irrev-
ocably fixed, the President has been willing to meet any
supposed disadvantage to France in such an arrangement,
by advantages thought to be fully equivalent for them to
the agriculture, commerce and manufactures of France, In
the minutes of a projet first presented by the Baron de
Neuville, the President welcomed what he thought coun-
tenanced the hope of such a compromise. The Baron sug-
gested special accommodations to the principal exports from
France to the United States, and other benefits to French
interests, all which were assented to by the President to the
extent proposed by the Baron himself. In return for these
concessions he had reason to expect some concession on the
part of France [which he certainly could not perceive in a
proposal to reduce indefinitely, or even to the extent of | the
surcharges direct and indirect, upon the shipping on both
sides] in which, however, he has yet been disappointed.^
He thought that with such great advantages granted to the
commerce and manufactures of France, the least that could
be required in return was that reciprocity which should dis-
card all discriminating duties upon the mere carriage of
the trade.
In the second project received from the Baron de Neuville,
he proposes to set aside all questions of commercial advan-
* The words in brackets were omitted on the suggestion of Monroe and the
following clause substituted for them.
I04 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
tage, as merely secondary objects, and to take that of the
shipping interests alone. He proposes a reduction of the
discriminating duties on both sides, on the basis of calcula-
tions which may be adapted to secure a share of the carriage
of the trade to each party. To the admission of this prin-
ciple the government of the United States have constantly
objected upon the most substantial and cogent reasons.
The President is yet not aware of any form in which it can
satisfactorily be admitted. Nevertheless, in the earnestness
of his desire to [accommodate the interests of France, even
in the mode which she deems the most satisfactory to her-
self, he has determined to listen to such specific proposals
as the Baron de Neuville may be authorized to make in this
respect, and he is accordingly requested to specify what
amount of reduction in the duties he would propose as
likely to equalize the interests and to satisfy the reasonable
expectations of both countries].^ To abridge the negotia-
tion, perhaps it may be most convenient that the Baron de
Neuville should present his proposal in the form of an article
for a convention. -
^ The words within brackets were omitted on the suggestion of Monroe, who
inserted: "to terminate the commercial conflict between the two countries, he will
receive and consider with the utmost attention any specific proposals which the
Baron de Neuville may be authorized to make for the accomplishment of this
desirable object."
2 "The draft is approved in its general view and details, with the two modifica-
tions above suggested, which are stated for consideration, on the idea that it may
be advisable to generalize what we are willing to receive from him, rather than so
far to countenance his plan of reduction, as we might do, by specifying it. The
more general, that is, the wider we open the door for him to make proposals, the
greater the compliment; and the less shall we be compromitted as to the result."
Monroe to Adams, April 25, 1821. Ms. The correspondence with the French
minister on commercial questions is not reproduced in this volume. It will be found
in the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V. 149-213.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 105
TO THE EARL OF CARYSFOOT ^
r
Washington, 3 May, 1821.
My Lord :
I request the favor of vour Lordship's acceptance of a
copy of a report upon weights and measures recently made
to the Senate of the United States. In offering this feeble
testimonial of my lasting remembrance of the kindness
which I have, at different periods and distant intervals of
time and place, experienced from you, I indulge the hope
that the subject of the report itself will not be without pecu-
liar interest to you, from the circumstance that your Lord-
ship's father was the chairman of the committee of the House
of Commons which, in 1758, led the way to those inquiries
into the history of the weights and measures of England, of
which this report is one of the results.
More than half a century has elapsed since he made the
report of that committee to the House, and the subject yet
remains in deliberation as well before the imperial Parlia-
ment of Great Britain and Ireland, as before the Congress of
the United States of America. Called in the discharge of
an official duty to report upon this subject to the latter of
those bodies. It has been to me one of the sources of satis-
faction with which the researches required by the call were
pursued, to reflect that for much of the Information obtained
by them I was Indebted to the labors of your father. A
satisfaction mingled with regret, from the fact that I have
been unable ever to obtain sight of the report of the commit-
tee of 1758, or of that of 1759, by which It was succeeded, and
have known them only by the reference to them of the late
1 John Joshua Proby (1751-1828), British minister at the court of Berlin, when
Adams was the American minister.
io6 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
writers on English weights and measures, and by the ex-
tracts from them published with the report of the committee
of the House of Commons in 18 14. i
It has occurred to me as possible that your Lordship may
have it in your power to indicate where copies of the reports
of 1758 and 1759 might yet be found, elsewhere than among
the records of Parliament. Should this be the case, may I
ask the favor of your notifying it by a line to Mr. Rush, the
minister of the United States at London, who will then pro-
cure them and forward them to me.^ i
I am happy to avail myself of this occasion of requesting
in behalf of Mrs. Adams your Lordship to present the re-
membrance of her grateful and affectionate attachment to
Lady Carysfoot.
I have the honor, etc.^
iThis report on "Weights and Measures" had occupied Adams for more than
three years. The correspondence upon it was voluminous, and the mass of notes,
calculations, comparisons and applied tests prove his breadth of investigation and
his care for accuracy. The report still holds a position of authority and is a striking
example of Adams' industry and capacity for mastering a difficult subject in the
intervals of much engrossing official duties. He sent a copy of the report to Prince
Talleyrand, accompanied by the following note:
"To the Prince de Talleyrand, the first proposer of a concerted effort of civilized
and commercial nations for the introduction of a system of weights and measures,
uniform, permanent, and universal, the report herewith transmitted, in which the
importance of that idea to the happiness and improvement of mankind is urged in
the sincerity of conviction, is presented as a token of respect to him from whom it
originated." Washington City, i May, 1821.
Another copy was sent to the distinguished astronomer, Jean Baptiste Joseph
Delambre (1749-1822), a member of the Board of Longitude, with this dedication:
"Author and editor of the Basse de Systime Mttrique, the volume herewith
transmitted, in which a feeble tribute is rendered to the extent and importance of
his services to the cause of human happiness and improvement, by his labors for
the introduction of a system of weights and measures suitable to universal appli-
cation, is presented as a testimonial of respect by
John Qujncy Adams"
"City of Washington, I May, 1821."
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 107
TO HYDE DE NEUVILLE
Department of State,
Washington, ii May, 1821.
In the communication from the Baron de Neuville, re-
ceived on the 14th of April, an abstract was presented of six
proposed articles, for arranging by a convention the com-
mercial intercourse between the United States and France.
Of these articles, the first, second and third, were adapted
to secure, by concessions on the part of the United States,
important advantages to the commerce and navigation of
France. They were articles not of mutual operation, equally,
or at least reciprocally, beneficial to both parties, but of
which the whole benefit would be for France, and the whole
sacrifice or concessions on the part of the United States.
The fourth article was also exclusively, for the benefit of
France. It was a reduction of the discriminating duties of
the United States in favor of French vessels laden with
French productions or manufactures, generally and without
exception.
The fifth article offered a reduction, indefinite, of the dis-
criminating duties imposed in France, upon jour specific
articles, and no more, of American produce, when imported
from the United States into France in American vessels.
The sixth article proposed to settle the tonnage duties on
both sides, on principles of reciprocity.
This project, therefore, consisted of one article of reciprocal
benefit; one article of partial equivalent to the United States,
for a corresponding article of general benefit to France; and
three articles exclusively for the advantage of France, with-
out any equivalent whatsoever.
In the memorandum transmitted on the i8th of April to
io8 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
the Baron de Neuville, as an answer to the above proposals,
the offer was made to agree to the three articles, the operation
of which would be exclusively favorable to France. The
onlv equivalent asked for, which was that the sale of Amer-
ican tobacco in France should be released from the shackles
of a monopoly, and placed on the footing of all other articles
of the traffic between the two countries.
And it was proposed that all discriminating duties and sur-
charges, whether of tonnage upon vessels or upon the articles
of traffic, should be abolished on both sides, and the prin-
ciple of perfect reciprocity be substituted for them.
In the reply of the Baron de Neuville, dated the 21st of
April, he observes that commercial concessions, being only
of secondary consideration, may for the present be altogether
set aside, and proposes to adjust the navigation question
alone.
To which purpose he proposes a basis founded upon two
principles: one, that the discriminating duties on both sides
should be reduced; the other, that the reduction should be so
modified that the vessels of both countries might share in
the conveyance of the articles of trade between them.
However reluctant the American government must nat-
urally feel at acceding to a basis, the avowed object of which
was to burden the shipping of the United States for the
benefit of the shipping of France; at consenting to deprive
by unequal incumbrances their own navigation of advantages
which it possessed; yet even this basis was not rejected; and
in a note from this Department of 26 April, the Baron de
Neuville was requested to specify, in the form of an article,
what reduction of the discriminating duties on both sides
he would consider as suitable to the views of France, and
likely upon the principle of mutual concession to be just to
the interests and satisfactory to the feelings of both countries.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 109
It has not been without surprise and concern, that in the
reply to this note, the President has seen, not the specifica-
tion desired of a single article, setting aside, as proposed by
the Baron de Neuville himself, the commercial concessions
as secondary; nor even a return to the project first presented;
but a third project in five articles, not only blending again
together the navigating and the commercial concessions, but
advancing new and additional claims of articles exclusively
favorable to France; and suggesting that other indispensable
articles must follow, without even an intimation what the
purport of those articles would be, or to what they relate.
The objects of discussion and suitable for adjustment
between the two countries are various, and encumbered with
difiiculties in various degree. But there is one, which in the
present state of things bears with peculiar hardship upon
the interests of both countries; and must continue so to
bear so long as it shall remain unadjusted. It is in the
power of the two governments, by an immediate agreement,
to remove this altogether, and to restore the commercial
intercourse between them through the medium of their own
navigation. Every day of delay to the adjustment adds to
the injuries suffered from the present state of things by both
parties. Not only commercial concessions, as remarked by
the Baron de Neuville, but all the other subjects of nego-
tiation between the two governments are secondary to this.
It was therefore with much satisfaction that in the Baron de
Neuville's note of 21 April the President perceived a pro-
posal to arrange this interest, first of all, and separately from
all others. Pursuing this idea, I am authorized to propose,
that the discriminating duties as at present existing, as well
upon vessels as their cargoes, shall cease on both sides; that
in their stead the tonnage duties and all charges upon the
vessel shall be equalized, as proposed by the Baron de Neu-
no THE WRITINGS OF [1821
ville, and that the discriminating duties on articles of the
growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, im-
ported in American vessels into France, or of the growth,
produce, or manufacture of France, imported in French
vessels into the United States, shall be respectively charged
with an additional duty of [ ] per cent on the value of the
article at the place of lading, beyond the duty levied upon
the same articles when imported in the vessels of the im-
porting nation respectively.
Should the Baron de Neuville accept this basis of arrange-
ment, it will only remain to agree upon the precise amount
per centum on the value of all articles which shall constitute
the surcharge, and it is believed there can be little difficulty
in ascertaining an amount which in its operation will secure
to the vessels of both nations a competent participation in
the carriage of the trade.
The President believes that an agreement on this point,
once concluded, would greatly facilitate a mutual good
understanding upon every other. He is nevertheless willing
to consider all the others suggested by the Baron de Neuville
in concurrence with it. It is only to be remarked that reason
and justice equally dictate the necessity of proceeding upon
a basis of reciprocity. That either the commercial conces-
sions must be set aside, as proposed in the Baron's note of
21 April, for after and separate consideration; or, if taken
into the account, being all in favor of France, they may be
compensated either by commercial concessions to the United
States, or by entire reciprocity in the article relative to
navigation. . . .^
1 "You may recollect that we had it in contemplation, in case Naples had sus-
tained herself with some degree of form and dignity, to have sent a minister or
agent to her, among other objects to watch the movement and to protect our com-
merce. Had we taken that step it would have voiced (?) our sentiments in strong
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS in
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 9 July, 1821.
Sir:
In the month o^April last, I gave testimony upon oath in
answer to certain interrogatories upon a commission issued
from the Supreme Court of the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
vania, in an action for slander brought by Levett Harris
against William D. Lewis. I therein stated that a few days
after the 25th of February, 1818, upon certain written
charges and other documents which had been transmitted to
the Department of State implicating the conduct of Mr.
Harris while he was consul of the United States at St.
Petersburg, the President intimated to me that Mr. Harris,
apprehensive that I was unfriendly to him, was desirous
that the investigation of the charges against him should be
referred to some other member or members of the adminis-
terms of the doctrines issued from Troppau and elsewhere by the allied powers,
which in principle strike at our government almost as directly as at that of Naples,
and are perhaps more directly applicable to it. Will it not be proper that a paper
should be presented on the part of this government to those powers, to be addressed
to their ministers here, or by our ministers with them, in obedience to instructions,
examining calmly the extent of those doctrines, asking their scope, if any doubt
should remain respecting it, and protesting against them, if there be none, in the
view taken of thera? I am aware that this is a most delicate topic, and which ought
not to be touched without the most thorough conviction of its policy. It may make
us a party, in a certain sense, when it may be the object of all to leave us out of
the great movement on foot. It may avert a danger which, tho now latent, may
assume a visible form hereafter, since it may animate the friends of human rights
everywhere, and thereby check the progress which is making, or intended to be
made, in favor of universal despotism. I merely suggest this for consideration, that
you and the other gentlemen of the administration may weigh it in my absence."
Monroe to Adams, May 28, 1821. Ms. Four notes from Adams to Forsyth, dated
June 13, 16, 18, 20, are in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V. 369, 370.
112 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
tration, to which I immediately and readily assented. I
afterwards understood that the reference was to the Secre-
taries of the Treasury and War. How they conducted the
examination I am not informed. They did not require my
testimony, nor did I feel myself bound to offer it. Their re-
port I understood was verbal, and not decisive.
I am informed that Mr. Harris is, or has recently been, In
this city, and has asserted that he could prove my assertion
that I was not required to give my testimony upon the in-
vestigation by the Secretaries of the Treasury and of War
unfounded in fact; that I was required to give my testimony,
and did give it, though not upon oath; and that he expressed
a wish to appeal to you in confirmation of this fact.
I find myself therefore under the necessity of requesting
the favor of answers to the following questions in writing.
1. Whether you ever directed or requested me to make a
statement of the facts personally known to myself in relation
to the conduct of Mr. Harris, as consul in Russia, to the
Secretaries of the Treasury and War upon their investigation
of the charges against Mr. Harris?
2. Whether you ever directed or requested me to make
any communication to them whatever upon the subje ct
other than to transfer to them the papers relating to it which
were at the Department of State .f*
3. Whether I ever did make in your presence what you
considered at the time as a statement of all or any of the
facts personally known to me in relation to the said conduct
of Mr. Harris to the Secretaries of the Treasury and of War,
to be used or considered by them in the investigation of Mr.
Harris's conduct, and if I did, what was the purport of my
statement.^
I am, etc.
^ Among the Adams Papers is a large folio volume of letters and papers relating
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 113
TO ROBERT WALSH, JR.
Washington, 10 July, 1821.
My Dear Sir:
I inclose you a copy of an address delivered by me to
citizens of Washington at their request, on reading to them
on the 4th instant the Declaration of Independence.^
The task in the first instance allotted to me was merely
the reading of the Declaration. Disappointed in their ap-
plication to an orator equal to the theme of the day, the
Committee invited me to accompany the reading with an
appropriate address. This is the result of my compliance
with their desire.
There may be those among my fellow citizens who will
consider that the avowal of some of the sentiments in the
address, however suitable to a private citizen of the United
to this matter. Harris was charged by certain Americans with misconduct in his
consular position. The general features of the long controversy may be gathered
from Adams' Memoirs.
^ Address at Washington, July 4. It received notice much beyond the expectation
of its writer, and continued for some time to be subject for partisan discussion.
In sending to his government a copy of this oration Canning stated that Adams
spoke in his individual capacity, and appeared "in the gown of a professor of
Rhetoric. Mr. Adams has disclaimed the intention of encouraging any hostile or
vindictive feelings against England, and therefore such appearances of rancour, as
might betray the unadmonished reader into an opposite persuasion, can only be
laid to the account of eloquence too fervid to balance expressions, for the selection
of which but three preparatory weeks had been allowed. Yet considering the
important office occupied by Mr. Adams, and the still more important station at
which he is understood to aim, the language which on this occasion he has either
chosen or chanced to employ in divulging his political impressions respecting Eng-
land, and her conduct towards this country, can hardly be viewed with indifference
by his Majesty's government." Canning to Castlereagh, July 30, 1821. See also
Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, I. 309. Poletica was severe in his comments.
American Historical Review, XVIII. 327.
114 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
States, was in the mouth of a person exercising a peculiarly
responsible public office more indicative of sound principle
than of discretion. I have not been unaware that my acci-
dental and transient connection while it existed with an
office, through which the principal political intercourse with
foreign countries is held, prescribed a measure of prudence
in the public expression of my opinions, even upon occasions
altogether extra official. Yet in commenting upon the Dec-
laration of Independence, it was impossible to point out that
which distinguishes it from any other public document ever
penned by man, and that which alone can justify its annual
public reperusal, forty years after the close of the conflict of
which it was the manifesto, without touching upon topics
of peculiar delicacy at this time, and without coming into
collision with principles which the British government itself
disclaim, but which Emperors and Kings yet maintain at
the point of all their bayonets and at the mouths of all their
cannon.
Far from thinking that this was an occasion for flinching
from the assertion of our peculiar and imperishable prin-
ciples, I am free to confess that one of my reasons for as-
senting to the request that I would deliver an address was
to avail myself of the opportunity of asserting them. The
sentiments were indeed exclusively my own; neither the
chief magistrate nor either of my colleagues was aware of a
word that I should say until he heard it spoken. The re-
sponsibility of having spoken it rests exclusively upon my-
self, but I have no reason to believe that either of them
would disclaim his concurrence in any one sentiment that
I expressed.
Another objection which may be anticipated to the char-
acter of the address is perhaps a seeming inconsistency be-
tween the disavowal of Revolutionary resentments, and the
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 115
tone of sentiment preserved in it with regard to the British
government and nation. In this case I trust every discerning
mind will perceive the difference between the oblivion of
past resentments, and the resistance to present hostility.
The animosity which we have now to encounter from Britain
is purely national. It is rather discountenanced than stimu-
lated by the government, and is inspired by the two deepest
and most malignant passions of the human heart — revenge
and envy — revenge for the national humiliation of two
successive wars, envy at. the unparalleled growth and pros-
perity which associate with all their thoughts of America
the torturing terror of a rival growing every day more
formidable to them. Can a stronger illustration of this
truth be given than in the elaborate dissertation of the Brit-
ish author ^ of the campaigns of Washington and New Or-
leans, to prove that in the next war with the United States,
the only possible chance of successful warfare for Britain
will be a systematic destruction of all our populous towns —
a system which he admits would be too atrocious for a war
with the people of a monarchy, but which he maintains
would be perfectly justifiable against Republicans. What a
vulture must be pouncing on that heart which could heave
up such a sentiment for the execration of mankind! That
vulture is pouncing constantly on the heart of the British
nation, and it is well that we should be aware of it, that we
may be duly prepared to meet that form of British hostility
whenever it may be displayed.
It is to cater for that vulture that all the literature of
Britain is so generously and so incessantly employed in de-
preciating the intellectual and vilifying the moral character
of the American people. It is for that vulture that their
travellers cross the seas, and that their daily, monthly and
1 George Robert Gleig (1796-1888).
ii6 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
quarterly journals, Whig and Tory, concoct with emulous
industry the aliment. It is the vulture which prompts a
distinguished peer of the realm to avouch a despicable radical
lampooner of America, for the corruption of our elections,
and hence to infer the superior purity of the rotten borough
system. With a few, a very few exceptions, it pervades them
all.
It is not too much to say that the literature of the public
journals in Britain has more influence both upon the nation
and upon their neighbors than the government. j
It was upon this consideration that I did not think it be-
neath the dignity of the day, nor incongruous to the station ;
of the speaker, to allude to some of the most venomous ef- '
fusions of the British periodical press. It will be obvious
that in retorting upon their bombastic pretensions to su-
perior inventive genius, I have not intended to discredit their 1
real discoveries and inventions, or to shed ridicule upon '
their ardent and meritorious pursuits in the fine or me-
chanical arts, or in the fields of literature and science. '
Though I think the steamboat an invention of more exten- '
sive usefulness to mankind than all their inventions since :
our Declaration of Independence put together, yet I would
to God that there was not an useful invention of which they |
can boast, but for which we could show them a counterpart j
of our own.
In this warfare of the mind which we are compelled toi,]
maintain, in defence of the character of our country, I hope,
you will consider me as a follower and fellow labourer of
your own. If even the Aristarchs of Edinburgh had taken
your castigation kindly, and made a fair and honest apology,
for the insidious hostility which you had exposed, with due
promise of amendment, I would not have disturbed the
truce. But the Edinburgh article upon your book is everyj
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 117
way exceptionable; It shuffles between candid avowal and
Ingenuous recantation, without either the spirit to defend or
the generosity to atone for Its offence.
It Inculcates a political doctrine In my estimation of the
most pernicious tendency to this country, and the more per-
nicious, because It flatters our ambition — the doctrine that
It Is the duty of America to take an active part In the future
political reformation of Europe. It Is most especially to that
doctrine that a passage alludes In the address, which the
hearers generally understood as referring only to the South
American contest. The principle applies to them both, and
my Intention In pronouncing It was to reply both to Edin-
burgh and Lexington.^
There are passages In the address to which I cannot expect
your assent. Those I mean which have reference to what we
call the religious reformation. I know not how far to a
philosophical Roman CathoHc, which I know you to be, the
doctrine of Infallibility upon earth Is an article of faith, or a
mere article of church discipline. But I take It for granted
that at this day, the usurpation of the ecclesiastical power
during the middle ages may be descanted upon without de-
parting from that liberality which should be observed to-
wards all religious opinions. It was Indeed Impossible to
treat the subject upon which I was called to speak in the
manner which I thought most appropriate to It, without
connecting the religious revolution of the i6th century with
the origin of the doctrines which Issued In our Independence.
I have only to assure you that nothing could be farther from
my Intention than to reflect upon articles really essential
to the Catholic faith, or to wound the feelings of those who
receive the doctrines of the Church even in wider latitude.
I need not say that this letter is entirely private and con-
' A reference to Henry Clay.
ii8 THE WRITINGS OF I1821
fidentlal. I have wished to assure you that I am not in-
sensible either to your good opinion, or to the manifesta-
tions of it which you have more than once given to the
world. And I know not of a more suitable occasion to give
you this assurance than on requesting your acceptance of
a copy of this address, of which, although particular passages
may differ from your opinions, I flatter myself the general
scope and tenor will meet with your approbation. _
I am, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe] " |
Washington, 17 July, 1821.
Dear Sir: J
I have the honor of enclosing for your revision the draft
of a letter to the Baron de Neuville concerning the case of
the Apollon. As there are passages in it which would appear
intemperate, but for those which provoked them, I enclose
translations of his letter of 4 April and of his note of the 9th
instant, requesting of you to examine them particularly with
reference to the reply, and if anything deserving of notice in
his letter is omitted in the reply, that you would have the
goodness to point it out, that I may make the necessary
additions. *!
I am satisfied in my own mind of the legality of the seizure ■
of the A-pollon, both by the laws of the United States and
the laws of nations. The latter rest upon the principle of ;
natural and unquestionable justice. The former seem to
me strongly fortified by the 14th section of the collection
law, which expressly includes the river St. Mary's (not limited
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAAIS 119
to the middle of the river) within the revenue district. The
principle that the jurisdiction of a nation for the execution
of its revenue laws extends much beyond its territorial ju-
risdiction properly so called, I take to be settled by universal
usage. And the question in this case appears to be of such
magnitude, as a question of existing authority In the govern-
ment, that I would suggest to your consideration, whether
it would not be expedient to instruct the District Attorney
in Georgia to defend the action against the collector brought
by Captain Edou, and If it should turn upon the point of
legality of the seizure, to have the cause. In case the decision
should be against the collector, brought up to the Supreme
Court for a solemn decision by them.
As Mr. Roth Is on the point of departure for France, I
must beg the favor that the draft may be returned to me
as soon as will suit your convenience.
The enclosed letter from Mr. Forbes at Buenos Ayres is
the only important communication received at this Depart-
ment since I had the honor of last writing to you.
I am, etc.
TO CHARLES JARED INGERSOLL
Washington, 23 July, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I thank you very sincerely for your kind and flattering
letter. It has been one of the most delicious fruits of my
compliance with the invitation to "speak out" which my
fellow citizens here gave me in their disappointment on ap-
plication to a more competent orator. For I did consider
it as an invitation to speak out, and I very honestly thought
there never was a moment in our history when there was a
I20 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
more urgent want of some one who should speak out, to
and for this nation, and in a voice which would be heard by
the whole race of civilized man. But I candidly confess I
did expect it would be to heedless, or to disdainful, or to
horescent ears, even in our own country, and much more else-
where. When the first suggestion was made to me of a wish
that I would speak, my answer was that I was tongue-tied
by my place. But it being once made, I brooded over the
idea, till I made up my mind to risk it and take the conse-
quences.
The task first assigned me was only to read the Declara-
tion. The second was to comment upon it, and two topics
struck me as preeminently involved in it — the cause of man
and the cause of our country. I determined to probe them
both, as far as my powers would bear me out, to the bottom.
But I little expected that it would have drawn so much
notice as it has, and still less that it would have brought me
so delightful a letter as yours.
It was certainly not intended to waft incense to any mem-
ber of the corps diplomatique among us. I have not accus-
tomed any of the gentlemen in that capacity residing here
to expect that from me, in any of their relations with me.
I resolved to say nothing to which either of them could have
a right to take exception. That they would be pleased with
what I should say, I did not expect.
The style and composition are legitimate prey for the
critics. It is my principle that a man who gives himself
voluntarily to the public has no right to ask indulgence for
any thing. To some of the offences against taste which have
been charged upon me, I plead guilty. If I would demur to
others, it would be in vain. The public will judge for them-
selves.
The theoretic portion has been called cold and metaphysi-
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 121
cal. I have only to say I made it as warm as I could. I
could not make it physical.
In Europe, if it escapes being called inflammatory, it will
be because it will not be read.
I am especially glad to have your concurrence in that
which seems to have been most extensively censured, the
temper towards Great Britain.
People, who go every week to see seven ghosts in succession
rise from the lower regions upon the stage and say to Richard,
"Let me sit heavy on thy soul tomorrow," and admire the
scene as sublime, are quite shocked at the inhumanity of a
distant and general allusion to a calamity as having perhaps
atoned for the sins of a soul upon which fifty thousand dead
ghosts might with equal justice rise and sit heavy — sins
distinctly and specifically charged in the paper upon which
the speaker was commenting. What is George the Third
now more than a historical character, and what is Richard
the third less 1 For my own part, far from feeling that remark
as a severe allusion, I declare to you it was made in a relenting
and compunctious spirit, seeking an apology for the idea that
sins like those could be atoned for by mere earthly sufferings.
As to the nature of George the Third's sufferings, it is so en-
tirely kept out of sight in the passage of the address objected
to, that no hearer or reader not already acquainted with the
fact would ever suspect it. For eight or nine years a prayer
was read every Sunday and every holiday in every church
throughout England in which the character of this misfortune
was quite transparent, yet I never heard of its being censured
as indelicate. But to pass from the man to the nation, it is
said that I have stimulated animosities against the British,
even while disclaiming vindictive recollections. Such crit-
ics should recollect that my theme was not merely our
independence but its Declaration. Suppose a man should
122 THE WRITINGS OF [1821 j
I
be appointed to deliver an oration upon the massacre of the '
St. Bartholomew's, would the disclaimer of a vindictive
spirit in descanting upon it be incompatible with an unre- i
strained overflow of heart upon the character of the transac- |
tion? The British nation had made themselves as willing |
and eager parties to an unjust and cruel, and so far as there
was a drop of kindred blood in their veins, an unnatural war ■
against their countrymen in this hemisphere. This was
the specific charge against them in the text of the speaker. |
Was he to frost this wormwood with sugar, or neutralize it i
to insipidity.'' 1
Was he to pass unnoticed that unrelenting war of slander
and invective, waged by almost all the literature of Great
Britain against the good name of his country to this hour.'
While in aid of the pestiferous exhalations of their period- 1
ical press, peers of the realm and chancellors of the exchequer, '
whig and tory, in place or out, at their seats in Parliament!
and at the convivial board, were showering down torrents of
false and malignant defamation upon America, was an.
American Secretary of State, discoursing as a private citizen
to his countrymen upon topics which touched every chord|
of glory and of patriotism In the heart, to seem to know
nothing of all this, or was he to case himself in buckram, and
measure all his terms by the decorum of a diplomatic note: j
Well did I know that this address, If It attracted more
notice than a common fourth of July oration, would rouse'
the crest of every snake or Medusa's head against itself and
against Its author. Prudence, says Peter Pindar, when she
visits a house leaves her opinions with her pattens at th( j
door. And a great authority says Nullum numen adest m
sit prudentia. I did hesitate much and long before I dis-
missed this "sly insinuating lass," and then it was only bj;
asking her to step into the next door, while I should be hold
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 123
ing a talk with my countrymen. A concurrence of circum-
stances quite accidental produced my final determination,
and the decisive incident that produced it was this. The
narrative of the campaigns of Washington and New Orleans
deliberately proposes and urges the adoption of principles
of war against the United States, as republicans, which he
acknowledges would be too cruel for legitimate war against
the people of a monarchy. I had just seen the extract from
the work containing this sample of British humanity pub-
lished in twenty of our newspapers, without a single word
of comment upon it. And I thought it high time that we
should be asking ourselves, where we were in our relations
with that country. I have neither time nor space to enlarge,
and I ought rather to apologize for saying so much to you of
myself. You may rest assured that whatever the feelings
of the diplomatic gentry may be on this occasion, they will
not officially disclose them to me. I only wish they would.
I am, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 25 July, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I have directed the note of the French Minister to be
made out, conformably to the amendments which accom-
panied your favor of the 23rd with two exceptions. One is
the direction to insert at page 22 something to this effect:
"It may readily (or willingly) be admitted (or imagined)
that he (Capt. Edou) was deceived by others, and led|into
these measures without a correct knowledge of their conse-
124 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
quences, and the good opinion which the Baron entertains
of him is well calculated to make that impression."
I beg leave to suggest to you my reasons for objecting to
the insertion of this, or any paragraph of similar import.
The conduct of Capt. Edou, as apparent on the face of his
own declarations, has a clear unequivocal character with ref-
erence to morals. It is marked by falsehood^ Jraud, and
violence, all exercised avowedly for purposes of outrage upon
the laws of the United States.
This conduct the French Minister in an insolent and
sophistical note has held forth to the world as the conduct
of a man of honor and integrity, so profoundly injured by
the American government in merely crossing the middle of a
river, and using the necessary force to defeat his purpose,
that it must be blown up into a national quarrel and made a
question between the dignity of the crown of France, and
the degradation of the American government. The party
really and deeply injured is peremptorily called upon to
apologize for the wrong it has endured, and to swallow the
last dregs of indignity to appease the honor of a flagrant and
notorious smuggler.
Such, sir, is the plain matter of fact, and I cannot disguise
to you that if I have profoundly felt the conduct of Captain
Edou as it aflfects the rights and interests of our country, I
have been much more indignant at the attempt of the Baron
de Neuville to palm it off upon the world for the suffering of
injured innocence, and to trample upon the honor of this
nation, by exacting upon the most paltry pretences that the
American government should degrade itself, and by the
basest of concessions set the seal to its own shame.
I will candidly confess that in my view of the subject to
such a demand so made and so repealed upon such a state
of facts, something more was required of the feeling of this
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 125
government than a mere cold refusal to comply with the
demand. The prospect that Includes in itself insult upon
justice, honor, and honesty, is not in my view adequately
met by mere rejection. I had understood it as your direction
in a former letter, that Mr. de Neuville was to be told that
there must at least be no more discussion of that proposal
between him and me; but I find that the paragraph to that
effect is among those excluded by the amendments.
The character of all the transactions involved in this
affair exhibits the abuse of positive regulation on one side,
against truth, justice, and national rights on the other; and
I thought that in the answer to the Baron's note the contrast
of these qualities could not be placed in too strong relief.
I acquiesce, however, very cheerfully in your calmer and
perhaps firmer consideration of the subject, so far as to
suppress all manifestation of resentful feelings, and even all
exposure of the intrinsic depravity of principle in the Baron's
letter. But I cannot, without permitting compliance to
encroach upon sincerity, admit even in imagination that
Edou was ignorant of the criminality of his own conduct, or
allow in the most distant manner the propriety of de Neu-
ville's supporting him in it.
I submit to you further that these admissions would ex-
ceedingly weaken our cause. Clarke's letters prove to
demonstration a foul conspiracy against the laws of the
Union. Edou was the first and a most willing instrument
to carry it into effect. His own declaration proves that he
acted by falsehood, fraud, and violence (for he threatened to
blow out the brains of our officers). He left this country
with threats and defiance against us. His wrong is the main
pillar of the solid justice of our cause. And the Baron de
Neuville is not less wrong in supporting him as he does.
Now an admission that Edou might be only deceived, and
126 THE WRITINGS OF . [1821
a profession of complacency for the interest which the Baron
takes in his favor, would take from us much of the best
ground upon which we stand.
The other passage which I shall omit is that which says,
it was understood that the government of France and of other
powers approved of the suppression of the adventurers at
Amelia Island. The Baron might perhaps contest the fact.
I now enclose the declaration of Edou transmitted to me
by the Baron himself, and which I believe you have never
seen. I entreat you in reading it to compare the tone of its
language with the narrative of facts, and to bring both to
the touchstone, not of mid-river boundaries and custom-
house cockets, but of justice, truth and the rights of our
country. If you then think it would become me to volunteer
an apology for Edou's conduct, or to show anything like
deference for de Neuville's support of it, I will recur to my
unqualified consciousness of your superior judgment. I
will insert the paragraph and sign the paper.
I remain, etc.
TO ALEXANDER HILL EVERETT
Department of State,
Washington, 25 July, 1821.
•
After the failure of the negotiation for a new commercial
treaty with the Netherlands in 1817, it has never been the
intention of this government to renew the conferences, with-
out some special new inducement for it. The disappointment
in the result of that negotiation, after the anticipation of
success which had been encouraged at its commencement,
was a warning against making a second attempt, without
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 127
some security that It would not again prove abortive. There
was some reason for surmising that the difficulties which
then prevented the conclusion of the treaty were not the
only ones which operated upon the issue. A disposition has
been manifested to remould one or more of the articles of
the existing treaty in a manner less favorable to neutral
: rights; and an influence other than that of the Netherlands
' was perceived, or suspected, of raising obstructions to the
: agreement of the commissioners, the existence of which sub-
[ sequent events have not tended to invalidate. Since that
time the Netherlands have become parties to a treaty sanc-
, tioning so far as their example can go, the principle that the
I merchant vessels of one nation, even under convoy of ships of
war of their own, may be visited, examined, and seized by
i the armed vessels of another. The object of the two articles
I upon which the plenipotentiaries in 1817 disagreed, has been
since obtained on both sides by municipal regulation, with-
out treaty; and as the act of Congress of 3 March, 181 5,
j authorizing the reciprocal equalization of duties, is now
limited in its operation to the ist of January, 1824, there
might be some Inconvenience In contracting engagements
liable to interfere with the views which may be taken of It
by Congress at that time. . . .
TO ROBERT WALSH, JR.
Washington, 27 July, 1821.
My Dear Sir:
Mr. Brent has been kind enough to show me your letter
to him, and I desired him to say something to you from me
in answer to that part of it which concerns myself. Upon
reflection I have concluded to add something of my own.
There is a pleasure In communing with a mind like yours.
128 THE WRITINGS OF [1821 ;
I
I
and the more pleasure for its occasional collisions with my '
own. Idem velle et idem nolle, id demum est amicitia. I think
this is a sentiment of Catiline, or Cethegus, for I do not
remember which, but it is not mine. That is not friendship. 1
It is dulness, or it is flattery. It is neither friendship nor I
truth.
I desired Mr. Brent to say that I was satisfied with your '
notice of my address on the whole, though I could answer
part at least of your censure, and though you have not !
placed my defence upon the grounds on which I should
have placed it myself. I repeat that I am well satisfied with
your remarks considered as the review of an impartial and
not unfriendly critic. But there are among them some ob-
servations which a positively friendly critic, if he thought
them, would rather have made privately to myself, and left
for others to make to the public. When in your introductory
paragraph you pitch Mr. Pinkney, Mr. Wirt and myself, into
one truckle-bed, to indulge yourself and treat your readers
with a laugh at the expense of our taste, I certainly for one
could take no exception to the company with which you
have coupled me; but I think neither could take as a. friendly
office that which you were performing, and I as a critic upon
the criticism charge it upon you as a lumping censure, with-
out any of your discriminating acuteness, and, if just as
respects myself, hardly fair towards Messrs. Pinkney and
Wirt, who were not then, as I was, at your bar.
Your sentence upon the address as a literary composition,
though generalized in its terms and qualified by an admission
that it has considerable merits, I understand to be unfavor-
able. You hasten away from this part of your decree as if it
set irksomely upon your mind, and as if you felt more than
you were willing to express.
I have long known that there is a radical difference between
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 129
your theory of composition and mine. Our principles of
style are different. I do not mean to say that I disapprove
your style. On the contrary I admire it. But if you should
use it in the composition of a fourth of July oration, I should
probably desiderate in the work precisely those qualities
which you blame for being in mine — vehemence, boldness
of imagery, swelling, copious, and even redundant periods.
Now if the error in this case is mine, it is an error of the first
concoction. I think I could not write an oration in the style
of which you would approve, and with this impression I pass
to the account of your good will that you have let me off so
easy upon this score. I was not surprised that the style
failed of pleasing you; but I was very agreeably so, when I
saw you quote as a beauty what my own judgment had
hesitated to pronounce, because I thought it the most ver-
bose passage of the whole address. I mean the passage
about Palestine and Scandinavia. You except to a few
incidental passages on the score of temper and of doctrine.
If I rightly understand the meaning of the term doctrine
there, we need no discussion of it. Where the defect on the
score of temper is you do not explain, and I am at some loss
to discover, because you have strenuously defended that
which has been, as from my former letter you perceived I
was aware it would be, much censured by others. I mean
the general tone of temper towards Great Britain. You
"hesitate to dislike" of the passage having reference to
George the Third. You declare you do not relish the figure,
you admit that the sentiment was harsh, but you think the
alluding to his illness might be excused because it was
historical fact.
This opinion from one whose judgment I so highly respect
has convinced me that there is something at least ambiguous
or obscure in the passage, conveying ideas other than those
I30 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
I intended. The Declaration of Independence is a personal
bill of indictment against the individual George the Third.
It classes him among the most detested of tyrants. The
charges against him contained in it are all true. You know
that he had been subject to occasional fits of insanity, at
least from the first years of his reign. You know that in
1788, when this his condition first became notorious to the
world, Dr. Franklin being told that the King of England
was insane, asked If the people of England had just 'discovered
it? I have other reason for the undoubting belief that the
American Revolution is mainly attributable to that con-
dition of the mind of George the Third; and I have no hesi-
tation in saying that it would alone disarm me of almost
all resentment against him, and teach me to think of him
more in compassion than in anger. This man, at the time
when I was commenting upon the Declaration of Independ-
ence, had recently died. That Declaration made him a
Nero. How could I overlook him.'' How could I soften or
mitigate the severity of my text upon him, but by leading
in as delicate a manner as I could the minds of my hearers
to the contemplation of him in a condition released from
moral responsibility.^ The figure, as you doubtless perceived
(and perhaps that is your objection to it), has two allusions.
One to the epitaph in Gray's Elegy, and the other to
Uncle Toby's oath in Tristram Shandy. But remember that
both these are the cases of sins forgiven. And when in general
terms, without naming the nature of his sufferings, I sug-
gested the hope that they might have propitiated the divine
mercy, and atoned for crimes like those denounced in the
Declaration I was to read, I declare to you that the senti-
ment of my own heart, and that which I thought would be
-conveyed into the hearts of my hearers, was that of melting
into forgiveness. I am yet to seek what there is in it of
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 131
harshness, and should be glad to have It pointed out
to me.
Without concurring in the objection against my use of
the treaty of peace, you think I have not availed myself of
it in the best manner, and upon specifying a play upon words,
as if that was the most striking characteristic of the manner
in which I availed myself of that instrument. I think there
is nothing that can properly be called a play upon words,
for the terms serene and serenity are not used in different
senses in the two passages; but the emphasis upon the second
was merely intended to point ridicule at the first. But grant
it was a play upon words, it was assuredly not the marked
characteristic of the manner in which I availed myself of
the treaty of peace. The treaty of peace is one of the vitals
of the discourse.
The whole address is a contrasted view of liberties founded
on grant, and liberties founded on acknowledgment, exempli-
fied by Magna Charta on the one hand, and by our Declara-
tion and the acknowledgment in the treaty of peace on the
other. The treaty of peace was as necessary to my argument
as the Declaration itself. The preparation for its introduc-
tion is laid in the very first page of the address. The address
Is not an oration constructed according to rhetorical rule;
it is a continued tissue of Interwoven narrative and argument,
without exordium, without division of the subject; with an
episode. If you please, In answer to the question, what has
America done for the benefit of mankind .'' and with a perora-
tion of ten lines at the close, but all bearing directly on the
Declaration which it was my charge to read. This was my
manner of treating my subject, and the manner of introducing
the treaty of peace was precisely where In the progress of
the narrative it must be, at the close of the rapid view given
of the war. The Declaration had closed with a very solemn
132 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
adjuration of Divine Providence for its support. The treaty
of peace begins by a reference to Divine Providence as having
disposed the heart of the king to make the peace. Now I
did think, and cannot for my soul help thinking, that this
coincidence was exceedingly striking, and it was a part of
my manner of introducing the treaty to point it out. But
I could not introduce the Divine Providence of the treaty of
peace without falling upon the enumeration of the king's
titles which immediately followed, with the epithets of most
serene and most -potent Prince at their head. This particular
qualification of most serene^ coupled behind with the war
since the Declaration of Independence, and before, with the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT which was to follow, struck me as so
irresistibly ludicrous that I thought the very attempt to
read it with gravity would make my readers laugh in my
face. I thought therefore that the manner suited to it was
sarcasm, and the tone of delivery in reading it a subdued
mock heroic, half way between seriousness and burlesque,
and in that tone I did deliver it. But as you read the ad-
dress my idea of this "most serene and most potent Prince"
is not entirely disclosed. I am ashamed to ask you to turn
to the 26th page of the copy which I sent you of the address,
to the word "oppression" in the last line of the page. In
my original draught of the address this word was followed
thus: "There were among them no most serene and most
potent Princes, whose hearts Divine Providence could dis-
pose to peace and justice by nothing less than seven years
of merciless and ignominious war." This sentence I have
no doubt would have been one of the most popular in. the
whole discourse, but I struck it out for two reasons: first,
from that motive of tenderness to the personal character
of George the Third which I felt and intended to com-
municate; and secondly, because it was one of those things
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 133
which It might be thought unseemly for a person holding
my station to say. I now trust it in confidence to you as
setting more in relief the combination of ideas which in-
fluenced the manner of my introducing the treaty of peace.
But the great and indispensable necessity of the treaty
to me was its acknowledgment of our Independence to
the same extent in which it had been declared. This was
a topic upon which I doubtless could have enlarged, and
which I might have pressed hard upon Britain as a recogni-
tion not only of our Independence, but of the principles of
the Declaration. I could also have dwelt much and perhaps
with good effect upon the historical unity of our conflict for
Independence, at which I have only glanced. But I was
encroaching upon time, and afraid of tiring the patience of
my hearers. If the whole tribe of vulgar and invidious
critics who have fallen upon the address in all quarters of
the Union had failed of discerning what I myself consider
as the marked characteristics of my manner of introducing
the treaty of peace or its preamble, I would have sent them
to school and recollected the admonition of the lady to
Rousseau "Tais toi, Jean Jacques, ils ne t'entendront pas."
This is all I would answer to critics who have seen in the
light touches upon petty British inventions and discoveries
since our Independence, and in the very deliberate epithets
of fustian romance and lascivious lyrics which I have given
to their most fashionable literature, a depreciatory estimate
of arts, sciences, or letters, or a disrespect for the names of
Newton, Bacon, and Locke, or of Shakespeare, and Milton.
One of the authors of the lascivious lyrics has been among
the most violent and outrageous slanderers of our country,
and I owed him a grudge for that as well as for the philters
he so long administered to our youth of both sexes. ^ An-
^ Thomas Moore.
134 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
other has lately done justice to himself by acknowledging
himself one of the corrupters both of taste and morals, who
are lording it over English literature and therefore over ours.
If I could take his confession for an earnest of repentance
and amendment, I should have hopes of him; but I expect
it is only a pretence to more cantos of Don Juan.^ My ob-
jections to the fashionable romance are: first, that it is an
exaggerated and therefore false picture of human nature.
Its characters are strange, and mysterious, and wonderful,
and witty, and generally in good keeping, but they are not
men and women. There is great and admirable genius in
these works, and so there was in the library of Don Quixote,
else there would have been neither motive or occasion for
the satire of Cervantes. Secondly, the tendency of these
romances is immoral. They are manuals of superstition, one
of the most dangerous and pernicious propensities of the
human mind. There is no Peter Quince, as in Mrs. Rad-
cliffe's incantations, to tell the ladies that the lion of the
play is no true lion, but Snug the joiner. Before delivering
the address I had at one time the idea of saying instead of
fustian "second sighted romance." But I thought this latter
epithet might be taken for a iiational reflection upon Scot-
land, and therefore avoided it. My third objection to these
far famed romances is, that they are party productions, as
much so as the Courier newspaper or the Quarterly Review.
They are anti-republican works, written to degrade public
opinion, the covenanters, and reformers of other ages, for
the sake of a refractive effect upon the radicals, and even
the Whigs of the present times. In this point they bore
directly upon my subject, and deserved a touch from the
tip end of my lash as I passed along. As to the sportive
allusions to Sir Humphrey's exhilarating gas and Herschel's
1 Lord Byron.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 135
Georgium sidus, I meant them In good humor, and cannot
now but be amused at the tragical tone with which they
are resented.
But I am digressing. I was observing that if the vulgar
and malev6lent critics upon the address had failed to discern
what I meant should be as clear as daylight, the vitality of
the treaty of peace to my whole argument, and the motive
for the manner in which I noticed its preamble, I should
merely have imputed it to their inattention, or their in-
capacity, or to that sort of bandage which you men of sense
often involuntarily tie round their own eyes, when they are
to judge of what they do not like. But I do not so deem of
you. That you did not perceive it I see; for if you had, it
would have been impossible that you should have indicated
a mere play upon words as the notable characteristic of
my manner of introducing the treaty of peace. I have there-
fore at the expense of all this tediousness explained to you
the absolute necessity that I was under of introducing the
treaty of peace, and my motive for the manner in which I
treated its preamble. But I am not the less convinced that
I did fail of my object in that part of the address, at least so
far as it was a discourse to be read, and therefore that I did
not avail myself of the treaty of peace in the best manner.
De non apparentihus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. In a
popular harangue, that which is not seen may as well not
exist. I hope you will not think I began this letter with a
conception where it was to lead me. I am yet to thank you
for the good will and intrepidity with which you have de-
fended some of the points upon which the address was
assailable and assailed, even at the hazard of some collisions
with your warm federal friends and associates. Of this at
least I can assure you there were no sordid or selfish aims
mingled with my motives for delivering that address, or
I
136 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
for uttering any one word that it contains. With its recep-
tion by my countrymen hearers and readers I am well satis-
fied. But I shall not deny to you that it was spoken not
alone to my countrymen. It was meant also for the hearing
of other ears and the reading of other eyes, for other regions
and other languages. Like the famous Epistle to Posterity
it may never reach its address; but I spoke to and for man,
as well as to and for my country. The legitimacy of colonial
dominion and of chartered liberties are questions of deeper
and more overwhelming interest to other nations than to
Britain at this time, and if the Holy allies of Laybach and
their subjects do not hear the sound of the trumpet upon
Zion, it shall be for the want of dimensions to the Instrument
that bore the blast, and not of willingness in the breath that
inspired it.
I have learnt with much pleasure from your letter to Mr.
Brent that your establishment prospers — not only as It
concerns your interest, but as it bears on the public mind
and morals. I have no doubt that its Influence upon both
has been and will be upon the whole salutary. You will not
expect the concurrence of any one in all your sentiments,
either of praise or blame, and if you have once or twice
touched with unheeding hand the ark of our Union, I admit
that It was when It was shaken by the stumbling of its
bearers.
I close this letter with feelings of seriousness approaching
to sadness. Like the former it Is entirely confidential. You
will make any use of it In the way of hints, as you did of
the former, at your discretion and at your own times. To
the parts of It which are defensive against your own cen-
sures I do not wish for a reply, either public or private. _
If I appeal from the censuring part of your sentence, *
it Is only to your own breast, and I am well aware that
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 137
others might appeal perhaps with more propriety from Its
Indulgence.
I remain, etc.^
TO HYDE DE NEUVILLE
Department of State
Washington, 28 July, 1821.
The Secretary of State has submitted to the consideration
of the President of the United States the note which he
had the honor of receiving from his Excellency the Baron
de Neuvllle of the 9th Instant, particularly the translation
of the Baron's note of the 4th of April last.^
1 "I am glad of having this opportunity of thanking you for the article in one of
your late papers, headed 'Self-Respect.' I do not know that there is a word in it
to which I would not subscribe. I strongly doubt whether the project to exhumate
and transport the remains of the spy and truce-breaker, and slanderer of his heroic
captors ought to be permitted at all; and if there had not been within these two
years, a solemn procession from very honest people for the funeral of Mister Hutton,
I should have thought the project of the New York procession outrageous beyond
a parallel. There is but one thing to be said in palliation of Andre's conduct, and
that arises from the nature of the war in which he suffered — a civil war, in which
minds even of the highest refinement might, and in numberless instances, did be-
lieve our cause to be rebellion. There should be some, and I am willing to yield a
large allowance of moral obliquity resulting from that primordial error, and I
would even give the benefit of it to the memory of Andre. But it is impossible to
do him honor without insulting all that was great and glorious in our cause. The
invective upon Washington in Miss Seward's 'Monody' is not the less despicable
for being the false conception of a female muse, and I dare say you have seen as
I have the very parliamentary monument in Westminster Abbey, erected to adorn
with sepulchral glory this Pandar of treachery, exhibiting all the national malignity
in the mutilation of the figure of Washington." To Robert fFalsh, August 4, 1821.
Ms.
^ Of the note of the French minister Monroe wrote: "His proposal is, that we
submit to the utmost degree of humiliation. It is, as you justly observed, the
order of a superior to an inferior. It is even worse, much worse. An inferior may
138 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
When that note was in the first instance received as a
confidential communication, it was immediately perceived
that [a reply to it, such as its purport appeared on the part
of the government of the United States to require, must
submit to hard conditions from necessity, and that necessity is his justification.
This may be done without dishonor. But to acknowledge error, and to impute it
to the subaltern officers of the government who had understood their orders cor-
rectly and obeyed them faithfully, and who of course were not only innocent of
any crime or misconduct, but had merited well of their government and country,
would be an act of degradation and humiliation, of which I do not recollect in
history a single example. If we were to submit to this, the proud character of our
country would be gone, a pride, not founded in vain ambition or false pretensions
of any kind, but in the purity of our principles, and in the firmness and steadiness
with which they have been maintained in all our transactions with foreign pow-
ers. . . . Nothing therefore being more remote from the views of this government
than any concession which should dishonor it, a proposition to that effect can be
viewed in no other light than an unmerited outrage. The government, however,
is not willing to make that a motive of action beyond what a just sense of what
is due to its own character rigorously imposes. All further negotiation on this
point must cease." Monroe to Adams, July I2, 1821. Ms.
" I had nearly prepared the draft of a reply to the last note of the French minister,
but shall avail myself of the suggestions in your letter to make some additions to it.
But as in this reply I have indulged rather freely my own feelings in descanting
upon the off'ensiveness of his proposal, and as on other occasions, I have derived
so much benefit from your revising hand, I shall ask permission to send it to you
before transmitting it to him, and hope to forward a copy of it to you by the next
mail." To the President, July 14, 1821. Ms.
The draft of the reply to de Neuville was sent to Monroe on the 17th and was
retained by the President until the 23d; "believing that the present discussion with
Mr. de Neuville is of very high importance In its relation to France as well as the
attention which it will attract at home, especially should the diflference not be
accommodated. ... I have considered much on the subject, and attach the
highest importance to your note for the whole administration, and of course those
to whom it more immediately relates. . . . The argument of your paper I have
only time to add Is sound and able. The effect on the government of France
through the minister Is what Is particularly to be guarded against." Monroe to
Jdams, July 20 and 23, 1821. Ms. "There Is good cause to believe that we have
much to apprehend from the hostile feeling of many of the sovereigns of Europe to-
wards us, and that war with them is not an Improbable event, should it be practi-
cable on their part. The movement in Europe forms an issue between most of the
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 139
necessarily have a tendency to foreclose all discussion with
the Baron de Neuville upon the objects of important interest
to the two countries, which had formed the special occasion
of his return to the United States. Unwilling thus abruptly
to break off an important negotiation upon a point which
to the American government seemed not to deserve even
the name of a secondary interest, and upon which the Baron
de Neuville had then avowedly received no instructions
from his government] ^ it was proposed from this Depart-
ment that the reply to that note should be postponed, with
a view to take up the subjects upon which the Baron had
been instructed, and to ascertain whether the ideas of the
two governments could be brought nearer to each other con-
cerning them, than it was apparent could be accomplished
in regard to the cases of the Apollon and Eugene. To this
arrangement the Baron de Neuville acceded, with the under-
sovereigns and their subjects, and the United States are regarded as the natural
ally of the one and enemy of the other, without other agency than the mere force
of example. If the progress should be such as to make our overthrow presumable,
or to excite despair with the sovereigns, the attempt may be apprehended. I
therefore deem it highly important, in every occurrence with every power, that
without making any concession, or omitting anything due to fair argument, we use
the most conciliatory terms in our power. ... An answer in a spirit of moderation
he undoubtedly has no right to expect. I should not be surprised if he should
state that he had yet received no instruction from his government on it, and apolo-
gize for the proposition he had made. In any event the rejection of his proposition,
the avowal of the order, the defense of it, the exposure of the smuggling scheme
with all the details attending the attempt, . . . will I think place us on strong
ground." lb. to lb., July 24, 1821. Ms. See also a letter from Monroe, July 27,
in Writings of James Monroe, VI. 190.
^ The following was substituted for the sentences in brackets: "if the condition
which it seemed to impose should be adhered to on his part, all hope of a satis-
factory arrangement of the commerce between the two countries must cease, un-
less the United States should make very mortifying concessions on a point altogether
unconnected with it, and in which they were under the deepest conviction that
they had committed no wrong. Unwilling that a negotiation on so important
an interest should thus be broken off," etc.
HO THE WRITINGS OF [1821
standing that his letter of 4 April should, at his option, cease
to be a confidential and become an official communication.
A voluminous correspondence has since ensued upon the
objects which had constituted the main causes of the Baron's
return to his mission here, and it Is with great regret that,
as a result of that correspondence, the President has yet
perceived no symptom of probability that the views of the
two governments can be brought to coincide upon either of
them. With regard to the claim of France upon the eighth
article of the Louisiana cession treaty, the opinion of the
President Is unchanged; and the reply to the last note of
the Baron de Neuville upon that subject may be expected
at an early day. The Secretary of State Is still waiting for
new propositions from the Baron de Neuville upon the
navigating question; and the Baron de Neuville, who since
the date of his letter of 4 April, has received the instructions
of his government concerning the cases of the Apollon and
the Eugene, to which Is added the case of the Neptune, by
transmitting to this Department the translation of his letter
of 4 April, is understood to have rendered It official.
In that letter the Baron de Neuville declared that in his
opinion no "commercial arrangement could take place be-
tween our two nations so long as the grave error, which he
had been induced to point out, should not have been ac-
knowledged and satisfaction given."
This grave error had been so designated In a previous
letter of the Baron de Neuville of 16 March last, to
which he had been answered on the 30th of that month,
that it could never be admitted as such by this gov-
ernment.
Between two parties, whether Individuals or governments,
having various objects of mutual Interest to adjust together,
a situation can scarcely be conceived, [more assuming on
t|
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 141
the one part, and] ^ more humiliating [on the other], than
that in which the [one] ^ should declare that he will come
to no agreement upon one ^ subject of high acknowledged
importance to both, until the other ^ should have acknowl-
ji edged himself to have committed a grave error upon a subject
li totally distinct and having no sort of connection with it.
[A situation in which one party dictates^ and the other submits
to such terms, would seem to be susceptible of no additional
^ aggravation, unless It should be that the party of whom
ij such acknowledgment is required should have] ^ previously
'I declared that he never could make it. Yet this was the law
which the Baron de Neuville's note appeared [determined] ^
' to Impose upon the American government.
In his note of the 9th instant he renews [and renders
official] ^ the demand that the American government should
acknowledge that a grave error has been committed In the
cases of the Jpollon, the Eugene and the Neptune, with the
' explanation that this error is imputed only to subordinate
officers. [And he thinks It Interests the dignity of the crown
of France, that a clerk In the Treasury Department, a col-
lector of the customs, and the officers of a revenue cutter
should be acknowledged to have committed' a grave error,
by mistaking the purport of their Instructions from the
government.] ^
The objection to making this acknowledgment Is, that It
^ Struck out.
^ These phrases were made to read: "more humiliating to the one, than that in
which the other," etc.
»"a."
* "former."
* These words were struck out, and "and in a case in which he had" substituted.
* Struck out.
^b.
* Struck out, and the following substituted: "who had, as he presumes, mistaken
the purport of their orders from their government."
142 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
cannot be made consistently [either] ^ with [truth or] ^
justice. [Neither the clerk in the Treasury, whom Baron
de Neuville has thought proper to name] ^ nor the collector
of the customs at St. Mary's, mistook his orders or instruc-
tions. It is not [the practice of] ^ the American government
[to] ^ discharge upon subordinate executive officers, who have
faithfully done their duty, the responsibility which properly
belongs to itself. A copy of the order of the 6th of May,
1 81 8, from the Treasury Department to the collector of St.
Mary's has already been communicated to the Baron de
Neuville. That order having been issued more than two
years before the act of Congress of 15 May, 1820, imposing
the new tonnage duty on French vessels, it cannot be neces-
sary to say that no proceeding under it could be intended to
impair the dignity of the crown of France, or to commit an
injury upon any French subject. The Baron de Neuville,
in his letter of 4 April, appears to have mistaken the object
and purport of this order; he supposes it to have reference
only to pirates. He will find by recurring to it that it was
issued on a previous ^''practice of British vessels in the River
St. Mary's, in eluding the revenue laws [of the United States]
by anchoring on the south side of the river, and carrying
on a smuggling trade with the northern shore."
The order then observes: "it is understood that there is
no Spanish town on the southern shore to which these vessels
resort for the purpose of legitimate trade. Their conduct
must, therefore, be considered as an outrage upon our laws.
If they intend to trade with the United States, they must
conform to the law regulating that trade."
' Struck out.
2 This was changed to read: "as the Baron de Neuville will be sensible when
informed that neither the clerk in the Treasury."
'"desired that" was substituted.
* "should."
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 143
It then proceeds to direct the collector of St. Mary's "to
enforce the revenue laws upon all vessels entering the River
St. Mary's, without regard to the side of the river in which
they may anchor." •
It adds that those which should be there at the receipt of
• the order must "forthwith depart, or enter their cargoes at
the custom house; and those which might thereafter arrive
must be considered as within the jurisdiction of the United
States, and subjected to the revenue laws in every respect."
An exception to the operation of the order was directed in
the case of Spanish vessels.
The justification of this order rests upon the well known
principle of natural equity and of the laws of nations, that
all rights of property must be so used and enjoyed as not
to do wrong to another.^ The territorial right of Spain on
the south side of the river, sacred and inviolable so long as
it was used for just and lawful purposes, forfeited that
sanctity from the moment when it was made the resort of
persons who could be there for no other purpose than wrong
^ '"In general no work can be constructed upon a river, or elsewhere, prejudicial
to the rights of others. If a river belongs to one nation, and another has incon-
testably the right of navigation upon it, the first cannot build a dyke or mills
upon it, which would render it no longer navigable; its right in this case is only a
limited property, which it can exercise only by respecting the rights of others.' Vattel,
B. I., ch. 22, § 272.
"This passage is cited only as authority for the principle. The Baron de Neu-
ville will perceive how much stronger for the application of the principle is the
case in discussion between us than that put by the author. The case put by the
author is of a river wholly owned by one nation, and upon which the other has '
only a right of navigation. The case in discussion is of a river (St. Mary's) half of
which, together with the right of navigation upon the whole, belonged to the
United States. The case put by the author prohibits the erection of dykes or mills,
works useful and laudable in themselves, but which would be prejudicial to the
right of another. The case in discussion is further tainted with moral turpitude,
with false pretences, and the perversion of official proceedings — all exclusively
for the purpose of defeating the laws of the neighboring nation." — Note in original.
144
THE WRITINGS OF [1821
to the United States. The use and navigation of the river,
being common to the United States and Spain, was so far
subject to a common jurisdiction, that the United States
had a right to take all measures upon it necessary to protect
the execution of their own laws from fraud or smuggling.
This necessity did indeed apply as well to the cases of pirates
and of slave-traders, as to the British smugglers. The laws
of the United States would have been equally prostrate
before them all, if they could have carried on securely their
nefarious traffic by merely anchoring on the south side of
the river. -
The order was executed with regard to the British vessels
which were there at the time, and the River St. Mary's
ceased to be the receptacle of slave-traders, pirates and
smugglers. But when the act of Congress of 15 May, 1820,
imposed an extra tonnage duty upon French vessels, a proj-
ect appears to have been formed of defeating entirely its
operation by means of this same fraudulent use of the
Spanish territorial right, south of St. Mary's River. From
the two letters of the Spanish consular agent, G. I. F. Clarke,
copies of which have already been transmitted to the Baron
de Neuville, it is evident that this project was very deeply
laid, and comprehensively meditated; including even the
avowed design of protracting the unpleasant state of com-
mercial collisions between the United States and France,
which it was the express object of the Baron de Neuville's
renewed mission to adjust.
In execution of this project an application was made to
the governor of East Florida, to constitute a port, not exactly
on the south side of St. Mary's River, but a few miles higher
up, on the shore of one of its branches, Bell River — to
constitute a port where there was neither town nor settlement
to carry on any lawful trade whatever! The governor of
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 145
East Florida had no authority from his government to
constitute a port anywhere. In the declaration of Captain
Edou, transmitted by the Baron de Neuville to the Depart-
ment of State he says that the governor of St. Augustine
himself told him that which he had already learnt from the
consular agent in St. Mary's (G. I. F. Clarke), that a request
to open and establish a new port of entry in the River Bell
had long before been made to his excellency the governor
general of Cuba, and had not as yet been answered.
Yet this self-same G. I. F. Clarke undertook to declare
officially to the collector of the customs at St. Mary's, by
his letter of 14 September, 1820, that the port had been
established.
The real fact was, as Edou himself declares, that he had
made entry of his vessel, not at the port of St. Joseph, but
at the port of St. Augustine, to which he had travelled all
the way from Amelia Island for that purpose. He had also
travelled all the way back accompanied by M. A. Gay,
whom he had chosen to make the entry, and by Don Do-
mingo Reyes, deputy collector at St. Augustine, who was
commissioned to ascertain the exactness of his manifest and
declaration, and to zvhom he paid five dollars and a half per
diem besides considerable travelling expenses.
Here then was a vessel entered at St. Augustine, but lying
j eighty miles off, at Amelia Island; and an ambulating deputy
collector who, instead of waiting for the ship to come to the
■port, is largely paid by Captain Edou for going to the ship,
to save him the time and trouble of ever entering in fact at
St. Augustine at all. When they come to the ship, the
deputy collector and the consular agent Clarke, both advise
that she should be removed. Where.'' To St. Augustine,
where she had been entered.? No; but up into the River
Bell, close upon the border of the United States, with which
146 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
the real traffic was to be clandestinely carried on. [Fraud
and falsehood are stamped upon every step of the proceed-
ing;] ^ and to close it ^ with consistency [of character],^ Clarke
officially declares to the collector of St. Mary's, that a port
has been established in Bell River, where both he and
Governor Copplnger had told Edou that the application to
the governor of Cuba to establish it had not been answered.
[Captain Edou appears, indeed, in the simplicity of his
heart, to imagine that In all this he had taken care to keep
on the safe side of the law; and he takes It much to heart
that anything like an intention of smuggling should be im-
puted to him. Yet he avows that he entered his vessel at
St. Augustine without ever Intending to go there; that his
real intention was to trade with the United States, and at
the same time to evade the payment of their duties. But
he was advised by his consignee at Charleston, he was advised
by the Spanish consular agent at St. Mary's, he was advised
by the deputy collector of St. Augustine, whom he so liberally
paid for his advice and his travels; and with all this advice
and all this expense, he thinks the falsehood of his entry at
St. Augustine, and the intended fraud upon the revenue of
the United States, by his position in the fictitious port of
St. Joseph, are to be accounted just and honorable acts of
fidelity to his employers.] ^
It was while his ship lay in this situation, [under color of
a formal but false entry at St. Augustine, lurking on the
borders of the United States,] ^ that the collector of St.
Mary's wrote to the Treasury Department to enquire,
whether the order of the 6th of May, 1818, was to be con-
sidered as applicable to this case? The chief clerk of the
^ Struck out.
* "this proceeding" was substituted.
* Struclc out.
1
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 147
Treasury, having received the letter in the absence of the
head of that Department, appHed to the Secretary of State
for his opinion upon the question, and received for answer
that it was. In consequence of this answer, of which the
collector of St. Mary's was as soon as possible apprized,
Captain Edou was required, conformably to the order,
either to make entry and pay the duties at St. Mary's, or
to depart; and having refused to do either, and threatened
violent resistance to any attempt to compel him thereto,
his vessel was seized for violation of the revenue laws of the
United States, and libelled in the court of competent juris-
diction for the trial of that offence.
The Baron de Neuville will perceive that the order of 6
May, 1 81 8, was issued by direction of the President of the
United States; that the opinion that it was applicable to the
case of the Apollon was given by the Secretary of State him-
self; and he confidently leaves it to the Baron's own sense
of honor and justice to say, [what feeling that may become
a man would be respected in the acknowledgment^ made at
the dictation of the Baron de Neuville, that]^ in this trans-
action [Mr. Jones, the chief clerk in the Treasury Depart-
ment, and the collector of customs at St. Mary's had com-
mitted a grave error, by mistaking the purport of] ^ their
instructions. They committed no error. They understood
and executed their instructions as they were given.
[Nor could the Secretary of State, were he so disposed,
avail himself of the kind suggestion of the Baron de Neuville
to reconcile him to this imposed acknowledgment, that when
he declared the admission never could he made, he had not
been in possession of all the documents; and particularly
^ Struck out, and the following substituted "how far it would be proper in this
government to declare that in this transaction certain subaltern officers in the
Treasury Department had mistaken."
148 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
that he had not seen the endorsement of Mr. Pringle, the
collector at Charleston, of 17 August, 1820, upon the letter
of Mr. Le Maitre asking advice for Captain Edou, whether
he might go to Amelia Island without paying the tonnage
duty of 18 dollars. This is a grave error of the Baron de
Neuville. Copies of the letter from Mr. Le Maitre to Mr.
Pringle, and of Mr. Pringle's endorsement upon it, had been
transmitted to the Secretary of State by Mr. Roth on the
30th of December last; but they are not of the slightest im-
portance to the case.] ^ It was not for going to Amelia
Island that the Apollon was seized; but at Amelia Island
the [clandestine] ^ trade with the United States could not
be carried on. For that purpose the [false] ^ entry at St.
Augustine, the removal of the ship into Bell River, the
travelling deputy collector, and the pretence of a constituted
port of St. Joseph were necessary. Of all this, of course, Mr.
Pringle's endorsement says nothing.
The Baron de Neuville says, that "soon after Captain
Edou's arrival at Amelia Island he heard of a newly created
port, in which he could procure American produce with
more ease and no doubt at less expense." Captain Edou's
own declaration, [transmitted by the Baron de Neuville him-
self,] - says on the contrary that both Clarke, the Spanish
agent, and the governor of St. Augustine told him that the
application for the new port had long before been trans-
mitted to the governor general of Cuba, who alone had the
power to constitute the port, and that no answer had been
received.
The port of St. Joseph, therefore, had no other authority
1 Struck out, and the following substituted: "The Baron de Neuville refers to
Mr. Pringle's endorsement upon a letter of Mr. Le Maitre, certifying that Amelia
Island was not a port of the United States."
* Struck out.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 149
whatever than that of this same G. I. F. Clarke, and the
purposes for which he constituted it are explained by himself
in his two letters of 15 and 17 September, 1820, to James G.
Forbes, copies of which have been communicated to the
Baron de Neuville. In his letter of 4 April the Baron ob-
serves, that these two letters could not have contributed to
the seizure of the Apollon, for which orders were issued in
Washington on the 9th of September, six days before the
very existence of these papers. This conclusion is correct.
The instruction from Washington was, that the order of 6
May, 1 81 8, was applicable to the Apollon, under the state-
ment of the facts, by which it appeared that she had been
removed from Amelia Island and anchored in Bell River.
And if there could have been any possible doubt whether it
was applicable at the time when the opinion was given,
the declaration of Captain Edou himself would have removed
it. For whoever will read those declarations, and then
recur to the order, will immediately see that it could not
more completely have applied, had it been issued specially
for that case itself. The mere fact of the removal of the ship
from Amelia Island, and being anchored in the Bell River,
where she could have no traffic but with the United States,
was sufficient to show that she came within the purview of
the order of 6 May, 181 8. It was upon that state of facts
that the opinion was given. The ship was moored where
she could be for no purpose of [lawful] ^ trade with Florida.
Her manifest object was to evade the laws [and defraud the
revenues] ^ of the United States. She had the option offered
her; either to depart, or to make entry at St. Mary's and
pay the duties. Captain Edou refusing to do either, the
ship was seized and libelled for a violation of the revenue
1 Inserted.
^ Struck out.
I50 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
laws of the United States. The conspiracy to prostrate the
laws of the United States and to defeat the object of Baron
de Neuville's new mission, [by prolonging and embittering
the misunderstanding which it was his charge to adjust and
reconcile,] ^ was not then known to the American govern-
ment. This has been made known and demonstrated since
by the letters of Clarke and the declarations of Captain Edou
himself.
The Baron disclaims the defence of Clarke, because he is
not a French subject, and he supposes him even to be a
citizen of the United States. Upon the same principle [he
might have been told from the beginning] ^ that Bell River
was not French territory; and that, if a French subject has
suffered wrong in Spanish territory, it is not to the United
States, but to Spain, France must have recourse for satis-
faction. [This is all but the outward shell of international
controversy.] ^ The inviolability of a territorial line con-
sisting of the middle of a river; the question whether a recog-
nized Spanish agent was a Frenchman or an American; the
establishment of a port of entry in a desert; the custom house
entry at St. Augustine of a vessel anchored at Amelia Island;
the question whether for an act done to a Frenchman on
Bell River by an American officer, France should complain
directly to the United States, or indirectly through Spain,
are all essentially of the same character. [They are sacri-
fices of substance to form; at least on this occasion.] ^ Upon
the peremptory demand for an acknowledgment of a grave
error, the least that can be expected is, that the case should
be examined upon its real merits, [and not upon the mere
machinery of forms]. ^
^ Struck out.
* Struck out, and "it might be observed" substituted.
• Struck out.
1821] fJOHN QUINCY ADAMS 151
The Baron de Neuville is of opinion that whether such a
conspiracy as has been signalized did or did not exist, Cap-
tain Edou had no participation in it; that relying upon the
sanctity of the Spanish territory, his conduct was mere
legitimate commercial speculation; and that although he
had taken his stand as close upon the limits of the law [as
upon those of the United States] ^ he had yet so managed
as to avoid transgressing either of them.
This is a question depending upon a complication of the
law and the facts suitable for the investigation and decision
of a judicial tribunal.
By the 14th section of an act of Congress, to regulate the
collection of duties on imports and tonnage, it is provided
that
the district of St. Mary's shall comprehend all the waters, shores,
harbors, rivers, creeks, bays, and inlets, from the south point of
Jekyl Island, exclusive, to St. Mary's River inclusive: and a collector
for the said district shall be appointed, to reside at St. Mary's.
By the 29th section of the same law it is enacted,
that if any ship or vessel which shall have arrived within the limits
of any district of the United States from any foreign port or place,
shall depart, or attempt to depart, from the same, unless to pro-
ceed on her way to some more interior district to which she may be
bound, before report or entry shall have been made by the master,
or other person having the charge or command of such ship or
■ vessel, with the collector of some district of the United States, the
said master, or other person having such charge or command shall
forfeit and pay the sum of four hundred dollars; and it shall be
lawful for any collector, naval officer, surveyor, or commander of
any of the cutters hereinafter mentioned, to arrest and bring back,
or cause to be arrested and brought back, such ship or vessel, to such
' Struck out.
152 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
port of the United States to which it may be most conveniently
done.
By entering into St. Mary's River, the Apollon did there-
fore arrive within the limits of the District of St. Mary's,
and by the declaration of Captain Edou she did arrive there
for purposes of trade with the United States. She did depart
from thence, not to proceed on her way to some more interior
district, but to be posted on the borders of the United States,
for the avowed purpose of evading their laws. It was and
is the opinion of the executive of the United States that this
was a direct and positive violation of the laws of the United
States; and it was for violations of the law of precisely this
description, that the Treasury order of 6 May, 181 8, had
been given.
The boundary line between the United States and the
Spanish territory of Florida was then the middle of St. Mary's
River. A boundary of this description is, and in its nature
always must be somewhat indefinite. It gives, by the uni-
versal usages of nations, the right of navigating the whole
river to each of the parties proprietors of one-half of it, and
to each party the right of removing from it any hostile an-
noyance to its laws. The removal of the Apollo7i three or
four miles higher up to a branch of the river both shores of
which belonged to Spain, though it marks a project more
craftily laid than it would have been to have anchored on
the south side of the river, directly opposite to St. Mary's,
changes nothing in the moral character of the transaction.
The waters were continuous, and all included under the
general denomination of St. Mary's River. The purpose
was the same — [defiance] ^ of the laws [and fraud upon the
revenue] ^ of the United States.
' "Evasion" was substituted for this word.
* Struck out.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 153
It Is estimated by the Baron de Neuville, that even ad-
mitting there was a conspiracy against the laws of the United
States, and that Captain Edou participated in it, yet inas-
much as he was within the Spanish territorial line, the gov-
ernment of the United States could not rightfully expel him
thence, or molest him there; that they ought to have re-
monstrated to the governor of Florida against this injury
to their rights; and that it is more than probable that he
would have immediately given a counter order.
The government of the United States were in no relations
of communication with the government of Florida; and if
they had been, they knew that upon any representation to
him from them, he would have referred them to the governor
and captain general of the island of Cuba, and he to the
Spanish government at Madrid. How rapid the progress
of reparation would have been there, we need not surmise.
That years would have passed away in enquiries and nego-
tiations, experience will justify us in concluding. Had the
fact been as the agent Clarke declared it was, that the
governor of Florida had constituted a port, it was too evi-
dent that the only means remaining to the United States
for obtaining justice was to do It themselves. The juris-
diction of Spain on the south side of St. Mary's River was
merely nominal. There was no settlement, no officers, civil
or military, with powers to remove the nuisance to the
United States, whether of pirates, slave-traders or smugglers.
A few months before the order of 6 May, 1818, Amelia Island
had been wrested from the Spanish government of Florida,
by a band of less than two hundred adventurers, from whom
Spain had been unable to rescue it, and from whom the
United States had been compelled In their own defence to
take It. For many years the territory of Florida had been
at the mercy of foreign nations, of Indians, and of negroes.
154 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
and had been used by all for purposes of annoyance to the
United States. Complaints had been made to the governor
of Florida in some of these cases. He had pleaded the want
of power to give redress, and no redress had been obtained.
It was, therefore, necessary for the United States to vindi-
cate their own laws by their own authority. The Baron de
Neuville supposes it impossible that an order, intended to
operate upon pirates and slave-traders, should be considered
applicable to a French vessel, engaged in regular commerce.
But this was not the case of the Apollon. She was not en-
gaged in regular commerce. The entry at St. Augustine
of a vessel at Amelia Island was not regular commerce.
The posting of the ship in Bell River was not regular com-
merce. There was no regular commerce between the United
States and Bell River. It was irregular commerce for which
the Apollon was stationed there, and it was to prevent such
commerce that the order of 6 May, 181 8, had been issued.
Had the Apollon been a pirate, or laden to the water's edge
with slaves, her captain might have alleged all the same
grounds of complaint against the seizure by the officers of
the United States, which are exhibited by Captain Edou;
nor could the purpose of a pirate or slave-trader in mooring
at that spot have been more directly hostile to the laws of
the United States, than was that of Captain Edou.
It is this combination of circumstances which constitutes
the essential difference between the case of the Apollon and
that of vessels engaged in regular commerce at frontier ports.
That American vessels, going to Passages or Nice, may carry
on from thence a smuggling trade with France is not denied;
and if detected in it by France, will doubtless bear its
penalties. But by going there in full conformity to the laws
of the United States and of the country where those ports
are situated, they violate no law, either in deed or intention.
I
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 155
By trading from those ports with the adjoining ports of
France, conformably to the laws of France and of the country
whence they trade, no law is violated; the commerce is
strictly regular, and neither the practice nor intention of
smuggling can be charged upon them. But if, by the con-
nivance or corruption of subaltern officers of the bordering
nation, an entry of form into one of those ports, for a vessel
eighty miles distant from it, never intending to enter it, and
for the express purpose of unlawful trade with France, should
be made; if the pretence of a port of trade should be set up
in a desert, close upon the boundary of France, and for the
avowed purpose of illicit trade with France; and if all this
should be done in the face of the French authorities, on a
river half belonging to herself, with a desert shore and no
existing authority on the other; then indeed would the cases
be parallel, and then, should the government of France give
to the Captain of such an American vessel the choice to
depart from the waters of the river, or to enter the port of
France, and submit to the operation of its laws, the govern-
ment of the United States would assuredly neither take it
as an indignity offered to them, nor exact from France an
acknowledgment of error for it, as a condition to precede
the adjustment of other interests between the two nations.
The President yet thinks that the seizure of the Apollon
was justifiable both by the laws of nations and by the statute
of the United States above cited. ^ The American govern-
ment has no motive for bearing hard upon the honor or
reputation of Captain Edou, and heartily concurs in the
sentiment of the Baron de Neuville, that the honor of the
humblest individual is an object of interest to his country.
But the object of Captain Edou, by his own declaration, was
^ The following was inserted: "and that he should have failed In the duty im-
posed on him by the law, if he had not given that interpretation of it."
I
156 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
to trade with the United States, and yet evade the operation \
of their laws. [His means were Si false entry of a ship at St. i
Augustine, and a location of her at a spurious port of St. ;
Joseph, which he knew had no existence. Whether this ]
was taking his stand upon the limits of the law or not, need
not further be enquired; but if it was, assuredly that law was
not the law of honor.] ^
The Baron de Neuville enquires "on what principle a
French vessel should be denied in America the privileges en-
joyed by American vessels in Europe " and observes, if it is
possible to carry on smuggling between Florida and the
United States, may it not equally be done at Nice, Passages,
etc., etc., and in all other ports situated near a frontier. [The
substance of this argument is that because Americans may
smuggle from Nice and Passages into France, therefore
Captain Edou had a right to smuggle from Florida into the
United States. Although it is difficult to understand the
note in the Baron's letter of 4 April in any other sense, yet
the Secretary of State cannot believe this was its meaning.
Surely] ^ the Baron de Neuville [can discern] ^ the difference
between vessels going in lawful trade to acknowledged open
ports, and thence in fair undisguised traffic with other ports
in the neighborhood, escaping from the aggravated duties
of a direct commerce, and vessels making a [false] ^ entry
in a port eighty miles distant from the ship, vessels resorting
to [an imposture of] ^ a port in a desert for the express and '
avowed purpose of traffic with another country in defiance 1
of its laws. [As well might the entry into a neighbor's house ■
at noonday to pay a friendly visit, be likened to the entry
into the same dwelling of a midnight robber to plunder or to ;
burn the house.] ^
^ Struck out.
2 "Must nevertheless admit" was substituted. * Struck out.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 157
The suit of the United States against Captain Edou and
. his ship has, however, been discharged, and his vessel has
"1 been restored to him. This was done, not from an opinion
"* that the seizure of the ship had been unlawfully or improperly
made, but from a disposition as far as possible conciliatory
towards France, and particularly to the warm interest which
the Baron de Neuville had taken in the case. [It is to be re-
gretted that the measure was not received by him in the
spirit in which it was adopted.] ^
It is understood that an action has been commenced by
Captain Edou against the collector of St. Mary's for the
seizure of this ship. The legality of that act will be tried
also upon that suit; and should it upon the trial prove to
have been unwarranted by law, Captain Edou will recover
such damages as he may be entitled to by law. All the
private interests, therefore, concerned in this transaction will
receive that protection which is appropriate to them.
It was remarked in a former note from this Department
that the spot which Captain Edou and his advisers had
selected for these transactions could scarcely be considered
as a Spanish territory, since it had been nearly two years
before solemnly ceded to the United States [and ought then
to have been in their possession as their own. To this the
Baron de Neuville replies by an argument which appears
not remarkably relevant to the subject in discussion, upon
the question whether a treaty has any force or value before
its final ratification. It will not be necessary to controvert
the opinion of the Baron de Neuville upon this subject. As
he himself has produced a full power from his sovereign
promising on the faith and word of a king to accept^ accom-
plish and execute whatever he, the Baron, shall have stipu-
lated, promised and signed in his name, it is not to be sup-
1 Struck out.
158 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
posed that he intends to assert that these words are without
meaning: and if they have any meaning, the assertion by
this Department, contested by the Baron, is fully main-
tained, and the Floridas ought to have been in possession of
the United States as their own, long before Captain Edou's
expedition to Bell River to take his stand on the very limits
of the law.
In the altercations submitted to the decision of judicial
tribunals, from the imperfection of all human institutions
it often happens that the determination is governed more
by positive regulation than by moral principle. The law
is not always the same as the justice or equity of the case.
But in the transactions of nations, positive regulation is or
ought ever to be subordinate to the principles of eternal
justice. The ratification of a treaty is a formality, essential
to the form of its conclusion, and therefore to its validity.
But when that ratification has been solemnly promised in
the face of God and man, upon the faith and word of a King,
the statesman may be pitied who is reduced to the necessity
of maintaining that the right of one party has been forfeited
by the perfidy of the other, and that the royal promise was !
of no avail for the want of wax to the deed of performance, f
It is with no sentiment of satisfaction that the remark
obtrudes itself upon the consideration of this affair, that all 1
the reliance of Captain Edou for his justification, and that
of his complaint against the American government, are of
this description — all dependences upon the perversion of
forms and the abuse of regulations. He makes entry of his
ship at St. Augustine, without a thought of going there, but
as a cover for trading with the United States, in real viola-
tion of their laws. He posts himself upon Bell River, at a
spurious port of St. Joseph, for the same purpose. He pays
profusely Spanish officers of the customs for aiding and
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 159
abetting him in the fraud. A Spanish agent, enjoying the
protection of our laws, combines with and inspirits him to
the deed, with the avowed purpose of frustrating the laws
of the Union, and prolonging our differences with France;
and because the authorities of the United States cross an
imaginary line in the middle of a river, and dislodging him
from his lurking place, compel him to depart, we are to be
told of violations of territory, and insults to flags; that the
dignity of the crown of France is interested in the mercantile
speculations of Captain Edou; and that no adjustment of
commercial interests highly important to both nations is
i to be expected, unless the American government shall ac-
knowledge a grave error to have been committed, though
it never was committed, by a clerk in the Treasury Depart-
ment and the collector of the port of St. Mary's.] ^
The American government Is in this case conscious of no
error to acknowledge in itself, and knows that none has been
committed by the subordinate officers ^ [denounced by the
Baron de Neuville. It has felt the demand of such an ac-
knowledgment as a proposal which nothing but an anxious
desire of conciliation with France could justify it in meeting
I otherwise than by direct, positive, and instantaneous re-
fusal. It had hoped that having been originally made as
confidential, it would have been upon deliberate reflection
withdrawn. I am directed by the President of the United
States to inform you, that after this frank explanation all
further discussion between us of that proposal must cease,
and that this answer concerning it is definitive.
Upon any other subject of interest to the two nations,
or to your mission, and particularly upon that relating to
the commerce between them, I shall be happy to receive
^ Struck out.
* "under it," inserted.
i6o THE WRITINGS OF [1821
your communications whenever it may suit your con-
venience.] ^
I pray you, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 31 July, 1821.
Dear Sir:
The Baron de Neuville called at the office of the Depart-
ment yesterday, and asked an explanation of one or two
passages in the note vv^hich I lately sent him concerning the
case of the Apollon. He seems now disposed to change his
ground, and to rest his complaint in that case upon the fact
of the vessel's having been seized, and not having been al-
lowed the option of going away. The two other vessels, the
Eugene and the Neptune, he admits were allowed to go away
and did go. He also lays much stress on the statement of
Edou that Captain Payne, commander of the fort at Amelia
Island, told him "A^? might act as he chose in Amelia river,
and might even unload his cargo on Tiger Island, opposite
Amelia, and make use of two uninhabited houses on it as store-
houses''; but that he would not allow him to have any
commercial intercourse with Amelia Island.
I told Mr. de Neuville that admitting this statement of
Edou to be true, it did not alter the nature of the transac-
1 Struck out, and the following substituted: "The Baron de Neuville will see
that nothing disrespectful or unfriendly to France was intended; that the order,
in its origin, did not apply to her, and that its application to the cases, in favor
of which he takes an interest, was a necessary consequence of that impartiality
which was due to its own character. The Secretary of State indulges a strong
hope that this explanation will be satisfactory. He gives it in that spirit of candor
and good will which is indulged by the United States towards France."
1821] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS i6i
tion, and that the seizure of his vessel was in consequence
only of his resistance. That the intention of the government
was manifested hy the option given to the two other vessels,
and there has been no motive of treating Edou differently
from the rest. I suppose I shall have a note of eight or ten
sheets upon these notable points.
With regard to the Louisiana convention claim, you will
recollect that, after a very long reply to my last note to him,
he concludes by saying he shall propose to refer the subject
for future negotiation. I am now to answer him again, and
must ask your instructions whether to consent to, or refuse
future negotiation upon it. My own impression is, that to
agree to future negotiation would be to give up our ground.
There is nothing to negotiate upon. There is nothing, ab-
solutely nothing, but chicanery in the claim.
In all this negotiation with France our experience hitherto
has too clearly proved, that we get nothing by concession.
You will see by the despatch from Mr. Gallatin which I send
you, that Baron Pasquier has taken the pro forma decree of
the district judge for the restoration of the ship as a decision
I upon the merits.^ When I spoke to the Baron yesterday of
the action of Edou now pending against the Collector of
St. Mary's, he intimated that he neither knew nor cared
anything about that action, and seemed to be displeased that
I it had been brought. I told him that so far as private rights
were concerned, the judicial tribunals were entirely com-
petent to their protection, and that if the treasury order of
6 May, 1818, or the opinion given by me that it was ap-
plicable to the Apollon, were not sanctioned by the law,
\ they would not avail the collector in his defence. Captain
Edou would recover damages if illegally seized, in spite both
^ Adams, Memoirs, October 29, November 8, 1821; Adams, Writings oj Gallatin,
II. 184.
i
i62 THE WRITINGS OF [i8
21
I
of the treasury order and of my opinion. I added that the
private interests being thus protected, he knew that ac-
cording to the usual practise of nations there was no public
question between us and France in the case. If any juris-
diction had been violated, it was that of Spain. France
might have her recourse to Spain, but she had in strictness
no right to ask us a single question about it. We had, as he
knew, never taken this ground, but he knew as well that,
but for our disposition to give every fair and reasonable
satisfaction to France, we might have taken it. I ask your
special attention to his reply. "Oh, as to that, he said, his
instructions were in a much higher tone than he had as-
sumed. By his instructions he had been ordered to say,
that France must have direct satisfaction from the United
States, and that she would not have a word to say to, or with
Spain about it.''
He finally said, that he should answer my note, and in the
meantime would send a copy of it to his government, whoi-
would judge for themselves what they should do in the case.
He had never Intended to ask that the American government
should acknowledge an error In Itself, and as I now declared
that the subaltern officers had not misunderstood their in-
structions, he could not expect an acknowledgment that
the error was in them. He had expressed his own opinionj
upon the subject, and had thought from a conversation oneJ P'(
day with me, that this matter would not have made a dIffi-B ^
culty between the two countries. I desired him to recollect« Uii
the circumstances of the conversation to which he now al-J "f
luded. He had come to me and declared, that all the com^
mercial and navigating questions, as well as that of th(B ^ttf
Louisiana claim, were of altogether trivial Importance tcjl-iii
France. That as to them France was ready to agree to al-J ftini
most any terms we should propose. Nothing would b*
iS2i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 163
easier than for us to adjust them. But In the affair of the
Apolloii, her honor must be satisfied. My answer was, sir,
to adjust the trifles with me upon any terms that we can
accept, and we will not break with you for the affair of the
Apollon. Sign a convention with me upon the commercial
and navigating interests, abandon your untenable claim to
exclusive privileges in Louisiana, then I will give you carte
blanche for the Apollo7i. I will sign any paper you will draw
up. I now repeat to you the same words. But observe, the
things which you spoke of as of no importance to France
must first be settled to our satisfaction, and then I will sign
a paper to be drawn up by yourself — because, besides my
general confidence that you would insist upon my signing no
paper which I ought not to sign, I should have the special
confidence resulting from your previous agreement with me
upon all the points which, though in your estimate, of quite
inferior moment, were in ours the only important things to
adjust. But as you have not accepted my offer, you can
hardly claim it of me as an engagement. Much less can
you infer from an offer implying confidence in your generos-
ity, a disposition to yield to, or sign anything derogatory to
the honor of my country.
He then asked me what I had meant by saying in my last
note that the Secretary of State was yet expecting to receive
proposals from him upon the navigating question.^ I told
him that it was in consequence of the offer in his note of
[July 3], and my acceptance of it in my note to him of 5 July.
He said he had made his proposals, and had none others to
make. He had made his proposals. They had not been
accepted, and none had been made to him in return. To judge
of my surprise at this assertion you must have the whole
correspondence before you. But I saw it was useless to
debate the matter with him. I simply referred him to our
i64 THE WRITINGS OF [i8
21
rejection of his basis of a mutual reduction of existing duties,
and to our offer of a reciprocal discriminating duty upon
the tonnage of the merchandise. He said he had no authority
to treat upon any other basis than a mutual reduction, talked
again of the reduction of one-third as the extreme limit of
his powers, of reductions upon wines, and silks, and brandies,
as equivalents for reductions in France even to the amount
of one-third, in short of things canvassed and rejected three
months ago, repeating ever and anon that he had made
proposals which had not been accepted, and that none had
been made to him in return.
My conclusion from all this is that it will be highly ex-
pedient that I should immediately make to him upon the
navigation subject a direct and specific proposal in the form
of an article for a convention. It will be best in my own
judgment to offer him our ultimatum at once. Should you
be of that opinion, I must ask your instructions what to
offer. I would now send you a draft of an article for your
consideration, but for the supposition that you would prefer
a previous consultation with the members of the adminis-
tration. I solicit your instructions as soon as may be con-
venient and remain, etc.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 3 August, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I herewith enclose a letter from Mr. Canning of the first
of June with its enclosures, together with my draft of an
answer for your revisal. Mr. Canning has repeatedly and
very urgently applied for an answer.
I82I] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 165
I am afraid you will again think my draft unnecessarily
harsh, and If so, request of you to strike out everything which
may be justly deemed of that character. But I think you
will observe little delicacy towards the American government
In the tone of his note. I believe It to be Important to hold
up constantly on our part of the correspondence the nature
of our objections to the proposals of Great Britain, and
there Is so much of a scolding in the remarks upon our de-
clining their proposals, and upon our offered substitute, that
I thought a spirited notice of them due in justice to our-
selves. I presume you have seen how the Marquis of Lon-
donderry has treated us in a recent debate on this subject
In Parliament.^
I propose with your permission to leave this city of the
20 of this month, for an absence of two months on a visit to
my native state. Among other Inducements to this excursion
the state of my father's health, which is infirm. Is the most
impressive.
I am etc.
TO CHARLES JARED INGERSOLL
Washington, 7 August, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I think your conclusion has been judicious, in adhering
to Bynkershoek and his Ambassadorial Law for the disposal
of your leisure, rather than to bestow any part of it upon
Don Luis de Onis. The first Intimation I had that It was the
intention of this "most excellent Lord" to give us a specimen
^ On a motion of Wilberforce for an address to the King. See National Intelli-
gencer, August II and 15, 1821. The communication in that issue, signed "Verax,"
was written by Stratford Canning.
i66 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
of Spanish diplomacy, according to the estimate of it to
which Lord Chatham testified from long experience, was a
look. It was a glance of the eye and a muscular play of
features in his countenance when he agreed to the 8th ar-
ticle of the treaty in the terms finally drawn up by me, and
to which alone I would subscribe. He asked me what I
understood by the words "shall complete them." I told him
it was to confine the benefit of the exception to grantees in
possession and having commenced settlements. It was on
assenting to this explanation that his visage beamed with
that ray which seemed to say, I have him in the toils. This
look gave me a moment of uneasiness, as indicating a snare;
but the draft, with the exception of the inserted date, was
my own, and I had purposely drawn it so as to make the date
perfectly inoperative as to the great grants.
We had no copy of the grant to the Duke of Alagon, but
we had copies of the two others. On the morning of the day
when we signed the treaty I recurred to the Spanish copy
which we had of the grant to Count Puiion Rostro, and
found it dated the 6th of February. The date in the article
was the 24th of January, so that I thought there could not
be raised so much as the shadow of a question upon the
date. I signed the treaty, and it was from you that I received
the next notice of Don Luis's mine. I dare say you will
recollect it, as you called one morning on me just from the
President's,^ having left with him a gentleman who had dis-
covered that all the three grants were dated on the 23rd of
January, and that the 24th had been purposely selected by
Don Luis to make them all valid. This was not the case.
But two of them, which were royal orders to the governors of
Cuba and of Florida to put the grantees in possession, though
dated on the 6th of February, referred to the grants as having
1 Adams, Memoirs, March 8, 1819.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 167
been made In the preceding December. But Don Luis's
story in his memoirs is incorrect in most of its facts. ^ It is
not true that in all or any of the gazettes of the Union it was
published that the agent of the Duke of Alagon had offered
his lands for sale, or that they had been sanctioned by the
date agreed upon by the treaty. The rivals of the Secretary
of State did afterwards undoubtedly say that he had suf-
fered himself to be deceived by the Spanish Minister, and
no man took more pains to disseminate that idea than the
Spanish Minister himself. But whatever he may have said
to the signers, the Minister of France has never made any
of the qualifying or contesting remarks to me which he says
he made to him. It was through the Minister of France,
and after long discussion with him, and upon the most
explicit declaration on both sides that it annulled all the
grants, that the article had been settled. It was therefore
through the Minister of France that the declaration was
demanded of him. He gave the declaration without in-
timating an objection, though with an ambiguity of phrase-
ology importing all the intention of bad faith which he dis-
claimed. He was as ambitious of being thought a perfide,
as Beaumarchais says women are of being called so. I have
seen slippery diplomatists, more than one; but Onis is the
first man I have met with who made it a point of honor to
pass for more of a swindler than he was.
Onis's book will do us no more harm than did that of Gen-
eral Turreau. It is just about as wise, and bears the same
sort of relation to truth. It did not even secure his immediate
object, which was to convince the Cortes that he had ob-
tained as good a treaty as was obtainable, and that if they
did not like it, he had reserved for them a back door to creep
out from it and refuse the ratification. They did not like
1 Memoir upon the Negotiations, translated by Tobias Watkins, Washington, 1821.
i68 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
the treaty, and Vives with the ratification was expressly
ordered to declare so, which he did; but there was a sense of
honor upon them. They saw the true character of the pre-
tence about the grants and were ashamed of it. They not
only advised the ratification, but the declaration of the
annulment of the grants in terms as explicit and unequivocal
as we had desired, leaving Don Luis the credit of having
intended a fraud without effecting it.
Your translation of Bynkershoek with the commentary,
and still more your manual of international law, will afford
you occupation more agreeable to yourself and more profit-
able to our country than a formal review of such trash as the
Don has given to the world concerning us and our national
character. With regard to the latter, I do not distinctly
understand from your letter in what respect your plan differs
from that of Martens, none of whose publications are men-
tioned among the books to which you have had or wish to
have access. I have with me here only one of the writers
whom you speak of as not having yet obtained, Callieres,
one of the very best writers on the subject. I send you this
herewith, and also another work upon consuls — de Steck,
whom however you must not implicitly trust any more than
Borel or Warden. They were I believe all consuls themselves,
seeking to magnify their office. Pecquet is a valuable writer,
but I have him not here. His work is in the Library of Con-
gress. You say nothing of the Abbe de Mably, three of
whose works will I think have some relation to your pur-
pose — the Droit Public de V Europe, the Principes des Nego-
tiations, and the Entretiens de Phocion sur les Rapports de la
Morale et de la Politique. You will of course consult Montes-
quieu, whose distinctions between the different classes of
laws are presented more distinctly and with more discrim-
ination of deduction than I have found in any other writer.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 169
It will give me great pleasure If I can furnish you In the
course of your work either any other books, or any sugges-
tion which you may find useful. You speak of Barbeyrac
as one of the authors which you have or can command, by
which I suppose you mean his translations Into French of
Grotius and Puffendorf with his Commentary, and also his
translation of the very treatise of Bynkershoek upon which
you are engaged. None of those works should be used as
authorities but with his commentary.
I have felt as you did upon the project of an honorary pro-
cession through the City of New York to glorify the accom-
plices of Benedict Arnold. My own opinion is that his
.remains ought not to be suffered to be taken away, and If,
as I apprehend they cannot be without a violation of law, I
hope it will not be permitted.^
I read with pleasure of the numbers of the Sketch Book and
have been diverted with the growling good humor of Its
English critics. Voltaire says that the first Catherine of
Russia gained her ascendancy over the sublime and terrible
Peter by scratching his head In his fits of frenzy. Geoffrey
Crayon has tried something like such an experiment upon
John Bull, and with some success. We must take credit for
Geoffrey, though he Is for a republican, rather too accom-
plished a courtier.
I am, etc.
^ "I am really anxious that he [H. B. M. Consul Buchanan] and the other consuls
should be made to understand the limited nature of their functions. Had Mr.
Buchanan proceeded in the business as he had at first intended, I understand that
he and his suite would probably have been pelted for their pains, and Major Andre's
bones would have incurred an equal risk of being thrown into the water. Happily
Mr. Baker was passing through New York about that time, and succeeded in
making Mr. Buchanan sensible of his danger." Stratford Canning to Londonderry,
I September 4, 1821.
I70 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, ii August, 1821.
My Dearest Friend:
Your letter of the 3rd instant only reached me yesterday.
You reason exceedingly well, both upon my real character
and upon that of which I have unfortunately got the reputa-
tion. I always receive with deference your counsel which
I know to be generally judicious, and invariably intended
in kindness to me. On the present occasion, however, I
have many special reasons for the request in my former
letter with which you promise to comply, though at the
same time you dissuade me from it. I beg on this occasion
to be indulged with my humor. I well know that I never
was and never shall be what is commonly termed a popular
man, being as little qualified by nature, education, or habit,
for the arts of a courtier, as I am desirous of being courted
by others. Such as I am I envy not the reputation of any
other man in the Union. There is not another man in the
Union, excepting the Presidents past and present, who re-
ceives or continues to receive from the people of this country
indications of esteem and confidence more distinguished and
flattering than I have. With the exception of one signal
mark of dissatisfaction from the legislature of my native
state thirteen years since, my life has been one continual
succession for more than five and twenty years of high, of
honorable and important trusts, and of literary and scientific
distinctions — all conferred without any of those blandish-
ments by which some others acquire esteem or favors. If
ever man had reason to be grateful for the portion of public
consideration which has been shown him, it is I, and I trust
I am grateful for it. I am certainly not intentionally re-
i
1
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 171
pulsive in my manners and deportment, and in my public
station I never made myself inaccessible to any human being.
But I have no powers of fascination; none of the honey which
the profligate proverb says is the true fly-catcher; and be
assured, my dear friend, it would not be good policy for me
to affect it. The attempt would make me ridiculous because
it would be out of nature. . . .
The fatal duel between Fox and H. Randall ^ had well
nigh been followed by another between Captain Randall
and Lieutenant Kirk who lodged at Mrs. Coolidge's. But
both the parties have been arrested, and it is said that an
explanation and accommodation have taken place between
them.
The theatre has been opened this week but is very thinly
attended. Mr. Wood delivered an address in verse, said
to have been written by Mr. Joseph Ingersoll. The company
is a good one, but has no special attraction to fill the house.
Booth is to come, but is now at Petersburg in Virginia. . . .
Your ever affectionate husband.
TO STRATFORD CANNING
Department of State
Washington, 15 August, 1821.
Sir:
Your letter of the first of June last, together with its en-
closures, has been submitted to the consideration of the
President of the United States.
In the former correspondence between us in relation to
the proposals of the British government to the United States
mviting their accession to certain regulations which had been
^ See Sabine, Notes on Duels and Duelling, 178.
172 THE WRITINGS OF [1821 |
agreed upon In treaties between Great Britain and some other 1
powers, for a concert of operations having In view the
suppression of the African slave trade, the reasons were at
some length assigned which restrained the American govern-
ment from assenting to those regulations. As the simple I
fact, that the American government declined acceding to
the proposals of your government, can scarcely render justice |
to their determination, and as the motives for it appear to j
have been misunderstood, I am Instructed now to expose
them In more detail, In evidence of the earnestness and i
sincerity with which the United States have pursued, and
still pursue, the common and important object, the suppres- |
sion of the trade.
Long and earnestly as the government of the United States
have been engaged In contributing their exertions to that
result, they have necessarily considered the range of their
means for Its accomplishment as limited by two principles: ;
first, the boundaries of their own authority delegated to
them In the constitution of the United States; and secondly, ^
the respect due by them to the Independence of other nations. ;
The means of co-operation for the suppression of the trade,
urged upon the acceptance of the United States by the pro-
posals of Great Britain, and exemplified by her treaties with
Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, were that the citizens
of the United States engaged In commerce upon the high j
seas should be liable under certain circumstances, In time of j
peace, to have their vessels searched, and with their persons
seized, and carried away by the naval officers of a foreign
power, subjected to the decision of a tribunal In a foreign
land, without benefit of the intervention of a jury of accusa-
tion, or of a jury of trial, by a court of judges and umpires,
half of whom would be foreigners, and all Irresponsible to
the supreme authorities of the United States. To such modes
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 173
of trial and by such forms of process were the citizens of this
Union to be subjected under charges for offences against
the laws of their country.
The United States had very recently issued from a war
with Great Britain, principally waged in resistance to a
practice of searching neutral merchant vessels for men, in
time of war, exercised by Great Britain, as the United States
deems, in violation of the laws of nations. A proposal in-
volving the exercise in time of peace of this same practice
of search, though for different purposes, could not be ac-
ceded to by the American government consistently with their
principles. Inadmissible as under any circumstances what-
ever they must have deemed this right of search to be, it
was in one of the treaties to the stipulations of which their
I accession was invited presented under an aspect of peculiar
import; authorizing its exercise in the case even of vessels
under the convoy of a ship of war of their own nation.
Under the operation of this provision the commander of an
American convoy was not only to witness the search, seizure,
and carrying away by a foreign naval officer, for offences
against the laws of this country, of its own vessels under
his immediate protection, but was to give every facility to
the act.
There appeared to the American government to be no
conceivable combination of circumstances which could ren-
der the provisions of this stipulation necessary or proper, for
the proposed co-operation to suppress the slave-trade, since
a vessel under convoy of its own nation must always be
amenable to the examination, search, and seizure of its
commander, thereby rendering the intrusion of a foreign
officer for the same purpose as unnecessary and useless for
the end proposed as it is otherwise objectionable in itself.
If both these expedients had an aspect little reconcilable
174
THE WRITINGS OF [1821
to the independence of nations, other measures appertaining
to the system exhibited features equally inauspicious to In-
dividual rights. Among the securities In the political institu-
tions of the Union deemed the most important and precious
to individual liberty are the rules established to shield from
oppression the rights of persons accused of crimes. The
constitution of the United States among other humane and
beneficent provisions In their favor had ordained that they
should be called to answer no other accusation than that
of a grand jury, that they should be sentenced only upon a
verdict of a jury of trial, and that they should be tried only
by judges, themselves responsible to the justice of their
country by the process of Impeachment.
To agree to treaty stipulations In violation of these prin-
ciples was not within the competent authority, or not within
the just discretion, of the American government. They
could neither sacrifice the Individual rights of their citizens,
by subjecting them to trial for ofltences against their munic-
ipal statutes, before foreign judges In countries beyond the
seas, nor the rights of national Independence by authorizing
foreign naval officers to search and seize any American vessel,
and still less a convoyed vessel. In the very presence of the
American commander of the convoy. The reasons for de-
clining these engagements were assigned to the British gov-
ernment in terms as explicit as was thought compatible with
the spirit of conciliation which It was desirable to preserve
throughout the discussion, and have remained without reply.
To the opinion strongly expressed in your letter the Ineffi-
ciency of the measures proposed on the part of the United
States as a substitute for those deemed by your government
to be alone adapted to the attainment of the end, namely,
the concession of the mutual right of search, It might be
replied that neither the experience of the respective measures
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 175
as they have been found to operate in practice, nor the
examination of them as they may be expected to operate in
their nature, will warrant the conclusion that has been drawn.
Of the right of mutual search it is clear that its efficiency
depends altogether upon its universal adoption. So long as
it shall be declined by any one maritime state, however in-
considerable, its adoption by all others would leave it al-
together ineffectual. Without adverting to the strong repug-
nance which has been manifested to it by other maritime
states of the first rank, it is scarcely to be expected that any
principle so liable to misapplication and abuse can obtain
as an innovation upon the laws of nations the universal
concurrence of all maritime powers. The expedient proposed
on the part of the United States, of keeping cruizers of their
own constantly upon the coast where the traffic is carried
on, with instructions to co-operate by good-offices and by
the mutual communication of information, with the cruizers
of other powers, stationed and instructed to the attainment
of the same end, appears in its own nature as well as to ex-
perience, so far as it has abided that test, better adapted to
the suppression of the traffic than that of the British govern-
ment, which makes the officers of one nation the executors
of the laws of another. Abundant evidence has been ex-
hibited to your government, and has been made manifest
to the world, that it is not the American flag under which
at this time this flagitious trade is driven. The cruizers of
the United States have at least produced the effect of de-
priving the dealers in the trade of the use of their flag. The
most unqualified assent of the United States to the practice
of mutual search could do no more.
It is finally to be observed that the purpose of both gov-
ernments being the same, a purpose important in itself, and
dear to the interests of humanity, could scarcely be sub-
176 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
served by a controversial and acrimonious discussion, or an
uncharitable estimation, on either part of the means adopted
by the other for the attainment of the common end. It is
believed that end will be best and most effectually promoted,
if each party, applying with earnestness and sincerity the
means of its own choice, and reconcilable to the genius of
its own institutions, shall permit the other to pursue its own
course, without molestation and without reproach.
I pray you, etc.^
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 16 August, 1821.
Dear Sir:
At the last meeting of the members of the administration
at your house, at which Mr. Clay's claim of a supplementary
half outfit was under your consideration, a statement of
facts relating to the allowances which have heretofore been
made to the ministers of the United States in foreign coun-
tries was desired by Mr. Wirt, as a basis upon which he
might definitely make up his opinion upon the case. You
requested me to draw up such a statement from the docu-
ments in the Department, to which I assented.
1 Five days later instructions were issued to commanders of the public vessels
of the United States, charged with the duty of cruising on the coast of Africa, for
carrying into effect the laws of the United States against the slave-trade. In
transmitting Adams' note to Londonderry, Stratford Canning wrote, September 4:
"I have reason, however, to think that all the members of the American cabinet are
by no means equally adverse to a limited right of search. The constitutional im-
pediments are those upon which they seem the most unanimous, and if it were
possible still to entertain a hope of engaging them to a more decided co-operation,
it could only be by means of waiving the mixed commissions, and proposing some
simpler mode of adjudication for captured vessels."
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 177
On a review of those documents I am convinced that any
statement of facts which I could draw up founded upon them,
must be susceptible of an imputation of receiving a coloring
from the person by whom it should be made. Under the
particular circumstances of the case I must therefore re-
quest of you the favor of being discharged from all future
consideration of it whatever, and that no opinion which I
have given relating to it may have any weight, or be taken
to account in the final determination.
In making this request I do not refer to the fact that Mr.
Clay's application was made not through the Department,
but directly to yourself. Mr. Clay has very candidly ex-
plained to me that this circumstance did not proceed from
intentional neglect or personal distrust on his part, but
because he found it necessary to advert to circumstances
within your memory. But the responsible opinion upon the
claim having been, from motives of the delicacy and pro-
priety of which as regards myself I am entirely sensible,
referred to the Attorney General, I hope you will think it
compatible with the justice due to all parties to release me
from all agency in the consideration of the claim whatever.
I do not mean that I wish you to hold me irresponsible for
the opinions upon the claim which I have heretofore given,
but that, as far as they were my opinion, they may be set
aside, and that the whole examination of and decision upon
it may be had without reference to any views of mine re-
lating to it past or future.
I am, etc.
178 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
TO DANIEL BRENT
Boston, 19 September, 1821.
Dear Sir:
• ••••• •
I have seen Lieutenant Stockton ^ and fully conversed
with him concerning the captures of which the French minis-
ter complains.^ He has promised me a particular report
upon them in writing. I am confirmed in the opinion that
the Jeune Eugenie should be left to the regular course of
the law without interference of the Executive. I told
Lieutenant Stockton that I had advised a Court of Inquiry,
and of the objection to that course by the Secretary of the
Navy. My motive was not censure or even the semblance
of it from him, but with a view by the report of the court
to have a satisfactory answer to give to the complaint of
the French minister. The courts upon Commodore Rodgers
in the affair of the Little Belt, and upon Captain Warrington
for captures made after the peace, occurred to me as prece-
dents.
This affair and the communications from Florida have de-
termined me to shorten my visit here and to hasten my re-
turn. You may expect me between the 5th and loth of next
month. Have the goodness to inform the French minister
that there are no French seamen on board of the Alligator^
and that none ever enlisted there from the captured vessels.
Assure him also that I delay answering his several letters
on this subject, only for the purpose of obtaining further
1 Robert Field Stockton (1795-1866).
^ Of the Jeune Eugenie, for being concerned in the slave-trade. The effect pro-
duced on the French government is described in Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 213.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 179
information with the hope of rendering the answer satis-
factory. . . .
TO DANIEL BRENT
Boston, 22 September, 1821.
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter No. 13 with its enclosures.
From the views of the President signified in his letter to you
of the 15th instant,^ I am satisfied of the expediency of de-
livering over the Jeune Eugenie to the French Consul. But
I wish it should be submitted to the consideration of the
President how this can be done without a strong though
tacit censure of Lieutenant Stockton. By giving up the
vessel we not only admit the fact that she was entirely
French property, but we deprive our officer of the means of
showing judicially his reasons for believing her to have been
American, We surrender not only the question of further
right but the justification of the individual. It seems to me
also necessary that some very precise instruction should be
given to all our officers who may be employed on that
service hereafter, that they may know whether they can
safely under any circumstances whatever board a vessel
under a foreign flag. . . .^
1 An error, as Brent's letter was dated the isth, and Monroe was at Oakhill,
Virginia.
2 Adams, Memoirs, November 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1821.
i8o THE WRITINGS OF [1821
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES
Department of State,
Washington, 25 September, 1821.
Sir:
Your letter of the 23d of last month has been submitted
to the consideration of the President of the United States.
The question upon the construction of the second and
seventh articles of the treaty of 22 February, 18 19, will, as
you propose, be referred to the fair and just consideration
of your government.
That question is upon both the articles not only at first
view the same, but no reason is perceived which could justify
a difference of principle in its application. If it be admitted
that the Spanish negotiator intended that the supply of pro-
visions should be included in the stipulation for transporta-
tion, it is certain that this intention was not expressed, and
you are well aware that whatever the intention of one party
to a treaty may be, unless expressed, it can be binding upon
the other only so far as upon a liberal principle of construc-
tion it is to be implied.
If it was natural that the Spanish negotiator should intend
under a stipulation for conveyance, to include a supply of
provisions, it was assuredly not less natural that the Amer-
ican government should intend, under an acquisition of
fortifications, to include those defences without which they
could not deserve the name; and the presumption is in the
present case strongly corroborated by the fact that in the
treaty no provision is made manifesting any intention on
the part of the Spanish government for carrying away the
artillery. Your observation, that the artillery to be left
is of more value than the rations to be supplied, is of no
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS i8i
effect upon the principle. The appHcatlon of the principle
upon one article is in favor of Spain, upon the other in favor
of the United States. The amount of value depending to the
one or to the other upon the result can have no bearing upon
the principle itself.
No imputation upon your candor was intended by the
remarks in my letter of the 13th of August last, to which
you have replied. No charge of using double meanings was
made or insinuated against you. Although no express stipu-
lation for a supply of provisions existed in the treaty, you
requested that they might be furnished by the American
government. You thought, and you still think, that the
United States ought to furnish them. The American gov-
ernment assented to the construction of the article which
you desired, in the full confidence that Spain would not
hesitate to recognize the same principle in one article to the
advantage of the United States, which she claimed in another
for her own benefit. In this confidence it was deemed useless
to anticipate by speaking to you of a question which it was
expected would never be made; and which, if made, it was
presumed you would have neither instructions nor authority
to adjust, as by your communication now appears to be the
fact. But as it was foreseen that possibly the question might
be made, the instructions to General Jackson were given, a
copy of which was communicated to you with my letter of
the 13th of last month. The government of the United
States wish for no undue advantage in the construction of
the treaty; but they rely on the justice of yours to exercise
the same liberality which it claims, and to acquiesce In the
Interpretation of one article by the same principle, upon
which, In Its behalf, you Insist, as governing the fair con-
struction of another.
With regard to the conduct of the governor and captain-
i82 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
general of the island of Cuba, relating to the execution of
the treaty, the suitable representations will be made directly
to your government, through the minister of the United
States at Madrid.
I pray you, etc.
TO ROBERT WALSH, JR.
Washington, 26th October, 1821.
My Dear Sir:
All that I am now at liberty to say to you concerning the
recent events In Florida is, that I have seen no cause to alter
my opinion and that the subject is in discussion here.^ You
have taken in your paper what appears to be the correct
course, viewing the conduct of General Jackson in the spirit
of candor and not of electioneering hostility, and with re-
gard to any particular acts of questionable character, waiting
to ascertain facts before passing sentence of condemnation.
If time and circumstances permit, I will write you more fully
hereafter, when the snarl shall be more unravelled than it is
yet.
You observe that the oration storm has lulled, but I per-
ceive that "Plain Truth" and the "Friend to calm and
temperate discussion" has had his dash at it. This gentle-
man, whom I think you have decisively shown to be iden-
tically the same without asserting It, must be edified at the
public exposure you have made of his pretensions and mo-
tives. The bank and its able and honorable President ^
will suffer little from anything henceforth said under either
of these two marks, and your article Tuesday last, in reply
^ Adams, Memoirs, October 23, 24, 25, 1821.
* Langdon Cheves.
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 183
to the Philadelphia Gazette, appeals to principles so sure and
so just with regard to the personalities of the press, that I
hope it will not be without its effect, not only upon other
editors but upon the public mind.^
I inclose in confidence a letter I have lately received from
Stockholm, the perusal of which will I hope afford you half
an hour's amusement. I will thank you to return it, as
Hughes is one of my most pleasant correspondents, and I
set more than a diplomatic value upon his letters.
I remain, etc.
TO JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA 2
Department of State,
Washington, 2 November, 1821.
Sir:
Previous to your arrival in this country, I had the honor
of receiving from Don Hilario de Rivas y Salmon, then charge
d'affaires from your government, a letter, dated the 6th of
the last month, with sundry papers enclosed, exhibiting
complaints against the governor of the territories of Florida,
for certain proceedings in his judicial character against Col.
Don Jose Callava.^ That letter was immediately submitted
to the consideration of the President of the United States;
^ "My quarrels with the editors of newspapers are pursued by me, in nearly all
instances, for the purpose of inculcating some broad principles of propriety and
justice, in the observance of which there Is a lamentable remissness in the manage-
ment of the daily press. Real independence and rectitude of sentiment seem to
be thought impossible." Walsh to John Quincy Adams, October 30, 1821. Ms.
^ Minister from Spain. See Adams, Memoirs, October 29, 1821. Printed in
American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 787.
' See Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson, ch. XVI.
1 84 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
by whose directions, I have now the honor of addressing you
in answer thereto.
The complaints in substance are,
1. That Col. Callava being a commissioner of his Catholic
Majesty for delivering the province over to the United States,
and entitled to the special protection of the laws of nations,
his house was entered forcibly in the night time, and he
himself, being then sick in bed, was under special circum-
stances of rigor and inhumanity, summoned and compelled
to go before Governor Jackson to answer interrogations.
2. That the questions put to him, and his answers to
them, were both falsely interpreted, he being ignorant of the
language in which the interrogations were put.
3. That he was finally committed to prison and there
detained for the space of a day before he was released.
4. That during the period of his detention his house, his
property, and the papers of his government were left at the
mercy of the soldiery; that he found on his return to his
house the seals of his government upon certain boxes of
papers broken, and some of the papers scattered about.
I am instructed by the President of the United States to
assure you of his deep regret that in the completion of a
transaction of such high importance to both nations, any
circumstances to excite pain on either side should have
occurred.
On the merits of the proceeding complained of, all the
light necessary to the formation of a correct judgment has
not been received. It would be improper, therefore, in the
present state to pronounce definitively on the subject. In
its intercourse with foreign powers the government of the
United States is scrupulously observant of the rights of the
representative character of persons charged by their govern-
ments with the performance of any duty incident to their
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 185
relations with this Union. Although Col. Callava was not
clothed with the character or credentials of a public minister,
it is readily admitted that in the execution of his trust as a
commissary for the delivery of the province, he was entitled
to all the protection and all the immunities necessary for the
discharge of that duty. But it is not less true, that in the
treaty itself it had been stipulated that the whole transaction
of the surrender of the provinces, and the evacuation of all
, the officers of his Catholic Majesty within it, should be com-
pleted within six months from the exchange of the ratifica-
tions of the treaty, which six months had elapsed at the
time when these incidents occurred. It is also true that the
surrender had been completed; that the authority of Spain
I within the Provinces had more than a month before ceased,
and that of the United States had taken its place. The
troops of his Catholic Majesty had been removed, and if
;j Col. Callava and other officers of Spain remained there after
the consummation of that event, they could no longer claim
the immunity of public agency, or any other privileges than
those of strangers permitted to reside in the place — strangers,
not only amenable to the common judicial tribunals, but
who, conformably to the Spanish laws existing before the
cession of the province, would have been liable to removal
from it, or to imprisonment at the discretion of the governor
for the mere act of being there.
It is asserted by Col. Callava that the postponement of
his departure from Pensacola had been necessary, because
it was impossible for him to terminate the business incident
to the surrender on that day; because he was sick; and be-
cause the question whether the artillery belonging to the
fortifications was or was not included in the cession, had
been referred to the decision of the two governments. To
this the reply is obvious, that without now referring to the
1 86 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
delays which protracted till the 17th of July the surrender
which might have been effected more than two months
before, there was yet ample time between that day and the
22d of August for the discharge of any business incidental
to it; that the personal indisposition of Col. Callava neither
disqualified him on the 17th of July from the transaction of
business, nor on the 22d of August from being present at a
festive entertainment, nor immediately afterwards from
undertaking and performing a long and fatiguing journey,
from Pensacola to New York, and thence to embark upon a
voyage by sea. And that, with regard to the question con-
cerning the cannon, which was reserved for the decision of
the two governments, it furnished no sufficient motive for
the continuance of Col. Callava there; a particular receipt
for them having been given by Governor Jackson, and the
right of Spain to remove them, whatever its merits might be,
being in no manner affected by the departure of the Spanish
commissioner.
It appears, therefore, that both by the limitation of time
stipulated in the treaty for the surrender of the province,
and by the nature of the functions assigned to Col. Callava,
his immunities of exemption from the ordinary process of
the law had ceased before the 22d of August. The allegation
that Governor Jackson had nineteen days before that time
recognized his commissarial character as yet existing, will
not affect the principles here advanced: first, because the
limited six months had not then expired, and secondly, be-
cause the only transaction of General Jackson on that day
recognizing Col. Callava as a commissioner, was by writing
him a letter complaining of a signal breach of faith by that
officer, in evading, on the plea of indisposition, the per-
formance of a stipulated promise, on the morning of the
17th of July, before the surrender, and afterwards refusing
i82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 187
to perform it at all. Which letter, after an expostulation
against that proceeding suited to the aggravation of its
character, finished by a declaration of General Jackson that
it closed the correspondence between him and Col. Callava
on the subject forever.
Far would it be from the intention of the American gov-
ernment to draw within Its rigorous limits the exemption
from ordinary legal process of a foreign public officer. It
would extend to them a liberal measure of time, and a full
portion of indulgence for the execution of the trust, and for
departure after its completion. But it cannot perceive the
justice of extending these privileges beyond their limits as
sanctioned by custom, for purposes of injustice and wrong.
And here we are led to the inquiry what was the immediate
occasion of the summons to Col. Callava, his resistance
against which prompted the subsequent rigorous measures
in reference to his person, house, and papers, complained
of in the note of Mr. Salmon.'' He had withheld, and caused
to be packed in boxes for transportation, public records re-
lating to the property of the province, judicial documents,
indispensable for vindicating the titles to succession of infant
and orphan children. Application was made to General
Jackson in behalf of those orphans, for the legal judicial
process to obtain these papers. He had proof that they
had been removed, after a summons from him to the person
in whose possession they had been to produce them, to the
house and possession of Col. Callava, for the avowed purpose
of subtracting them from the process issued by his authority.
Had that officer's personal immunity been complete and
unquestionable, what greater abuse of it could have been
made than thus to wrest from the course of justice the
vouchers on which depended the rights and the subsistence
of orphans? General Jackson, considering that Col. Callava
i88 THE WRITINGS OF [1821
was not entitled to such exemption from legal process, issued
the ordinary summons, which would have been applicable
to any other individual, and on his refusal to answer the
interrogations put to him, committed him, as others in like
cases would have been committed, to prison. By the same
order he issued a commission for securing the papers which
ought to have been delivered up before, with all suitable
caution to prevent the taking of any others; and immediately
after the satisfactory return of that commission, ordered the
release of Col. Callava. Such appears to have been the
character of the transaction upon the report of it made by
General Jackson; and although the President cannot but
contemplate with unfeigned regret this occurrence, he thinks
that blame should be imputed to the party deserving it, and
whose misconduct produced it; and that it is a justice due to
General Jackson to make him acquainted with the objections
in the note of Mr. Salmon to his conduct, and to receive his
full explanation of the motives and considerations which
governed him.
In concluding this letter I cannot forbear reminding you,
Sir, that not only this, but all the other transactions of a
painful nature, which have arisen in the execution of that
treaty, which it was hoped would have terminated all the
differences, and have led to the most harmonious intercourse
between the United States and Spain, have proceeded from
the unjustifiable delays and evasions of the officers of his
Catholic Majesty, in direct contravention, as it is under-
stood, of his orders and intentions, in withholding the docu-
ments, archives, and vouchers, of which the delivery had
been expressly stipulated — vouchers, indispensable both for
the dispensation of private justice, and for the establishment
of public right, to the United States, but utterly useless to
Spain, and the detention of which by the Captain General
,82i] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 189
and Governor of Cuba, and by the Spanish governors of
both East and West Florida, however intended, and by
whatever motive induced, can subserve no purposes but those
of fraud, injustice, and oppression. After a succession of
delays, for a period of six weeks, at the Havana, in a climate
noted for its unhealthiness to strangers, of the commissioner
of the United States, authorized to receive those documents,
and of the vessel which had conveyed him, he was compelled
to depart without them, nor have they yet been delivered.
The attempts to carry away, both from Pensacola and from
St. Augustine, many of those papers, can be viewed in no
other light than as flagrant violations of the treaty. The
President relies that they will be so considered by his Catholic
Majesty; and that he has ere this given the most positive
and effectual orders for the faithful execution in this respect
of that instrument.
I pray you, etc.^
TO JOHN THORNTON KIRKLAND
Washington, 12th December, 1821.
Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your printed circular
letter of the ist instant, with the annexed memorial to Con-
gress, praying for the repeal of the duties upon imported
books. I hereby authorize you so far as I am, or may be
authorized myself, to affix my name as President of the
i"By yesterday's mail from the East I received a letter from Mr. Adams,
Secretary of State, accompanied with Callava's protest, Mr. Salmon's (Charge
d'Affaires of Spain) letter to Mr. Adams, and Mr. Adams' letter to the Minister of
Spain in reply to Mr. Salmon. . . . Mr. Adams' letter is just like himself, a bold,
manly and dignified reputation of falsehood, and justification of justice and moral
rule." Jackson to Henry M. Brackenridge, November 23, 182 1. .
iQo THE WRITINGS OF [1821
American Academy of Arts and Sciences to the copy of the
memorial which may be sent to Congress. To this end it
may be necessary to call a meeting of the Academy, or of
the Counsellors, expressly to authorize the signature of the
President. I ask of you the favor of taking the steps neces-
sary for calling such a meeting and obtaining this authority.
A memorial to the same effect having already been laid
before Congress by the rector and visitors of the University
of Virginia, the sooner your memorial can be transmitted
the better. Whatever aid it may be in my power to lend to
the attainment of the end will be cheerfully yielded.
I am, etc.
TO HYDE DE NEUVILLE
Mr. Adams prays his Excellency the Baron Hyde de Neu-
ville to accept his sincere and deep felt acknowledgments,
as well for the obliging communication of the letter from the
Chevalier Delambre, perpetual Secretary to the Royal
Academy of Sciences of France, as for the suggestion which
from that letter Mr. Adams perceives had been made by the
Baron Hyde de Neuville, of a desire that Mr. Adams might
be honored by the Academy with the title of Correspondent
to that illustrious body, a distinction which Mr. Adams
holds in too high estimation, and considers as imposing
upon any one favored with it duties of too elevated a cast,
to permit him to have formed, still less to have expressed
the desire, of obtaining It. The Report upon Weights and
Measures, made at the last session of Congress, related to a
subject in which the French Academy of Sciences and the
Chevalier Delambre personally had already taken so deep
an interest and rendered services so Important to mankind
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 191
that in presenting a copy of the work to the Academy, Mr.
Adams discharged what he felt as a debt of justice as well
as of gratitude. The kindness with which the Academy has
been pleased to receive it. and the favorable notice taken
of it by the author of the Base du Systeme Metrique are
among the most precious memorials which the Reporter
could have received from the judgment of his contem-
poraries, and of which the recollection will not cease to yield
him encouragement and satisfaction.
Washington, 15th December, 1821.
TO JOHN D. HEATH 1
Private.
Washington, 7th January, 1822.
i Dear Sir:
I have had the pleasure of receiving your favor of the 28th
of last month, and pray you to be assured that I am not in-
sensible to the kind and friendly sentiments towards me of
which it contains the proof. I have also read with much
i satisfaction the speech which you had the goodness to for-
ward with it.
If ever there was a citizen of a Republic who had reason to
complain of the ingratitude of his country, I am not that
man. My life for nearly forty years has been a continual
succession of favors unsolicited, unsought, and in many in-
stances unwished, showered on me by my country through
her various regular, constitutional organs. In return for
these favors I have lived for my country and for her alone,
and by my country I mean the whole North American
1 Of Charleston, South Carolina, a member of the State legislature and until
this time editor of the Charleston City Gazette.
192 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
Union. Every faculty of my soul and every desire of my
heart has been devoted to her Interest and to the promotion
of her welfare. In all which I never have considered, as I
never shall consider, myself as laying the foundation of a
claim to her gratitude but as discharging to the best of my
ability my own debt of gratitude to her. In the fulfilment
of the several Important duties which she has at diverse
times committed to my trust. It has been my fortune not
only, as It must be that of every public man, to come in con-
filct with rivals and competitors, with eager adversaries on
points of public principle, and with ardent and powerful
parties; but, what has been Infinitely more painful to my
feelings, with warm personal friends, with local and sectional
partialities of which It Is difficult for any of us entirely to
divest ourselves, and even with that communion of party
spirit which Is too often mistaken for patriotism.
At a very early period of my life, upon comparing the ob-
jects which I deemed worthy of the ambition of an American
citizen with the means which nature and education upon an
estimate as Impartial as I was able to make of my own
faculties had placed In my power, I formed the determination
never to solicit, or by any act of mine direct or Indirect to
endeavor to obtain, any office of honor, profit, or trust, in
the gift of my countrymen; but to stand ready to repair to
any station which they through their constitutional author-
ities might think proper to assign to me. My motives for
this assertion and determination were founded partly upon
a general principle, and partly upon considerations peculiar
to myself. I shall not trouble you with a detail of them,
but will merely remark that I have adhered to It without
exception to this day. The twenty-eighth year Is now near
its close since President Washington at a time, and In a
manner utterly unexpected by mc, appointed me to a public
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 193
mission abroad. Since that time, with two intervals each
of about a year, I have been constantly in the public service,
either of my native state or of the Union, and on the acces-
sion of Mr. Monroe to the Presidency he recalled me from
a mission in Europe to place me in the station which I now
occupy. By the practical operation of our government, and
the experience of the two most recent successive Presidential
elections, it was probable that if the duties of the Depart-
ment should be performed to the satisfaction of the country,
the person holding this office would be one of those towards
whom the public attention would be turned as a suitable
candidate to succeed the President upon his retirement
from office. This was an incident arising from my position
as much unsought by me as the position itself. I had in-
dulged the hope that the agitations which must be expected
to attend the canvassing for a successor to the President
would have been postponed at least until the last year pre-
ceding the election, and until Mr. Monroe should have
signified his own intention to retire. I regret exceedingly
that a different course should have been pursued, and that
both in the state legislature and in the Congress of 1821
great and systematic exertions should have been concerted
to forestall the public opinion of the country for the Presi-
dential election of 1825. It could not be unobserved that
all these exertions hitherto have been directed to the positive
purpose of excluding me from the field of competition, when
its proper time shall arrive. That in connection with them
many of the public presses throughout the Union should
have teemed with slander, false and foul, upon my character
was of course to be expected, and has been and continues to
be realized. So far have I been from contributing to this
premature fermentation by any act on my part, that it is
but very recently indeed that I have had more than the
194 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
general reason resulting from my position to believe that
the people of any portion of the Union would probably look
to me as a candidate for the succession to the Executive
chair. That such a disposition may, since what has hap-
pened, be manifested at no distant day is now probable.
It will proceed from the Republicans of my native section
of the Union, but to what extent, and with what degree of
unanimity I am not informed. I have hitherto discouraged
and, as far as I have been able, restrained the exhibition of
any such movement, and shall now barely leave it to take
its course. The time of election is yet so far distant, and the
events which must finally decide it are so contingent, that
it may be for time only to disclose who shall be the real
candidate of that day. From facts within my knowledge
I incline to the belief that the legislative caucus in South
Carolina was a feint, marking other purposes than those of
advancing Mr. Lowndes, ^although one of them was undoubt-
edly that which you mention, of setting aside any purpose
of which the danger might be apprehended that my name
might be hereafter held up for the favorable consideration
of the citizens of South Carolina. Efforts of the same kind,
though connected with other names, have been and are mak-
ing probably in every state in the Union, certainly in my
own native state and its immediate vicinity. With the rule
which I have adopted as the first principle of my relations
with public concerns, that these efforts should succeed is to
be foreseen as highly probable, and if your kind opinion in
my favor were less pure, disinterested and patriotic than it
is, I should advise you to devote your talents and your
friendly offices to some candidate more able and willing to
toil for the advancement of his own pretensions than I am or
can be. For if the old prudential maxim that God helps those
1 Adams, Memoirs, December 31, 1821.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 195
who help themselves is morally applicable to the pursuit of
public honors and trust, I shall certainly be the most help-
less candidate that ever was presented to the view of the
American people. Whatever the event may prove, it will
not be without precious consolation to me while testimonials
like those contained in your letter shall be left me. While
citizens of distinguished merit and respectable standing,
viewing public men and their conduct only through the pure
atmosphere of public spirit, personally strangers to me, and
guided by public motives alone, shall estimate my services
to the country by honesty of intention and faithfulness of
diligence, the suffrage of five such men, unbiassed as it must
and ineffective as it may be, will be dearer to me than that
of a whole Sodom of political chapmen, who would barter a
Presidency for a department or an embassy, or stoop to
spread the table of greatness for the promise of the crumbs
which may fall from it.
You perceive how frankly I have returned your con-
fidence with mine. I believe the movement in the South
Carolina legislature was unknown and could not have been
countenanced by Mr. Lowndes, for whom I entertain the
highest esteem. For the friendly sentiments and dispositions
towards me expressed in your letter I pray you to accept
my warm and unfeigned thanks. You will learn from other
sources the motions of parties here, and from public indica-
tions the prevailing sentiments of the North. In what
manner, should your dispositions continue, you may think
proper to give them efficacy will be determined by your own
judgment.
I am, etc.
196 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO HENRY ALEXANDER SCAMMELL DEARBORN
Washington, 8th January, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 2nd
instant.^ You will see by the National Intelligencer of yes-
terday that the matter is in a fair way to be settled here
immediately, without waiting for the voice of the people.
An attempt is making to accomplish a Congressional caucus
nomination at this time for an election yet three years dis-
tant. You will readily excuse me from any comment on
the subject.
I am, etc.
^ "You will observe in the Patriot of this day that the skirmishing has com-
menced, and will be continued and extended. The Salem papers and one in Portland
and New Hampshire will fire, as soon as they have seen the flash here. I think you
can depend on all New England. The federalists, except perhaps the junto, will
be for you, as well as all the republicans, save perhaps a few. We think it highly
important that the papers in all the states on our side should come out at once,
and a firm and forward movement made throughout the Union, and particularly at
Washington. Every day is in favor of the adverse party that is now neglected. I
write this by the request of your friends here, that our course may be understood
and seconded at Washington, and measures taken to cause a similar demonstration
at all the chief cities. We must not now retire, or halt, but go bravely on. You will
therefore consider the piece in the Patriot as the signal in the north and must be
repeated." Dearborn to John Quincy Adams, JanuaiV 2, 1822. Ms.
"I never did like John Q. Adams. He must have a very objectionable rival
whose election I should not prefer. I think it would be diificult for any candidate
to divide the vote in New England with him. Although he may not be very pop-
ular, yet it seems to be in some degree a matter of necessity to support him, if any
man is to be taken from the land of the Pilgrims. I should really prefer Calhoun,
Lowndes, Crawford, Clinton and fifty others that I could mention; but this is high
matter and it is very uncertain what political feeling may prevail three years hence.
I am sorry that there was not a better account from Albany. The course you
mention is the only one that our condition leaves, and that will not be taken. At
least I fear it." Ezekiel Webster to Daniel Webster, January 28, 1822. (Van Tyne,
89.)
.1
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 197
TO EDWARD EVERETT
Washington, 31st January, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter of the 20th Instant and its
enclosure and thank you for both. Your brother's letter ^
gave me great pleasure as a token of the warmth of his
friendship for me. I believe with you that the motives of
the severity with which my address was criticised at Boston
lay much nearer the surface than your brother supposes.
The motive avowed by the pamphleteer reviewer was a
very laudable one — to guard the public taste against the
contagion of a bad example. I have no right to believe that
this motive was not sincere. And when once the reviewer
had made up his mind that the example was bad, it would
be too rigorous a rule to hold him to the standard of im-
partiality, and call upon his acuteness to discover merits
where his only purpose was to expose defects.
Fourth of July orations and addresses have seldom been
made the subject of elaborate criticism, nor have I reason to
believe that my address on the last fourth of July would
have shared a different fate, but for the public station acci-
dentally occupied by its author. On another anniversary
of the same day twenty-eight years before, I had delivered
an oration upon the same subject in Boston. They were
both emanations of the same mind and doubtless bear the
same characteristic marks of composition. They were both
equally well received by their respective auditories, but of
the first no watchful guardian of our literary chastity
felt himself summoned in the discharge of patriotic duty
^Alexander H. Everett to Joseph Hall, October 3, 1821, on Adams' Oration on
July 4.
198 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
to detect and expose the deadly danger to the public
taste.
That the modern eunuchs of Apollo's harems are more
faithful in their vigilance over the purity of the muses under
their charge than their predecessors (I had like to have said
their forefathers,) twenty-eight years ago, is not impossible;
but I rather presume that they measured the malignity of
the temptation by the standing of the tempter, and con-
cluded that although the wanton excitement of a county
court attorney of twenty-six might be disregarded, it was
high time to sound the alarm when the solicitor to sin was a
Secretary of State of fifty-four. However this may be, it is
well that the morals of these ladies are now under such keen
scented custody, as their spotless virtue is of high import
to the public weal and it is very desirable that they should
be preserved "chaste as an icicle."
You will not understand me as pleading guilty to the
charge of attempting to corrupt the public taste. Still less
as admitting the justice of any part of the reviewer's censure
upon the sentiments of the address. I have cultivated style
as much, perhaps, as any man in the country whose life
has been necessarily so much a life of business as mine.
Style and ethics, or rather to arrange them according to my
own sense of their relative importance, ethics and style,
have been the two branches of human knowledge to which
I have most assiduously devoted the leisure of my life, and
my reason for studying them in preference to other portions
of general science has been, because I have thought them
more constantly and more usefully applicable to all the busi-
ness of life than any others. With regard to style I have
considered that the first object of a writer for the public
was to obtain as many readers as he could, and that some-
thing remarkable in the style of composition was among the
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
199
most attractive lures to readers. Sir Joshua Reynolds who
was a philosophical painter was in the practice of making
frequent experiments in the mixing of his colors for the
purpose of trying their effect. It sometimes happened that
his experiment failed and he lived to see many of his portraits
almost vanish from the canvas on which he had painted
them. I have treated style much in the same way as Sir
Joshua treated his colors and in some cases with similar
success. In popular discourses especially I have written
more for effect than was perhaps always wise, and in mixing
up colors which I knew would at all events be evanescent
I have given them a momentary glow beyond the warmth of
nature.
In the address of the last summer I indulged myself in
this experimental mood more than I had ever done before.
It was a hasty composition prepared in the midst of a multi-
tude of other avocations, and I had no time for the labor of
the file. Its effect upon the crowded auditory who heard
me was as great and as favorable as I could have desired —
the effect of unremitting rivetted attention, with more than
one occasional burst of applause. When it came before the
public from the press the effect was different. Criticism
fastened at once upon the writer and upon the work. Opin-
ions became various. The address was read by friend and
foe, and it was judged more by the spirit of feeling than by
that of scrutiny, more by what was thought of the author
than by what was found in the discourse. The consequence
was that neither friend nor foe, so far as I have observed,
discovered what was really in the address and what I had
thought the most noticeable thing in it. To instance what
your brother calls the doctrine of sympathy, upon which he
remarks that what the reviewer says is pitiful, but adds no
comment of his own; this doctrine of sympathy in the ad-
200
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
dress is merely Incidental to the demonstration from the
moral and physical nature of man that colofiial establishments
cannot fulfil the great objects of government in the just purpose
of civil society. Is the demonstration complete and unanswer-
able? I think it is. Had it ever been exhibited before? Not
to my knowledge. Let us assume it as a new but demon-
strated axiom and examine its bearing upon the past,
present and future history of mankind, upon the system of
political morality, and upon the future improvement of the
human character.
1. It places on a new and solid ground the right of our
struggle for independence, considering the intolerable op-
pression which provoked our fathers to the revolt only as its
proximate causes, themselves proof of the viciousness of the
system from which they resulted.
2. It settles the justice of the present struggle of South
America for independence, and prepares for an acknowledg-
ment upon the principle of public law of that independence,
whenever it shall be sufficiently established by the fact.
3. It looks forward prospectively to the downfall of the
British Empire in India as an event which must necessarily
ensue at no very distant period of time.
4. It anticipates a great question in the national policy
of this Union which may be nearer at hand than most of our
countrymen are aware of: Whether we too shall annex to our
federative government a great system of colonial establish-
ments.
5. It points to a principle proving that such establishments
are incompatible with the essential character of our political
institutions.
6. It leads to the conclusion that great colonial establish-
ments are but mighty engines of wrong, and that in the
progress of social improvement it will be the duty of the
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 201
human family to abolish them, as they are now endeavoring
to abolish the slave-trade. Did I deceive myself in imagining
that by asserting this principle and supporting it by a
demonstration, logical in substance and highly, perhaps too
highly, oratorical in form, I was offering to the minds of my
countrymen matter for meditation other than the inquiry
how many times the word sympathy was repeated in the
compass of three pages ? The eyes of the Boston reviewer see
nothing in it, nothing novel, nothing original, nothing
comprehensive, nothing dignified, nothing but shadowy
metaphysics about sympathy.
Nor to their idle orbs doth sight appear
Of sun, or moon or star throughout the year.
Let me give one instance more. The Edinburgh reviewer
of Mr. Walsh's book, foreseeing times of future turbulence in
his own country, and panting for a revolution with English
and Scottish Whigs at its head, descanted largely upon the
importance of a good understanding between the Americans
and that party, and upon the supposed duty of the United
States to take an active part in the impending European
conflicts between Power and Right. This doctrine has al-
ready twice in the course of our history brought the peace
and the permanent welfare of the Union into jeopardy:
under Washington's administration at the early stage of the
French Revolution; under the present administration in the
efforts to entangle us in the South American conflict. The
address has presented a principle of duty directly the reverse
as that which ought forever to govern the councils of the
Union, and has assigned as a reason for it the inevitable
tendency of a direct interference in foreign wars, even wars
for freedom, to change the very foundations of our own
government from liberty to power. Had this view of a ques-
202 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
1:
•I
tion in political morality transcendently important to the
future destiny of this country ever been presented before?
Certainly not to my knowledge. It may be controverted
no doubt, but I believe the principle to be impregnably true, i
and it was assuredly no commonplace topic of orations
upon Independence. The Boston reviewer is unconscious
that it exists in the address at all. I will weary you no more
with examples. From the high opinion which your brother j
expresses of my general style of writing, and from the i
avowal of his judgment that this address has its merits as
well as its defects, I conclude that he discerned some of these
things which had escaped the optics of the reviewer. I have
given you the clue to the true cause of the defects and per-
haps the merits of my style, and I will now point you to the
source of all the matter of my composition good or bad.
The merits of whatever compositions I have given to the
world, either as a literary man or a politician, consist in the
application of moral philosophy to business, in the incessant
reference direct or indirect of all narrative, argument, and
inference, to the standard of right and wrong. Erroneous
moral principle is the most fruitful of all the sources of
human calamity and vice. The leaders of nations and
parties are generally but accomplished sophists, trained to
make the worse appear the better reason. The intercourse
of private life is full of sophistical palterings and human law
itself, with deference to Hooker be it said, law, itself national,
civil and municipal, is too often but a system of formal
sophistry substituted for eternal truth and justice. Yet so
congenial are truth and justice to the human mind, that it is
always vehemently moved by a skilful and forcible appeal
to them, and of appeals to them direct or implied, explicit
or deductive, the whole substance of my public writings is
composed.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 203
You have now the whole secret of the merits, such as they
are, and of the defects of my compositions, Hterary and
poHtical. The sources both of their matter and style are
before you. I need not add that I am infinitely more solici-
tous about the substance than about the form. If you have
read my lectures on rhetoric you have seen in the 30th, 31st,
and 32nd of them my theory of figurative language, and
have perceived that it is more indulgent to the excesses of
energy and less to the prudery of taste than Dr. Blair, the
French critics, or even Quintillian and Horace. In the use of
language, as in the conduct of life, I would certainly aim at
the precise line between licentiousness and servitude; but so
far as mere taste is concerned, if I must err, let it be on the
side of liberty.
Your brother has allowed himself a little of this liberty in
his description of the estimate which was once made of my
talents at composition by those whom he calls your Eastern
politicians. I think there never was a time when that class
of our fellow citizens had much opinion of the merit, or were
at all insensible to the defects of my style. On the very first
occasion that I ever presented myself as a writer and speaker
in the face of my country, which was by the delivery of an
oration upon taking my first degree at Harvard University,
an elaborate critical review of the performances of the day
from the pen of one of these Eastern politicians was published
in a Boston newspaper, pronouncing one of my classmates
who had also delivered an oration on that day my indisputa-
ble superior in style, elegance, and oratory. I could prove to
you by a long, but it would be a very tedious, historical
detail that from that day to this my credit for talents at
writing has been very low with those Eastern politicians, and
that even while they numbered me in their political ranks,
whatever favor they showed me was a tribute not to me
204
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
but to a public taste, vitiated as they believed, but stronger
than themselves.
I have told you that I have been much In the habit of
writing to the public for effect. In the year 1802 I delivered
an address to the Massachusetts Charitable Fire Society.
In that address there was a parallel between Catanea with a
burning mountain at Its gates, and Boston with a burning
mountain within its walls. You were then a child. Did you
ever hear that this address, and especially this parallel, con-
tributed to the effect of casting away clapboards and shingles
and of building only with Incombustible materials.^ If you
did not, ask our common friend to whom your brother's
letter Is directed whether he remembers It? He may per-
haps not remember that it was proved by a newspaper
critic of that day, quite to the satisfaction of your Eastern
politicians, that there was in this parallel nothing new,
nothIngorIginal,that it was merely a quotation from Brydone's
Travels, and that the use of such words as clapboards and
shingles In a public oration was much too vulgar for the
relish of refined taste.
In the year 1808 I published a letter to Mr. H. G. Otis
upon the embargo. It was defensive against a masked bat-
tery which had opened upon me by the Eastern politicians at
a crisis and in a manner so adroitly chosen that It was
thought it would demolish me to the foundation. About a
hundred thousand copies of my letter were printed, and
column was piled upon column in the newspapers, and pam-
phlet upon pamphlet issued from the press, to prove not
only that I was a Judas in politics, but that there was not a
sentence of common sense or tolerable English In my letter.
This was the sound doctrine of the Eastern politicians, who
accordingly dismissed me as Insultingly as was In their
power from the service of the Commonwealth as a Senator
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 205
of the United States. In truth the pamphlet review of my
last summer's address and the strictures of Mr. Hale's
paper ^ were so far from indicating inconsistency with the
opinion always entertained of my talents and style by the
Eastern politicians, that I have something more than sur-
mise for the belief that they had the same identical origin as
the review of my commenceent oration upon my taking the
bachelor's degree in 1787. Shall I acknowledge to you that
I regret nothing of all this.^ Shall I confess that this un-
relenting and almost unrelaxing opposition of your Eastern
politicians which I have now breasted these five and thirty
years, and against which the cheering voice of my country
has hitherto triumphantly supported me instead of casting
me down, has been my highest pride? Weak and vain as
the confession is I cannot deny it. Were It therefore true
that Virginia has been a partial mother to her own sons and a
stepmother to those of her sisters, right glad should I be that
at least in my person no such dandling spirit should have
been manifested by my good mother Massachusetts. The
reputation which must be pampered and cosseted has no
charms for me. Give me that which Is spontaneously
bestowed by strangers. Give me that which is reluctantly
extorted from rivals. Give me that which the whole nation
shall sanction and after ages shall ratify, or give me none.
It is not assuredly for me to complain of the partialities of
Virginia. Of the last twenty-eight years of my life twenty
have been employed in offices of trust and profit and honor
in the service of the Union at the call of Virginian Presidents.
I have never courted her favor. I have never ministered to
her passions. I have never flattered her prejudices. Yet
three of the four eminent citizens born of her who have
presided over the Union have successively confided to me
^ Nathan Hale (1784-1863), editor and proprietor of the Boston Daily Advertiser.
2o6 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
several of the highest trusts of the Nation. From the fourth
I have received multlpUed tokens of esteem, such as the
Eastern poHticians never thought me to deserve. Under
this patronage I have rendered as In duty bound faithful
services to the Union. Of their value or importance I am not
to judge. Great or small, some of them are now beyond the
power of time and out of the reach of fortune. Clouds and
darkness rest upon the future; but whatever my fortune
may be, whether my reputation as a statesman or a writer Is
to stand or fall will, I trust, depend as little upon the policy
or the good will of the Eastern politicians, as upon the
strictures of Mr. Hale's gazette or the pamphlet of the
Boston reviewer.
There Is much of egotism and so little of discretion In this
letter that after having written it thus far, I have long
hesitated whether It should be committed to the post office
or to the flames. I have at length concluded to forward it to
you in strict confidence, with permission to give its perusal
only to the friend to whom your brother's letter was ad-
dressed. He has been to me for more than thirty years the
true and disinterested friend of all hours and under every
vicissitude. He knows as well as any living man all the good
and all the evil of my character, and though as quick to
discern and as judicious to distinguish a blemish or a beauty
as the clearest sighted of Eastern politicians, if he should
here and there espy some trivial crudity of diction or deport-
ment, will yet not make it his business or his pleasure to
blazon it forth to the world.
I regret that it will not be in my power to review the
memoir of Mr. Onis. It Is indeed of very little consequence
in itself and scarcely deserves the notice of your miscellany,
unless it were as an occasion for reviewing the political rela-
tions of this Union with Spain from their commencement
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 207
amid the storm of our Revolution until this time. Such a
review would make a curious and interesting article for
your work, but I could not write it as it ought to be written
without walking upon firebrands. "Suppositos cineri
doloso."
I send you however as a substitute for my half promised
communication, two-thirds of a review of Don Luls's Memoir
published at Philadelphia, and in which that most excellent
Lord is handled more roughly than I should permit myself to
treat him, though not more severely than he deserves.
I will thank you to acknowledge the receipt of this letter,
and remain with very high regard and esteem, etc.^
^"In respect to the candidates for the Presidency, discussion has somewhat
subsided, but it is clear that all public business is colored with the hues borrowed
from this subject. Every measure is watched with a jealous regard to its bearing
on this point. Kentucky is at present firm for Mr. Clay, and will struggle hard to
bring other western interests to bear in his favor. Mr. Crawford's friends are evi-
dently alive and exerting themselves. Beyond all question Virginia means to stick
by him. Mr. Adams seems in statu quo. I do not hear that he makes any friends,
and unless supported by Maryland, he will not have a commanding vote. I do not
learn that he has any very zealous partisans at work for him. Mr. Lowndes by
present appearances will not ultimately run against any other candidate from
South Carolina, but his friends will unite with those of Mr. Calhoun. This latter
gentleman stands very high here among elevated and considerate men, and appears
to be gaining ground. His youth is against him, and will probably weigh much in
abating the wishes in his favor. But in all other respects I am told he is thought
superior to most, if not all of the candidates. It is impossible to conjecture what will
be the event, and I have not even attempted to speculate on it. I think, if he is
not set up, his friends will probably incline to Mr. Adams. The whole Cabinet
is by the ears. All are candidates, and as I hear, they are quite shy of each other.
I imagine that consultations are merely formal, and advice rarely given in concert."
Story to Jere. Mason, February 21, 1822. Memoir of Jeremiah Mason, 264. See
Crawford to Gallatin, May 13, 1822, in Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 243,
2o8 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO JOEL LEWIS
Washington, 20th February, 1822.
Sir:
Your letter of the 12th Instant has been received and I
answer it with the same frankness with which it was written.
The report ^ to which you refer is one among a multitude of
falsehoods, which under the varying forms of positive un-
truth and of invidious misrepresentation are now, and will
doubtless continue to be, circulated in every quarter of this
Union with a view to counteract, and if possible to extin-
guish, any favorable disposition which might possibly be
entertained of my character and services by my fellow
citizens. Of these falsehoods adapted in the several sections
of the Union to the particular feelings there prevailing re-
spectively, I have been apprized by communications from
many different persons, most of them like yourself persons
with whom I have not the advantage of any personal ac-
quaintance, but who witnessing the effects of this under-
mining species of calumny have, from sentiments of kindness
to me for which I am duly grateful, given me notice of it.
This system of secret defamation has been pursued with
special industry, since the attempt at the close of the last
year to obtrude upon the Union at this present session of
Congress a caucus candidate for the Presidential election of
1825, and I have no doubt that the channel through which the
report that has occasioned your letter was conveyed was the
same through which that hopeful project was disembogued.
This much I have thought proper to say in answer to the
' The report, referred to by Lewis, was that Adams was the friend of W, B. Irish,
and active in obtaining for him a reappointment as marshal of the western district
of Pennsylvania.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 209
particular subject of your letter. The report which you men-
tion to have been circulated with a view to impair favorable
sentiments entertained of me is utterly false. But it is only
one of a multitude equally false, circulated for the same or a
similar purpose. And permit me now to add that in different
quarters of the Union these reports are so numerous and so
insidiously circulated, that if I should undertake to refute or
answer them all, it would absorb a large portion if not the
whole of the time which I am in duty bound to employ in the
discharge of my duties to the public service. This explana-
tion was due from me to the good opinion which you had
formed of my character, and I have cheerfully given it.
At the same time I feel it incumbent upon me to assure you,
that with regard to any future prospects of relation between
the public service and me after the termination of Mr. Mon-
roe's administration, as no such relation will be in any
manner solicited or sought by me, so I shall be prepared to
receive the definitive voice of my country concerning it with
entire acquiescence and submission. The constitution of the
United States has vested the election in the people acting
by their regularly organized agents. That confidence which
the Constitution has reposed in the calm and deliberate
judgment of the people. In a matter always of deep interest
to them, I am assuredly not the man to deny them in the
bearing which once or twice in the course of my life it may
have upon myself. That falsehood of every description will
be Insinuated by some and asserted by others to deprive me
of that estimation in the minds of my fellow-citizens which
might incline them to honor me with their highest trust, Is
what I must and do expect, and is that of which I consider
my present experience as only an earnest of that which is to
come. Happy will It be for me. If from the test which my
character moral and political must abide. It may issue with a
2IO THE WRITINGS OF [1822
conscience void of offence and free from every essential
charge that can claim the sanction of truth.
I am etc.
TO BARON HYDE DE NEUVILLE
Department of State,
Washington, 22 February, 1822.
Sir:
In answer to your letter of the nth instant, enclosing the
report and protest of Pierre Dessu, which have been sub-
mitted to the consideration of the President of the United
States, I have the honor of informing you that the proper
inquiry will immediately be instituted into the circumstances
of the case, the result of which I shall have the honor of
communicating to you as soon as the same shall have been
received.
I have already stated to you that the government of the
United States has never asserted, but has invariably dis-
claimed the pretension of a right to authorize the search by
the officers of the United States in time of peace, of foreign
vessels upon the high seas, without their jurisdiction. Upon
this principle the Jeune Eugenie was at your request delivered
over to the consul of France at Boston. That vessel and
the three others, taken by Lieutenant Stockton on the coast
of Africa in the act of slave-trading, were captured by him
not as French, but as American vessels, fraudulently abusing,
as he supposed, the flag and the official documents of France,
in a traffic consigned to infamy by the voice of France as
well as of all other christain nations. It is but too well
known, that among the most common expedients of those
who still pursue that traffic is the substitution of false flags
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 211
and papers for those of their own country, under which
they are aware that they could not escape detection and
punishment. Lieutenant Stockton, meeting vessels of
American construction, of the property in which no evidence
of the transfer from American to French owners was ex-
hibited, vessels trading in slaves without attempting dis-
guise, yet wearing flags and producing papers bearing every
appearance of that fraud and falsehood, inseparable from
the prosecution of the trade, concluded [by a reasoning
inspired by his zeal for the service with which he was charged,
and by a sentiment of respect for France herself] ^ that they
could not be entitled to the true character of French vessels,
since they were thus openly engaged in a commerce rep-
robated by the laws of France.
Relying upon your assurance, and on the faith of the
documents transmitted with your letter of the sixth of
August, that these vessels [notwithstanding the circum-
stances in which they were found,] ^ were really and ex-
clusively the property of French subjects, a suggestion was,
by instruction from the President, made by the District
Attorney of the United States to the court, before which the
case of the Jeune Eugenie was regularly pending; and the
court, conformably to that suggestion, did adjudge that the
vessel should as you desired, be delivered up to the consul of
France, together with the evidence of her participation in the
slave-trade, that she might be sent for trial to the tribunals
of her own sovereign. Since which instructions have been
issued from the Department of the Navy to the officers of
the United States charged with the duty of carrying Into
effect the laws for the suppression of the slave-trade, to
forbear all examination or visitation of any vessel bearing a
flag of any other nation than that of this Union.
1 Words within brackets were struck out.
212 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
It is presumed that these measures will satisfy your
government, as well with regard to the causes of complaint
against Lieutenant Stockton, heretofore alleged, as to the
disclaimer by the United States of all pretension to a right
of search, in time of peace, of the vessels of any nations, not
having violated their laws. [The government of the United
States is fully sensible that no officer of theirs can by au-
thority from them assume to act as the High Justiciar of the
seas. To them it must suffice, if by their vigilance their own
flag shall no longer shield from punishment the dealers in
this abominable commerce; and if the audacity and notoriety
with which vessels exhibiting the standard, and persons
appealing successfully to the protection of the French
government, still consummate their transcendent wicked-
ness, in all its worst aggravations, should give countenance
to those groundless calumnies upon the intentions of France,
which you so justly repel, it yet remains to France alone, by
the efficacy of her own repressive measures, at once to silence
the voice of slander, and to redeem her flag from the pollu-
tion of this detested traffic] ^
I pray you, etc.
TO PIERRE DE POLETICA 2
Department of State,
Washington, 25 February, 1822.
Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your note of the nth
inst. enclosing a printed copy of the regulations adopted
by the Russian-American company and sanctioned by his
1 Sentences within brackets were struck out.
*PoIetica had been in Washington, 1810-1812, as Secretary to the Russian
legation.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 213
«
Imperial Majesty, relating to the commerce of foreigners
In the waters bordering on the establishments of that com-
pany upon the northwest coast of America.^
1 am directed by the President of the United States to
inform you that he has seen with surprise in this edict the
assertion of a territorial claim on the part of Russia, extend-
ing to the 51st degree of north latitude on the continent; and
a regulation interdicting to all commercial vessels other
than Russian, upon the penalty of seizure and confiscation,
the approach upon the high seas within one hundred Italian
miles of the shores to which that claim Is made to apply.
[The relations of the United States with H. I. M. have
always been of the most friendly character, and It is the
earnest desire of this government to preserve them in that
state. It was expected, before any act which should define
the boundary between the territories of the United States
and Russia on this continent, that the same would have been
arranged by treaty between the parties. To exclude the
vessels of our citizens from the shore, beyond the ordinary
distance to which the territorial jurisdiction extends, has
excited still greater surprise.] ^
This ordinance affects so deeply the rights of the United
States and of their citizens, that I am Instructed to enquire
whether you are authorized to give explanations of the
grounds of right upon principles generally recognized by the
laws and usages of nations which can warrant the claims and
regulations contained in it.
I avail myself, etc. ^
^ See two dispatches from Nesselrode to Poletica, October 7, 1821, in American
Historical Review, XVIII, 329. The ukase, dated September 4/16, 1821, is in
American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 857.
2 This paragraph, suggested by Monroe, is in his own language.
^ Nesselrode in his second despatch wrote: "Mais tout en preferant a cet egard
le mode le plus confidentiel et le plus amical possible, il nous semble que vous
214 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO PIERRE DE POLETICA
Department of State,
Washington, 30 March, 1822.
Sir:
I have had the honor of receiving your letter of the 28th
ulto., which has been submitted to the consideration of the
President of the United States.
From the deduction which it contains of the grounds upon
which the articles of regulation of the Russian-American
Company have now for the first time extended the claim of
Russia on the northwest coast of America, to the 51st degree
of north latitude, its only foundation appears to be the
existence of the small settlement of Novarchangelsk, situated
not on the American continent, but upon a small island, in
latitude 57. And the principle upon which you state that
this claim is now advanced is, that the 51st degree is equi-
distant from that settlement of Novarchangelsk and the
establishment of the United States at the mouth of Columbia
River. But from the same statement it appears that in the
year 1799, the limits prescribed by the Emperor Paul to the
pourriez neanmoins observer a Mr. Adams, avec la franchise que vous etes habitue
a faire presider a vos relations avec ce Ministre, que, du moment ou le gouverne-
ment americain s'est declare hors d'etat de surveiller les operations commerciales
de ses sujets, et de leur interdire nommement des entreprises qui blessent les in-
terets d'une Puissance etrangere quelconque, il a par la meme reconnu a celle-ci
le plein droit d'adopter les mesures les plus efficaces pour reprimer des entreprises
de ce genre, et de se garantir, fut-ce meme par des moyens coercitifs, contre des
prejudice reels."
On February 19 the Secretary of State, who had known of the ukase since De-
cember, had informed Stratford Canning of the official communication of the
document, and stating his principal objection to its claims, asked if any information
had been received from London. Canning could only reply that he had received
as yet no intimation from Londonderry on the subject.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 215
Russian-American Company were fixed at the 55th degree
of latitude, and that in assuming now the latitude of 51 a
new pretension is asserted, to which no settlement made
since the year 1799 has given the color of a sanction.
This pretension is to be considered, not only with reference
to the question of territorial rights, but also to that prohibi-
tion to the vessels of other nations, including those of the
United States, to approach within one hundred Italian miles
of the coasts. From the period of the existence of the
United States as an independent nation, their vessels have
freely navigated those seas, and the right to navigate them
is a part of that independence.
With regard to the suggestion that the Russian govern-
ment might have justified the exercise of sovereignty over
the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, because it claims territory
both on the American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to
say that the distance from shore to shore on this sea in
latitude 51 north is not less than ninety degrees of longitude,
or 4000 miles.
As little can the United States accede to the justice of the
reason assigned for the prohibition above-mentioned. The
right of the citizens of the United States to hold commerce
with the aboriginal nations of the northwest coast of Amer-
ica, without the territorial jurisdiction of other nations, even
in arms and ammunitions of war, is as clear and indisputable
as that of navigating the seas. That right has never been
exercised in a spirit unfriendly to Russia, and although
general complaints have occasionally been made on the
subject of this commerce by some of your predecessors, no
specific ground of charge has ever been alleged by them of
any transaction in which the United States were, by the
ordinary laws and usages of nations, bound either to restrain
or to punish. Had any such charge been made, it would
2i6 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
have received the most pointed attention of this government,
with the sincerest and firmest disposition, to perform every
act and obHgation of justice to yours, which could have been
required. I am commanded by the President of the United
States to assure you that this disposition will continue to be
entertained, together with the earnest desire that the most
harmonious relations between the two countries may be
preserved.
Relying upon the assurance in your note of similar dis-
positions reciprocally entertained by his Imperial Majesty
towards the United States, the President is persuaded that
the citizens of this Union will remain unmolested in the
prosecution of their lawful commerce, and that no effect will
be given to an interdiction manifestly incompatible with
their rights.
I am happy to renew, etc.
TO DON JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA '
Department of State,
Washington, 6 April, 1822.
Sir:
Your letter of the 9th of March - was immediately after I
had the honor of receiving it laid before the President of the
^ Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V. 380.
2 On January 22, 1822, the House of Representatives requested the President to
lay before it such communications as it might have from the agents of the United
States in the revolting states, or from the agents of those states in the United
States, showing the political conditions of those governments, and the state of war
between them and Spain. The President replied by a message, March 8, stating
"that it merits the most profound consideration whether their right to the rank of
independent nations ... is not complete." Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
II. 116. On seeing the message in the National Intelligencer, Anduaga prepared a
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 217
United States, by whom it has been deliberately considered,
and by whose direction I am replying to it, to assure you of
the earnestness and sincerity with which the government
desires to entertain and to cultivate the most friendly rela-
tions with that of Spain.
This disposition has been manifested, not only by the
uniform course of the United States in their direct political
and commercial intercourse with Spain, but by the friendly
Interest which they have felt in the welfare of the Spanish
nation, and by the cordial sympathy with which they have
witnessed their spirit and energy, exerted in maintaining
their independence of all foreign control, and their right of
self-government.
In every question relating to the independence of a nation
two principles are involved, one of right, and the other of
fact; the former depending upon the determination of the
nation itself, and the latter resulting from the successful
execution of that determination. This right has been
recently exercised as well by the Spanish nation in Europe,
as by several of those countries in the American hemisphere,
which had for two or three centuries been connected as
colonies with Spain. In the conflicts which have attended
these revolutions, the United States have carefully abstained
from taking any part, respecting the right of the nations con-
protest dated March 9, which is printed in American State Papers, V. 379. Strat-
ford Canning wrote to Planta, April 3: "Government and citizens, one and all, are
very proud of the pending measure for acknowledging the independence of South
America, though it is quite clear that they are not disposed to incur any real risk
for the sake of this favorite object. Adams confessed to me that he regarded
Spain as a man under the pressure of a nightmare, longing to raise his arm, but
unable to stir a muscle. I had previously accosted him by saying, 'So, Mr. Adams,
you are going to make honest men of them?' 'Yes, Sir,' was his answer; 'we pro-
posed to your Government to join us some time ago, but they would not, and now
we shall see whether you will be content to follow us.' This was a cut in his old
style." Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, I. 309.
2i8 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
cerned in them to maintain or new organize their own
political constitutions, and observing, whereon it was a
contest by arms, the most impartial neutrality. But the
civil war, in which Spain was for some years involved with
the inhabitants of her colonies in America, has in substance
ceased to exist. Treaties equivalent to an acknowledgment
of independence have been concluded by the commanders
and viceroys of Spain herself, with the Republic of Colombia,
with Mexico, and with Peru; while in the provinces of La-
Plata and in Chile, no Spanish force has for several years
existed, to dispute the independence which the inhabitants of
those countries had declared [and which has already been
formally recognized by their immediate neighbor and ally of
Spain, the king of Portugal]. ^
Under these circumstances the government of the United
States far from consulting the dictates of a policy ques-
tionable in its morality, has yielded to an obligation of duty
of the highest order, by recognizing as independent states,
nations, which after deliberately asserting their right to that
character, have maintained and established it against all the
resistance which had been or could be brought to oppose it.
This recognition is neither intended to invalidate any right
of Spain, nor to affect the employment of any means which
she may yet be disposed or enabled to use, with the view of
reuniting those provinces to the rest of her dominions. It is
the mere acknowledgment of existing facts, with the view to
the regular establishment with the nations newly formed of
those relations, political and commercial, which it is the
moral obligation of civilized and Christian nations to enter- M
tain reciprocally with one another.
It will not be necessary to discuss with you a detail of
facts, upoti which your information appears to be materially
' The phrase in brackets was struck out.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 219
different from that which has been communicated to this
government, and is of public notoriety; nor the propriety of
the denominations which you have attributed to the in-
habitants of the South American provinces. It is not
doubted that other and more correct views of the whole
subject will very shortly be taken by your government, and
that it, as well as the other European governments, show
that deference to the example of the United States, which
you urge it as the duty or the policy of the United States to
show to theirs. The effect of the example of one independent
nation upon the councils and measures of another, can be
just only so far as it is voluntary; and as the United States
desire that their example should be followed, so it is their
intention to follow that of others upon no other principle.
They confidently rely that the time is at hand when all the
governments of Europe friendly to Spain, and Spain herself,
will not only concur in the acknowledgment of the inde-
pendence of the American nations, but in the sentiment that
nothing will tend more effectually to the welfare and happi-
ness of Spain than the universal concurrence in that recogni-
tion.
I pray you, etc.
TO DON JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA
Department of State,
Washington, 15 April, 1822.
Sir:
In the letters which I had the honor of writing you on the
2d of November and 31st of December last,^ you were
informed that a definitive answer to the complaints against
^ Printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 791.
220 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
certain proceedings of General Andrew Jackson, while
governor of Florida, which were contained In a letter to this
Department from Don Hllarlo de RIvas y Salmon before
your arrival in this country, and in your letters of the i8th
and 22d of November, would be given, after the substance
of those complaints should have been made known to General
Jackson, and his explanations of the motives and considera-
tions by which he had been governed In adopting the meas-
ures complained of should have been received.
In performing this province I am commanded by the
President of the United States to repeat the assurance of his
deep regret, that the transactions which formed the subject
of those complaints should ever have occurred, and his full
conviction, upon a review of all the circumstances which
have attended them, that they are attributable entirely to
the misconduct of the Governor and Captain General of
Cuba, and of the subordinate officers of Spain, in evading
and refusing the fulfilment of the most express and positive
stipulations of the treaty, both of evacuating the province
within six months from the exchange of the ratifications of
the treaty, and of delivering the archives and documents
relating directly to the property and sovereignty of the
provinces.
At the time of the exchange of the ratifications of the
treaty your predecessor, General Vives, delivered an order
from his Catholic Majesty to the Captain General and
Governor of the island of Cuba, and of the Floridas, informing
him of the cession to the United States of that part of the
provinces of which he was the governor, that was situated
on this continent, and Instructing him as follows:
I command you and ordain, that after the Information which
shall be seasonably given you by my minister plenipotentiary and
1
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 221
envoy extraordinary at Washington of the ratifications having been
exchanged, you proceed on your part to make the proper disposi-
tions, in order that, at the end of six months, counting from the
date of the exchange of the ratifications, or sooner, if possible, the
Spanish officers and troops may evacuate the territories of both
Floridas, and that possession of them be given to the officers or
commissioners of the United States, duly authorized to receive
them. . . . You shall arrange in proper time the delivery of the
islands adjacent and dependent upon the two Floridas, and the
public lots and squares, vacant lands, public edifices, fortifications,
barracks, and other buildings, which are not private property; as
also the archives and documents which relate directly to the
property and sovereignty of the same two provinces, by placing
them at the disposal of the commissaries or officers of the United
States, duly authorized to receive them.
This order, thus clear and explicit, was dispatched, to-
gether with letters from General Vives to the Governor of
Cuba and the Floridas, notifying him of the exchange of the
ratifications of the treaty, by Col. James G. Forbes, who
was commissioned "as agent and commissary of the United
States to deliver to him the royal order, to arrange and
concert with him, conformably to instructions committed
therewith, the execution of the above stipulations, and to
receive from the said governor, and from any and every
person possessed of the said archives and documents, all and
every one of the same, and to dispose thereof in the manner
prescribed by his instructions." Col. Forbes' authority thus
was to receive the documents and archives, and to concert and
arrange with the governor of the Floridas, the delivery of
those provinces, which General Jackson was commissioned
to receive, take possession of and occupy; and of which he
was further commissioned to be the governor, when sur-
rendered to the United States.
222 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
The royal order was delivered by Col. Forbes to the
governor of the Floridas at the Havanna on the 23d of
April, 1 82 1. There has been shown by that governor no
cause or reason which could justly have required him to
delay the delivery of the documents and archives, and the
arrangements for the delivery of the provinces, beyond the
term of a single week. There were twenty boxes of those
archives and documents, the whole, or with very few ex-
ceptions the whole of which ought, by the positive stipula-
tion of the treaty, and by the express order of the King of
Spain, to have been immediately delivered to Col. Forbes.
Not one of them was delivered to him; nor has one of them
been delivered to this day.
[On the most frivolous pretences] ^ the orders for the sur-
render of the provinces were delayed from day to day, not-
withstanding the urgent and continual solicitations of Col.
Forbes, for the term of six weeks; at the end of which, to
avoid further indefinite procrastination, he was compelled
to depart without receiving the archives and documents,
but with repeated promises of the governor that they should
be transmitted to this government, promises which have
remained to this day unperformed.
The orders for the delivery of the provinces themselves
were not only thus unreasonably withheld, but when made
out, though not furnished to Col. Forbes till the last week
in May, were made to bear date on the fifth of that month:
nor were they prepared conformably to the stipulation of the
treaty, or to the royal order of his Catholic Majesty. For
instead of directing the surrender to be made to the com-
missioners or officers of the United States, duly authorized to
receive them, the instruction to the commanders in East and
West Florida was to deliver those respective provinces to
^ Words in brackets were struck out.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 223
Col. Forbes himself, who had from the United States no
authority to receive them. And although expressly advised
by Col. Forbes with the request that the orders of delivery
might be amended and made conformable to the treaty, and
to the royal command. Governor Maby did not so amend it,
but reduced Col. Forbes to the alternative of submitting to
further [prevaricating] ^ delays, or of departing with an im-
perfect and ambiguous order of delivery of West Florida,
authorizing its surrender to the legally constituted author-
ities of the United States (that is, as Governor Maby well
knew, to General Andrew Jackson) only, in case of any
accident happening to Col. Forbes, whom he still affected to
consider, notwithstanding his own express declaration to the
contrary, as the commissioned agent of the United States to
that effect.
The twenty boxes of documents and archives, which were
at the Havanna, as has been mentioned, had been trans-
mitted thither from Pensacola, and contained all the most
important records of property in West Florida. The posses-
sion of them was in the highest degree important to the
United States; not only as the vouchers of individual prop-
erty, but as protecting guards against the imposture of
fraudulent grants. [The longer they were withheld the
stronger continuance must be given to the suspicions which
their intention could not but occasion that it was with im-
proper views. It is known that the governors and captains
general of Cuba and of the Floridas have exercised the power
of granting lands in those provinces; and there is more than
conjecture for the belief that to the injury of withholding
those documents has been added the still more exceptionable
act of intruding among them grants made since the delivery
of the provinces to the United States, and antedated to give
^ Words in brackets were struck out.
224 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
them a semblance of validity. The delicacy due to the
character of an officer of distinguished rank would forbid
the imputation to him of motives so dishonorable, were it
possible to ascribe his conduct in this wanton violation of
the rights of the United States, of the obligations of Spain,
and of the commands of his sovereign, to more justifiable
purposes.] ^ But the same persevering system of withholding
documents which it was their duty to deliver, has marked,
I am deeply concerned to say, the conduct of both the
commanders of East and West Florida, who were charged
respectively to deliver those provinces to the United States.
It is to this cause, and to this alone, as appears from a re-
view of all the transactions of which you have complained,
that must be traced the origin of all those severe measures
which General Jackson himself was the first, while deeming
them indispensable to the discharge of his own official duties,
to lament. Charged as he was with the trust of receiving the
provinces in behalf of the United States, of maintaining their
rights of property within them, of guarding them to the
utmost of his power from those frauds, to which there was
too much reason to apprehend they would be liable, and to
which the retention of the documents gave so great and
dangerous scope; entrusted from the necessity of the case,
during the interval of time while the general laws of the
United States remained unextended to the provinces, with
the various powers which had until that time been exercised
by the Spanish governors, and which included the adminis-
tration of justice between individuals, it was impossible
that he should not feel [with all the ardor of a soul devoted
above all other things to the fulfilment of his duties,] ^
the necessity of exercising, under circumstances thus exas-
^ What is in brackets was struck out.
^ Words in brackets were struck out.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 225
perating and untoward, every authority committed to him
by the supreme authority of his country, to preserve in-
violate, so far as on him depended, the interest of that
country, and the sacred obHgations of individual rights. In
the proceedings connected with the delivery of the province,
he had as little reason to be satisfied with the [candor and
good faith] ^ of Col. Callava, as with that of the Captain
General. On a plea of indisposition that officer had, on the
day of the surrender, evaded the performance of a solemn
promise, which General Jackson had considered an indis-
pensable preliminary to the act: and afterwards the Colonel
positively declined its fulfilment. He had however com-
pleted the surrender of the province with which he had been
charged. He had declined producing to General Jackson any
credential as a commissioner for performing that act, but
had informed him that he should make the surrender as the
commanding officer of the province, by virtue of orders from
his superior. This service had been consummated, and
Col. Callava, whom General Jackson had formally notified
that he had closed with him his official correspondence
forever, was, bound by the special stipulation of the treaty,
to have evacuated, as one of the Spanish officers, the prov-
ince, before the 22 of August. If General Jackson had, in
courtesy to Col. Callava, considered him, notwithstanding
his own disclaimer of the character, as a commissioner for
the delivery of the province, there can be no pretence that
he was entitled to special privileges under it, after he had
avowedly performed all its duties; after he had been in-
formed by General Jackson that their official correspondence
was finally closed, and after the date when, by the public
engagements of the treaty which he was to execute, he was
bound to have departed from the province. From the time
^ For these words "conduct" was substituted.
226 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
when his functions for the surrender of the province were
discharged, he could remain in Pensacola no otherwise than
as a private unprivileged individual, amenable to the duly
constituted American authorities of the place, and subject
to the same control of General Jackson as a private citizen
of the United States would have been to that of the governor
of the Floridas before the surrender had taken place.
That this was the opinion of Col. Callava himself and of
his friends who applied to Judge Fromentin for the writ of
habeas corpus to rescue him from the arrest under which he
was placed by the order of General Jackson, is apparent from
their conduct on that occasion. It is stated by Judge
Fromentin, that before granting the supposed writ of habeas
corpus, he required that Col. Callava should enter Into a
recognizance for twenty thousand dollars, with two secu-
rities, each for the amount of ten thousand dollars; the
condition of which recognizance was that Col. Callava should
personally be and appear before the judge of the United
States for West Florida, etc., whenever required so to do;
that he should not depart from the city of Pensacola without
the leave of the said court, nor send away, remove, or other-
wise dispose of, unknown to the said court, any of the papers
in question. It was only upon the promise of his friends that
this recognizance should be executed, that Judge Fromentin
consented to issue the writ of habeas corpus; and this rec-
ognizance renounces in fact every pretension of exemption
from the judicial authority of the country, and consequently
of the diplomatic privileges of a commissioner.
It has been seen that the most important documents re-
lating to the property of West Florida had been transmitted
to the Havanna. There remained, however, a portion of
them, particularly of judicial records relating to the titles
of individual property. Some of these Col. Callava did
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 227
deliver up with the province. Others of the same description
and character indispensable for the administration of justice
in the province, and useless at the Havanna, whither it was
his intention to have transported them, were retained; not in
his possession, but in that of Don Domingo Souza, a Spanish
officer, who by the stipulation of the treaty ought also
to have departed from the province before the 22d of
August.
The day immediately preceding that date, the Alcalde of
Pensacola, at the suit of a woman in a humble walk indeed
of life, but whose rights were, in the eye of General Jackson,
equally entitled to his protection with those of the highest
rank, or the most commanding opulence, had represented to
him that a number of documents belonging to the Alcalde's
office, and relating to estates at that place^ and to suits there
instituted, were in the possession of Domingo Souza; that
the necessity for obtaining possession of those documents was
urgent; and therefore he requested the governor to authorize
some one to make a regular demand of them, and to ascertain
what they were. Governor Jackson, accordingly, forthwith
commissioned the secretary of the territory, the Alcalde of
Pensacola himself, and the clerk of the County Court of
Escambia, to proceed to the dwelling of Souza, to make
demand of all such papers or documents belonging to the
Alcalde's office as might be In his possession; and In case of
Souza's refusal to exhibit or deliver the same, immediately to
report the fact to him, the governor, in writing. These
commissioners the next day reported to the governor, that
they had examined the papers In the possession of Souza;
that they had found among them four sets of papers of the
kind which belonged to the office of the Alcalde, and among
them those In which the woman, from whom the first applica-
tion had proceeded, was Interested; that they had both
228 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
verbally and In writing demanded of him the delivery of
those documents which no private individual had a right to
keep, as they related to the rights of persons holding or
claiming property in the province; but that Souza had re-
fused to deliver them, alleging that he was but the servant of
Col. Callava, and could not deliver them without his order.
In the transactions of Souza on this occasion is manifested
the same consciousness that the claim of diplomatic privilege
set up by Col. Callava, to screen him from the operation of
the authority of Governor Jackson, was without foundation.
For although he refused to deliver up the papers conforma-
bly to the governor's command, he submitted to the exam-
ination of them by the commissioners in obedience to the
same authority; and though he declined receiving from them
the letter demanding the delivery of the papers, he told them
that to relieve himself from the responsibility of keeping
them, he should deliver them to Col. Callava himself.
They were accordingly sent to the house of Col. Callava,
and put into the possession of his steward, Fallarat. It is
clear however, that If the papers, while In Souza's possession
were privileged from delivery up at the command of Gover-
nor Jackson, they were equally privileged from examination
by the same authority; and if they were not lawfully screened
from his process in the custody of Souza, they could not be
made so by removing them to the house of Col. Callava.
The truth Is that the removal of the documents, at that time
and in such a manner, was a high and aggravated contempt
of the lawful authority of the governor. It not only claimed
for Col. Callava diplomatic Immunities, but assumed that
he was still the governor of the province, and that Souza was
amenable for his conduct only to him. Col. Callava might
on the same pretence have retained the whole body of the
Spanish officers and troops under his command at Pensacola,
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 229
and insisted upon exercising over them all his extinguished
authority as governor and commander In chief after the
2ist of August, as he could to exercise any official authority,
within the province, over Domingo Souza, or to extricate him
from the lawful jurisdiction of Governor Jackson.
It is under these circumstances [under this prevaricating
and insulting contempt of his just authority, exercised In the
pursuit at once of humanity, beneficence, and justice,] ^
that the subsequent measures of Governor Jackson are to be
considered. He immediately issued an authority to Col.
Robert Butler and Col. John Miller to seize the body of
Souza, together with the papers, and to bring them before
him, that Souza might answer such Interrogatories as might
be put to him; and comply with such order and decree touch-
ing the said documents and records as the rights of the in-
dividuals, secured to them by the treaty, might require, and the
justice of the case might demand. By virtue of this order
Souza was brought before Governor Jackson, and again
recognized the authority under which he was taken, by
answering the Interrogatories put to him. But he had al-
ready put the papers and documents out of his possession,
and thus, as far as was in his power, baffied the ends of
justice, and set at defiance the lawful authority of the
governor. In this transaction Col. Callava was avowedly
the principal agent; and altogether unjustifiable as it was,
whatever consequences of inconvenience to himself resulted
from it, must be imputed to him. It was an undisguised
effort to prostrate the authority of the United States in the
province; nor had Governor Jackson any other alternative
to choose, than tamely to see the sovereign power of his
country, entrusted to him, trampled under foot and exposed
to derision by a foreigner, remaining there only upon his
1 Words in brackets were struck out.
230 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
sufferance, or by the vigorous exercise of his authority to
vindicate at once the rights of the United States and the just
claims of individuals to their protection.
Governor Jackson could consider Col. Callava in no other
light than that of a private individual, entitled indeed as
the officer of a foreign power to courtesy, but not to exemp-
tion from the process of the law. Notwithstanding [the
exasperating character of] ^ his contemptuous ^ conduct,
Governor Jackson in the first Instance authorized Col. Butler
and Dr. Bronaugh, accompanied by Mr. Brackenridge, the
Alcalde, to wait upon him and his steward, and to demand
from them the specified papers, which Souza had declared
in his answer to the interrogatories to have been delivered
to the steward at Governor Callava's house. It was only in
case of the refusal to give up the papers that the order ex-
tended to the seizure of the person of Col. Callava, that he
might be made to appear before Governor Jackson, to
answer interrogatories, and to abide by and perform such
order and decree as the justice of the case might demand.
This demand was accordingly made; and although at the
first moment peremptorily refused, yet upon Col. Callava's
being informed that his refusal would be considered as setting
at defiance the authority of the governor of the Floridas,
and of the consequences to himself which might ensue upon
his persisting therein, he [declared that If he should be fur-
nished with a copy of tl;e memorandum setting forth the
documents required, he would deliver them to Col. Butler
and Dr. Bronaugh].^
[This promise was another manifestation of Col. Callava's
consciousness that he had no claim to the immunities of a
' These words were struck out.
2 The word "improper" was substituted for "contemptuous."
3 This was changed to read: "desired to be furnished with a memorandum setting
forth the documents required, which was accordingly done."
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 231
commissioner at that time. Happy would it have been for
him, and for all, if he had performed it. The copy of the
memorandum was accordingly furnished him,] ^ but when
the delivery of the papers was again demanded of him, he
repeated the refusal to deliver them, and attempted both
to avoid the personal approach of Col. Butler and Dr.
Bronaugh, and to exhibit a resistance by force of arms to the
execution of the governor's order. And it is not a little
remarkable that among the persons who appeared thus
arrayed against the authority of the United States, to ac-
complish the denial and removal of the papers, was a man,
against whom the most important of those papers were
judicial decisions of Governor Callava himself in behalf of
the orphan children, for the establishment of whose rights
they were indispensably necessary and at whose application
they had been required.
Standing thus in open defiance to the operation of the law,
Col. Callava was taken before the governor, and there re-
fusing to answer the interrogatories put to him, and asserting
the groundless pretension of answering only as a commis-
sioner, and by a protest against the acts of the governor,
he was by his order committed to prison until the documents
should be delivered to the Alcalde. On the next day a search
warrant for the' papers was issued by the governor, upon
which they were actually obtained, and delivered to the
Alcalde; whereupon Col. Callava was immediately released.
In all these proceedings you will perceive, sir, that not one
act of rigor, or even of discourtesy towards Col. Callava was
authorized by Governor Jackson, which was not Indis-
pensably necessitated for the maintenance of his authority,
and the discharge of his official duty, by the unjustifiable and
obstinate resistance of Col. Callava himself.
^ What is in brackets was struck out.
232 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
On a review of the whole transactions I am instructed by
the President of the United States to say that he considers
the documents in question as among those which by the
stipulation of the treaty ought to have been delivered up
with the province to the authorities of the United States;
that they were on the 22d of August, when in the possession
of Domingo Souza, within the jurisdiction of the United
States, and subject to the control of their governor, acting in
his judicial capacity, and liable to be compulsively produced
by his order; that the removal of them from the possession of
Souza after the governor's order to him to deliver them had
been served upon him, could not withdraw them from the
jurisdiction of Governor Jackson, and was a high and
aggravated outrage upon his lawful authority; that the
imprisonment of Col. Callava was a necessary, though by
the President deeply regretted consequence of his obstinate
performance in refusing to deliver the papers [even after
having given his promise to deliver them,] ^ and of his
unfounded claim of diplomatic immunities and irregular
exercise even of the authorities of a governor of Florida,
after the authority of Spain in the province had been publicly
and solemnly surrendered to the United States.
That the documents were of the description of those
which the treaty had stipulated should be delivered up with
the province is obvious from the consideration of their
character. They related to the property of lands in the
province. They were judicial records, directly affecting the
rights of persons remaining in the province — rights which
could not be secured without them; rights over which the
appellate tribunal of the governor of Cuba, to which Col.
Callava proposed to remove the papers, thenceforth could
have no authority or control. They had become definitively
^ These words were struck out.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 233
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [and it was
the duty of General Jackson, at the demand of the person
interested in them, to prevent the removal, and to exact the
delivery of them].^ The only reason assigned by Col.
Callava for the pretension to retain them is that they related
to the estate of a deceased Spanish officer, and had thereby
been of the resort of the military tribunal. But it was for
the rights of the living and not for the privileges of the dead
that the documents were to operate. The tribunal of the
captain general of Cuba could neither need the production of
the papers, nor exercise any authority over the subject-
matter to which they related. To have transferred to the
island of Cuba a question of litigated property concerning
land in Florida, would have been worse than a mockery of
justice. Indeed, Mr. Salmon in his note appears to have been
aware of the weakness of this allegation, declines the discus-
sion of the question, and in justification of the refusal of
Col. Callava to deliver up the documents, merely rests its
defence upon the plea, that the papers had not been de-
manded of him oficially. It has been seen that Col. Callava
had no official character which could then exempt him from
the compulsive process of the governor. But Mr. Salmon
alleges that the Spanish constitution, as well as that of the
United States, separates the judicial from the executive
power exercised by the governor or captain general.
Neither the constitution nor the laws of the United States,
excepting those relating to the revenue and its collection,
and to the slave-trade, had at that time been extended to
Florida. And as little had the Spanish constitution been
introduced there, in point of fact, however, it might have
been proclaimed. But be this as it may, the cause, in relation
to which the documents required in the case of Vidal had
^ These words were struck out.
234 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
been drawn up and were needed, was one of those which,
under the Spanish constitution itself, remained within the
jurisdiction of the governor. This is declared by Col.
Callava himself, in the third observation of the appendix
to his protest, transmitted with the letter of Mr. Salmon. It
is the reason assigned by him for having withheld these
documents from the Alcalde. And one of them was a judg-
ment rendered by Col. Callava himself after the time when
the proclamation of the Spanish constitution in the provinces
is alleged to have been made. The cause therefore was on
every hypothesis within the jurisdiction of the governor; the
papers were indispensable for the administration of justice in
the cause, and when once applied for by a person entitled to
the benefit of them, it was the duty, the inexorable duty of
Governor Jackson, to put forth all the authority vested in
him necessary to obtain them. Nor less imperative was his
obligation to punish, without respect of persons, that con-
tempt of his jurisdiction which was manifested in the double
attempt of Col. Callava, to defy his power and evade the
operation of its process.
With regard to the proclamation of General Jackson of
the 29th of September, commanding several Spanish officers
who, in violation of the stipulation of the treaty, had re-
mained at Pensacola after the expiration of the six months
from the day of the ratification of the treaty, to withdraw
within four days from the Floridas, which forms the subject
of complaint in your letter of the i8th of November, it might
be sufficient to say that it did no more than enjoin upon those
officers to do that which they ought before, and without any
injunction to have done. The engagement of the treaty was
that they should all have evacuated the province before the
22d of August. If they remained there after that time, it
could only be as private individuals, amenable in every
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 235
particular to the laws. Even this was merely an indulgence,
which it was within the competency of General Jackson at
any time to have withdrawn. From the extract of a letter
from him, of which I have the honor of enclosing a copy, it
will be seen that he was far from being disposed to with-
draw it, had they not, by their abuse of it and by open
outrages upon his authority, forfeited all claims to its con-
tinuance.
This extract furnishes a satisfactory answer to your
question, why, if the fulfilment of the article was the object
of the proclamation, it was confined to the eight officers by
name, and not extended to all other Spanish officers in the
Floridas.^ It was because the deportment of the others was
as became them, decent, respectful, and friendly towards the
government, under the protection of which they were per-
mitted to abide. In the newspaper publication, which gave
rise to the proclamation of General Jackson, the Spanish
officers avowedly acted, not as private individuals, but as a
distinct body of men, speak of Col. Callava as their chief,
their superior, and arrogating to themselves, as a sort of
merit, the condescension of knowing what was due to a
government (meaning the American government), which
was on the most friendly footing with their own. This is
language which would scarcely be proper for the ambassador
of one nation, upon the territory of another, to which he
would owe not even a temporary allegiance. From persons
situated as those Spanish officers were, it was language of
insubordination and contempt.
In alluding to the fact that officers of the American
squadron in the Mediterranean are sometimes received with
friendly treatment on the territories of Spain, to make a case
parallel with the present it would be necessary to show that
some superior officer of the said squadron should, while
236 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
enjoying the hospitality of the Spanish nation upon their
shores, first attempt to evade and to resist the operation of
process from the constituted judicial tribunals of the coun-
try, and then pretend as an American officer to be wholly
independent of them; and that some of his subalterns should
not only countenance and support him in these attempts, but
should affect to consider him, while on Spanish ground, as
their only superior and chief, and by unfounded and in-
flammatory publications in the daily journals to rouse the
people of Spain to revolt and insurrection against the judicial
tribunal of their own country. If the bare statement of such
a case would be sufficient to raise the indignation of every
honorable Spaniard, let it be observed that even this would
be without some of the aggravations of the conduct of these
Spanish officers at Pensacola. For such outrage would be
far less dangerous committed against old established au-
thorities, which might rely upon the support of the whole
people surrounding them, than In the presence of a people
whose allegiance had been but just transferred to a new
government, and when the revolt to which they were stim-
ulated would seem little more than obedience to the au-
thorities to which they had always been accustomed to
submit. The very power, which the Spanish governor and
officers had exercised before the surrender of the province,
ought to have been a most urgent warning to them to avoid
every semblance of authority In themselves, or of resistance
to that of the United States, after the transfer of the province
had been completed.
In forbearing particularly to reply to that part of your
note. In which you think yourself authorized to pronounce
the charge of General Jackson against these Spanish officers,
of having attempted to excite discontent In the Inhabitants,
false, I shall barely express the hope that the term was
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 237
admitted into your communication inadvertently. The
conduct of the officers at the time of Col. Callava's conflict
with the authority of the governor, as well as in their in-
sultihg newspaper publications, was of a character and
tendency too strongly marked to leave a doubt of the truth
with which it is described in General Jackson's proclamation;
and in passing unnoticed this and other mere invectives
against an officer whose services to this nation have entitled
him to their highest regard, and whose whole career has been
signalized by the purest intentions and the most elevated
purposes, I wish to be understood as abstaining from ob-
servations which, however justified by the occasion, could
but add to the unpleasantness of a discussion already suffi-
ciently painful.
That this conduct on the part of the Spanish officers was
criminal,^ cannot reasonably be denied, and had General
Jackson been disposed to animadvert upon it with severity,
his course would undoubtedly have been that which you
have pointed out as appropriate to the oflfence. They would
have been cited before the proper tribunal, heard upon
specific charges, allowed time and liberty to make their
defence, and punished by commitment to prison. General
Jackson preferred a milder and more indulgent measure; and
without prosecuting them as criminals, only withdrew from
them the privilege of a protracted infraction of the treaty, by
requiring them forthwith to depart from the province. To
justify him in this requisition neither arrest nor trial was
necessary or proper. The facts were of public notoriety and
could not be denied. The proclamation only required of
them the execution of the treaty by the removal of their
persons. Had their conduct even been unexceptionable, this
measure would have been within the undoubted authority of
^ Highly reprehensible " was substitued for criminal."
238 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
General Jackson. As their deportment had been, it was
the most lenient exercise of his power practicable to vindicate
the insulted honor and justice of his country.
I pass to the consideration of the complaints contained in
vour letter of the 226. of November, In order to take a
correct view of this subject, it is again necessary to advert
to the royal order of his Catholic Majesty to the Captain
General and Governor of the island of Cuba and of the
Floridas, commanding him to cause to be placed at the
disposal of the commissaries or officers of the United States,
duly authorized to receive them, the archives and documents
relating directly to the property and sovereignty of the two
provinces.
On the i6th of May, the said Captain General and Gover-
nor wrote to Col. Forbes, that "respecting East Florida,
where there ought to be found all her archives, he, Governor
Maby would direct Governor Coppinger to make a formal
delivery of that Province, as well as of the documents belonging
to it.''
On the 24th of May Col. Forbes wrote to the Captain
General, reminding him of the repeated promises made by
his excellency, to dispatch him with the archives which were
to be delivered and then were at the Havanna, and with the
orders for the delivery of the provinces, and of the archives
deliverable there; of the continual disappointments to which
he had been subjected by the failure of performance to
those provinces; and of the necessities which urged his
immediate departure. He therefore proposed, "that If
further researches should be necessary for the discovery of
the said archives, they might be delivered when more con-
venient to the Spanish government; that he (Col. Forbes)
should be allowed to proceed immediately to West Florida
with the commissary appointed to carry the final order to
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 239
the sub-governor there; and lastly, that a duplicate order be
given at once, as agreed upon, to the governor of East Florida,
for the delivery of that province to the constituted au-
thorities of the United States, together with the archives which
were declared to he on the spotP
On the 29th of May the Captain General answered this
letter and enclosed to him the orders to the several governors
of East and West Florida, for the delivery of the provinces,
antedated as I have already mentioned, with a declaration
that the archives then at the Havanna, and which ought to
have been delivered to Col. Forbes, should he transmitted to
the government of the United States as soon as they were
selected — a promise, as I have before observed, yet unful-
filled.
These orders of the Captain General to the commanders of
East and West Florida are further remarkable by the omis-
sion of any direction in them for the delivery of the archives
and documents. It had been expressly agreed by him with
Col. Forbes, that the order for the delivery of East Florida
should include that of the archives. But it was not sufficient
for Governor Maby to avoid the performance of the promise.
By the letter from Col. Butler to General Jackson of 21 Jan-
uary last, a copy of which I have the honor to enclose, it
appears that with regard to the greatest and most important
part of those documents, he had expressly instructed Col.
Coppinger not to deliver them. And hence, when on the
1 8th of June Col. Butler, the officer of the United States
authorized to receive the province, notified Col. Coppinger
that he had designated Major Cross to receive the archives
relating to the sovereignty and individual property of the
province, he was answered by Col. Coppinger, "as respects
the delivery of the public archives containing the records of
individual property of this province, that will he delayed, until
240 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
various doubts that occur are cleared up; but they will not be
removed until then, nor will I leave this place until all mat-
ters are regulated and concluded between us that demand
my personal assistance."
Thus upon the pretence of doubts, the nature of which
was not explained, Col. Coppinger declined positively to
deliver up documents conformably to the express stipulation
of the treaty. Col. Butler immediately proposed to him a
conference on the subject, which was held on the 21st of
June. At that conference Col. Coppinger told Col. Butler,
that "as an individual he believed those archives should be
given over to the United States, but that his orders precluded
him from turning them overT Colonel Butler therefore
assented, as indeed no other alternative seemed to be left
him, that Col. Coppinger should have time to write to the
Captain General of Cuba for the decision of his doubts, and
mentioned to him the opportunity of a vessel then about to
sail for the Havanna, whence she was to return to St. Augus-
tine, and might bring the answer of the Captain General.
Col. Coppinger on the 22d of June informed Col. Butler that
he had that day written to the Captain General for the solu-
tion of his doubts, and until he received his answer, the
archives should not be removed from St. Augustine, and
should remain precisely as they were. Col. Butler, by his
letter of 26 June, agreed to remain silent on the head of the
archives until the answer should be received from the Cap-
tain General; but within one week from that time Col. Butler
received information that a large portion of these documents
were packed for transportation. He wrote therefore on the
3d of July to Col. Coppinger, enumerating specifically several
kinds of records relating directly to the property of the
province, and declaring that he considered them among those
which were not to be removed. The reply to which by Col.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 241
Coppinger is especially to be remarked, as expressing his
opinion, that several of those documents were excluded from
delivery. There can be no reasonable doubt that all the
papers specified by Col. Butler's letter were of those which
the treaty had stipulated should be delivered up. When
therefore General Jackson considered and compared together
the express and positive order of the King of Spain to the
Captain General and Governor of Cuba, that he should
faithfully see to the delivery of the documents, the [shifting
and frivolous] ^ pretences on which he evaded the delivery
to Col. Forbes of those which were at the Havanna, within
his own control; the promise that he would direct the delivery
by Col. Coppinger of those that were at St. Augustine; the
peremptory postponement of Col. Coppinger to deliver up
any documents or records relating to individual property; his
engagement that none of them should be removed until he
should receive further instructions from the Captain General,
and within one week after, his attempt to pack up for
transportation to Cuba a large portion of them; and finally
his pretension that many papers, manifestly having direct
relation to the property of the province, were excluded from
delivery; and his recurrence to the literal sense of his orders
from the Captain General, with the verbal avowal to Col.
Butler of his own opinion, that the documents ought to be
delivered, though he was forbidden by his instructions to
deliver them; it was impossible for General Jackson to close
his eyes against [indications so demonstrative of tarnished
faith and violated engagements].- He therefore gave in-
structions to the oificer commanding at St. Augustine to
take possession of the papers which the treaty had stipulated
should be delivered.
^ These words were struck out.
2 For these words, "proceedings so unjustifiable and improper" were substituted.
242 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
The necessity for taking possession of them had indeed
arisen before the instructions of General Jackson were re-
ceived. Most of the records relating to individual property
had been left in possession of Don Juan de Entealgo; who,
on the pretence that he had purchased at public sales under
the Spanish government, not only these documents, but the
office of register of them, openly advanced the claim of re-
taining the records as his private property, and of continuing
the exercise of the office, and receiving fees for granting
copies of the papers.
These pretensions were raised on the 5th of September,
nearly three months after the doubts of Col. Coppinger had,
with the consent of Col. Butler, been referred to the Captain
General and Governor of Cuba. Long before that time the
answer of that officer ought to have been received, peremp-
torily commanding the delivery of the papers. It was
impossible that the United States should acquiesce in the
claims of Mr. Entealgo. They were unquestionably entitled
to the documents; and whatever injury he might sustain
by the delivery of them. It might give him a fair demand of
indemnity from his own government, but certainly not from
the United States. m
Yet the secretary and acting governor, Mr. Worthington,
allowed a further delay of nearly a month, before taking the
decisive measures necessary to obtain the documents. He
then, on the 3d of October, authorized three persons of
respectable character to obtain them, with the use of force If
necessary; but with all suitable delicacy and respect towards
the persons who had been the officers of Spain in the prov-
inces. I have the honor of enclosing herewith copies of the
orders from the Secretary Worthington to the commissioners
appointed by him to receive, and affidavits to examine and
assort the papers, and of their reports to him, exhibiting the
I
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 243
manner in which both those services were performed. They
will prove that every regard was shown towards Col. Cop-
pinger and Mr. Entealgo, compatible with the execution of
the duty, and after the assortment of the papers, all those
which were not of the description stipulated to be delivered
over by the treaty have ever been and yet are ready to be
returned to Col. Coppinger, or to any person duly au-
thorized to receive them.
Such is the view which I am instructed to say has defini-
tively been taken by the President of the United States, in
relation to the transactions which formed the subjects of
your letters of 18 and 22 of November last, and of that of
Mr. Salmon of 6 October. He is satisfied that by the pro-
ceedings of the Governor of Florida towards Col. Callava on
the 23d of August last, and towards certain individuals,
presuming to act as a body of Spanish officers in Florida, in
contempt of the authority of the United States, on the 29th
of September; and by those of the Secretary of East Florida,
acting as governor, on the 2d and 3d of October, towards
Col. Coppinger and Don Juan de Entealgo, no intention of
injury or insult to his Catholic Majesty or his governor was
intended; and that no just cause of complaint by them was
given. That those measures were all rendered necessary by
the total disregard of the Captain General and Governor of
Cuba and the Floridas, and of his subordinate officers in the
Floridas, not only of the solemn stipulation in the treaty for
the delivery of the archives and documents directly relating
to the property of the provinces, but of the royal order of
their sovereign, commanding the said Captain General to see
to the faithful execution of that engagement — an engage-
ment, in the fulfilment of which the rights not only of the
United States, but of every individual inhabitant of the
provinces and proprietors in them were deeply and vitally
244 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
interested. The mere enumeration of the documents as
specified in the demands of them made by the officers of the
United States before resort was had to any measure of rigor
for extorting them, proves that they were indispensable for
the establishment of public right or for the security of pri-
vate property. To Spain not one of those documents could
after the transfer of the provinces be of the slightest interest
or utility. To the United States they were all important. If
the governor and secretary had so little understood their
duty to the public rights of their country, committed to their
charge, as to have sufi"ered the removal of records essential
to guard the interests of the nation against the insatiate
greediness and fraudulent devices of land speculators, they
had yet a sacred duty to perform to the people of the coun-
try, by retaining the common vouchers of their estates.
What individual would have been secure in the tenure of his
land, in the evidences of his debts, or in the very shelter over
his head, if Col. Callava could have carried to Cuba his own
judgments in favor of the Vidals, because their father, when
alive, had been an auditor of war; and if Don Juan de
Entealgo could have transported to the same island all the
title deeds of East Florida, because he had bought his office
of recorder at public auction."^
The delays [and evasions] ^ of the Captain General of Cuba,
with regard to the fulfilment of the royal order transmitted
to him by Col. Forbes, were so extraordinary, and upon any
just principle so unaccountable, that the minister of the
United States in Spain was by letters from this Department,
of 13 and 16 June last, instructed, upon his return to Madrid,
to represent the same to your government, and to request
new and peremptory orders to that officer for the delivery
of the archives in his possession, conformably to the stipula-
^ Words in brackets were struck out.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 245
tion of the treaty. The renewal of the order was decHned
upon the ground of entire confidence on the part of your
government that the Captain General would, before it could
be received, have completed the delivery of the archives and
documents, as he had been commanded by the King. I
regret to be obliged to state that this just expectation of his
Catholic Majesty has not yet been fulfilled. Captain James
Biddle, commander of the United States frigate Macedonian,
has therefore been commissioned to repair to the Havanna,
there to receive the documents and archives which Col.
Forbes was obliged to leave, and which, it is hoped, the
Captain General and Governor of Cuba will cause to be
delivered without further delay.
I pray you, etc.
TO PIERRE DE POLETICA
Department of State,
Washington, 24 April, 1822.
Sir:
Your letter of the 2d Instant having stated that you are
not authorized to continue the discussion to which it refers,
I am directed by the President of the United States to
abstain from entering further upon the examination of the
grounds upon which the edict of the Emperor, communicated
by you, is defended, as not incompatible with the rights of
this nation and its citizens.
But previous to your departure, the President has thought
it due to the Importance which he considers Inherent in the
subject, to the friendly relations which have uninterruptedly
subsisted between the United States and the imperial gov-
ernment, to the high consideration and regard entertained In
246 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
this country for his Imperial Majesty, the Emperor Alexan-
der, and to those dispositions of conciliation and good will
which you have ever manifested towards the United States,
to request that on returning to St. Petersburg you would
in the most explicit manner make known to the imperial
government at once the earnestness of the desire of the
President, in unison with the universal sentiment of this
nation, that the good understanding between our govern-
ments may continue with unabating cordiality, and the
impossibility that these United States should acquiesce
either in the interdiction of their lawfully navigating mer-
chant vessels to approach within one hundred Italian miles
of the shores of an open sea, or in the disturbance of their
citizens in the prosecution of their intercourse with the
nations of this continent beyond the 51st degree of north
latitude, in regions where Russia has never before this edict
asserted exclusive jurisdiction.
And I am instructed to repeat the assurance that the
government of the United States will at all times be prepared
to render justice upon any specific and well founded cause of
complaint which may be adduced against its citizens, and
that however inadequate the nature of its institutions may be
to restrain its citizens from the exercise of their industry, as
sanctioned by the laws of their country and of nations, no
government upon earth is more competent to all the pur-
poses of restraint or of punishment, upon that enterprise
which, by transgressing those laws, would usurp upon the
rights of others.
I avail myself, etc.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 247
TO THE CHEVALIER AMADO GREHON '
Department of State,
Washington, 30 April, 1822.
Sir:
Your letter of the first Inst, has been submitted to the
consideration of the President of the United States; by whom
I am directed to assure you of the great satisfaction with
which he has received the friendly declaration of the Portu-
guese government towards the United States; and the
disposition manifested by them to promote the mutual
interests and the amicable intercourse between the two
countries by a treaty founded upon principles favorable to
the commercial relations and industry of both. The Pres-
ident desires that you would in return make known to your
government the sentiments of friendly reciprocity which
animate the government of the United States towards
Portugal, and the earnest wish of the President that the
relations of the United States with that nation may continue
on terms of the most entire cordiality.
I am at the same time directed to state that the proposition
of the Chevalier Correa de Serra, in his note of the i6th of
July, 1820, for the appointment of commissaries, chosen by
both governments, to arrange indemnities claimed by
Portuguese citizens for damages stated by them to have been
sustained by reason of piracies supported by the capital and
means of citizens of the United States, cannot be acceded to.
It is a principle well known and well understood, that no
nation is responsible to another for the acts of its citizens,
committed without its jurisdiction, and out of the reach of
its control. Of the numerous piracies which have, within
^ Charge d'affaires.
248 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
these few years, annoyed the commerce of every maritime
nation, a much greater number have been committed by the
subjects of other powers than by citizens of the United
States. The lawful commerce of the United States them-
selves has suffered by these depredations, perhaps more
than that of Portugal. When brought within the jurisdiction
of the United States the pirates have been punished by their
laws and restitution has been made to its owners of property
captured by them. Should any citizen of the United States,
guilty of piracy, be captured by the Portuguese government,
the United States will in no wise Interfere to screen them
from punishment.
The citizens of the United States are amenable also to
the tribunals of their own country, as the people of Portugal
are to theirs, for any wrong done by them to the subjects of
other nations. For acts of so aggravated a nature as piracy,
the authority of the government of the United States itself is
not competent to withdraw them from the jurisdiction of
their natural judges, or to subject them to a trial consisting
partly of foreigners, and without the Intervention of a jury.
These principles of protection and security to Individual
rights are doubtless well understood, and will be duly ap-
preciated in Portugal, under the liberal system of govern-
ment now established in her own dominions.
The laws and the tribunals of the United States are
adequate to the punishment of their citizens who may be
concerned In committing unlawful depredations upon
foreigners on the high seas; at least to the same extent as the
laws and tribunals of other nations. The legislation of the
United States upon this subject was even rendered more
severe and effectual for the suppression of such offences,
during the residence here of the Chevalier Correa de Serra,
and justice, conformable to the established principles of the
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 249
laws of nations, has always been rendered by the courts of the
United States to those Portuguese subjects whose property,
after capture by pirates or privateers, has been brought
within the jurisdiction of this nation. It will continue to be
so rendered in all cases which may occur hereafter.
Of the advantages to the commerce of the United States
in the four quarters of the world which it may be in the
power of the Portuguese government to offer, it would be
acceptable to receive a more particular specification than is
contained in your letter. The government of the United
States would then be able to judge of their value, and of the
consideration with which they may be returned. It is not
perfectly understood who are meant in your note by the
"common enemies of their industry and their independ-
ence;" and I am directed to ask of you a precise explanation
of that expression. The government of the United States
while willing cheerfully to meet and reciprocate any com-
mercial arrangement with Portugal, propitious to the
interest of both nations, will not solicit, and cannot grant,
any exclusive favors, to the prejudice of any other power
whatsoever.
This principle, which has long been fundamental to the
commercial policy of the United States, furnishes a reply to
the latter part of your letter, which, in the case of a non-
compliance with proposals which, as I have informed you,
cannot be accepted, threatens reprisals upon the United
States, by granting to their rival powers advantages in com-
merce, which you allege your government is disposed to
give the United States, on condition of what you call in-
demnity for the past and security for the future.
The government of the United States knows that there is
nothing and has been nothing in the relations between them
and Portugal which by the laws and usages of civilized na-
250
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
tions could justify reprisals of any kind, by the latter against
the United States. And as I have assured you that they
desire no exclusive favors to the detriment of others, so they
are fully persuaded that upon further advisement your
government will perceive that they cannot grant commercial
favors to any other nation to the detriment of the United
States, without injuring their own subjects more than the
people of this Union. Such it is believed would be the result
of any experiment of reprisals by granting exclusive favors
to one nation, with the view to damage another. The party
granting exclusive favors is the party most severely punished.
Far more agreeable will it be to the government of the
United States to reciprocate as heretofore with that of
Portugal, offices of kindness and good will, and to promote
the friendly intercourse between the two nations, by a
multiplication of good offices, and of all the sources by which
the interests of both may be advanced.
I pray you, etc.
TO ROBERT WALSH '
Private. Washington, 12 May, 1822.
Dear Sir:
In the National Gazette of Friday the loth instant is pub-
lished a letter from Jonathan Russell to the Secretary of
> The publication through Congress by Jonathan Russell, one of the United States
commissioners to negotiate the treaty of Ghent in 1814, of a private dispatch pre-
pared and sent by Russell to the Secretary of State from Paris, February 11, 1815,
precipitated a controversy between Russell and Adams which put an end to the
public career of the former. His intention in securing the publication was clearly
to destroy any prospect Adams might have of the Presidency, and he wished to
support the ambitions of Clay. Not finding the original dispatch in the Department
of State, Russell used his rough draft, making some alterations in the language.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 251
State dated Paris, 11 February, 181 5, with an editorial
article vouching for the exactness of the copy.^
I have to apprise you that it is NOT an exact copy of the
letter received from Mr. Russell by Mr. Monroe and now-
deposited in the Department of State. It differs from it
among other things in these particulars:
The letter received by Mr. Monroe is marked at the top
"Private," which word is omitted in the letter published in
the National Gazette.
In the last column of the first page of the publication in
the National Gazette, at the eighteenth line from the bottom
are the words, "we directly violated our instructions and".
These words are not in the letter written at Paris by Mr. Rus-
sell and received by Mr. Monroe.
In the 43rd line of the second column of the second page of
the National Gazette publication are the words "we could";
instead of which the words in the letter are "I can."
As it is probable this paper will be extensively republished
from the National Gazette with the voucher for the authentic-
ity of the copy, I give you the notice that you may rectify
the errors of the copy in such manner as you may think jus-
tice to require. Having the most undoubting confidence
that you had satisfactory reasons for believing the copy
furnished you to be correct, I prefer giving you this pri-
Adams recognized at once that the paper must have been modified, and the dis-
covery of the original document in the private papers of Monroe confirmed his
doubts. A collation of the two dispatches proved how far Russell had dressed his
words, and his subsequent attempt to explain deprived him of public sympathy and
placed him in a most awkward position. He sought aid from Clay, but received
none, and never regained the confidence of his associates. The incident is quite
fully given in the Memoirs, and led to the publication by Adams of The Duplicate
Letters, the Fisheries and the Mississippi (1822). The letters now printed show the
intense feeling aroused in Adams by the attack on his public character, and the
feeling akin to pity for his antagonist.
^ Included in Adams, Duplicate Letters, 1 14.
252 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
vate notice that It Is not so to any other mode of making it
known.
A copy of the congressional document containing a true
copy both of the original and duplicate of Mr. Russell's letter
shall be sent to you as soon as It shall have been printed. A
comparison of the original letter as it will there appear, with
the publication In the National Gazette of the loth, will
enable you to notify in such manner as you may judge
suitable to the occasion the errors of the latter.^
I am, etc.
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, 20 May, 1822.
Dear Sir:
A printed copy of the documents accompanying the
President's message to the House of Representatives of the
7th instant is now transmitted to you, and with It I send you
one of the very printed copies of the message from President
Madison to Congress of 13th October, 18 14, which were
transmitted by Mr. Monroe to the commissioners at Ghent
with his letter of 19th October, 18 14, and received by them
on the 24th November of that year. You will see that the
paragraph of the instructions of 15th April, 1813, which in
the National Gazette of the loth figures with so many italics,
connected with the falsification of the copy of the letter
pointed out in mine of the 13th Instant to you, containing
^ In transmitting to his government a copy of the documents Stratford Canning
wrote: "It is generally supposed that Mr. Russell's communication was called for
at so late a period for no other view but that of discrediting Mr. Adams as a sup-
posed candidate for the Presidency. It appears, however, that his assailant, if
such Mr. Russell may be considered, is likely to have most reason to regret the
controversy, which has excited in no small degree the attention of the public! " Ms.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 253
the interpolated charge against the majority of the mission
of direct and express violation of instructions, is not in this
pamphlet, and the motives for its omission, because it was
cancelled by the authority expressly given in the instruction
of most recent date to conclude a treaty upon the basis of
the status ante helium.
You will see also that the falsification of the duplicate
delivered at the Department of State was much more con-
siderable than that of the copy furnished for the National
Gazette, but contains the same newly fabricated charge of
violated instructions, which was not in the original letter.
I have not the most distant suspicion that you intended to
take side against the majority of the Ghent mission, or
individually against me, in the publication of the paper
furnished you as a copy of Mr. Russell's letter, or in the
approbation of his doctrines and justification of his conduct
in first writing the letter expressed in the editorial remarks
upon it. You took the paper as you received it for a correct
exposition of facts and a fair statement of arguments which
had been used by the minority of the mission. And when you
remarked that such a procedure as that of writing the letter
was not unusual, and that it did not follow because it was
private, it was therefore secret, you were certainly not aware
that it was secret as well as private; that the whole letter was
a mass of misrepresentations, and that although written
while the writer was in daily intercourse with the majority of
the mission, he never lisped to them any intention of writ-
ing it.
There is no man who knows not all the real transactions of
that time, the whole secret history of the mission, who can
know how many ties of honor, of friendship, and of truth,
were shivered in the writing of that letter of 11 February,
181 5, even as it was there really written.
254 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
A very correct estimate however can be made of the heart
whence it issued from the bare fact that when, seven years
later, volunteering to produce in the face of Congress and
the nation a copy of that shameless libel upon his most re-
spected colleagues, he finds it not deeply charged enough with
crimination against them, and vamping up a gross aggrava-
tion of violated instructions, cites for proof a paragraph which
had been formally and explicitly cancelled before the dis-
cussion pretended to have been forbidden by them.
But what concerns me much more than mistakes as to the
character of the transaction with reference to morals is, the
ground you have taken in support of his doctrine that the
treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the war. He would not
have dared to take at Ghent the ground on this point that
he takes in his letter. I am sure my principle is right and
have carried it triumphantly through the subsequent nego-
tiations with Great Britain since the peace. I may and fear
I shall fail of convincing you, but I pray you not to maintain
the opposite principle again till you shall have seen all the
documents of the negotiations that led to the conclusion of
the convention of 20 October, 1818.
I shall write you about the navigation of the Mississippi
hereafter.
Send me back this letter after reading it. I will if you wish
return it to you again. But I want It to have a copy taken
of it, which I could not do without losing this mail.^
Yours, etc.
' On May 25 Walsh printed in the National GazetU a reply by Adams to Russell's
communication, with editorial comment. Extracts from the editorial are in Dupli-
cate Letters, 1 18.
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 255
TO JOSEPH HOPKINSON
Washington, 28th Ma^, 1822.
My Dear Sir:
I thank you heartily for your cheering voice in the midst
of my trial, a trial by God and my country, upon a charge of
treachery to her interests and to my duty — a charge by an
associate In the trust and by his own showing a participator
in the offence. To such a charge in all the bitterness and all
the violence of party conflicts I had never before been sub-
jected, and when from the bottom of my soul I believed that
the very gist of the charge was the most Important service I
had ever rendered to my country, It was too much for my
patience to endure. I thought it a point of obligation to the
public morals, not only to vindicate myself and my col-
leagues, but to put my assailant upon the defensive. We
shall see what hand he will make of it.
As for me, since this fashion of Secretary hunting has set
in I know not what other charges await me, nor when they
will be brought forth, nor how they will be managed; but
being devotionally inclined I pray God that all my accusers
may have as little foundation as he had, and that in the
development of their projects they may be guided by that
same retributive spirit which brought him with his duplicate
in the fancied security that the original was irretrievably
lost. . . .
Being with sincere respect, etc.
256 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, 30th May, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I return you my letter of the 20th which, as containing the
expression of my sentiments and feeHngs, I have no motive
for withholding from you.
The publication of a third edition of Mr. Russell's letter
in the National Gazette of the lOth instant is an incident of
no inconsiderable interest in the history of this transaction.
In your favor of the 15th instant you mention having re-
ceived it from Mr. R. M. Patterson, an intimate friend of
his. As I understand your letter it was through that gen-
tleman from Mr. Russell himself.
Mr. Russell left this city for Philadelphia on the 4th or
5th of this month. I conclude it was after that, and on his
passage through, that he furnished the copy for publication
in the National Gazette. If I am correct in this conjecture, I
will thank you to confirm it. The two letters of Mr. Russell
of 25th December, 1814, and nth February, 181 5, were a
part of the negotiations of Ghent with which I had been
entirely unacquainted, until upon the first call ^ of Dr.
Floyd 2 for the residue of the Ghent treaty documents. I, on
examining the files of the Department to answer the call,
found the short letter of 25th December. Dr. Floyd's call
was for the correspondence which led to the conclusion of
the treaty of Ghent. It did not therefore strictly include this
letter written after the signature of the treaty. But as an
improper inference might have been drawn from the with-
holding of the letter, I asked Mr. Russell himself whether he
' January i6, 1822.
* John Floyd (1770- 183 7).
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 257
would choose that it should be cgmmunlcated to the House
or not. 
