^
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. He first said that it was a private letter which he
did not wish should be made public, but upon further re-
flection he said he would be glad to see it. He expressed also
the wish to see the other documents of the negotiation and
the official records of the instructions to the Commissioners
at Ghent, in all which he was indulged to the extent of his
wishes. After having made this examination he told me
there was a subsequent letter which he had written from
Paris to the Secretary of State, as promised in the letter of
25th December, and which he wished might be also com-
municated to the House. Repeated searches were made
on the files of the Department for this letter, but it was not
found. I had never heard of the existence of this letter
before he thus told me of it himself. The answer to Mr.
Floyd's call for the Ghent papers was delayed a week or ten
days for repeated searches to find the letter. It became at
last necessary to answer the call of the House, and the papers
were sent including the short letter of 25th December. On
the 19th of April the House adopted Dr. Floyd's second call,
which was specifical for the letter promised in that of 25
December. In the editorial article of the National Gazette
of the loth it is said that you learn from good authority
that Mr. Russell had no share in the call for his private letter.
Mr. Daniel Brent states in writing that Mr. Russell told him
that Dr. Floyd's call for the private letter had been made at
his, Russell's, suggestion. The call was not made until he
was ready to produce the letter himself. The resolution
passed the house on the 19th of April, Friday, and on Mon-
day the 22nd he delivered the duplicate at the Department.
He had sent to Mendon ^ for the copy of his real letter in the
interval between the first and second calls, and after having
^ Massachusetts, his place of residence.
258 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
learnt that the letter was not to be found at the Department.
The moment I read this duplicate I was convinced that cer-
tain parts of it, and especially the prophetic paragraph/
had not been written in February, 1815, at Paris. Yet that
he should have falsified his own letter to produce it in the
face of Congress and of the nation appeared to me so shock-
ing a supposition that I scarcely dared to trust myself in
believing it. Knowing indeed as I did what had actually
passed at Ghent, I saw immediately that the whole letter
was a fable; yet the variation of the copy seemed to require a
degree of assurance hardly conceivable against the bare
possibility that the original might yet be found.
From that moment too I saw that a public controversy
was unavoidable, and that its proper scene for me was the
hall of the House of Representatives, the spot where by this
letter the majority of the Ghent mission were thus to be
arraigned by one of their own associates in the face of the
whole nation. I took the letter to the President, requested
him attentively to read it, and then to have search made
among his private papers to see if the original could be
found. The search was accordingly made and it was found.
My own wish thenceforward was that both the letters should
be communicated to the House, together with my remarks
upon them. The President, who of course wished to take
no part in the controversy, preferred stating the circum-
stances to the House leaving them to determine whether to
repeat the call or not. The last call was made at my desire
and was opposed by Dr. Floyd and other friends of Mr. Rus-
sell. He himself in the meantime had left the city, but not
without having an explanation from me face to face of the
opinions which I entertained of his letters, in which I pointed
out to him the differences between them, and showed him
^ Duplicate Letters, 91.
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 259
in the records of the Department the copy of the letter of
instruction of 19th October, 1814, which substantially can-
celled the paragraph of the instructions of 15th April, 1813,
of which he has made such notable use in the duplicate and
in the National Gazette of the loth instant.
I have given you this detail that you may be fully aware
not only of the real nature of the transaction, but of the
degree in which he succeeded to make the National Gazette
instrumental to his purposes in the production of this letter.
The charge of violated instructions and the citation of the
cancelled paragraph were what he knew would tell in the
western country more than all the rest of the letter, and by
the publication in the National Gazette he hoped to forestall
public opinion where the refutation might never reach or
reach too late for operation. With the notice that you have
taken of the variation between the original and the Gazette
copy I am satisfied; nor is it my wish that you should at any
time further manifest any opinion favorable to me or other-
wise to him in connection with this affair. Nor shall I
inquire what your sentiment is with regard to his candor
towards yourself, in making the National Gazette the vehicle
by deception practiced upon you of an imposture, delib-
erately planned for the purpose of devoting me to ruin in
the good opinion of my country.
You tell me in your letter of the 22nd instant that the
country will be satisfied. I hope it will. I have said and I
repeat that I would be content to leave the cause to the ver-
dict of western intelligence. But prejudice will not be
satisfied, and there is no rag so shabby but jealousy will take
it for a handkerchief.
As to the navigation of the Mississippi, subject to the
restrictions and limitations expressly prescribed in our
proposal, I certainly thought little of the objections started
26o THE WRITINGS OF [1822
against it. These objections were all speculative and were
contradicted by all former experience. But after the pro-
posal had been made and rejected distinctly on the ground
that it offered substantially nothing, I certainly did not
dream that a member of the mission would dare to represent
it as intended to give free and unlimited access to British
traders and smugglers, and as holding a scourge over the
unoffending citizens of the west. The objections to allowing
a right of navigating the Mississippi thus limited seem to
me a mere mystification. It is the mere right of travelling a
highway. By the treaties of Vienna in 181 5 the right of
navigating all the rivers of Germany is stipulated for all
mankind. The people of the United States enjoy it as much
as the people of Wiirtemberg and Bavaria. What should you
think if Hardenberg, who was one of the signers of these
treaties, should now come out with a manifesto against
Metternich, who also signed them, for having opened a
Pandora's box of democracy in Germany by stipulating the
right of navigating the German rivers to the Republicans of
the United States.'*
Persecution makes a man an egotist in spite of himself and
egotism always ends by making itself tedious. I say no more
for the present, but I do not promise that I shall write to
you upon this subject no more. What I have written is only
for your personal information and to obtain that of the time
when you received the copy published in the National
Gazette on the loth.
I remain, etc.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 261
TO CHARLES JARED INGERSOLL
Private. Washington, 3 June, 1822.
Dear Sir:
It was from you that I received the first intimation of the
subfluvlal torpedo which was from the turbid bottom of
the Mississippi to blow me up. But I had no suspicion then
that Mr. Jonathan Russell had volunteered to be chief
engineer for the explosion. If that ingenious person should
suffer a little hy the operation of his own machine, he must
seek an equivalent for it wherever it may be found.
The only proper question in this case affecting the char-
acter of the majority of the Ghent mission is not what was
the comparative value of the Mississippi navigation and the
fisheries, but what their Instructions authorized and re-
quired them to do. And so conscious was the letter writer
of this that when he came to bring forth his duplicate, he
found it necessary to put a second charge into the gun and to
accuse his colleagues of direct violation of instructions. To
which and with admirable address he cites an Instruction
which had been revoked and cancelled.
But suppose the question were of the comparative value
of the two things. You say that much may be said on both
sides. Certainly, much of truth on one side and much of
Imagination on the other. For set your prejudices aside,
take our proposition as it was made, limited and restricted
as It was, and I defy you to specify any value of which it
could be to Great Britain and any injury that it could be to
us. And so sensible of this too is the letter writer that from
the very nullity of its value as it stood he takes ground to
argue that we must be presumed to have intended to yield
more than the article did In itself purport. And then giving
262 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
the range to his imagination, he makes a bear of a bush and
charges his colleagues with having let the wild beast loose,
and set him upon the unoffending people of the west. It was
from necessity and not from choice that he resorted to this
expedient. Of the real proposition he could have made
nothing to excite suspicion or odium against his colleagues.
He then treated their proposition as he now treats his own
letter.
The truth is that our proposition was made to meet the
British demand, and I venture to say there was not one
member of the mission but was convinced the British govern-
ment would immediately reject it. From the time that they
gave up the claim to territory on the Mississippi they had no
interest in the right to navigate the river. Of what possible
use could it be to them clogged with the payment of duties
upon the merchandise to be floated down upon It.^ Their
only object was to try to get something for renouncing it.
They rejected our proposal, because it offered them nothing
and they plainly told us so. Since the peace they have given
up all pretension to It for nothing.
I say therefore there was neither value to them nor In-
convenience to us in the proposal that we made of allowing
them to navigate the Mississippi, In our enjoyment of the j
right of fishing within their jurisdiction and curing fish upon !
their shores there was both value to us and inconvenience to j
them. The exclusion of our fishermen from competition
with theirs would have been a double advantage to them.
And from the indefinite manner in which they had notified
the pretended forfeiture, and from the warning to our fisher-
men after the peace not to approach within sixty miles of
the shores, I have no doubt their intention was to exclude
us from the whole fishery. I ask you not to measure the
value of this fishery to the nation either by the amount of
I
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 263
tonnage employed in it, or by the proportional profits that
it yields to those who engage in it. No congressional docu-
ment, no office-patched up tables of registered tons, fish
quintals, bushels of salt, and dollars and cents, can give the
measure of value which a North American patriot should
set upon this fishery. It is in the first place the very best
nursery of seamen in the world. It breeds a race of men
enured to every hardship to whom danger and death are
playthings, and who are content to sport with them for
profits seldom exceeding a scanty subsistence. A race of
men of whom while it may be emphatically said
Their march is on the mountain wave,
Their home is on the deep,
it must with equal truth be added that there breathe not
throughout all the classes of our citizens men more de-
votedly attached to their country, men with hearts stouter
to defend or warmer to bleed in her cause. I name Com-
modore Samuel Tucker,^ to whom in the last stage of life
Congress have lately granted a pension for services surpassed
by none in the Revolutionary war, as one of that race of
men and as a fair sample of them all. Now in the valuation
of that interest which is to this race of men the breath of
life, I cannot allow it to be estimated in dollars and cents, or
consider it merely in the light of their separate and private
interest. Mr. Russell's frosty panegyric upon them in his
duplicate is as far from doing them justice, as that principle
of spurious republicanism with which it concludes, that the
interests of the few must be sacrificed to those of the many.^
The just and lawful interests of none are to be sacrificed to
those of the many. The interests of each and every one are
1 (1747-1843.)
2 Duplicate Letters, 87.
264 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
to be maintained and supported by the power of all. And
if in cases of necessity they must sometimes be abandoned, it
is not because the interests of the many must be preferred to
them, but because they cannot all be maintained. But the
interest of the fishermen in the fisheries is the smallest, in-
comparably the smallest part of their value. The interest
of each fisherman is but the value of the fish he can catch and
cure. The interest in the fisheries is all national, all belonging
to the whole community, and most severely would the
nation have felt it if they had been surrendered. You
have seen in my remarks that the proposed article, or
rather clause of an article, for restipulating the fisheries and
the Mississippi navigation was not offered by me. It was
offered by Mr. Gallatin. I assented to it with reluctance,
not because I believed there was anything objectionable in
it, but because it was objected to by Mr. Clay and might be
unacceptable to the western country. My principle was
that the fishing liberties were not forfeited by the war, and
I was content to rest their defence upon the formal notifica-
tion to the British government that we held and should
adhere to this principle. But it is not a little remarkable
that even the paragraph in which we did first assert this
principle in our correspondence with the British plenipoten-
tiaries was drawn up not by me but by Mr. Clay. He cer-
tainly did not tell us that he meant to word it in such a man-
ner as would leave him afterwards at liberty individually to
disavow it. I should have expressed it in a different manner,
for I did surely believe and do still believe it sound. I
accepted it however in the words of Mr. Clay and it effec-
tually answered my purpose. It gave notice to the British
government that we had not surrendered any part of the
fishing rights or liberties, and that without any new stipula-
tion we should still after the peace maintain our right to the
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 265
whole of them. The negotiations after the peace exhibit
the whole argument on both sides as to the question of the
abrogation of the treaty of 1783 and resulted in the com-
promise of the convention of 181 8. By this all the valuable
part of the fishing liberties, even within the exclusive juris-
diction of the British in its strictest sense, is secured to us
forever, and that exclusive jurisdiction of itself in the places
where we have renounced the liberty is limited to the distance
of three marine miles from the shore.
Mr. Pickering's opinion of the remarks is the more gratify-
ing to me for being barbed with reproach, as yours is doubly
pleasing by its concurrence with his approbation and by the
dissent from his censure.^ I am at some loss to account for
the tempest of critical animosity through which my 4th of
July address is yet passing, for it is scarcely a month since a
new pamphlet was published against it in New York.^ My
vanity takes some consolation in the singularity of the fact
that a fourth of July address should be a subject of criticism
nine months after it was delivered. . . .
1 am, etc.
^ "About ten days ago, I was at the same dinner table with Mr. Pickering (old
Timothy) and Mr. Gaillard of the Senate. Mr. G., who knew the enmity borne
to you by Mr. P., asked, with a waggish intention, what he thought of your con-
troversy with Mr. Russell. Mr. P. replied with great earnestness: 'Sir, I regard
Mr. Russell as a man fairly done over. Mr. Adams will be exalted in the estimation
of New England by his Remarks, and ought to be exalted in any part of the world.
He has nearly effaced with me the impression of his 4th July oration.' You are
aware how much you sinned against the faith of the veteran federalist in the ora-
tion." Walsh to John Quincy Adams, June 3, 1822. Ms.
'The controversy between Adams and Russell has been most unwisely provoked
by the latter; the triumph seems, in the opinion of every one, to be given to the
former. No antecedent document has been more in favor of Mr. Adams' talents,
and none will be more useful to him, tho' I do not see that his course is free from
great discouragement." Rufus King to Christopher Gore, June 5, 1822. Life and
Correspondence of Rufus King, VI. 474.
2 Remarks on the Address, New York, 1822.
266 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, 8th June, 1822.
Dear Sir:
Acquiescing entirely in the wish intimated in your favor
of the 3rd instant I shall, until Mr. Russell's reply shall
appear, consider as altogether confidential the facts com-
municated to Mr. Brent and me, concerning the manner in
which the triplicate with its annotations and various readings
obtained access to the National Gazette. Till then also I shall
cheerfully wait for the information of the time when you
received the copy for publication.
From whatever source the false version in the Aurora to
which you allude did proceed, it is false in all its parts and
infamously false in its insinuations. No part of the transac-
tion is more base than the use of Mr. Bayard's name, as it
has been used in the Aurora and in the Franklin Gazette.
Mr. Bayard did not finally come over to the opinion of
Mr. Clay and Mr. Russell, either with regard to the pro-
posal for allowing the navigation of the Mississippi, or with
regard to the permanency of all our rights and liberties
under the treaty of 1783. If Russell dares under his name to
assert that he did, you may set it down as an assertion upon
a level with that "trust in God" in his dupHcate penned in
the very act of committing an imposture. The dark* in-
nuendo in the Aurora of a case said to have been hypothet-
ically put by Mr. Bayard, of a barter of some advantage in
the fur trade for pecuniary influence to promote views upon a
high station, seems to me too ridiculous to deserve a denial.
That Bayard ever expressed such a sentiment with reference
to me I do not believe. But if he or any one else ever did it
was utterly without foundation. There is no form in which
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 267
language could clothe such a suggestion but I would meet It
with a direct denial.
The Aurora and the Franklin Gazette are equally intent in
the face of the facts upon fixing exclusively upon me the
proposal of the clause offering the navigation of the Missis-
sippi for the fishing liberties. The proposal was not made by
me but by Mr. Gallatin. Even the paragraph in our note
of loth November to the British Plenipotentiaries, which
asserted the permanency of all the fishing rights and liberties
from the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783 and the
nature of the rights and liberties themselves, was drawn up
not by me but by Mr. Clay.
You have doubtless remarked the effect upon the purport
of a very great portion of Mr. Russell's letter produced by
the substitution of the words "we could" in the duplicate
and Gazette copies, for the words "I can" in the real letter.
The real letter pretends to give information concerning the
nature and value of the fisheries, the best that he could
obtain. He gives it as knowledge of his own, without pre-
tending that It ever had been communicated by him, or that
it had ever been known to any other member of the mission
at Ghent. The necessary import of the words "we could"
is, that the nature and value of the fisheries had been thor-
oughly discussed by the mission; that we had taken pains to
obtain Information and that what he gives was the result of
our Inquiries. It is impossible to read the duplicate or the
Gazette copy without receiving from it that impression. Now
we neither had nor could obtain any particular information
concerning the comparative value of the different portions
of the fisheries, nor was their value ever a subject of discus-
sion among us. If he had ever obtained such information as
he deals out in his letter, he never imparted it to his col-
leagues; and if he had, two of them at least, Mr. Gallatin and
268 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
myself, would have known that it was misinformation. But
neither of us had much positive knowledge of the subject.
While the negotiations were pending I wrote to my father
requesting of him such information as he possessed or could
obtain concerning this interest. I received his answers
after the conclusion of the peace in England. I now send
you papers containing the information which was thus
obtained, and was used in the negotiations subsequent to
the peace with Great Britain. The letters from Mr. Lloyd,
Mr. Keating (the friend to the fisheries) and Mr. Ignatius
Sargent, will show you how little Russell knew of the subject
or how grossly he misrepresented it. My dear father's
letters will amuse you by their originality and point. The
seal is the same which you will find on this packet, and was a
device of his own which he had caused to be engraved at the
time of the peace of 1783.^ I add also a printed copy of the
instructions to Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Rush for negotiating
the convention of 20th October, 1818. All these papers are
now communicated to you in special confidence for two
reasons. First, because Mr. Russell has thought proper to
make the National Gazette the medium of his attack against
the majority of the Ghent mission before the public. I wish
you therefore to be thoroughly possessed of the merits of the
whole subject. And secondly, because if, as is very likely,
this controversy should continue and spread, I have yet
much to say to the nation concerning it. I shall remain
strictly upon the defensive and obtrude nothing upon the
public without necessity. My remarks have been charged
with undue severity; judge you from these papers whether I
have not dealt with him in mercy.
I ask of you to read the enclosed papers with undivided
attention, and with particular regard to their chronological
^ See p. 273, infra.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 269
order as connected with the Ghent negotiations and with
Mr. Russell's real letter from Paris. The newspaper essay-
signed "Richelieu" you will see was written in March, 181 5,
about a month after Russell's letter, and takes precisely the
ground which I had taken at Ghent. I know not who was the
author of it. Lloyd you will see was afraid of the effect of
the British notification of forfeiture. He did not know of our
counter notification, nor was It as you know ever made public
till brought forth by Dr. Floyd's first call for the residue of
the Ghent treaty papers.
The papers in the Franklin Gazette against my remarks
consider our fishing rights on the Grand Bank and the open
sea as resulting from natural right inseparable from our
independence. Had this been the case we should have
needed no article in the treaty of 1783 to secure it. But the
whole fishery from the Banks of Newfoundland to the
extremity of the coast of Labrador is an appropriated fishery,
exclusively belonging till our revolution to the British and
French nations. It was granted by the British sovereigns
like all the territorial rights by their charters, which if
Mr. Russell had known he might have saved himself all his
profound research into rights by prescription. His doctrine
that the king of England might have interdicted the rights
of the colonists to the fisheries would not have been sound
whig doctrine in 1775. The right was rigorously national,
and in all the New England and Nova Soctia charters it was
granted with an express reservation of a participation in
it to all British Subjects. The Newfoundland fishery had
been declared a free and unlicensed fishery by act of parlia-
ment as early as the reign of Edward 6th. The king could
grant these rights by charter, but he could not take them
away.
In committing to you the enclosed papers I must request
270
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
your very special care, after you shall have perused them, to
send them back to me. If as I apprehend is possible this
correspondence begins to grow oppressive to you, I will for-
bear pursuing it further.
I remain, etc.
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, 21st June, 1822.
Dear Sir:
Your letters of the nth and i6th instants have been duly
received and with the latter the budget which I had sent you
relating to the fisheries. I am duly sensible to your obliging
offer of communicating to the public any observations which
may be necessary and appropriate to my defence against
that war of defamation which, according to your friends of
the Richmond Enquirer, did not commence till I was hors de
combat. So that it seems my ci-devant Ghent colleague was
employed to stab me three or four times after I was dead,
that he might claim the reward for having despatched me
himself.
When I see Mr. Jefferson, with the snows of fourscore
winters upon his head and with all the claims of a life de-
voted to the service of his country and of mankind to the
veneration of all, hunted in the face of evidence as a fraud-
ulent peculator of a sum less than 1200 dollars by "a native
of Virginia" ^ with a malignity and pertinacity equal to but
not surpassing the address and cunning of the accusation,
I am willing to forget the charges equally false and equally
base of the same native of Virginia against myself. That his
charges against me are all as false as that against Mr. Jeffer-
' See Wntings of Jeferson (Ford), X. 208.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 271
son I affirm, and have proved to the satisfaction of the
Committee of Congress upon the expenditures in the De-
partment of State. Their report was I believe published in
the National Gazette, and I now mention it, because by your
naming the native of Virginia I thought you might perhaps
have some reference to his charges against me.
The Richmond Enquirer is sensitive enough (not too much
so) to the baseness of the denunciation of Mr. Jefferson by
"a native of Virginia;" but when a "Native of Massachu-
setts" with equal malice and with deeper depravity falls
foul of me, and compels me to retort upon him in self-de-
fence, the Enquirer is ready to shout for joy at the sight of
two Massachusetts men in conflict with each other, and
delights in the anticipation that they will both lose character
by the controversy — an observation which might with as
much propriety be made by the winner and the loser of what
the governor of Virginia calls "Property acquired by crime"
upon the highway.
The Richmond E7iquirer does not approve of me for next
President for the United States. This declaration Is fair and
candid, nor have I a word to say in objection to it; but when
in setting forth my sins it charges me with a proposal to let
the British Into the heart of our country, it is neither fair, nor
candid, nor true. And as it considered me hors de combat for
the Presidency even before the last kick which is to prove
my coup de grace, to join in the slander upon me was as
needless as it was ungenerous. If the editors of the Rich-
mond Enquirer ^ and of a dozen other newspapers in the
United States would sincerely and honestly consider me as
hors de combat, they would save themselves much of the
labor they are yet to undergo in flirting from their scavenger
carts mud in my face to finish me.
^ Thomas Ritchie and Gooch.
272
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
Situated as I am I well know how hopeless a task It would
be to attempt the refutation of the falsehoods which are con-
stantly circulating against me in the newspapers. For every
amputated head of the hydra there will always be two new
ones to shoot up. Slander is the first and most efficacious of
electioneering engines among us, but newspaper slander is
not that which has operated or will operate most unfavorably
to me. An undercurrent of calumny has been flowing and
will continue to flow in every direction throughout the Union,
nothing of which appears In the newspapers, but it goes in
whispers and In private correspondence. It Is a branch of
the caucusing system, and It adapts its movements to the
feelings and prejudices of the different sections of the coun-
try. It has a story for Pittsburg and a story for Portland, a
misrepresentation for Milledgeville and a lie for Lexington.
I have notice of all this undermining from every quarter of
the Union, and in several Instances from persons total
strangers to me. In others by anonymous letters. I have no
countermining at work to blast the reputation of others and
seldom attempt even to defend my own. I make no bargains.
1 listen to no overtures for coalition. I give no money. I
push for no appointments of canvassing partisans to office.
This utter Inability to support my own cause passes among
the caucus mongers for simplicity approaching to Idlotlsm.
I know it has been an avowed motive to some and a success-
ful argument to others for resorting to other standards, and
during the late session of Congress there was so animated a
recruiting service and so general an enlistment, that Duane
and Ritchie had good reason for concluding that I, who had
neither Captain Plume nor Sergeant Kite to recruit for me,
was hors de combat.
Enough and too much of myself. My great concern is
for principles. You are not yet convinced that the American
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
273
people after the rupture with the mother country could be
said to have the right to fish within the limits of her jurisdic-
tion, nor that the last war did not abrogate the treaty of
1783. Yet the very extract you have had the goodness to
send me of Lord Loughborough's speech ^ proves the light
in which it was viewed by all parties at that time. As much
as the seal with the motto "piscemur, venemur ut glim."
At the time of the Declaration of Independence the people
of the United States enjoyed, in common with the rest of the
British nation of which they had till then formed a part, and
under certain stipulated participations in it enjoyed by
France, the Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Gulph of St.
Lawrence, and Labrador fisheries, with the appurtenant
rights of drying and curing fish upon certain unsettled shores
which were necessary for the exercise of a part of the right of
fishing. For the purpose of the argument the whole must be
considered, as it is in fact, one fishery. It was all an appro-
priated fishery belonging exclusively to the British nation,
with the reserve of a limited participation in it enjoyed by
the French.
By the law of nature the people of the United States had a
peculiar right to participate in this fishery, because a part
of it was upon a part of their own coast, and the whole of it
in their immediate vicinity. But whatever portion of the
right they derived from the law of nature it was not derived
from the Declaration of Independence but from their
locality. They had always enjoyed it before and continued
to enjoy it after that event. The Declaration of Independ-
ence neither gave nor took it away. The Spanish colonies
which have recently declared their independence have no
more right to it than Spain herself.
But the people of the United States had enjoyed it as a
* Quoted in Duplicate Letters, 189.
274 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
part of the property of the British nation in common with
the rest of that nation. This is the portion of right which
after the Declaration of Independence they could no longer
claim as British subjects. But in the exchanging by the
Declaration of Independence the rights of British subjects
for those of a distinct and separate sovereignty, they main-
tained the right of participation in this fishery as a possession
in common with the British nation as it had been enjoyed
before. The right to the fishery was like the right to the
writ of habeas corpus, a British right which they neither
forfeited nor surrendered by the Declaration of Independence.
This principle they eflfectually maintained at the negotia-
tion of the peace of 1782, and by the third article of the
treaty obtained the acknowledgment of it by Great Britain.
It was only by that same treaty that the remaining British
colonies in America became to the people of the United
States a foreign jurisdiction, and in the same act by which
they recognized this they reserved to themselves the fishing
rights and liberties which they had possessed while the
jurisdiction was the same as their own, and to this principle
Great Britain assented by the treaty. Lord Loughborough's
objection to the article is on that very account, and shows
that it was universally so understood. j
Consider now that the jurisdiction became foreign and the
fishing liberties within it were reserved by one and the same
act. The boundary line severed the jurisdictions which had
been one in two. The third article acknowledged the con-
tinuance of the American fishing rights and liberties in the
places which had been within the common jurisdiction but
were thenceforth to be within the jurisdiction exclusively
British. Then look at Vattel, Book ist, Ch. 23, §§ 279-287,
especially the latter part of this last section, ^ and you have
' Duplicate Letters, i88.
I
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 275
my reasons for considering our fishing liberties witliin the
British jurisdiction, as so acknowledged by Great Britain, that
we could never forfeit nor she exclude us from them but by
conquest or a new compact.
If you will attentively read the third article of the pre-
liminaries of 30 November, 1782, which is in the same words
as the third article of the definitive treaty of 1783, you will
see that there is no distinctive mark of places within or
without the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. There is
nothing said of exclusive jurisdiction. It agrees
That the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy
unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank
and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of
St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea where the inhab-
itants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish.
And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have
liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of New-
foundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure
the same on that island), and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of
I all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America. And
that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure
fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors and creeks of Nova
Scotia, Magdalen Islands and Labrador so long as the same shall
remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall
be settled it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure
fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that
purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the
ground.
Now observe that the whole of the fishing rights and
liberties thus described in this article were at the time of our
Declaration of Independence within the exclusive jurisdiction
of Great Britain for all the purposes of the fisheries. The
276 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
Grand Bank was, for this purpose, just as much British
property as the desert rocks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen
Islands, and Labrador. It had been so recognized by France
in the treaties of Utrecht and of Paris in 1763, and by Spain
in the same treaties. Spain in the latter treaty had formally
renounced all pretensions of a right to fish there, and no
other nation had ever pretended to the right, not even those
pre-eminent fishermen the Dutch. Where do you mean to
draw the line of your argument.^ What part of the article
do you mean to contend was within and what part without
the exclusive British jurisdiction.? What part of it was and
what part was not according to your view abrogated by the
war of 1812.?
If you can draw the line, at least the British plenipoten-
tiaries at Ghent, when they notified us that Great Britain did
not intend to grant again the right to fish within exclusive
British jurisdiction, took special care not to draw it. They
said they did not mean to deny us the right of fishing in the
open seas as all other nations might; and what, think you, that
would have meant if we had agreed that the treaty of 1783
was abrogated by the war.? Why, it would have meant the
whole fishery in the South Seas. If we had surrendered the
liberty of the third article of the treaty, tell me what we
should have left ourselves to say in defence of the right
recognized by the same article. That we claimed it as an
independent nation.? What.? With the treaties of Utrecht
and of Paris before us; with Louis the 14th submitting to an
exclusion of thirty leagues from the Isle of Sable; with Spain
renouncing all pretension to the right of fishing even upon
the Grand Bank? Is it with Great Britain that we could
have maintained it as a common right of all nations, after
admitting that our peculiar right, as recognized by herself
in the treaty of 1783, was abrogated by the war.? She
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 277
would have told us that that question had been settled cen-
turies ago. That no part of the Newfoundland fisheries was
common to all nations. She would have cited in proof of
this not only her own statesmen and jurists; not only the
treaties of Utrecht and Paris; but the lawyers and historians
of France — Valin, who with reference to this very fishery
alleges soundings as the limit of exclusive jurisdiction for a
fishery {Commentaire sur Vordonnance de la Marine^ Vol. II,
pp. 668 and 779) and Raynal, who, while asserting that the
fishery on the Grand Bank by natural right ought to have
been common to all mankind, admits that it had been
appropriated exclusively to France and Great Britain. To
all this what could we have replied.^ That we would fight
for \t\ Then why not fight for the whole.? And why sur-
render the very strongest of our title deeds, ancient posses-
sion and explicit acknowledgment.?
And what difference was there in the nature of the thing
between the exclusive jurisdiction over a waste of waters on
the Grand Bank, and over a wilderness of rocks on the
desolate coasts of Labrador.? Our liberty was to take, dry,
and cure fish in unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks. It was
to have the transient occasional use of rocks and sand banks
for the only purpose to which they could be applied. The
huntsman of the ocean pursued his prey into these bays, and
harbors, and creeks, and there they could no longer escape
him. But he was yet as far from the habitations of men as he
had been upon the Grand Bank. It was not a populous
vicinage, where laws, and institutions, and magistracies
existed, with which the intrusion of foreigners must be
forbidden to preserve unsullied their dignity and their
authority unimpaired. The jurisdiction was but a word.
There was nothing for territorial jurisdiction to operate
upon — no inhabitants, no government, nothing but fisher-
278 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
men and fish. The moment a settlement took place the use
of the shores was to cease, unless by agreement with the
inhabitants. What mystical sanctity then was there in these
bays, creeks, and harbors, or on these barren rocks and
desert shores, which could make them liable to the narrow
limits and subject to the common interdictions of a populous
settlement.^ Why should they be secluded from the use of
American fishermen more than the open seas.^ Why made
more inaccessible to the only useful purposes that they
could subserve than the billows of the Grand Bank.^ They
had none of the attributes of exclusive property but for the
purposes of fishery, and the Grand Bank had the same. If
then the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the War of 1812 as
to the liberties specified in the third article, it was equally
abrogated for the rights. If, as Mr. Russell contends, we
were after signing the peace of Ghent bereft of all fair claims
to the one, we were equally stript of all just pretension to the
other. And this seems to be your opinion, since you con-
sider the whole treaty of 1783 as having been abrogated by
the war.
Let us admit for the sake of argument that it was. You
do not understand that the rights which Great Britain ac-
knowledged by that treaty as belonging to us were abrogated
with it. Her acknowledgme7it of our independence was not
abrogated. I speak not of our independence as maintained
and declared by ourselves, but of her acknowledgment of it.
She could not revoke that. Whatever we may have been to
ourselves and to others, she at least had considered us as her
subjects, and it was only by virtue of her own acknowledg-
ment in that treaty that she was bound to consider us as an
independent nation. She had waged a war of seven years
against us as rebels after our Declaration of Independence.
If the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the War of 1812, why
I
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 279
could she not again claim our allegiance and treat us as
rebels? If you insist that our independence rested even as
to Great Britain exclusively upon our own declaration, what
do you make of the boundary line which existed and could
exist only by the treaty? Why could not the British plen-
ipotentiaries have told us that their government would not
grant us without an equivalent the same boundary as they
had in 1782? If then our independence and our boundary,
which as to the obligation of Great Britain to recognize them
existed only by the treaties of 1782 and 1783, were not im-
paired by the War of 1812, upon what principles could she
revoke either the rights or the liberties in the fisheries which
she had in like manner acknowledged as belonging to us by
the third article of each of these treaties? They were all
acknowledgments of pre-existing possessions, and the
liberties were no more revocable at the will of Great Britain
nor more forfeitable by mere war than the rights. They
were recoverable for her only by conquest, and that could be
consummated only by our renunciation expressed in the
treaty of peace, or implied by our assent to her insidious
assumption that it had been effected by the war alone.
This argument is susceptible of much more development,
with which I will not now trouble you; but as I mean upon
this question to make a conquest of you I must call in
auxiliaries and they shall be British statesmen. You have
furnished me with one yourself in Lord Loughborough. If
you have access to Hansard's Parliamentary History, look
into the debate in the House of Lords upon the peace of
Amiens. See what Lord Auckland and the Chancellor say
on the ministerial, and Lord Carnarvon on the opposite side
of the House — pages 704-5-6, 714-5 and 727.^ If all this is
not sufficient to convert you to repentance, I must turn you
^ Duplicate Letters, 195.
28o THE WRITINGS OF [1822
over to Frederick of Prussia and Dr. Franklin, together with
Mr. Jefferson and my father. See at the close of the 24th
article of our first treaty with Prussia ^ with what contempt
those sound political moralists speak of the pretence that
war dissolves all treaties.
This letter Is but the membra disjecta poetae, the mere
chaos of an argument, without order or method. I wait to
see what Mr. Russell will make of his argument in his reply.^
If he maintains his point with plausibility, I shall perhaps
send you hereafter the paper signed "Richelieu" for repub-
lication as you have kindly offered. And extracts from
Mr. Lloyd's letter, for which however I must first obtain his
consent. My English authorities from the debate on the
Peace of Amiens are furnished me by another learned and
ingenious friend, also a Senator of the United States.
Very faithfully yours.
TO PETER PAUL FRANCIS DEGRAND
Washington, 5th July, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I cannot refrain from thanking you for your letter of the
28th, which I esteem as one of the most precious proofs of
your friendship for It tells me of my faults.
I will treat Jonathan Russell as mercifully as Is possible
consistently with the duty of exposing him In his true colors.
If he had submitted with a good grace to my first castiga-
tion, or even had confined his reply to self-defence, I would
have left him to the charity of the public. But he tries to
' Duplicate LetUrs, 193.
* It appeared in the Boston Statesman, June 22, 1822, and was included in the
Duplicate Letters, 119. Adams, Memoirs, July i, 17, 22, 1822.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 281
make me appear such another as himself. I must put him
down again a Httle deeper than before. As long as he pre-
tends to maintain the accusatory style I must cover him with
shame and confusion of face. If he wishes for peace with me
he must hold out the white flag. I should be sorry to lose the
friendship of Mr. Barney Smith, ^ and shall in no wise de-
serve to lose it. They who want a President with a cool
head must vote for one. And so must they who want a
President with an honest heart. If they can hit upon a man
uniting both, so much the better for them.
Faithfully yours.
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, 15th July, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I duly received your favor of the 9th and sympathize
cordially with you in the effects of that profuse distribution
of caloric, as one of our worthy and learned friends here
has it, which has been made during the present month. It
has disqualified me as completely as you say it has you, of
which you will have proof in the course of the week from the
National Intelligencer. Your Southerners pretend that the
nearer the sun, there is the more intellect. But if I judge of
its effects upon myself I say it stupefies.
When I said I did not wish you to depart from your
neutrality between Mr. Russell and me, I meant it only with
reference to your editorial capacity and to the personal part
of the controversy. Upon what the French call the procede
on both sides I think you have been entirely neutral, and I
wish you to continue so as much as you possibly can con-
1 Russell's father-in-law.
282 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
sistently with what is due to moral principle as affected by
the conduct of public men. I want no other auxiliary to
put down Mr. Russell as a man of candor than himself.
Upon the political principles in discussion between him and
me you have not been neutral. In acquitting me and my
colleagues of the Ghent majority of all evil intentions, you
did in the main take side with him on the principles asserted
by him on the publication of his first letter. Now if you have
not seen or do not see cause in the course of the discussion
which has taken and will take place to revise your opinions,
as they were expressed on the first, perusal of his letter,
I shall be very glad if you can conscientiously maintain
your neutrality upon them hereafter, because we have yet
great national interests at stake upon the correctness of the
principle that the treaty of 1783 was not, or at least that
none of the rights or liberties recognized in it were abrogated
by the war. Nothing but that principle saved the fisheries
after the last peace, and if we waver upon it we shall have
the question up again the first war we may have with Great
Britain, If on a thorough examination of what I have to say
in support of my principle you remain unconvinced, I then
ask your neutrality because it is our side of the question. If
otherwise I should certainly be glad to have on a final
editorial view of the whole discussion your support. For
on these points I can truly say to you as Frederick the second
said to Laudohn, "J'aime mieux vous avoir de mon cote que
vis-a-vis.
As to what personally concerns myself in my letter of
21 ultimo I will thank you to take no notice of it in public
whatever. I mentioned it to let you know I was aware of
most of the machinery at work against me, as well under as
above ground, and I am walking between burning plough-
shares here. I take it however as philosophically as I can.
t
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 283
A man must fulfil his destiny. And let the will of the people
be done. I will not stir a finger to direct it towards myself.
I am, etc.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 22nd July, 1822.
My Dearest Louisa:
We continue to be delighted almost daily with your
journalizing letters which, together with our visits to the
theatre, enliven the dulness of our half solitude. Scarcely a
day passes indeed but I have new visitors at my office, but
they are merely candidates for office and, though of course all
persons of extraordinary merits, their conversation has no
tendency to make or keep one cool in these dog days. On
the progress of the feud between Colonel Cumming and
Mr. McDuffie I marvel a little and meditate much.^ I
marvel chiefly that with all the publicity that has for so long
a time been given to it, the cause of the duel has never yet
been made known. In my estimation of things this is a
piece of preliminary information essential to the making up
of an opinion upon what has followed and is like to follow.
I regret that men so capable of better things as both these
gentlemen appear to be should suffer their passions to lead
their fortitude into this direction which it has taken. And
there is an inflexibility in the conduct of Cumming which
seems akin to bloodthirstiness. But it must be considered
that he is as eager to expose his own life as to take that of his
antagonist, and according to the code of single combat his
course has at least the appearance of consistency. Yet if
they are to fight again I cannot help wishing his adversary
may be as successful at the second shot as he was at the first.
^ See Sabine, Notes on Duels and Duelling, 242, 326.
284 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
I have some curiosity to learn whether with a ball lodged in
the small of his back he would be as earnest for another shot
then and there, as he was for a chance against an adversary
in that condition.'
From the explanation which Judge Johnson has given it
would seem that he really did not intend to reflect upon the
court of magistrates and freeholders. I have not seen his
pamphlet, and do not know whether he has assigned the
reason why he did just at that time publish anonymously
the narrative which gave offence.
George and I and all the family here are well save gasping
for breath from the heat. I am drudging like a slave in self-
defence against brother Jonathan, though I know very well
that his character can never be put down much lower than he
has put it himself by his reply to my remarks. But though
he had no good defence to make of himself, he did turn upon
me with a new quiver of Lilliputian arrows which I have
thought it my duty to shake off. My present intention is if
he writes again, to let him have the last word; but I have
not done with his late publication yet. I see the public are
getting weary of the controversy, but they are the first to
show it who are afraid that I shall not leave even a nail in
their hands to scratch me with.
On Saturday we had for a farce at the theatre, the Mid-
night hour, a translation - from the French of Ruse contre
sense ou guerre ouverte. Do you remember seeing it at poor
Coulalncourt's, and the comments to which it gave rise
there.-* I believe it was his compliment de cloture at the court
of Alexander. It was very amusing then and is now.
George is plunged head over ears in the Fortunes of Nigel.
Yours affectionately.
• Adams, Memoirs, October 5, 1822.
* By Elizabeth Inchbald.
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 285
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 25th July, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
Another number of your journal came to hand this day.
I mark your advice to say nothing more upon the subject of
the "diplomatic controversy," ^ and I am much inclined that
way myself. I have no desire to put him down lower than
he has put himself, but the opinions upon objects of great
interest avowed and urged in his letters want putting down
much more than the man. And I have written what would
put them down forever, and make Walsh ashamed of what
he has said in their favor. Whether I shall publish it or not
is a question. But I have it nearly all written and mean to
finish it completely.
Walsh has contradicted me by a subterfuge. He says that
his editorial remarks of 10 May were all written by himself,
but the professions, and the apologies, and the vouchers, of
which they consist, all came from Mr. Russell himself
directly or indirectly. Russell's friend,- through whom the
manuscript was communicated, vouched for its correctness as
a copy. It was not correct. It was neither the original nor
the duplicate, but a mongrel bred from both. The remark
that the letters being private did not imply that it was
secret, must have come from Russell, or it was a remark
which Walsh should not have made, for it misled the public.
1 "I am weary and sick at heart of what they call the 'diplomatic controversy,'
and have been much more mortified than proud of a victory over brother Jonathan.
I had never any ill will to him and did all but entreat him not to force himself and
me before Congress and the nation." To Louisa Catherine Adams, July 23, 1822.
Ms.
2 Robert M. Patterson.
286 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
The letter was secret as well as private — secret at least to
those whom it accused.
I did not and do not desire that Mr. Walsh should side
with me in this matter. All I asked of him was neutrality.
He says the facts against Russell are overwhelming. This is
more than I desired him to say. The verdict of the public
was already given. But I think he ought not to have con-
tradicted me as to the editorial remarks; at least without
admitting that although written by himself, he had the
substance of them from Mr. Russell or his friend, which was
all I meant to say.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 2nd August, 1822.
• •••••*
My friend Walsh has no cause to be uneasy at his neu-
trality between brother Jonathan and me. He could have no
just reason to decline publishing his letter, and after pub-
lishing it I think he was in some sort bound to be neutral
between us. He has fairly given both sides of the question,
and in one of his last papers he says that I have the best
of the personal part of the controversy. If there were a
human being who after hearing both sides hitherto said
otherwise, I should have thought even this too much for
him to say. But I care nothing about the personal part of
the controversy. I once thought Jonathan Russell my friend
and valued his friendship. I now bear him no more ill will
than Uncle Toby did to the fly that annoyed him by his
buzzing. But the mischief is in his principles, and Walsh
li
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 287
has not only departed from neutrality upon them, but com-
mitted himself so deeply in publishing the letters without
waiting to hear what I had to say against them, that I ex-
pect he will never be on the right side concerning them. Ask
him if he has seen the comments upon the controversy in the
Louisville Public Advertiser, and an answer to them of about
half a column in the Argus of Western America, a paper
printed at Frankfort, Kentucky.^ The piece I mean is in
the paper of 18 July, and if I mistake not comes from the
first hand. It betrays not a little vexation and disappoint-
ment, and contains proportionally as much misrepresenta-
tion as Jonathan's own productions. It seems that In Ken-
tucky the question has been asked how, if the Mississippi
proposition was so desperately wicked, Mr. Clay came to
sign his name to it.^ And In this paper, which Is anonymous
and headed " The Ghent Mission,''^ he Is defended upon the
ground of the new instructions. Jonathan says the new In-
structions had no effect on the question at all, and appeals to
Clay for the assertion that the question was never taken
after they were received. But this piece is as spiteful against
^Hhe Secretary''^ as Jonathan himself. It says, if the Secretary
were President, and the British were to claim the navigation
of the Mississippi tomorrow, he would be obliged to grant the
claim or contradict his favorite principle. Jonathan in the
Boston Statesman says, by the way, much the same thing.
'Tis the last poor thread by which they think they have
the Secretary still entangled, but he will break It and could
wind it round Mr. Clay himself.
Last evening we saw Booth In Richard the third. He is
here engaged for five nights. The house was tolerably well
filled, but I did not like him so well as when I saw him in
England. He seemed to have little respect for his audience
^ It is included in Duplicate Letters, 233.
288 THE WRITINGS OF I1822
and not to think them worth pleasing. I doubt whether he
will fill the house even his five nights. . . .
Ever faithfully yours.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 5th August, 1822.
...♦•••
Your recommendation to me to cease viewing a place
hunter in every phiz, I suppose is connected with the advice
to make a summer excursion to visit my father. Most of
those whom I see here would think themselves very ill used
if I did not view them as place hunters, for they neither
desire to see nor to be seen by me in any other capacity. A
place or a subscription is the object of all the new acquaint-
ance that I make, and if I could satisfy the seekers of the
first of these classes as easily as I can those of the second,
they would not have so much reason to complain of my
vinegar aspect as they do. You may be assured that I feel
in the fullest extent the value of your advice, as well as the
affectionate motives by which it was inspired. But you are
sanguine in the observation that at this time all is warm in
my favor. The last attacks upon me have been in some
degree foiled. I have not been yet killed in the battle, and
the tool used against me has lost its edge or been broken in
the conflict. But the controversy is far, very far, from being
ended, and its management becomes more difficult the
farther I proceed. Upon the main topics of Jonathan's
letter my victory is not yet complete, and although I can
make it so in every part, I can not do it without exposing
him in lights more odious than those in which I have ex-
hibited him already. At this moment the public are so far
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 289
from favoring me, although they have done justice to him,
that a very large portion are on the lookout to catch me
tripping, and will seize upon the slightest indiscretion to
turn the tables against me.
The Richmond Enquirer has copied that part of the paper
in the Kentucky Argus, mentioned in my last letter to you,
which points out the direful consequences ^^ if the Secretary
should be President tomorrow^'' and calls upon me to answer
it. I shall answer it, not at all to the satisfaction of the
Enquirer. But the Enquirer has suppressed the part of the
paper in the Argus which admits that Mr. Clay signed all
the papers, and is therefore as responsible for the obnoxious
proposal as "the Secretary." The St. Louis Enquirer has
done better still. He has pompously published the Pres-
ident's messages to the House of 4 and 7 May, and Jona-
than's private letter, and has suppressed the duplicate and
the Secretary's remarks. These Enquirers stick to their
character. They still enquire, and take only such answers as
suit themselves.
Ever affectionately yours.
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, nth August, 1822.
My Dear Sir:
In the controversy which has arisen relating to the transac-
tions at Ghent, the public attention has hitherto been chiefly
confined to the circumstances incidental to it of recent date
in the conduct of Mr. Russell and of myself. From intima-
tions in some of my letters to you, and particularly from
incidents noticed in my paper republished in the National
Gazette of the 9th instant, you have observed that the origin
290
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
of this attack upon me is of much older existence, and that
the first preparation for it was laid in an alteration proposed
by Mr. Russell, as he stated at the request of Mr. Clay, to
the draft of the joint despatch from the mission of 25th
December, 18 14, to the Secretary of State. It had been
brewing ever since that time. Through the whole affair
Mr. Russell has only been ministerial in the part that he has
acted. I propose to make this rather better known to the
country; but as Mr. Russell is the only person as yet who has
pawned his name to this negotiation, it is only with him that
I have hitherto been at issue. The collection which I pro-
pose to publish will carry back the attention of those who
take interest in this concern to the beginning of these trans-
actions, and will show some part of the chain of incidents
which have brought the controversy to its present state.
The publication of one of the versions of Mr. Russell's letter
in the National Gazette of loth May is a circumstance of so
much import in the history of this league that I propose
further to notice It in my publication. But as in anything
which concerns you I wish to say nothing which might either
implicate you or be in any wise other than would be agreeable
to you, I now inclose a copy of what I am disposed to insert
if agreeable to you. It was not my intention in my late
rejoinder, as it is called, to intimate that your editorial
article was written by Mr. Russell, but that it was written
upon representations made to you by him personally, or
through a common friend. The extract from the cancelled
instructions of 15th April, 1813, for instance, which was
published in the editorial article I know could have come
only from him, and the paragraphs disavowing hostility
to me, referring to the passages in the letter professing
rtspcct for the majority and justifying the writing of the
letter as an ordinary and usual exposition of the views of the
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 291
minority, I could not but consider as having been suggested
to you by or from Mr. Russell himself. Upon those repre-
sentations it was not surprising to me that you entertained
the opinions expressed in the editorial article. But on his
part what could possibly be the motive for publishing his
letter in the National Gazette, unless it were that of fore-
stalling the public opinion before I could be heard, and the
editorial article, although not expressly acquitting me of
dishonorable purposes, did very distinctly approve of the
principles of Mr. Russell's letter in relation to the proceed-
ings at Ghent. Now as to the mere personal part of the
controversy I tell you in the sincerity of my heart that I am
much more ashamed than proud of my victory over him.
And every time that I hear, as I do, his conduct styled a
Yankee trick, I feel more mortification than I can ever take
. pleasure in his disgrace. But he did get the start of me as to
the principles discussed in his letter, and your editorial
article largely contributed in this respect to his success.'
Now his principles were good for nothing. Not one of them,
to use an elegant phrase of the Richmond Enquirer, will hold
water a whit more than his excuse for falsifying his own
letter. My publication will contain my argument upon the
I right to the fishing liberties, upon their value, upon the
nothingness of value to the British of the proffered right to
j navigate the Mississippi, and upon the abrogation of treaties
by war. But for you there will be nothing new in it, for I
[have already written to you all the substance of it. I have
desired you, if you retained your first impressions on these
[points, not to support them in your Gazette until you shall
jhave heard all I have to say against them. After the pub-
lication of my pamphlet, if you still retain them, I shall no
longer request you to refrain from discussing them as you
shall think proper. In that case I presume you will have no
292
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
objection to my republishing the whole of your editorial
article of loth May, as I propose from the enclosed paper.
If you have any objection to its republication, or to any part
of the enclosed paper, I will withhold or modify it in any
manner that may be agreeable to you. All that I consider
indispensable is the notice of the publication of the letter in
the Gazette, and of its variations from the original with spe-
cial reference to the cancelled instructions.
In some parts of the western country the purposes for
which this affair was got up in Congress are pursued as if
they had not been detected. The St. Louis Enquirer for
example publishes the President's message to the House of
7th May and Russell's private letter and suppresses the
duplicate and the remarks. This is a procedure which
Jonathan would call unilateral.
Let me have an answer as soon as convenient to this letter.
In the meantime I remain faithfully yours.
TO RUFUS KING
Washington, 15 August, 1822.
Dear Sir: ^■
I enclose herewith a copy of the British act of Parliament I
opening the British ports in America and the West Indies to
our vessels and a draft which I have prepared for a proc-
lamation of the President under the act of Congress of
4 May last. You will see the minute endorsed on the draft
of the proclamation by the President, and I ask the favor of: :
your opinion with regard to the propriety of the restriction^
which you will observe is reciprocal to that in the thirdj
section of the British act.
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 293
There is another question upon which I wish for your
opinion the more as I think the act of 6 May last was drawn
and matured by you. The authority of the President to
issue his proclamation opening the ports of the United States
to British vessels is to be exercised on satisfactory evidence
being given to him that the ports in the islands or colonies
in the West Indies under the dominion of Great Britain have
been opened to the vessels of the United States, and is to
operate in favor of British vessels employed in the trade and
intercourse between the United States and such islands or
colonies. There seems by the words of the act to be a limita-
tion to the trade with the islands and colonies in the West
Indies.
The British act opens certain ports not only in the West
Indies but in North America to the vessels of the United
States. Was it not the iiitention of the act of Congress of
6 May last to authorize the President to proceed pari passu
with the British government in opening the ports and of
course to open our ports to British vessels coming from
Quebec, Halifax, St. Johns, and St. Andrews, in New Bruns-
wick, and St. Johns, Newfoundland, as well as to those
coming from ports in the West Indies.^ I have so presumed
and have drafted the proclamation accordingly.
It is proper to apprise you that during the passage of the
British act through the House of Commons, a formidable
opposition appearing against it, one of the arguments used
against its passage was that it would not be met by a cor-
responding measure on the part of the United States.
Mr. Robinson the President of the Board of Trade in conse-
quence of this had an interview with Mr. Rush in which the
latter, though declaring that he had received no recent
instructions from us on the subject, expressed his entire
belief that in the event of the passage of the act correspond-
294
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
ing measures of a coextensive liberality would be imme-
diately adopted on our part.
If the restriction in the draft of the proclamation of
importations in British vessels to articles of the growth,
produce or manufacture of the island or colony from which
the vessel shall directly come be too narrow, would it be
expedient to insert in its stead a restriction to articles of the
growth, produce and manufacture of the British colonies in ;
the West Indies for vessels coming from the West Indies and
to articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of the
British colonies in North America for vessels coming from
North American ports? ^
I beg your answer as soon as may suit your convenience
and remain with great respect, dear Sir, very faithfully
yours.
P. S. I enclose also a letter from Colonel Aspinwall relating
to the British act. I have to request the return of all these
papers.
TO HENRY ALEXANDER SCAMMELL DEARBORN
Washington, 19th August, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I have received your friendly letter of the 13th instant
and am much gratified to be informed that the course which
I have pursued in my own defence and that of my colleagues
against the denunciation of Mr. Russell has met your appro-
bation. It has been on my part the discharge of a very
painful duty from which I thought it impossible for me to
' The proclamation, dated August 24, 1822, is in Messages and Papers of the
Presidents, II. 184.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 295
shrink. I regret exceedingly the predicament in which he
has placed himself and the necessity which he imposed upon
me of unveiling his conduct to the public. So far as the
controversy has been personal I have wished to withdraw
from it at the earliest possible moment; but the doctrines of
his letter, plausibly combined and artfully set forth as they
were, required a more complete and permanent counter-
action than the scattered fragments of a newspaper contest
could embrace. I hope that the people of the Union will
now look thoroughly into the question as it was really
stirred in the American mission at Ghent; that they will see
which was really the American side of that question, and
which the side of mere sectional, not interest but prejudice.
It was in truth a piece of mere chicanery, combining with
the enemy to deprive Massachusetts of her fisheries. If the
British were to ask by treaty for British subjects a right to
travel in the stage on the turnpike road from Boston to
Providence, it would be of just as much use to them and
just as much injury to us as a treaty right to navigate the
Mississippi, and as the laws are they have it equally without
treaty. Mr. Russell was one of the last men in the world
from whom I could have expected such an attack, nor had I
the slightest suspicion of it till he brought his duplicate to
the Department of State. After all he performs but a
subordinate part In the drama.
I am, etc.
296 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 23rd August, 1822.
My Dearest Louisa:
All your journals have been duly received, and I should
not have failed writing to you every day but for the occupa-
tion which absorbs all my leisure. When I first began the
remarks upon Jonathan's duplicate, I told you it was to me
an affair of more than life and death, and so it is still. The
plot has been seven years hatching, and its whole history has
not yet been told.
Your advice to treat all place hunters courteously is ex-
cellent, but you know there is a Scylla as well as a Charybdis.
One of the first objects of those worthy citizens is to obtain
a promise, and many of them are not at all scrupulous in
their modes of address to that end. Some ask it with down-
right importunity, others like elderly maiden ladies construe
a civil word and even a smile into a promise, and then if
not on the first possible occasion gratified, charge one with
giving delusive hopes and expectations. It is the bent of
my nature to be rather more willing to be thought harsh
than insincere.
I was diverted with the article of intelligence from Phil-
adelphia that I wear neither waistcoat, nor cravat, and
sometimes go to church barefooted. Some unknown friend
of mine In the City Gazette has gravely undertaken to justify
me against this charge, as if it were true. As for the cravat,
you know I must plead guilty, and vouch my black riband in
mitigation. But for the rest I take some comfort in the
thought that even In affairs of the importance attached to
dress, my backbiters are obliged to lie to abuse me. The
truth, that I am careless of dress, will not serve their turn.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 297
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 28th August, 1822.
• ••••••
1 had received a letter from Mr. Connell since his arrival,
in this country and a promise of a visit which I am expecting
from him. Connell told you of all the writers in the Franklin
Gazette but one, and that is T. Sergeant,^ our friend's brother.
But the principal hand is Dallas,- a young man who lacks
advancement, and is in a fair way to obtain it.
Ask Connell, If you see him again, or any other of your
visitors who talks politics, who is the editor of the Columbian
Observer, the new paper that is rising to take the place of the
setting Aurora — the paper that a fortnight back said I went
to church barefoot, and now says that piece of wit was
ironical. There is no helping it. The donkey will play the
lap dog.
As the weather is subsiding from fever heat I have re-
sumed my cravat; but you know there is always room, sum-
mer and winter, for ironical wags to make merry with my
dress. May my graver foes never have so good reason for
their charges.
My book as you call it will be a pamphlet of about two
hundred pages, three-fourths of which will be the papers
already published. It is about half printed, but I suppose
will be out before the end of the next month. I have done
writing for it, but as it has made warm dog-days for me, I
shall be glad if it does not prepare for me a warm winter.
The printers here publish it at their own expense and I have
not stipulated with them for so much as a copy. The public
^ Thomas Sergeant (1782-1860).
2 George Mifflin Dallas.
298 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
interest in the whole affair is over, and with the exception of
some hints in the introduction, and some remarks upon the
editorial article of the Kentucky Jrgus of 18 July, the rest is
dry discussion which few will take the trouble of reading. If
anything can be made of it at the next session of Congress by
those who got up the plot, they will not fail of using it for
their purposes. If not, it will be buried in oblivion.
You ask me why I frequent the theatre. First, because
having paid for admission for two persons by my two shares
it is the only interest I get for my money, and the tickets cost
me nothing. Secondly, because I have all my life had a very
extravagant fondness for that species of entertainment, and
always indulge myself with it, unless when motives of
prudence, or propriety, or pride, or duty of some kind real or
imaginary, prescribe to me the self-denial of them. Perhaps
this is news to you, after more than twenty-five years of
marriage. It is nevertheless true. The stage has been to
me a source of much amusement for more than forty years.
But I have always enjoyed it with discretion; first, with
reference to expense, but secondly and chiefly, with respect
to morals. To which end I have made it a rule to make no
acquaintance with actresses. The first woman I ever loved
was an actress, but I never spoke to her, and I think I never
saw her off the stage. She belonged to a company of children
who performed at the Bois de Boulogne near Passy, when I
lived there with Dr. Franklin and my father. She remains
upon my memory as the most lovely and delightful actress
that I ever saw; but I have not seen her since I was fourteen.
She was then about the same age. Of all the ungratified
longings that I ever suffered, that of being acquainted with
her, merely to tell her how much I adored her, was the most
intense. I was tortured with the desire for nearly two years,
but never had the wit to compass it. I used to dream of her
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 299
for at least seven years after. But how many times I have
since blessed my stars and my stupidity that I never did get
the opportunity of making my declaration. I learnt from
her that lesson of never forming an acquaintance with an
actress to which I have since invariably adhered, and which
I would lay as an injunction upon all my sons. But thirdly,
my reason for going to the theatre now is that as yet I can
do nothing else with the evening. This reason will soon
cease. We have had Booth. We now have a man by the
name of Wilson, and next week we are to have Cooper, all
tragedy heroes. But I prefer Jefferson to them all. The
broader the farce, the more I enjoy it. But I expect before
it is over I shall be abused for it in the newspapers.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 2 September, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
• ••••••
I am told that the writer of the paragraphs in the Washing-
ton City Gazette against me is a man named Richards ^^ from
Connecticut. He was in the army during the late war, not
much to the advantage of his reputation. He has been two
or three years hovering about the Departments here in
search of a place, and circulating proposals for setting up a
newspaper of his own. His character was for a long time an
obstacle to his pretensions, but he has lately been taken into
favor at the Treasury Department where he has obtained a
place.
^ A clerk in the Treasury Department. George H. Richards was a captain in the
artillery corps in the war of 1812, resigning in December, 1815.
300
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
The City Gazette for some time past has alternated in its
treatment of me with its praise and abuse, a kiss today and a
fillip tomorrow. Would you know the object of this ? It is to
show me what it can do. I was told a day or two after its
defence of my summer costume, that Jonathan Elliot asked
an acquaintance of mine whether I was his friend, observed
in substance that he could not afford to be a friend for noth-
ing, intimated that I had not lately given him any jobs in
his way, and boasted of the power of his press to affect the
prospects of Presidential candidates, adding that he had
been serving me by putting down Mr. Calhoun, as he had
eflPectually done. I told my informant that Elliot had not
put down Mr. Calhoun, and if he had, neither did it nor in-
tended to do it to serve me. That in the way of his business
I had heretofore served him as well as I could. I had given
him jobs for which his charges had been so excessive that I
had told him I should not employ him on public account
again. That I purchased no editor or writers for newspapers
with public money, nor with my own. Whether this was
reported back to Elliot or not I cannot tell; but it is from
about that time that the Treasury scribes appear to have
had his paper to themselves.
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 301
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 6th September, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
• ■•••••
I have observed your advice to take no notice of the news-
paper attack of Mr. Floyd upon me; but before I received
your letter I had, as you will have seen, very briefly answered
him,^ and have no doubt he will reply. I shall notice him
further in my book. He is not mad. In the Cabal against
me Floyd has been a very active personage. He called for
the Ghent papers under the mask of his bill for the occupa-
tion of Columbia River, with the hope and expectation that
they would enable him to demolish me. When he found that
his blunderbuss had flashed in the pan, that his aim had been
discovered and commented upon, not to his advantage,
and that his accomplice Russell was in the mire, he came
out upon me on a new tack, pretending that I had wronged
him, by stating that his call for Russell's letter had been
suggested to him by Russell himself. His main objects
now are to continue his assault upon me and to come in aid of
Russell. And he was instigated to this publication by the
Richmond Enquirer, a paper by and through which a gang
of intriguers there govern the state of Virginia, and give the
tone to her influence throughout the Union. There was a
paragraph in that paper some weeks since when they saw
Russell was going down, spurring Floyd to come out, and
in publishing my answer to him, they have added an in-
sidious remark to give him his cue for a reply. The Rich-
mond Enquirer and its inspirers, Floyd and Russell, are in
1 Printed in the National Intelligencer, August 31. Floyd's letter and Adams'
reply are in Duplicate Letters, 243, 248.
;o2
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
this affair all subservient to others yet behind the curtain.
Floyd now wishes to be understood as disavowing any in-
tention of attacking me by his call for the Ghent papers, that
he may have the advantage of fighting under neutral colors.
This I shall not allow, I well know with what disadvantage
I am contending alone, against a pack, and with the mind of
half the nation prepossessed against me before the explosion
by seven years of undermining. How I shall come out of it,
God only knows, and on him alone I rely. At every step I
take I want a friendly adviser, and have had none but you.
The book will form a critical point In the controversy and
most probably will bring out new combatants. Hitherto the
public had seen in this aflfalr only Russell and me. I have
plucked the mask from him. Mr. Floyd has now made him-
self a party to the strife, and I will pluck the mask from him.
Perhaps I may show glimpses of yet another face, and how
that will be taken is yet to be seen. The first mover of the
whole machine has not yet been disclosed to the public eye.
I shall dare him out in the book, and if he comes, you have
seen only the first act of the mellozv-drame. Now do not
dissuade or discourage me, nor be discouraged for me your-
self. The imposthume must be probed to the bottom, what-
ever may be its discharge. Be assured I have had from the
first production of Russell's letter besides this, no other al-
ternative than that of sinking a passive victim to as base an
intrigue as ever was plotted against a public man.
Adieu. Take special care not to mislay this letter. 'Burn
it, or keep it so that it may not fall into the hands of the
Philistines, or reach any of those friends of mine whom you
liken to the autumnal evenings of this climate.
Ever affcctionatelv vours.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 303
TO ALBERT GALLATIN
Washington, 7 September, 1822.
Dear Sir:
In your dispatch No. 221 of 10 July you mention the
receipt of Mr. Russell's letter of 11 February, 1815, and its
duplicate, with my remarks upon both, and you observe it
would be with great reluctance that you would find yourself
obliged to write anything on the subject. I do not imagine
it will be necessary. The public sentiment is rendering full
justice to Mr. Russell and there is no probability that the
transactions to which his letter refers will ever be made a
political engine to dishonor you.^
It was with the utmost reluctance that I found myself
compelled to notice it but as he deliberately made the
Department of State the vehicle for bringing it before the
House of Representatives I felt that / had no alternative but
to comment upon it. The communication to the House has
been followed by publications in the newspapers and I am
now preparing a collection of all the documents relating to
the controversy which will form a volume of near 300 pages
and of which I will send you a copy when printed. The
primary object of the whole affair was to raise a clamor in
the western country against me. But It has been so in-
diflFerently managed that even that purpose has In a great
measure failed. It had been represented that / was the
^ "The controversy which is going on between Mr. A [dams] and Mr. R [ussell]
and in which you are made a party, has attracted considerable notice, and will
probably continue to command attention. You will readily perceive that the object
of the party was less to injure Mr. A. than to benefit another, by placing him in a
conspicuous point of view, and especially by showing that Western interests could
not be safely trusted to persons residing in the Atlantic States." Crawford to Gal-
latin, June 26, 1822. Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 249.
304
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
author of the obnoxious proposal and the intention was to
fix it exclusively upon me. Since the facts as they were
have been disclosed even this purpose is in a great measure
abandoned. There has been so far as I have heard not a
word lisped against you for your share in the offence nor do
I believe there ever will be.^
I am, etc.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 12th September, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
• ••••••
There is a newspaper just opened here called the Wash-
ington Republican, published Wednesdays and Saturdays,
said to be under the auspices of Mr. Calhoun — certainly not
under those of Mr. Crawford.^ It is already at war with the
Intelligencer and City Gazette, the Richmond Enquirer,^
New York Advocate ^ and Boston Statesman,^ all of which
have manifested much discomposure at its appearance and
contents. All have attempted to run him down at the
start: Gale and Seaton by coaxing, Noah by quizzing. Col.
Orne by skulking, Ritchie by hinting, and the City Gazette ®
by downright base scurrility and flinging dirt, hot from the
Treasury, not only at Mr. Calhoun but at his mother. All
will not do. He will give them all thread to unravel.
* Adams, Memoirs, September 7, 1822.
* Thomas Lorraine McKenney (1785-1859), of Maryland, superintendent of the
United States trade with the Indians, was responsible for this journal. Ford,
Thomas Jefferson Correspondence (Bisby Collection), 274.
* Thomas Ritchie.
* Mordecai M. Noah.
* Henry Orne was the editor.
•Jonathan Elliot.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 305
I have neither lot nor part in this affair. The Washington
Republican professes to support and defend the administra-
tion, and says he will defend me in case of need, or the
Secretary of the Navy, or the Attorney General. But his
real object is to identify the Secretary of War and the ad-
ministration as one and the same, which object has already
been found out and divulged. Now the Franklin Gazette
has given me a sample of the defence I am to expect in case of
[' need from Calhounite editors. All I have to say to them is,
Hands off, gentlemen; non tali auxilio, Mr. Noah or Mr.
Jonathan Elliot shall defend me rather than you. In the
hour of need I found no one to defend me but myself, and
so I well know it will be again.
The heat has returned upon us "in all the fierceness of
autumnal fires." Fahrenheit's thermometer at 94. . . .
Faithfully yours.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 15th September, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
• ••••••
The new Commissioner of the Land Office is a Judge
McLean ^ of Ohio. I have no personal acquaintance with
him, but he was a member of Congress during the late war,
when he was well known to the President and to Mr. Cal-
houn. I was a little surprised at the suddenness of the ap-
\ pointment. The Land Office being an appendage to the
Department of the Treasury I had expected the President
would have waited to consult Mr. Crawford in the selection.
But the place has been filled before Mr. Crawford could
^ John McLean (1785-1861).
3o6 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
have heard of the death of Mr. Meigs, and by a person
probably more friendly to Mr. Calhoun than to Mr. Craw-
ford.
As to the whale that ran himself ashore upon my land and
has been dispatched by another spear, I suppose that by the
law of the land he belonged to me; but the newspapers say
that by the custom of the coast he belonged to the first finder.
As I am not on the spot to claim or maintain my right, I am
not disposed to make a question of it. He is not the first
whale that has got himself cut up and tried by floundering
upon my territories.
I have received a letter from Mr. Henry Meigs, who is at
Perth Amboy, and requests me to aid his mother with my
advice, which I have very cheerfully offered her. He says
he cannot come on here himself.
The theatrical campaign closes here this week. Cooper
finished last Thursday with Virginius, — I think the best
English tragedy since Cato. As soon as the play was over
Cooper was told of the death of one of his own children,
which had been known it seems before, but was withheld
from him. I was very much pleased with his performances,
with the exception of Bertram, a character and a play so
disgusting to me, that I could not take pleasure in seeing
it performed by any one. . . . ^ ^
Ever faithfully yours, 1
* "Saturday morning I gave the last sheet of my book to Mr. Force to be printed.
In the evening went to the play. The season closed with the Cure for the Heart
Ache, and the Ruffian Boy." To Louisa Catherine Adams, September 23, 1822.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 307
TO JOHN ADAMS
Washington, 24th September, 1822.
Dear Sir:
You have been made acquainted with the controversy in
which I have been for some months engaged in relation to
transactions at the negotiations of Ghent. As the subject is
one in which the defence of my own character and that of
two of my colleagues was inseparably connected with the
principle of deep concernment to the Union, I have thought
it necessary to collect in one publication the papers which
have hitherto appeared concerning it adding to them further
elucidations of the real character of those transactions. Of
this publication I enclose herewith a copy. The introduction
and most of the papers subsequent to page 162 have not been
before published. In submitting them to your examination I
shall ask the favor of your coyifidential opinion on the whole
subject. I say confidential because so far as the character
and conduct of Mr. Jonathan Russell is implicated I wish
that nothing may be said or written hy you which would give
pain to his friends.
The occupation which this affair has given me, added to
the necessary attendance upon the duties of my office, has
long deprived me of the satisfaction of writing to you, but
has in no wise impaired the unalterable sentiments of duty
and affection of your son.
3o8 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 29th September, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
• ••••••
I sent you yesterday a copy of my book, of which after
reading as much as you find interesting I wish you to make
the disposal mentioned in my last.^ The introduction con-
tains the summary of all its contents, and the papers which
have not been published begin at page 163.
Will you tell Mr. Walsh that I ask his attention to the
three papers subsequent to that page, and to the five points
stated in the introduction as my principal motive for the
publication? For all the personal part of the controversy,
whether with Mr. Russell or Mr. Floyd, I want neither aid
nor cheering. But I want his deliberate and impartial
opinion upon the merits of the controversy, separated from
all consideration of persons — his revised opinion. I want
it for two reasons: first, because upon such topics I value his
opinion more than that of any other editor of a newspaper
m the Union; and secondly, because he did give an opinion
at the outset, before he had heard me on the question, and
which I hope he will reconsider. He has expressed wishes
that I should make good my argument, while the Richmond
Enquirer has told the world that I had asked to be heard
again upon it, probably in vain. By the Richmond Enquirer
I shall always be heard in vain for any purpose of truth or
justice. But I do not so deem of Mr. Walsh.
Tell him further that I value his personal friendship, and
am justly sensible of his kind feelings towards me. That I
have seen and utterly discredit the cunning and base in-
' It was to be given to Robert Walsh.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 309
sinuatlons of his enemies and mine, that he had expressed
in private contemptuous opinions of me as a writer, opposed
to the favorable notice that he has given of me as such to the
public. That I well know his opinion of my style, and am
well satisfied with It; the more so, because though favorable
In the main, It has neither been flattering, nor blind, or silent
to its faults.
With regard to the next Presidential election, tell him,
that In his editorial capacity, I wish him to set aside all his
feelings of personal regard for me, as completely as If there
were no such person in existence. That as his friend, I would
have him govern himself by two principles. First, a view
to the question as connected with the public welfare only,
and In subordination to that; secondly, the discharge of his
own duty as a public journalist, and the success of his own
establishment. I would have him maintain his Independence
and be the partizan of no man. I say this now for several
reasons. First, because several of the presses devoted to
others have set him down as a partizan of mine, which as he
has never declared himself to be — I do not desire him to be.
Secondly, because In the general prostitution of the period-
ical press which the election seems likely to produce, I would
gladly see its character redeemed by one really pure disin-
terested and independent editor, and my esteem and regard
for him lead me to wish that he may be the man. Thirdly,
because you wrote me some time since that he had told you
he had no view beyond his present occupation and establish-
ment. As this was precisely the situation In which it was
proper that he should place himself with me, it Is just that
he should know I expect nothing from him as an editor on
the score of personal friendship for me.
What a shocking affair, this death of the Marquess of
Londonderry! What a comment upon the vanity of human
3IO
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
pursuits, the inanity of glory, and the impotence of power!
What must have been the agonies of that mind, which in the
midst of a career of unparallelled success was thus driven to
suicide by despair! I am far from thinking of him so ill as he
is generally thought of in this country. I believe him on the
contrary to have been a patriotic British minister, and a
man of honor. His personal relations with me were always
gentlemanly, conciliatory, and obliging. They have been
uniformly the same with Mr. Rush. And I fear we shall be
no gainers by the exchange for his successor, whoever he
may be. I am thinking if Napoleon and he should "meet at
compt," what sort of a dialogue would pass between them.
Ever aflfectionately yours.
TO JAMES LLOYD
Washington, ist October, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I had the pleasure of receiving in due time your favor
of the 26th July,^ to which I have hitherto delayed replying
with a view to request your acceptance of the publication
herewith enclosed. You will perceive by casting your eye
over it that I have availed myself of your permission to ad-
duce in support of my own opinions, and particularly for
the refutation of some very pernicious errors of my adver-
sary, your letter to my father of 8 March, 181 5. ^
Had the subject merely presented a personal controversy
between Mr. Jonathan Russell and me I never should have
published a line after the communication to the House of
Representatives upon his duplicate letters. Nor should I
' Printed in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, XLV. 405.
» lb., 380.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 311
have added a word more, if he had quietly submitted to
that retort courteous upon his first diplomatic flourish against
his colleagues of the majority at Ghent. But as he did speed
a new envenomed shaft against me, in which he had the
front to persist not only in the spurious law and perverted
facts of his letter from Paris, but in his deprecating estimate
of the value of the contested fisheries, I felt a public duty
pressing me to lay before the nation information more correct
and more true to the general interest, as well as the special
interests of our native state. Your letter furnished me the
means of doing this in a manner which I trust will prove
universally satisfactory to the public, and if it had been
written with Mr. Russell's letter before you, it could not
have been better adapted to the refutation of it.
j. I have been highly gratified with the views presented in
" your letter resulting from your recent visit to the Lakes, a
pleasure which I have never yet been able to enjoy, but
* which I promise to myself as soon as I shall be fairly dis-
" entangled from the noose of public service, to which I
heartily rejoice that you have again permitted yourself to be
tied.
The future capabilities of our country to constitute a
power such as associated man has never yet exhibited upon
^ earth are a never failing source of delight to the traveller
who, in passing over any part of our almost boundless terri-
tory, carries with him a benevolent feeling and a reflecting
mind. Our improvements of physical nature upon this
continent seem to realize the enchantments of a fairy tale.
Would it not be flattering ourselves too much to believe
that our improvements in the condition of our moral exist-
ence are advancing with equally gigantic strides.? Our
constitutions of civil government so far as their character
has been hitherto tested by experience are certainly very
312 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
great improvements upon all the forms of polity that had
before been established among men. The sparing delega-
tion and cautious distribution of the power possessed by one
man over the will and actions of another (with the exception
of slavery), the very limited extent allowed to authoritative
control, and the securities and hedges with which personal
civil, political and religious liberty are surrounded, have
conferred upon us advantages never before enjoyed by
human beings. Individual liberty is individual power, and
as the power of a community is a mass compounded of
individual powers, the nation which enjoys the most free-
dom must necessarily be in proportion to its numbers the
most powerful nation. But our distribution of the powers
of government is yet imperfect, and although our compli-
cated machine of two co-ordinate sovereignties has not yet
fallen to pieces by its own weakness, it exists in perpetual
jeopardy, and has already been many times kept together,
not by the natural operation of the machine itself, but some-
times by the cement of national union stronger than all the
conflicting authorities, and sometimes by those makers and
breakers of all human purposes — Time and Chance.
Upon these at least it is not wise to place much reliance.
We have not succeeded in providing as well for the protec-
tion of property as of personal liberty. Our laws between
debtor and creditor are inefficacious and secure justice to
neither. Our banks are for the most part fraudulent bank-
rupts. Our judiciary is not independent in fact, though
it is in theory; and according to the prevailing doctrine our
national Government is constituted without the power of
discharging the first duty of a nation, that of bettering its
own condition by internal improvement. Our private morals
arc tarnished by the unexampled prevalence of drunken-
ness, and our popular elections and legislative assemblies,
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 313
though I believe less corrupt than other bodies of the same
description have ever been in Europe, are yet more infected
with intrigue and trickery than beseems a virtuous republic.
It is among the obligations of our statesmen to apply their
ingenuity and exercise their influence for the correction of
these evils; to aim as far as their abilities extend towards
the moral purification of their country from its besetting
sins. First, by setting the example of private morality;
and secondly, by promoting the cause in every way that
they can lawfully act upon others. The more so as these
are vices, excepting perhaps intemperance, of which we
hear little in the pulpit and even in the schools.
But that I may not run into a sermon, let me thank you
once more for the permission to give your letter to the pub-
lic, and renew the assurance of the respect and long rooted
attachment of your servant and classmate.
TO ASBURY DICKINS
Washington, 4 October, 1822.
Sir:
In requesting you to make known to the Columbian
Institute my acceptance of the honor which they have con-
ferred upon me by electing me their President, I should do
injustice to my own feelings and to theirs, by forbearing to
add the expression of the deep regret with which in common
with them I lament the occasion there has been for this
election. Grateful as I am for this testimonial of the favor-
able regard of the society, I should have felt less diffidence
in receiving it could I have flattered myself that I should be
enabled worthily to supply the place of a predecessor in
whom simplicity of heart, purity of principle and unblem-
314 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
ished integrity formed the basis of a character of which th^e
meekness of a quiet spirit, the most comprehensive benevo-
lence and an ardent and active zeal for the interest and
promotion of science were the congenial ornaments.
With my thanks for the very obliging manner in which
you have notified to me the choice of the society I pray you,
sir, to accept the assurance of respect with which I am your
very obedient servant.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 5 October, 1822.
Dear Sir:
A Mr. Burckle called upon me this morning, just arrived
from Bogota charged with a project to negotiate a loan of
3 millions of dollars for the government of the Republic
of Colombia upon very advantageous terms, and which will,
if successful, be useful as he says to the commercial relations
of the United States. He wished to know whether the Execu-
tive would be disposed to countenance this loan by a private
communication to persons in Philadelphia who may be dis-
posed to engage in the loan (say to S. Girard, R. Ralston,
the U. S. Bank, etc.) that there may be yielded confidence
in the borrowers. Burckle is by birth a German, naturalized
citizen of the United States, has resided in this country
upwards of twenty years, but the two last years in Colombia,
brother-in-law of Mr. Gebhard,^ member of Congress, from
New York, and otherwise respectably connected. He showed
' John Gebhard, of Claverack.
I
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 315
me his authority to contract for the loan which appeared
regular and complete. He is well known in Philadelphia
and appears to be an intelligent man.
He says they are good Republicans in Colombia and are
much displeased with the royal propensities of San Martin
in Peru, and the Imperial dignity of Augustin the ist In
Mexico. He says too they are afraid of Mexico. And that
Bolivar himself Is thought better of for a general than a
Liberator Preside?it. I told Mr. Burckle I could only report
his wishes to you but asked him to write me from Phila-
delphia what success he might hope for his loan. He left
Bogota late In August, landed yesterday at Baltimore, and
came immediately here. He goes tomorrow for Philadelphia.
I am, etc.
TO LOUISA CATHERINE ADAMS
Washington, 7 October, 1822.
My Dearest Friend:
Your letter and journal to the 3rd have come to hand. If I
should give you the reasons why I cannot go and spend a
week at Philadelphia, to show my friends there how much I
long to be President, you would think them very ridiculous,
and me not less so for detailing them. My friends at Phil-
adelphia are not the only ones who send me kind messages
to Inform me that unless I mend my manners, I shall never
be President. Well, and what then.? There will be candi-
dates enough for the Presidency without me, and If my
delicacy Is not suited to the times, there are candidates
enough who have no such delicacy. It suits my temper to
be thus delicate. Do they call it aristocratic hauteur and
learned arrogance.? Why, so be it, my worthy friends and
3i6 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
approved good masters. It is not tlien cringing servility,
nor insatiate importunity.
If my friends will neither say nor write to me a single word
about the Presidency, from this time forward until the
election is over, I believe it would be better for me and per-
haps for them. The event will neither depend upon them
nor upon me. They and you think I am panting to be Pres-
ident, when I am much more inclined to envy Castlereagh
the relief he has found from a situation too much like mine,
though I implore the mercy of God that I may be never so
deserted of him as to seek relief in the same manner. I have
reliance upon God, and therefore while possessed of my
reason, I shall never cut the thread of my own life. I have
reliance upon my country, and therefore will never flinch
from the duties or the dangers of any station to which she
will call me. I have reliance upon myself (with God's bless-
ing), and hope I have resources to bear the neglect or the
rejection of my services by my country. If I should tell you
that I dread infinitely more than I wish to be President, you
would not believe me. But suppose it for a moment to be
true. How could you advise me to act.^ Will you say it is
very easy.'' Decline publicly to be a candidate? No. That
would be political suicide. It would be to distrust myself
and my country. It is my situation that makes me a candi-
date, and you at least know that my present situation was
neither of my own seeking, nor of my choice. Of the public
history of Mr. Monroe's administration, all that will be
worth telling to posterity hitherto has been transacted
through the Department of State. The treaties with Great
Britain, with Spain, with France, and with Russia, and the
whole course of policy with regard to South America, have
been all under the immediate management of that Depart-
ment. They are all events affecting not only the present
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 31?
Interests, but the future condition of this people. The
acquisition of Florida and the extension of the territories of
the Union to the Pacific Ocean have been accomplished
through that Department, and the formal admission of our
right to border upon the South Sea, both by Spain and
Great Britain, has been first obtained, I might confidently
say by me. That It has been obtained through the Depart-
ment of State In Mr. Monroe's administration. Is beyond the
reach of contradiction or of events. As to the Treasury or
War Departments, what single Incident has occurred In this
administration which will tell with credit to future ages.?
An army reduced to a peace establishment, and a Treasury
reduced to loans In profound peace, form hitherto the only
history of those two Departments under Mr. Monroe. And
now, here at the heart of the Union, are two printing presses
groaning under the columns of ribaldry and Invective with
which the chieftains at the head of those two Departments,
through their respective partisans, are pelting each other
in their rival race for the Presidency. They are at the same
time, here or elsewhere, pelting at me too, merely to keep
me out of the course.^ So much for the public history of
^ "A disposition to discuss has always characterized our government; but until
recently an appearance of moderation has marked our discussions. Now our dis-
position to discuss seems to have augmented, and the spirit of conciliation has
manifestly been abandoned by our councils. We are determined to say harsher
things than are said of us, and to have the last word. Where this temper will lead
us cannot be distinctly foreseen. ... I have labored to restrain this predominant
disposition of the government, but have succeeded only partially in softening the
asperities which invariably predominate in the official notes of the State Department.
If these notes had been permitted to remain as originally drafted, we should, I
believe, have before this time been unembarrassed by diplomatic relations with more
than one power. The tendency to estrange us from all foreign powers, which the
style of the notes of the State Department has uniformly had, has been so often
demonstrated, yet so often permitted, that I have almost given up the idea of main-
taining friendly relations with those powers." Crawford to Gallatin, May 13, 1822.
Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 241.
3i8 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
Mr. Monroe's administration. Now for its secret history.
This has been one continued series of intrigues, from the
Amelia Island expedition, to the senatorial etiquette and the
Seminole war debates, down to Jackson's quarrel in Florida,
and Jonathan Russell's duplicate, to bar my access to the
next Presidency. All the leading members of both houses of
Congress, all the editors of accredited printing presses
throughout the Union, and all the caucussing managers of
the state legislatures, have been engaged, each with his own
views, and as retainers to their respective patrons, in crying
me down and disgracing me in the estimation of the people.
Meanwhile I have not a single active partisan in Congress;
not a single printing press in pay or in promise; not one
member of any one state legislature disposed to caucus for
me, or connected with my interest by any stimulant ex-
pectation of his own. Do my friends in Philadelphia suppose
me so totally blind to what is passing around me, as not to
see what my situation is, or not to foresee what its result
must be.'' Do they suppose that, while I see all the avenues
to the temple preoccupied one by one, and a crowd rushing
to the gate, already stifling one another, I expect to obtain
admission by standing still .^ Or do they think me besotted
enough to believe that I could, if I would, turn the current of
public opinion in my favor by a week's visit to Philadelphia.^
Tell them that I am going by another road and to another
temple. That if they must have a President to whom they
dare speak, and if they dare not speak to me, they must
vote for another man. That I am not bound to be President
of the United States, but that I am bound to perform the
duties of Secretary of State so long as I hold that office, and
that Washington and not Philadelphia is the place where
those duties must be performed.
f.
■T
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 319
TO GEORGE MIFFLIN DALLAS
Washington, 9th October, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I pray you to accept my thanks for your kind letter of the
4th instant and for its inclosure.^ A ghost from the grave
could scarcely have surprised me more than the reappearance
of this departed offering of my prematurity. How it found
its way among your respected father's papers I do not abso-
lutely know, but can easily conjecture. Of its transmission to
Philadelphia I have a very distinct recollection, and as you
have taken the trouble of reading it, will bespeak as much
more of your patience as may suffice for telling you how it
happened.
Among the auditory who heard it delivered was the late
Dr. Belknap, the historian of New Hampshire and author of
American Biography. The very feature in its composition
which you have noticed now, the earnestness of the plea in
behalf of the public faith, attracted his attention then, and a
few days after he sent me a letter requesting a copy of it for
publication in a monthly miscellany, which was at that time
published at Philadelphia, the title of which I have for-
gotten, but to which he informed me that he was a con-
tributor.
Your memory will certainly remind you sufficiently of the
flattering unction which is distilled from the earliest dis-
tinctions of boyish days to enable you to conceive that I had
not the fortitude to resist this application, the more grateful
to me as my oration had received already another, and a very
different as well as unusual, distinction — that of a severe
criticism in a public newspaper of the time.
^Adams' "Oration" at Commencement, 1787. See Memoirs, October 7, 1822.
320
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
My conjecture is that your father was the correspondent
through whom Dr. Belknap contributed to the monthly
magazine which I have mentioned, and that it was thus
that this paper came to his hands. It was published in the
magazine for the month of September, 1787, of which it is
probable there must be copies yet existing at Philadelphia.
Of the motives for preserving the manuscript after the pub-
lication it would be needless and perhaps fruitless to enquire.
Among the interesting casualties of my life to which this
performance has given rise I shall yet long remember that
your father did preserve it, and that at a distance of thirty-
five years it was recommended by the very same internal
proprieties to the favorable regard of Dr. Belknap and
yourself.
I am, etc'
TO ROBERT WALSH
Washington, 12th October, 1822.
Dear Sir:
My pamphlet was published by the printers at their own
charge and if they can make any profit from it for their own
' At this time Jefferson believed the contest for the Presidency to have narrowed
down to Adams and Crawford, and his sympathies were with the latter. Adams was
"supposed to be a consolidationist," belonging to the new republicans, "preaching
the rankest doctrines of the old Federalists." Crawford was "a republican of the
old school, a friend to the constitutional organization of the government, and
believing that the strength of the members can alone give real strength to the body.
And this is the sentiment of the nation." Letters to Lafayette and Gallatin, October,
1822. ff'rtitngs (Ford), X. 234, 236. Writing in August, 1823, to Samuel Harrison
Smith he enlarges on this distinction, and says that with Adams he had had "a long
acquaintance, but little intimate because little in political unison;" with Crawford,
"a short but more favorable acquaintance because always in unison."
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 321
profit, I did not stipulate with them for a single copy, though
they have sent me a small number which I have distributed
among those of my friends who might take particular inter-
est in the subject. As the publishers took the circulation
of the book upon themselves, I know not how it has hap-
pened that they have not yet forwarded the number of
copies which they destined to Philadelphia. I should sup-
pose that in the way of trade it would be for their own interest
to take advantage of the curiosity, a remnant of which may
yet tempt purchasers.
I had noticed in the National Gazette of the 8th the extract
of my argument upon the nature of our fishing rights and
liberties, and the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783.
I approve altogether the omission from this extract of the
sarcasm upon Russell's conceited ignorance in the assertion
that before the revolution the king of England might by
his prerogative have deprived us of the fisheries, whenever
and however he might think proper. But should not your
extract have begun by the paragraph itself of the note of
loth November, 18 14, upon which the whole argument is
founded? The extract begins by saying the only grounds
upon which the fishing rights and liberties could be main-
tained were contained in the principle asserted by this
PARAGRAPH, and the paragraph itself, which in the book
immediately precedes, is omitted from the extract. Is it
not thus a building erected without laying the corner stone .^
It would have added only one short sentence to the length
of the extract, and the whole controversy is but the fruit of
which that paragraph was the kernel.
I am exceedingly gratified with the opinion expressed in
your letter; upon this publication, on the occasional part of
which I would not wish to waste another thought, but of
which, if I do not deceive myself, I may say in the words of
322 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
Junius, that "when the force and direction of personal satire
is no longer understood, and when measures are only felt
in their remotest consequences, it will be found to contain
principles worthy to be transmitted to posterity." The
great principle for which I hold myself responsible is that
of the paragraph above mentioned, although, as you have
seen, it was drawn up, proposed to the mission, and Inserted
in the note by and at the proposal of Mr. Clay. The more
it has been contested the more deeply has the conviction
of its soundness been rivetted in my mind. As to the value
of the fishing liberties, I think we shall hear no more ques-
tion about that. With regard to the navigation of the Mis-
sissippi and its worthlessness to the British, if their having
finally given it up for nothing were not in all sober reasoning
conclusive, I should see that some handle might yet be
made of it to prejudiced minds. But I think to no others.
I have received numerous and respectable notices from the
western country, even from Missouri, that the subject there
is well understood and viewed In Its proper light. The at-
tempts there and In Kentucky to suppress my side of the
question, while they have disclosed more conspicuously
the motives for bringing out Russell's letter, have been but
very partially, If at all, successful to their ultimate object.
At all events my defence and my arguments are now both
before the public, and I surrender them to the animadver-
sions of friend and foe and to the judgment of present and
future times.
I am, etc.^
* "Mr. Jefferson returns his thanks to Mr. Adams for the copy of the Ghent
Documents which he has been so kind as to send him. So far as concerns Mr.
Adams personally, the respect and esteem of the public for him was too firmly and
justly fixed, to need this appeal to them; but the volume is a valuable gift to his
fellow citizens generally, and especially to the future historian whom it will enable to
give correct ideas of the views of that treaty, and to do justice to the abilities with
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 323
TO STRATFORD CANNING
Department of State,
Washington, ii November, 1822.
Sir,
Your letter of the 25th ulto. having been laid before the
President of the United States, I am directed to assure you
of the disposition of this government to cooperate with
that of Great Britain in every measure necessary for open-
ing the commercial intercourse between the United States
and the British colonies in America, upon principles of
liberal reciprocity.
This policy was manifested in the act of Congress, passed
at their last session, authorizing the President by anticipa-
tion to open the ports of the United States to British vessels
from the ports of the British colonies in the West Indies,
which might, in the interval before the next session of Con-
gress, be opened to the vessels of the United States.
It was equally manifested by the executive government,
when immediately after receiving advice of the passage of
the act of Parliament of the 24th of June last, "to regulate
the trade between his Majesty's possessions in America
and the West Indies, and other places in America and the
West Indies," the proclamation was issued on the 24th of
August; wherein, by a liberal construction of the act of
. Congress of the 6th of May, the ports of the United States
which it was negotiated," October 23, 1822. Ms. "The Treaty of Ghent forms a
prominent epoch in our national history, and will be a lasting monument of the
ability and patriotism with which it was negotiated. Incidents elucidating the
transaction cannot therefore but be interesting, and they are made the more so by
the eloquent strain in which they are presented. Accept my thanks, Sir, for the
little volume containing them, with assurances of my continued esteem and cordial
respects." Madison to John Quincy Adams, October 24, 1822. Ms.
324 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
were opened to British vessels coming from any of the ports
of the British colonies in America, which by the act of Parlia-
ment were opened to the vessels of the United States.
But the authority of the President was limited by the
act of Congress of the 6th of May last, to the opening of
the ports of the United States to British vessels employed
in the trade and intercourse between the United States and
the British islands or colonies opened by the act of Parlia-
ment to vessels of the United States, subject to such recipro-
cal rules and restrictions as the President might by his
proclamation make and publish, "anything In the laws,
entitled an act concerning navigation, or an act entitled an
act supplementary to an act concerning navigation, to the
contrary notwithstanding."
The act of Congress does not authorize the President to
extend to British vessels coming from the British ports In
America, the privileges enjoyed by British vessels from the
European British ports by virtue of the convention of 3 July,
1 81 5; nor to remit duties levied upon British and all other
foreign vessels not specially privileged by treaty or by mutual
privilege sanctioned by law; nor to repealing discrimination
prescribed by other acts of Congress than the two navigation
acts above specified. The tonnage duty of one dollar, and
the additional ten per cent upon the duties levied on im-
portations In foreign unprivileged vessels, are prescribed
by other acts of Congress, and are altogether Independent
of any restrictions which had been Imposed on the commer-
cial intercourse between the United States and the British
colonies in America. They can be revoked only by the same
authority by which they were enacted.
The act of Parliament does not extend to vessels of the
United States, admitted by it Into the colonial ports, the
privileges secured to the same vessels entering the British
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 3^5
ports in Europe, by virtue of the convention of 3 July, 181 5.
It does not admit the vessels of the United States into the
colonial ports on the same terms as they are admitted into
the European ports. It admits them only on a footing of
exceptions to a general system of exclusion, and under cir-
cumstances of strong and marked discrimination to the
advantage of British vessels, with which they must en-
counter competition in the same intercourse. Their admis-
sion is only to certain enumerated ports. They are per-
mitted to introduce only certain enumerated articles from
which are excluded many of the most essential articles of
the produce of the United States, and most needed in the
colonial ports. They are admitted only to a direct trade,
both from the United States to the enumerated ports, and
from the enumerated ports to the United States. They are
subjected to the payment, without credit and before ad-
mission, of duties in many cases almost equivalent to pro-
hibition; and to a very heavy export duty, in addition to
the duties prescribed by the act of Parliament. Nor does
it appear that, with regard to the important article of port
charges, they can claim admission upon the same footing
as British vessels. To counteract these disadvantages,
under which they must submit to enter in competition with
British vessels employed in the same navigation, the regu-
lations prescribed in the proclamation, and the additional
tonnage and other discriminating duties provided by the
laws of the United States, are surely not more than sufficient.
Nor can the United States in imposing discriminations, the
effect of which will be to restore to their own vessels that
equal advantage of competition, of which they would be de-
prived by discriminations operating against them, be con-
fined to the mere specific counterparts of restrictions in-
stituted by the other party to the commerce. Had they
326 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
been so confined, they might have designated a specific
list of articles to be admitted from all the British colonies;
and, besides subjecting them to duties nearly prohibitory,
might have excluded the article of flour, for example, from
the list.
The colonies of Great Britain in the West India islands
are, in respect to every article of commerce and navigation,
as distinct from these in North America, as any two nations
are from each other. Separated by an ocean, and having
scarcely a single article of commercial interchange in com-
mon, the productions of neither can, in the natural course
of trade, be objects of export from the other. Instead there-
fore of excluding from admission all the articles of the prod-
uce of both, with the exception of a small enumerated list,
the proclamation has authorized the general admission of
all the articles from either of its own natural growth or
produce, excluding only the admission from either, of those
articles which it never could export, but in consequence of
their having been before imported to it from abroad.
On the first perusal of the act of Parliament for opening
the colonial ports, it was perceived that, to the satisfactory
accomplishment of the objects interesting to the commercial
intercourse between the United States and the British
colonies in America, which it was believed to be the inten-
tion of its enactment to promote, a further free communica-
tion and understanding between the two governments would
be necessary. The proclamation was forthwith issued,
commensurate with the authority given to the President
by the act of Congress, understood in the most enlarged
import of the words in which it was given. And by an im-
mediate instruction to the minister of the United States at
London, he was empowered to make known to your govern-
ment, as well the disposition of this country to meet with
i
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 327
fair and equal reciprocity, this and any overture on the part
of Great Britain, for opening the commercial intercourse
between the United States and the British colonies in this
hemisphere, as the conviction of this government that further
measures on both sides would be indispensable, to obtain
that result in a manner satisfactory to both. That they
may be adopted in concert, either by further legislation,
or by convention, is referred to the consideration, and sub-
mitted to the option of your government.^
I pray you, etc.
TO JOSEPH HOPKINSON
Washington, 19th November, 1822.
Dear Sir:
• ••••••
Perhaps I ought also to thank you for your friendly admo-
nition upon the severity with which I have handled my
adversary. It is not in my nature to war with the dead, or
to mutilate the corpse of an enemy. If I have suffered my
resentment to transport me beyond the bounds of modera-
tion, I must be content that so much should be deducted
from the amount of my victory as may offer an atonement to
my friends and my country for my portion of the wrong.
I take no pleasure in the triumph over a man whom for many
years I had considered and treated as a friend. But was it
possible to manage this discussion without making it per-
^ On the same date, November ii, George Canning wrote a dispatch to Strat-
ford Canning calling attention to certain points of the President's proclama-
tion, especially, the absence of any permission to British ships to export from
the United States those articles of which our law allows the export on American
ships."
328
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
sonal as respected him? Was it possible to expose the sub-
stitution of the duplicate for the original letter, and yet to
profess respect for the integrity or regard for the character
of the perpetrator? In combating errors of opinion merely
or political prejudices, however mischievous, I acknowledge
the duty and well understand the policy of sparing the per-
son; but where perverseness of intellect has been only the
pander to turpitude of heart, how shall Christian meekness
itself speak its feelings but in the language of indignation?
Such is the reasoning by which I justify to myself that part
of my book which cooler judges ascribe to irritation of tem-
per. On the general principle that the coolest is the most
correct judge, I am disposed to acquiesce in your opinion and
to plead only in mitigation.
The national politics of Pennsylvania with reference to
the present administration are sound. With regard to the
future I presume they are intelligible to those who manage
them. An interest prematurely excited and growing from
day to day more intense there as elsewhere, is fixing upon
persons and not upon principles as the rallying points for
settling the succession to the chief magistracy. I say upon
persons and not upon principles, because, although there is a
great effort making to revive a strife of principles which did
heretofore exist, yet there is and will be no contest of prin-
ciples to operate upon measures. They will only be brought
into play to operate upon men. The sympathies of Penn-
sylvania so far as they have been hitherto disclosed seem to
lean to the south, and to be divided only as the south is
divided against itself. Whether a coalition with the west
would not be more congenial to her own interest and more
suitable to that of the Union, she is best able to judge for
herself. The west is also divided and will most probably be
so to the end. Pennsylvania will ultimately conclude to go
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 329
with the majority and if possible to make tlie majority. Her
policy therefore is to keep her vote In reserve, and those
who have been in such haste to commit her have been
playing their own game much more than hers, but most
especially the game of him against whom they have been
inveterate. It appears in short to me to be on all sides a
game of blindman's buff, and I am utterly unable to divine
whose turn it will next be to step into the ring. Mrs. Adams
desires to be affectionately remembered to your lady and
family and is in eager expectation of the pleasure of seeing
Miss Hopkinson here. She was so much delighted with her
visit to Borden Town that the remembrance of it yet enlivens
the present and will long cheer the future hours of her
existence.
The long expected race of the Northern and Southern
coursers has terminated in disappointment.^ The horse
of the challenger by some accident had been lamed. He
was brought upon the course only to be withdrawn from it
and the forfeit was paid, but as the lameness was not per-
ceptible to unpracticed eyes, he was injudiciously again
brought out by his owner to run a single heat of four miles
for 1000 or 1500 dollars, and was completely broken down
in the attempt — totally and centrally eclipsed.
I am, etc.
^ Sir Charles, of Virginia, against Eclipse, of New York, both having as grandsire
an imported horse. Old Diomed.
330 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO ROBERT WALSH '
Washington, 27 November, 1822.
Dear Sir:
I thank you for the very friendly sentiments expressed in
your letter of the 23rd instant. The success of your paper,
and its increasing influence upon the community the ev-
idence of which it bears upon its face, are circumstances
exceedingly gratifying to me for many reasons, the first of
which is the liberal dependence and prosperity which it
ensures personally to you. The next is its tendency both
direct and derivative to raise the character moral and
literary of the periodical press in our country. A newspaper
edited by an accomplished classical scholar, the fruits of
whose studies have been matured by travel and by long
converse with many of the most enlightened minds in
Europe, must have a great and salutary influence on the
community. Not so much perhaps upon the quotidian
conflicts of political electioneering, as upon the tone of
sentiment which counteracts debasing prejudices and finally
settles into sound and useful principle. Such a paper has
not only a powerful effect upon the public mind itself but
has a tendency to raise the character of its competitors. It
accustoms the mass of its readers to think and reason with
just and generous views. It exposes sordid purposes lurking
under a mask of benevolence or patriotism. It holds up to
the nation that image of the fair and the good which alone
can constitute public virtue. Such it appears to me is the
general tendency of your paper, and by this you will not
understand that I concur in all its doctrines or approve all its
sentiments. I have regretted some of your editorial con-
troversies, and none more than those in which you have
1
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 331
been involved by your good will to me. You have for exam-
ple handled rather roughly the editor of the Boston Daily
Advertiser and judged, may I not say, hastily of the character
of the paper itself. Hale, its editor, is a man of talents and of
respectable standing, and personally not unfriendly to me.
But he is not so independent as you are, and his attacks upon
me were instigated from quarters where he was bound to
please, I ought not perhaps to be his apologist with yow, but
I regret to have been the cause of mutual irritation and severe
judgments between men who ought to esteem each other.
Your motto is very properly "Principles and Men," but
you have scarcely taken any part in the electioneering
politics of Pennsylvania, and it may perhaps be your wisest
policy to take as little interest in the struggle of electioneer-
ing which already rages for the next Presidency. You are
not yet so committed but that you can assume and maintain
an honorable neutrality upon that question and upon every-
thing appertaining to it. For the partiality which you have
already manifested in my favor I am fully and justly sensi-
ble, but I can ask neither you nor any man to expose himself
to the obloquy which will befall him by avowing himself as
politically my friend for the next two years.
"Abuse on all he loves or love him, shed," is the destiny
to which my mind must be made up, and although myself
cast into a position from which I cannot be honorably
withdrawn, and in which I must endure whatever the day
and the hour may bring forth, I have not the heart to ask
any one of my friends to make himself the mark to be shot
at by my side, or to share with me in the strife merely to be
the witness and partaker of my discomfiture.
The occasional notice which you have taken of the prin-
cipal artificers of falsehood against me in the presses of the
country has been sufficient for their exposure. But your
332 THE WRITINGS OF , [1822
prediction that I should be the choice of the universal Yankee
Nation was much hazarded in point of fact, and perhaps
questionably in point of principle. I have no more certainty
of being the choice of the Yankee than of the Virginia Na-
tion. I have been too much and too long the servant of the
whole Union to be the favorite of any one part of it. The
whole course of my public life has been that of crossing par-
tial interests whether sectional, political or geographical. I
have lived but little in my own state, and during that little
have been in conflict with all its leading statesmen of both
parties. For the honors bestowed upon me and the public
trusts committed to me I have been entirely and spon-
taneously indebted to the Virginian Presidents, from all four
of whom I possess testimonials of personal esteem and
confidence more gratifying to me than any office that ever
was in the gift of any one of them. Prejudices in me there-
fore against Virginia would add the crime of ingratitude to
the wrong of illiberality. I have none. I never sacrificed
a sentiment of my heart nor an opinion of my judgment to
Virginia, nor was any such sacrifice ever required of me. My
relations with all her Presidents have been those of independ-
ence, candor, and confidence. I have experienced nothing else
from them, and even now if those of them who survive and
the state itself with all its influence throughout the Union
should prefer another person for the succession to the chief
magistracy of the Union, however I might regret the pref-
erence I should have no right to complain of the partiality.
As to the late calumnies against me in the Washington
City Gazette^ presuming from the characteristic epithet in
your letter that you have been informed who that author is,
I suppose you also know the same which metamorphosed
him into the editor of that paper,^ that is in his sober inter-
' Jonathan Elliot.
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 333
vals. The two falsehoods In which the names of General
Vives and Mr. King were introduced were not more flagrant
than numberless others, but they were selected for contra-
diction because they implicated those gentlemen little less
than myself. They have nevertheless been and continue
to be repeated with an impudence that defies all contradic-
tion. The peculiarity of the story about Vives is that it is
falsified by the public documents themselves. The very
letter which it asserts to have been cancelled or suppressed
is a letter of 3 May, 1820, which was not only sent to him,
but with his answer dated two days after and a reply of
8 May from me was communicated to Congress by a mes-
sage from the President of 9 May, and published in many
of the newspapers of the time, among the rest in the Na-
tional Intelligencer^ There never was any letter from me to
General Vives communicated to him and afterwards with-
drawn, cancelled or altered. Nor did he ever say a word to
me that any human being in his senses could understand
or construe into a threat. I suppose you see that the motives
for imputing to me personal cowardice is by way of set-off.
I have answered you with frankness equally explicit and
confidential upon all the subjects touched upon In your
letter. To whatever extent the system of espionage may
be carried in this electioneering warfare, I trust I shall never
have the need or the inclination to deny my correspondence
with you. The more Intimate it is, the more consolation will
it afford to me; for if on either side it should contain any-
thing which we may wish to conceal from the eyes of slan-
derers and assassins, sure I am that there will be nothing
which either of us would wish to screen from the sight of God.
I am, etc.
1 May II, 1820.
334 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLI-
GENCER
Gentlemen:
In your paper of yesterday I have observed a note from
Mr. Henry Clay which requires some notice from me.
After expressing the regret of the writer at the unhappy
controversy which has arisen between two of his late col-
leagues at Ghent, it proceeds to say that in the course of the
several publications of which it has been the occasion, and
particularly in the appendix to the pamphlet recently pub-
lished by me, "he thinks there are some errors (no doubt
unintentional) both as to matters of fact and matters of
opinion, in regard to the transactions at Ghent relating to
the navigation of the Mississippi and certain liberties claimed
by the United States in the fisheries, and to the part which
he bore in these transactions."
Concurring with Mr. Clay in the regret that the contro-
versy should ever have arisen, I have only to find consola-
tion in the reflection that from the seed time of 1814 to the
harvest of 1822 the contest was never of my seeking, and
that since I have been drawn into it, whatever I have said,
written, or done in it has been in the face of day and under
the responsibility of my name.
Had Mr. Clay thought it advisable now to specify any
error of fact or of imputed opinion which he thinks is con-
tained in the appendix to my pamphlet, or in any other
part of my share in the publication, it would have given me
great pleasure to rectify by candid acknowledgment any
such error, of which, by the light that he would have shed
on the subject, I should have been convinced. At whatever
period hereafter he shall deem the accepted time has come
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 335
to publish his promised narrative, I shall, if yet living, be
ready with equal cheerfulness to acknowledge indicated
error and to vindicate contested truth.
But as by the adjournment of that publication to a period
"more propitious than the present to calm and dispassion-
ate consideration, and when there can he no misinterpretation
of motives,'' it may chance to be postponed until both of us
shall have been summoned to account for all our errors
before a higher tribunal than that of our country, I feel
myself now called upon to say that let the appropriate dis-
positions, when and how they will, expose the open day and
secret night of the transactions at Ghent, the statements
both of fact and opinion, in the papers which I have written
and published in relation to this controversy, will in every
particular, essential or important to the interest of the nation
or to the character of Mr. Clay, be found to abide unshaken
the test of human scrutiny of talents and of time.^
Washington i8th December, 1822.
TO THE FREEHOLDERS OF WASHINGTON, WYTHE,
GRAYSON, RUSSELL, TAZEWELL, LEE AND SCOTT
COUNTIES, VIRGINIA 2
Friends and Fellow Citizens:
By these titles I presume to address you, though personally
known to few of you, because my character has been arraigned
1 "The insinuations of Mr. Clay are manfully met by Mr. Adams; and I am mis-
taken if in public opinion Mr. Clay is not placed in a situation that may be found a
little embarrassing. The Kentucky Candidate should have strictly adhered to his
game; agere non scribere was his course, and he has been off his guard to depart
from it." Rufus King to Charles King, December 19, 1822. Life and Correspondence
of Rufus King, VI. 488. See Clay's reasons for his position in Colton, Life, Corre-
spondence and Speeches of Clay, IV. 70, 72.
^ This letter appeared in the Richmond Enquirer, January 4, 1823, and was after-
336 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
before you by your representative in Congress in a printed hand-
bill, soliciting your suffrages for re-election, who seems to have
considered his first claim to the continuance of your favor to con-
sist in the bitterness with which he could censure me. I shall never
solicit your suffrages, nor those of your representative for any-
thing; but I value your good opinion and wish to show you that
I have not deserved to lose it.
He says that if you will elect him once more, he shall have
served during the whole administration of Mr. Monroe, an ad-
ministration upon which he passes a high panegyric, and which,
he adds, he has found it agreeable to his judgment generally to
support. While in the exercise of my natural right of self-defense
I come to repel the charges of General Smyth, I pray you to under-
stand, that it is neither for the purpose of moving you to withhold
your vote from him, nor to induce the General himself to recon-
sider his opinion or his intentions as they personally concern me.
He offers himself a candidate for your votes, as having been
generally hitherto a supporter of the administration of Mr. Monroe.
On that ground and upon the reasonable expectation that he will
continue his support to it, he has my sincere and warm wishes for
his success. But as to his opinion of me, you will permit me to be
indifferent to the opinion of a man capable of forming his judgment
of character from such premises as he has alleged in support of his
estimate of mine.
His mode of proof is this. He has ransacked the Journals of the
Senate during the five years that I had the honor of a seat in that
body, a period, the expiration of which is nearly fifteen years
distant; and whenever he has found in the list of yeas and nays my
name recorded to a vote, which he disapproves, he has imputed it,
without knowing any of the grounds upon which it was given, to
the worst of motives, for the purpose of ascribing them to me. Is
wards published by Gales and Seaton in a pamphlet, Letter of the Hon. John Quincy
Adams in Reply to a Letter of the lion. Alexander Smyth to his Constituents. Also the
Speech of Mr. Adams on the Louisiana Treaty, and a Letter from Mr. Jefferson to
Mr. Dunbar relative to the cession of Louisiana.
I
i822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 337
this fair? Is It candid? Is it just? Where is the man who ever
served in a legislative capacity in your council, whose character
could stand a test like this? The General once petitioned the
members of a former Congress " to be mindfull of the rule of jus-
tice — to others do, what to thyself thou wishest to be done."
But it is to his charges against me that I would turn your atten-
tion. And first of that which he says he passes over, but does not
pass over: my relation to my father. If the General could have
found any of my votes upon the public journals during the adminis-
tration of my father, he might perhaps have used them as he has
those of a later date. But during the whole of my father's adminis-
tration I was absent from the country. For how much of my
father's acts I am accountable, I leave to your sense of justice to
determine; as I leave to the filial afi"ection and piety of every one
of you to estimate the temper of the reproach that I have never
been the reviler of them.
Another charge which the General brings against me, while
professing to pass it over, is that I have written against the Rights
oj Man; not only, he says, against the work thus entitled, but
against the rights themselves. This is a mistake. I wrote a series
of papers containing an examination of some of the doctrines in
Thomas Paine's pamphlet entitled the Rights of Man. I believed
i many of its doctrines unsound. I think I have not seen either the
pamphlet or my examination of it for more than thirty years. In
that time I claim not more indulgence for changes of opinion with
regard to the principles of government and to the French Revolu-
tion than may be fairly claimed by any man. Far from having
written against the rights of man, I appealed, in the papers alluded
to, from what I deemed the inflammatory principles of Paine to
the sober and correct principles of our own declaration of independ-
ence. My opinion of Paine and his writings was not then very
exalted. They have not since that time risen in my esteem. As
occasional addresses to popular passions, I see in all his works the
flashes of a powerful genuis. Acknowledging the service of his
Common Sense and some other of his writings during our revolu-
338 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
tionary war, all his subsequent publications, political, religious,
and personal, are in my opinion worse than worthless. The two
parts of his Rights of Man are characteristic of the same mind, and
indicative of the same soul, as the two parts of his Jge of Reason,
and all proceeded from the same heart as his letter to Washington.
The last three of these pamphlets I am sure few of you would now
read with any other sentiments than those of abhorrence and
disgust. They are rapidly passing into oblivion, and the sooner
they are forgotten, the more propitious will it be to the cause of
virtue. The world will lose nothing should the two others be
forgotten with them. In entertaining these sentiments it is cer-
tainly with all the regard and veneration due from me to Mr. Jef-
ferson, as to one of the men to whom the nation owes its deepest
debt of gratitude. I am charged by General Smyth with an
attempt to ridicule Mr. Jefferson. An expression, distorted and
misrepresented in the kennel newspapers of the present day, is
the support which the General has for this accusation. Of that
expression and of the cause from which it proceeded, I will not now
speak. If the animosities of political contention are not to be
eternal, it is time to consign that subject to silence. But I address
you in the face of our common country, and I hope and trust this
paper will pass under the eye of Mr. Jefferson himself. I say, with-
out fear of being disavowed by him, that he will not approve of
the use of his name by any one for the purpose of casting odium
upon me. And I take this opportunity to add that I deprecate
with equal earnestness the unauthorized use by any one of his
name to obtain favor of any kind for me. i^
But advancing from these skirmishes of the General's wit to
meet him in his main army. He objects to me that I am "no
statesman." To this you will not expect me to reply. But he
adds, "that the pernicious passions warp my judgment, and do not
leave my mind in a proper state to decide on the interest of a
nation and to adopt an enlarged arid liberal system of 'policy.'"
This is a serious charge. But the votes upon which General Smyth
has passed so severe a sentence upon my character, were all given
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 339
in the interval between October, 1803, when I first took my seat
in the Senate, and December, 1805. At a distance of seventeen or
eighteen years it can scarcely be expected that I should be able to
recollect, and still less to prove the motives or the reasons upon
which every one of those votes was given; but I will show to your
satisfaction that all of them were founded upon reasons very
different from any which could originate in the motive charged
upon me. And after assigning those reasons I will leave it to your
candor to determine, whether they were of so weak a texture that
they can be attributed to no other than factious motives.
The first was on the 26th of October, 1803, upon a bill enabling
the President to take possession of Louisiana, against which
General Smyth says, I voted in a minority of six. Upon recurring
to a private minute of my own made at the time, I find the follow-
ing remark: " The objection was to the second section as unconstitu-
tional." ^
To enable you to judge of the sincerity with which I voted upon
that principle against the bill, I beg leave to submit to your medita-
tions the section against which the objection was taken.
And be it further enacted, that until the expiration of the present
I session of Congress, unless provision for the temporary government of
the said territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, civil and
judicial powers exercised by the oificers of the existing government of the
same shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in
such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct, for main-
taining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoy-
ment of their liberty, property, and religion.
Let me ask you before we proceed further to stop here, to reflect
well upon the extent and consequences of the power conferred in
this section by the Congress upon the President of the United
States, and point out to me the article, section, and paragraph of
that instrument, which authorize the Congress to confer upon the
President of the United States this tremendous power. If you
^ Adams, Memoirs, October 26, 1803.
,
340
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
can produce it now, I will plead guilty to General Smyth's charge
of factious motive for voting against this act; but if you can pro-
duce it now, it is more than the majority were able to do then.
They were called upon to produce it and could not. They could
find it only in construction.
Observe that I do not now deny the existence of this authority
in the constitution. But it is a constructive power, and at the time
when I was called upon to record my vote upon it, the question was
new to me and new to Congress, with reference to the legislative
exposition of the constitution. The principle had not been settled,
and it was the first time it had ever been made my duty to act,
as a member of the legislature, upon a question involving the
extent of the powers of Congress. I believed, as I still believe, that
the constitution of the United States was a constitution of limited
powers. That some of those powers must be constructive I never
doubted; but that this construction must itself have some limits
I was equally convinced; and I could not reconcile it to my judg-
ment that the authority exercised in this section was within the
legitimate powers of Congress, conformable to the constitution.
Were the question now a new one, I have no hesitation in saying
that I should retain the same opinion and give the same vote. And
I am willing now to record it again; and to leave to my country and
to posterity the opinion, that all the other constructive powers
assumed by Congress from the 4th of March, 1789, to this day put
together, are, whether considered in themselves or in their con-
sequences, unequal to the transcendent power assumed, exercised
and granted by that little section.
It was on the same principle a conscientious belief that Congress
had not by the constitution the power to exercise the authorities
contained in them, that in the course of the same session I voted
against the other acts relating to Louisiana, enumerated in General
Smyth's address to you. They formed altogether a system of
absolute and unlimited power, bearing upon the people of Louis-
iana, and exercised by the Congress of the United States. I be-
lieved that the power had not been granted to Congress, either by
I
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 341
the people of the United States, or by the people of Louisiana: and
when it was assumed by construction, I could not perceive any
limitation to the constructive power which could be consistently
maintained by those who could find in the constitution of the
United States authority for the exercise of all these powers in
Louisiana.
General Smyth therefore has done me great injustice in drawing
from these votes the conclusion that I was governed in giving
them either by principles of faction or by hostility to Louisiana.
It is well known to all those with whom I acted at the time, as
well those whose votes concurred with mine, as those who sanc-
tioned by their votes these assumptions of constructive powers,
that my voice and opinion were in favor of the acquisition of
Louisiana, and of the ratification of the treaty by which it was
acquired. The power to make treaties is by the constitution given
to the President with concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate
present upon the question for their advice and consent, without
limitation. It extends to whatever can form the subject of treaties
between sovereign and independent nations. Of the power to
make the treaty, therefore, I had no doubt, as having been granted
by the constitution. But the power to make a treaty, and the
power to carry it into execution, are, by the organization of our
government not the same. The former is merely a transaction
with a foreign nation. To have limited that would have been to
limit the power of the nation itself, in its relations of intercourse
with other states. It would have been an abdication by the nation
itself of some of the powers appertaining to sovereignty, and have
placed it on a footing of inequality with other sovereigns. But
the latter, the power to carry a treaty into execution, imports the
exercise of the internal powers of government and was subject to
all the limitations prescribed by the constitution to the exercise of
these powers. In the very message by which President Jefferson
communicated this treaty to Congress after its ratifications had
been exchanged, he said: "You will observe that some important
conditions cannot be carried into execution but with the aid of the
342 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
legislature." This is a circumstance common to many treaties, and
has frequently given occasion to debates in the House of Repre-
sentatives, how far they are bound to sanction in their legislative
capacity stipulations with "foreign nations, solemnly made and
ratified by the treaty making power. But the Louisiana purchase
treaty did, in my opinion, to be carried into execution require
something more. It required the exercise of powers which had not
been granted to Congress itself, of powers reserved by the people
of the United States to themselves, and of powers inherent by
natural right in the people of Louisiana. The union of the two
people required the express and formal consent of both. So far
as the rights of France were concerned they had been extinguished
by the treaty. To appropriate and pay the money stipulated for
the purchase of the territory I believed to be within the legitimate
power of Congress, though even that was a constructive power.
But that the social compact with all its burdens and all its blessings,
all its privileges and all its powers, should be formed between the
people of the United States and the people of Louisiania was,
according to the theory of human rights which I had learned from
the declaration of independence, an act, the sanction of which
could be consummated only by themselves. The people of the
United States had not, much less had the people of Louisiana
given to the Congress of the United States the power to form this
union. And until the consent of both people should be obtained,
every act of legislation by the Congress of the United States over
the people of Louisiana, distinct from that of taking possession of
the territory, was in my view unconstitutional, and an act of
usurped authority. My opinion therefore was that the sense of the
people, both of the United States and of Louisiana, should imme-
diately be taken; of the first, by an amendment to the constitu-
tion, to be proposed and acted upon in the regular form; and of the
last, by taking the votes of the people of Louisiana immediately
after possession of the territory should be taken by the United
States under the treaty. I had no doubt that the consent of both
people would be obtained with as much ease and with little more
i822] • JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 343
loss of time than it actually took Congress to prepare an act for the
government of the territory: and I thought that this course of
proceeding, while it would terminate in the same result as the
immediate exercise of ungranted transcendental powers by Con-
gress, would serve as a landmark of correct principle for future
times, as a memorial of homage to the fundamental principles of
civil society, to the primitive sovereignty of the people and the
unalienable rights of man.
Entertaining these questions, on the 3d of November, 1803, I
voted with the majority for the bill appropriating eleven million
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to carry into effect the
Louisiana convention; and in a speech to the Senate upon the
passage of that bill the substance of which is printed in the Na-
tional Intelligencer of 25th November, 1803, declared at once my
approbation of the measure, and my belief that, to carry the treaty
into entire execution, an amendment to the constitution would be
necessary. My vote on this bill is recorded in the same journals of
the Senate to which General Smyth has resorted to find his charges
against me; but he has not thought proper to notice either that, or
the printed speech which, if known to him, leaves him without
excuse for representing to you my votes upon the other bills of that
cession relating to Louisiana, as having been dictated by the
spirit of faction, or by hostility to Louisiana.
On the 25th of November, 1803, as appears by the same journals
of the Senate, I moved for the appointment of a committee to
enquire whether any, and if any, what further measures were
necessary for carrying into effect the Louisiana cession treaty; with
leave to report by bill or otherwise. In support of this motion I
stated explicitly that the object of it was that the committee
should prepare and report for the consideration of the Senate an
amendment to the constitution and a bill prescribing the form in
which the sense of the people of Louisiana should be taken, to
sanction in the only form in which I conceived it could lawfully
be accomplished, the union of the two people into one, the annexa-
tion of the inhabitants of Louisiana to the North American Union,
344
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
and the accession to all the rights, privileges, and prerogatives, and
their subjection to all the duties of citizens of the United States.
On the exposition of these objects for the motion the Senate did
not think proper to appoint the Committee which I proposed; and
the only opportunity left me for recording the principles upon
which I acted, was by offering the resolutions which I did on the
loth of January, 1804, and by voting against all the acts of Con-
gress, legislating upon the people of Louisiana during that session.
Let me repeat that all these questions as to the extent of the
powers of Congress were at that time new and unsettled. In form-
ing my judgment upon them I had recourse only to the faculties of
my own understanding, to the letter of the constitution, to the
first principles of society and government as recognized in our
republican institutions, and to the light of the discussions in both
houses of Congress upon that occasion. There was no precedent
upon the record. The annexation of a foreign people to the North
American confederacy formed a new era in our national annals.
The principles upon which that great change in our condition was
to be eiTected, and the forms by which it was to be made lawful,
conformably to the true theory of human rights, involved con-
siderations of a magnitude of which we are not all yet aware. The
laws of that session relative to Louisiana have very recently been
followed as precedents in the annexation to this union of the
territory and people of Florida. In the perfectly regular exercise,
and for purposes of the most rigorous justice, of powers identical
with those assumed and granted by that little section which I have
quoted, you have recently witnessed scenes against which the halls
of Congress, the streets of your cities, the summits of your moun-
tains, and the echoes of your valleys have resounded with clamors
of violated rights and unconstitutional acts of despotism. It was
not in the exercise by General Jackson in 1821, of powers so in-
compatible with all our institutions, it was in the assumption and
grant by Congress of those powers in 1803, that the real constitu-
tional question was involved; and it is no small satisfaction to me
that I am enabled to refer you to those very votes which General
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 345
Smyth imputes to unworthy motives, for proof that, from the
first day that I was called to act in your public councils, I have
held the government of your Union to be a government of limited
powers, that Congress could not lawfully exercise any powers not
granted to them by the people in the constitution, and that powers
in themselves of a transcendental nature, cannot be assumed by
construction as incidental to expressed powers of apparent import so
much more limited than themselves.
Among the citizens who in 1803 and 1804 voted for all these laws
relating to Louisiana, there were some who, upon questions of far
inferior magnitude, according to my conception, have been less
liberal in their indulgence to constructive powers. It is not for
me either to question their motives or to reconcile their opinions
with themselves.
After those questions had been settled by large majorities of both
houses of Congress, and sanctioned by the acquiescence of the
people, both of Louisiana and of the United States, I have con-
sidered them as no longer controvertible. But the consequences
of the principles then settled, and by those very acts against which
I voted, have been as yet but very imperfectly developed. When
the day shall come for your representatives to determine whether
the territories of Ceylon or Madagascar, of Corsica or of Cuba,
shall be governed by rules and regulations emanating from your
Congress; whether the inhabitants of those territories shall be
governed for a discretionary time by such persons and in such man-
ner as the President of the United States shall direct, and whether
their -people shall ultimately be constituted into states, represented
upon the floor of your national legislative assemblies; then will be
the time for discovering in distant perspective the full import and
final consequences of that second section of the act for taking
possession of Louisiana.
Let me again remind you that the question is not of the ad-
vantage to the Union of the acquisition of Louisiana, nor even of
the powers of Congress as they are now established by the con-
struction then given to the constitution. The question is, whether
346 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
my motives must have been factious or anti-republican, because
I believed that the constitution of the United States had not
authorized the Congress to invest the President with all the
absolute powers of a Spanish monarch over a Spanish colony; to
annex the people of that colony to our federal union, and to give
them without naturalization, and to thrust upon them without
their consent, all the rights, privileges and immunities, duties and
burdens of the constituent members of the confederation.
It was upon similar principles fortified by additional considera-
tions that I gave the two votes, from one of which General Smyth
thinks he has fixed me in a dilemma, either of acknowledging my-
self a friend to the slave trade, or that I was desirous to render the
acquisition of Louisiana injurious, by permitting the unrestrained
influx of foreign slaves; while upon the other he denies me the
benefit even of this sorry dilemma, but takes it for proof unques-
tionable that I am a friend to the slave trade.
The first of these votes, given on the 20th of January, 1804, was
against a clause which forbade the importation of slaves into
Louisiana from places without the United States. The second, in
December, 1805, was against bringing in a bill to prohibit, after
the 1st of January, 1808, the importation of slaves into the United
States.
It will be recollected, that in the constitution of the United
States, there is a clause in the following words: "The migration or
importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior
to the year 1808." The votes which General Smyth wishes now
to blacken with slave trade complexions, were given in January,
1804, and December, 1805, two and four years before this express
interdiction upon the power of Congress expired. At both these
periods the importation of slaves from abroad was permitted by
the laws of Georgia, and I think of South Carolina. As to the
first, setting aside the general objection that I had against the
power of Congress then to legislate upon the people of Louisiana
at all, of what avail was it to prohibit the importation of slaves
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 347
directly from abroad, while no prohibition could be enacted against
importing them indirectly by the way of Charleston and Savannah?
On both occasions I thought that Congress, by the terms of the
constitution had no power to act. The limitation of the year 1808,
by the express letter of the clause, bears not only upon the im-
portation of the slaves, but upon the prohibitory power of Con-
gress. It was my opinion that until the year 1808, Congress could
not even pass the act of prohibition; and upon that principle I
voted against leave to bring in the bill.
It is remarkable that the minority with whom I voted against
the clause forbidding the importation of slaves from abroad into
Louisiana, consisted of Mr. Baldwin and General James Jackson
of Georgia, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Israel Smith of Vermont, and
Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island. According to the logic of General
Smyth, they were all in the same dilemma with me. They were
all the most ardent republicans, and the most devoted friends to
Mr. Jefferson's administration in the country; and Mr. Bradley
was the man who, in December, 1805, moved for leave to bring
in the bill to prohibit the slave trade after the 1st of January, 1808,
who actually brought it in, and at the succeeding session of Con-
gress carried it through the Senate. Upon the question for leave
to bring in the bill, I voted against it, thinking that the letter of
the constitution forbade Congress from acting on the subject
before 1808. But the principle having been settled, that the
prohibition might be enacted in anticipation, though not to take
effect till 1808, I voted for the bill itself, when it passed in January,
1807.
Upon reviewing all these votes now, the only one upon the
correctness of which I feel a diffidence is that of December, 1805,
against leave to bring in a bill. It was a question, not upon an
ungranted, but upon an interdicted power. Inclining always
against the assumption by Congress of any power not clearly
granted, perhaps I indulged unnecessary scruples against that of a
power expressly forbidden. Had the temper of the times, in
relation to the slave trade, been in 1805, when the bill was brought
348
THE WRITINGS OF [182
in, the same as it had been in 1787, when the interdiction of the
power of prohibition to Congress was inserted in the constitution,
I have little doubt that the construction of the clause upon which I
voted would have been held to be the only one of which it would
fairly admit. But in the interval a great and happy change of the
public mind had taken place. The slave trade, which in 1787 had
been renewed as a privilege too precious to be submitted even
to the prohibitory power of Congress, in 1805 had palled
upon the taste, and become an object of general abhorrence
and disgust even to those whose interests and desires the original
interdiction had been conceded, were willing to forego the remnant
of benefit which they might have claimed from it and to join two
years before its time in prescribing that prohibition, which until
then could not be carried into effect. But if I, from an overweening
scruple against the exercise of a power one day before it became
unequivocally lawful, am to be doomed as unquestionably a friend
to the slave trade, what is to be said of these patriots and sages
with Washington at their head who, in 1787, expressly denied to
Congress for twenty years, the power of prohibiting this flagitious
traffic at all. ^
A vote upon another grave subject is charged upon me as
evidence of my hostility to the republicans, a vote against wearing
crape one month, in memory of Samuel Adams and Edmund
Pendleton, two of the most distinguished friends of virtue and
liberty.
My objection to it was as a precedent. On the same day an
unanimous vote had passed to wear crape for one month for
Stevens Thompson Mason, a member of the Senate, then recently
deceased. As a usual compliment to a member of the body, I had
assented to this. But when on the same day, a resolution was
offered to wear crape for another month for two persons, neither of
them a member of the body and out of the usual course of pro-
ceedings, its obvious tendency was to introduce a practice of
passing such resolutions upon the decease of every eminent man
in the Union. It had the appearance, too, of a disposition to offer
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 349
them by pairs from different sections of the Union, and of leading
to discussions of comparative merits, and to disquisitions upon
characters, neither suitable to the time nor the place. The char-
acters of Samuel Adams and Edmund Pendleton were venerable
and illustrious; but others equally distinguished had died without
that sort of notice which the example, once given, might and
probably would be demanded for others less meritorious until it
should lose all value as an unmeaning formality. These were the
motives upon which I, with a very respectable minority, voted
against that resolution, and although a majority voted for it be-
cause they thought a rejection of it, after it was once offered,
would have appeared disrespectful to the persons whom it was
then especially intended to honor, I have reason to believe that
they were convinced by the result of that day's debate, that it
would be advisable to offer no more such compound resolutions,
and that this mode of political canonization, if ever proper, should
be reserved for characters of at least solitary splendor, and with
regard to whom there would be neither need nor disposition to
take the question by yeas and nays.
General Smyth finally charges me with having, as a Senator,
denied protection to commerce, and seeking as usual a culpable
motive for what he otherwise cannot account for, he imputes it
to an unwillingness that the republican administration should
have the credit of affording protection to commerce. His proofs
are, that in March, 1804, I voted for striking out of the "Act
further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States
against the Barbary Powers" the clause imposing the duty called
the Mediterranean fund, and finally against the act itself.
My recollections respecting this act, and my reasons for my
votes upon it, are less clear and distinct than with regard to any
of the others pointed out by the General for your reprobation;
because, in the other cases I not only voted, but took an active
part in the debates. In this I gave only silent votes, according to
the conviction of my judgment and upon the strength of argu-
ments urged by others. I well remember, however, the principal
350 THE WRITINGS OF [1822
objections against the Mediterranean fund clause, and against the
act itself.
By the first section of the act an additional duty of two and a
half per cent ad valorem was imposed upon all goods, wares and
merchandise imported, which were already charged with ad
valorem duties. It was contended that this indiscriminate aug-
mentation of duties upon one class of merchandise, many articles
of which were already burthened with charges as heavy as they
could well bear, would operate very unequally and inequitably
upon different portions of the Union; that the funds ought to be
raised by specific impositions upon specific articles, or by some
other mode of taxation. The details of the debate are not present
to my memory; but this was the substance of the objection to the
tax and to the act, and of the reason upon which my vote was
given.
There was another objection to the second section. It provided
that a distinct account should be kept of the duties imposed by the
act, the proceeds of which should constitute a fund to be denom-
inated the Mediterranean fund, which should be applied solely to
the purposes designated by that act; and that the said additional
duty should cease and be discontinued at the expiration of three
months after the ratification of a treaty of peace with Tripoli,
unless we should then be at war with any other of the Barbary
powers, in which case the said additional duty should cease and be
discontinued at the expiration of three months after the ratifica-
tion of a treaty of peace with such power.
It was objected to this section that it contained a delusive
pledge or promise to the people which would never be redeemed;
that it was but sweetening to the nauseous drug of taxation, un-
worthy of the dignity, and discreditable to the sincerity of the
legislature; that it was no other than a costly and cumbersome
fund; that the distinct account of duties to be applied solely to the
purposes of that act, while altogether useless in itself, would only
tend to embarrass and complicate the concerns and management
of the Treasury, and that when once the tax should be thoroughly
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 351
and finally saddled upon the people, the Mediterranean fund and
the distinct account would be dropped, but the burthen would
remain.
How far these arguments were founded in truth, and this fore-
sight was justified by the event, let the records of your national
legislature decide. The ratification of the treaty of peace with
Tripoli, three months after which by this promise the Mediter-
ranean fund duty was to cease and be discontinued, took place in
April, 1806.
On the 2 1 St of the same month Congress passed an act by which
the first section of the act further to protect the commerce and
seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers was con-
tinued till the end of the then next session of Congress, and no
longer. The peace with Tripoli had been ratified, we were not at
war with any other of the Barbary powers. The Mediterranean
fund, the distinct account and specific application of its proceeds,
were all suffered silently to expire; but the additional duty of
two and a half per cent was continued until the end of the next
session of Congress, and no longer.
On the 3d of March, 1807, the same first section of the act, the
duty of two and a half per cent were continued in force, until the
first day of January then next, and no longer.
On the 19th of January, 1808, it was again revived and con-
tinued in force until the first day of January then next, but without
the flattering promise of the words and no longer. By recurring
to the journals of the Senate of nth January, 1808, it will be seen
that it was agreed to expunge these words from the bill. They
were expunged at my motion and in the following manner. The
bill was on its passage to a third reading. The venerable George
Clinton, then in the chair of the Senate, holding the bill in his
hand and about to put the question on its passage, beckoned to
me to come to him from my seat. When I went up, he whispered
to me, "I wish you would move to strike out these words and no
longer." I answered him that I would with pleasure, but asked
him what reason I should assign for the motion. "Why," said
352
THE WRITINGS OF [1822
he, "I am ashamed to sign my name so often to a lie." On this
hint I made the motion, and the words were expunged. But the
duty was continued from year to year until after the declaration of
war against Great Britain, when it merged in the double duty act
of 1st July, 1812.
'Fellow citizens, I have explained to you the reasons and real
motives for all these votes, which your representative, General
Alexander Smyth, has laid to my charge in a printed address to
you, and to which unusual publicity has been given in the news-
papers. I am aware that in presenting myself before you to give
this explanation, my conduct may again be attributed to un-
worthy motives. The best of actions may be, and have been, and
will be, traced to impure sources — by those to whom troubled
waters are a delight. If in many cases where the characters of
public men are canvassed however severely, it is their duty to
suffer and be silent, there are others, in my belief many others,
wherein their duty to their country, as well as to themselves and
to their children, is to stand forth the guardians and protectors of
their own honest fame. Had your representative, in asking again
for your votes, contented himself with declaring to you his inten-
tions concerning me, you never would have heard from me in
answer to him. But when he imputes to me a character and
disposition unworthy of any public man, and adduces in proof
mere naked votes upon questions of great public interest, all given
under the solemn sense of duty impressed by an oath to support
the constitution and by the sacred obligations of a public trust, to
defend myself against charges so groundless and so unprovoked, is,
in my judgment a duty of respect to you, no less than a duty of
self-vindication to me. I declare to you that not one of the votes
which General Smyth has called from an arduous service of five
years in the Senate of the Union, to stigmatize them in the face of
the country, was given from any of the passions or motives to
which he ascribes them; that I never gave a vote either in hostility
to the administration of Mr. Jefferson, or in disregard to republican
principles, or in aversion to republican patriots, or in favor of the
1822] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 353
slave trade, or in denial of due protection to commerce. I will
add, that having often differed in judgment with many of the best
and wisest men of this Union of all parties, I have never lost sight
either of the candor due to them in the estimate of their motives,
or of the diffidence with which it was my duty to maintain the
result of my own opinions in opposition to theirs.
Finally, my friends, I have a motive for meeting thus openly
and explicitly the accusations of General Smyth, which has refer-
ence more to our whole country than to you alone or to me. In
the hearts of us all upon every deliberation, whether in Congress,
in the state legislature, on the election grounds, or in the public
journals, the result to be aimed at by all should be peace, harmony,
union, freedom. Public principle can be settled in accordance with
these ends only by public discussion. On this, as on more than one
other occasion, a personal attack upon me has implicated principles
of morals and policy of the deepest import to you, to us all. With
every vote upon which General Smyth has invoked your censure,
was connected a great and important principle. That which he
could trace to no other spring than selfish passions and sordid
purposes, I have shown you to have been drawn from the deeper
fountains of constitutional law, of genuine human rights, of dis-
criminating moral sentiment. Say, if you please, that upon one or
more, or all of these votes, my judgment was ill advised, but say
that the motives by which it was influenced were pure, and that
the reasons by which it was misled were not trivial or light. To
all my votes on the acts legislating upon Louisiana in the session of
1803 and 1804, I will conclude with calling your permanent and
deliberate attention. They involve, in the most eminent degree,
the question still deeply interesting to you, of the constructive
■powers of Congress. Not indeed in the same point of view in which
it is more usually presented to your feelings; not a question in
direct conflict with another question as to the extent of the rights
of your state legislatures; not a question between two sets of
servants of the same family to which of them belongs the power
to open a banking house or to dig a watercourse, but a question
354 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
between Congress and the sovereign people of the Union, between
Congress and the peoples of the four quarters of the globe. Upon
the question in this aspect my sentiments are recorded in the votes
which I gave when it appeared in its first seminal principle upon
the legislation over Louisiana in 1803 and 1804. The time is per-
haps not far distant when the question in this respect will bear with
momentous weight upon your interests and upon your affections.
The seed was but as a grain of mustard seed. The plant may
shoot forth its branches till it overshadows the earth.
Washington, December 28, 1822.^
TO JOHN FORSYTH
Department of State,
Washington, 3 January, 1823.
Sir,
Mr. Edward Wyer, the bearer, is despatched as a con-
fidential messenger, with the letters and documents which
he will deliver to you. The unpleasant incidents which
occurred in the course of the last summer at Algiers are
doubtless known to you. If the misunderstanding is known
to you to be still subsisting upon Mr. Wyer's arrival at
Madrid, he is instructed to proceed thence with a despatch
to our Consul General, Mr. Shaler, wherever he may be.
It is hoped, however, that ere this an amicable explanation
may have removed the difficulties which had arisen, and
' General Smyth issued a second address to his constituents, which appeared in
the National Intelligencer, January 1 1, 1823. See Adams, Memoirs, under that date.
"Adams' reply to Gen'l Smith of Virginia is considered to be an able, and very skill-
ful performance, and as the Virginians admit, well calculated for the meridian of
the ancient Dominion; but I apprehend that he cannot become acceptable to the
peculiar faith which docs and must control the opinions of this region." Rufus
King to Charles King, January 9, 1823. Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, VI.
494-
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 355
that Mr. Shaler will have returned to Algiers and resumed
his consular functions there. In that case Mr. Wyer will
transmit the despatch for Mr. Shaler with which he is
charged, by any safe and ordinary mode of conveyance, and
will return here, with any despatches which you may intrust
to him; waiting as long as you may think advisable for the
answer to the demand of permission to pursue the pirates
of Cuba on the shores of the Island.
Besides the correspondence with Mr. Anduaga, copies
of which are herewith transmitted, I have received several
long and very earnest communications from that minister,
the replies to which have been and are yet delayed, in the
hope that they may be received by him In a disposition
more calm and temperate than that which is manifested
by his notes. He appears to think it material to the interest
of his government to maintain the attitude of loud com-
plaint in regard to transactions with respect to which the
primary cause of complaint Is on our side. The only excep-
tion to this remark relates to a miserable attempt at an
expedition against the Island of Porto Rico by a foreign
officer named Ducoudray de Holstein, but on board of which
were some misguided citizens of the United States. One
of the vessels appears to have been fitted out at Philadel-
phia, and one at New York; but the first intimation of these
facts received by this government was long after they had
sailed, and from the island of St. Bartholomew.
We have since learned that the masters of the vessels
were deceived with regard to their destination, and that
when it was discovered by them, they positively refused to
proceed upon It, and insisted upon going Into the island of
Curasao, where the chief and others of the expedition were
arrested. You will make this known to the Spanish govern-
ment, and assure them that this government knew nothing
356 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
of this expedition before the departure of the vessels from
the United States. This will not be surprising when it is
known that it escaped equally the vigilance of Mr. Anduaga
himself, who divides his residence between New York and
Philadelphia, and of all the other Spanish official agents
and consuls at those places.
Mr. Anduaga has taken this occasion to renew with much
sensibility all his own complaints and those of his predeces-
sors, against armaments in our ports in behalf of the South
American patriots, and even against that commerce which
our citizens, In common with the subjects of all the mari-
time nations of Europe, have for many years maintained
with the people of the emancipated colonies. These com-
plaints have been so fully and repeatedly answered that
there is some difficulty In accounting for Mr. Anduaga's
recurrence to them with the feelings which mark his notes
concerning them. Should the occasion present Itself, you
will give it distinctly to be understood, that If some of these
notes remain long, and may even finally remain unanswered,
it is from a principle of forbearance to him, and of unequivo-
cal good will towards his government and country.
I am, etc.
THE MACBETH POLICY ^
An ingenious commentator upon Shakespeare, In a conversa-
tion by moonlight on the piazza, observes that the Macbeth policy,
"If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me" will not
answer.
A friend who happened, at the moment when this observation
was made, to join in the conversation, and who sometimes studies
' The occasion for this paper was a letter from Joseph Hopkinson, of Philadel-
phia, to Mrs. Adams, which is printed in Adams, Memoirs, VI. 130.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 357
the tragedy of Macbeth, with a view to the first and highest pur-
poses of the drama, to purify his own heart by the passions of
pity and terror, enquires whether this quotation,
"If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me
"Without my stir."
can with propriety be denominated the Macbeth policy, and whether
it is not rather a remnant of virtue yet struggling in the breast of
that victim of unhallowed ambition against the horrible imaginings
of that policy by which he finally wins the crown and loses his life
and his soul?
As a test to this inquiry let us suppose that Macbeth had ad-
hered to what you call his policy, and waited for chance to crown
him. You say he never would have been king.'' True. And of
course no tragedy. The Macbeth policy is quite a different thing,
and your quotation is an answer to your argument.
But in the application of the sentiment to present times and
future events, ought we not to remark that kings and crowns and
chance are all out of the question.'' Detur digniori is the inscription
upon the prize, and the choice of ten millions of people by their
delegated agents must award it.
"No," say you, "little is left to chance or merit. The prize is
awarded by politicians and newspapers, and the man who sits
down waiting for it by chance or just right will go bare-handed all
his life."
Here we come to the point. The principle of the Constitution in
its purity is, that the duty shall be assigned to the most able and
the most worthy. Politicians and newspapers may bestir them-
selves to point out who that is; and the only question between us
is, whether it be consistent with the duties of a citizen who is
supposed to desire that the choice should fall upon himself to
assist, countenance, and encourage those who are disposed to
befriend him in the pursuit.
The law of friendship is a reciprocation of good offices. He who
asks or accepts the offer of friendly service contracts the obligation
of meeting it with a suitable return. He who asks or accepts the
358 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
offer of aid to promote his own views necessarily binds himself to
promote the views of him from whom he receives it. Whatever
may be the wishes of an individual, nothing but the unbiassed
voice of many others can make him even a candidate for the chief
magistracy. If he asks or accepts the aid of one, he must ask or
accept the aid of multitudes. Between the principle, of which
much has been said in the newspapers, that a President of the
United States must remember those to whom he owes his elevation,
and the principle of accepting no aid on the score of friendship or
personal kindness to him, there is no alternative. The former, as
it has been announced and urged, I deem to be essentially and
vitally corrupt. The latter is the only principle to which no excep-
tion can be taken.
If therefore I have checked and discouraged the exertions of
Mr. W[alsh] in this cause, it has not been from insensibility either
to his kindness, or to his talents, or to his influence. I have been
unwilling that from motives of personal kindness to me he should
take trouble, incur hazards, and expose himself, and perhaps his
interests, to dangers which it will probably never be in my power
to reward. The rule which I have been compelled to apply to
Mr. W. I have been equally obliged to apply to others. He has
never intimated to me the wish or expectation of return. Others
are less delicate. But / am to look not merely to what he would
expect, but to what I am bound to think due to an accepted offer.
I do not deceive myself as to the consequences of this principle
upon the issue of the approaching election. I know that all are not
equally scrupulous, and I remember the connection between the
" Vox pro Re public a honesta, ipsi anceps, legi a se militem non emi^^
and the fate of Galba. But in the situation where it has pleased
Providence to place me, my first and most anxious desire is to
discharge all my duties. The only way that I can fulfil those to
my country is by services. Those of friendship can be performed
only by forbearing to ask or accept services importing personal
sacrifices and hazards which it may never be in my power to re-
quite.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 359
Mr. W. is at liberty to pursue in his editorial capacity, with
regard to the Presidential election, that line which his opinions of
the public interest and the sense of his own duty to the country will
dictate. If he thinks it immaterial upon which of the candidates
the choice should settle, perhaps his wisest course would be a
guarded neutrality, rendering justice to all, and dispensing censure
and approbation according to the convictions of his own judgment.
If upon public considerations he has made up his mind to support
one candidate, it is yet more congenial to his own spirit of inde-
pendence and to that of the candidate whom he may favor that
this support should be given free and unshackled on both sides,
than as an offer made to the candidate for his benefit, and as such
accepted by him.
In all my correspondence with Mr. W. hitherto I have con-
sidered this as a point upon which he had not come to a definitive
determination. He had so intimated or declared in an editorial
article of his paper; and the character of his remarks upon every
occasion on which he had noticed me as before the public, though
not unfriendly in the main, and always doing justice to my inten-
tions, had never struck me as manifesting partiality of any kind
in my favor, nor assuredly as indicating a preference of me as a
possible candidate for the presidency hereafter. My last letter to
him was of the 27th of November last; and whatever was said in
that to check or discourage exertions on his part in my favor, was
said either with reference to his personal interest, and as a return
of friendship and confidence to him, or in answer to observations
which he had made in a private letter to me on certain grounds of
support to me which he had recently appeared to take in his paper,
and of the nature and effect of which he had seemed to wish for
my opinion. I considered the fact as very uncertain whether
even New England would unitedly offer me as a candidate, and I
doubted the correctness of the principle upon which it was sup-
posed I should be supported by that section of the Union and
opposed by another. Let us have sectional sympathies, if you
please; but let us distrust even them; and let us indulge no sec-
36o THE WRITINGS OF [1823
tional antipathies. Expose them where they operate, but set not
one prejudice in array against another.
When I said that Mr. W. had indicated in his editorial capacity
no decided preference of me as a probable candidate for the Pres-
idency, I spoke with reference to the time when the last letters
between him and me were written. Since then he has spoken more
distinctly; and if I am to consider him as wishing to support me
for a candidate with his editorial influence, I would beg leave to
offer him the following advice:
First, to wait till it shall be ascertained whether I am to be a
candidate at all. Great exertions have for years been systemat-
ically making to exclude me from that position altogether. I have
done and shall do nothing to place myself in it. Persecuted by
calumny in its lowest and most insidious forms, I have more than
once defended myself in the face of the nation; whether success-
fully or not, the nation and posterity are to judge. But surely to
parry the daggers of assassins is not to canvass votes for the
Presidency. In no part of the Union, not even in my native New
England, has there been an unequivocal manifestation of a public
sentiment disposed to hold me up as a candidate. If that feeling
does not exist, and in a force which no effort of intrigue can sup-
press or restrain, it would be a useless, and perhaps worse than
useless, thing for a few personal friends of mine to attempt to
produce it. The opinion has gone abroad throughout the Union
that I shall have no support. I have no decisive evidence that the
voice of the people in any quarter of it is in my favor. The Rich-
mond Enquirer^ the leading paper of the Presidential canvass, pro-
nounced me eight months ago hors de combat. And although it has
since admitted that it might possibly be otherwise, it allows me
no partisans but those who think I had been wronged in the
diplomatic feud. In Massachusetts I am no favorite of the federal
majority. In the rest of New England the Republicans are luke-
warm and distrustful of success. My career has attached no
party to me precisely because it has been independent of all party.
"All rising to great place," says Lord Bacon, "is by a winding
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 361
stair; and if there be factions it is good to side one's self whilst
he is in the rising, and to balance himself when he is placed." I
have neither ascended by the winding stair nor sided myself in the
rising; and the consequence has been that all parties disown me —
the Federalists as a deserter, the Democrats as an apostate. I have
followed the convictions of my own mind with a single eye to the
interests of the whole nation; and if I have no claims to the suf-
frages of the whole nation, I have certainly none to those of either
party. This independence of party will always in warm, factious
times be mistaken and misrepresented by common politicians for
unsteadiness of principle; and the man who acts upon it must
make his account to stand or fall on broader grounds than lie
within the bounds of a geographical subdivision, and with other
props than political sectarianism or individual intrigue. If your
watch has no main-spring, you will not keep time by turning round
the minute-hand. If I cannot move the mass, I do not wish to
trifle with the indicator. Against me I have in every section the
passions and prejudices peculiar to its own situation and circum-
stances, and everywhere party spirit, wielded by personal rivals
and adversaries, and working by misrepresentation and slander.
With all these weights bearing me down, where is the buoyant
principle that is to bring me up.^ Is it for me to say, my talents
and my services? and what else can be said by any of my friends?
My wishes are out of the question. If I am to be a candidate, it
must be by the wishes, ardent and active, of others and not by
mine. Let Mr. W. then first wait for proof that there is a strong
public interest in my favor. Secondly, if this point should be
ascertained beyond all question, and Mr. W. should think proper
to take an active part in promoting the election, whatever in-
formation he may desire he can obtain either by direct communica-
tion with me or from my friends, with whom he is also in relations
of friendship.
Thirdly, if his disposition is to befriend me, and the influence of
newspapers be as powerful as you suggest, would it not be ad-
visable to observe the course of other newspapers, and endeavor to
362 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
harmonize, or at least not to conflict, with those which appear
disposed to support the same cause?
With this explanation, I hope Mr. W. will be satisfied that any
coolness with which I may have received his profl"ers and dis-
positions of kindness has been the result of a real kindness to
himself, as well as of rigid principle. If my countrymen prefer
others to me, I must not repine at their choice. Indifference at
the heart is not to be won by wooing. The services that have no
tongue to speak for themselves would be ill aided by the loudest
trumpet. Merit and just right in this country will be heard. And
in my case if they are not heard without my stir I shall acquiesce
in the conclusion that it is because they do not exist.
23 rd January, 1823.
1 "Mr. Adams, having the preference of New England, is, as I conceive, without
friends who are knitted to him by personal attachments. The opinion of his in-
tegrity and of his superiority as a learned statesman, is not disputed by anyone;
but with these qualifications, which are of great worth, a disinclination towards him,
grounded on the imputed infirmities which belonged to his father, and added to the
want of those properties which produce and maintain personal attachments, pre-
vails to an extent that it will be found difficult to overcome. If what Mr. Walsh
calls the Universal Yankee Nation should unite in his favor, it would produce eflfect,
particularly in New York; but the managers will resort to devices to prevent this
union." Rufus King to Christopher Gore, February 9, 1823. Life and Correspond-
ence of Rufus King, VI. 500. "Adams' discussions in the newspapers have increased
his reputation, but whether they have materially advanced the probability of his
election I am not able to say. He is above all controversy the best informed, and
some persons believe the best qualified, of the candidates: but if this be so, does it
prove that he is therefore the most likely to be chosen President, or will the election
turn on other considerations than those which cannot be denied to Mr. A. ? " Rufus
King to John A. King, March 2, 1823. lb., 505.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 363
TO STEPHEN ROW BRADLEY
Washington, 12 March, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I some days since received your obliging favor of the 4th
ultimo with its inclosed copy of your answer to certain in-
quiries by General Samuel Smith relating to opinions which
he supposed me to have expressed in the Senate of the United
States justifying the British practice of impressing seamen
on board of American vessels on the high seas.
General Smith's recollections on this subject were erro-
neous, and yours as far as my own serve me are correct. I
never justified or approved the British practice of pressing
men from our vessels at sea. In the month of January,
1804, General Smith, as Chairman of a Committee of the
Senate, brought in a bill "further to protect the seamen of
the United States." This bill I opposed, because without
making any discrimination between our own seamen and
British seamen in our vessels, or between the places where
they might be taken whether at sea or even in British ports,
its provisions appeared to me adapted to bring the question
between us and Great Britain on that subject to an imme-
diate issue of war, upon grounds which we could not justly
maintain. In the course of the debates upon this bill and
while opposing it, I stated to the Senate the British side of
the argument, not as approving it myself, much less as
justifying their practices under it, but to show that it was a
question of extreme difficulty between the two nations, and
that it would be neither just nor politic to bring it to an
Immediate conflict of war by precipitate and inconsiderate
measures on our part. I stated that the right of a sovereign
to command the services of his subjects, especially in emer-
364 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
gencies of war, was not only a British doctrine, but asserted
by all the writers on public law of whom I had any knowl-
edge. I very probably said that I held the doctrine to be
sound, for I did and do still so hold it. I further added that
the exercise of this right by the king of Great Britain within
the realm by the impressment of seamen in time of war actual
or impending had been maintained to be lawful by some of
the wisest and most virtuous judges, and some of the most
ardent friends of liberty that the nation had ever produced.
I referred especially to the arguments of Judge Foster in
his reports, and of Junius, and spoke of them both with
strong commendation. I said that whether conclusive or
not they were considered in England to be so; that we could
not maintain the right of rescuing British seamen from the
authority of their own government within the British domin-
ions; that when our vessels frequented British ports while
Great Britain was at war and we were neutral, there was
the strongest possible temptation both to the British
seamen to ship in our vessels, and to the masters of our
vessels to ship them. To the former the neutral merchant
service offered higher wages and more liberty without the
dangers of war; while the latter could ship them at lower
wages than they were obliged to give for seamen in our own
ports. I observed that in consequence of this we were
charged with seducing British seamen from the service of
their own country, and that if we should pass an act making
it penal to take a seaman out of an American vessel, without
discriminating either as to the national character of the
man or as to the place where the act should be done, it
would be equivalent to declaring war, if a British press gang
should board an American vessel in the port of Liverpool
and take from her a British seaman clandestinely shipped
to escape from the service of his own sovereign.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 365
I have no doubt that this was the occasion from which
General Smith had drawn the erroneous conclusion that I
had at one period justified in Senate the British practices of
impressment on board of our vessels. I never at any time
admitted their right to take even a British subject from an
American vessel at sea, or anywhere out of the British
Dominions themselves. My argument was not in support
or defence of the British practice, but against a particular
proposed measure of resistance to it. The bill reported by
General Smith did not pass, and although the practice of
impressment from our vessels was afterwards continued
and aggravated a hundred fold, and finally contributed
largely to produce war between the two countries, yet that
bill was never again brought forward.
I have been informed that since the receipt of your letter
General Smith had done me the justice to acknowledge the
mistake of the impression under which he had before im-
puted to me the assertion of opinions which I never did hold.
It is very true that I always dreaded the consequences of
that collision of principle between us and Great Britain in
which her rights to the service of her seamen, and ours to
the freedom of ours and to the security of our flag upon the
seas, were involved. I feared it would terminate in war and
wished that if possible it might be adjusted by negotiation.
Neither war nor negotiation have yet been able to settle it,
and it still hangs over us a sword, now indeed in the scab-
bard, but which the first maritime war in Europe will again
unsheathe, and to meet or avert which will require all the
prudence and all the energy of our descendants and suc-
cessors. "Peace in our time" is the prayer which more
earnestly than ever I offer at the throne of grace, hoping
and trusting that there never will be wanting to our country
or to our councils the spirit which the emergency may re-
366 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
quire thus to modify the petition as to say "the peace of
freedom and independence, or none."
I pray you, Dear Sir, to accept my thanks for the explicit
candor and frankness with which you answered the inquiries
of General Smith, and for your kindness in communicating
to me the copy of your answer. And I am happy that this
incident affords me the opportunity of renewing the remem-
brance of our old associated public service and of assuring
you of the respect with which I am Your faithful servant.
TO RUFUS KING
Washington, 7 April, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I received your letter of the ist instant ^ on the 4th. The
President received one from you this day, but the definitive
answer and letter to which you refer have not yet been given.
I concur in opinion with you, and have spoken accordingly.
If the ground was not positively preoccupied, which I be-
lieve it was not, the recommendation from the quarter you
anticipate will be decisive. Faithfully yours.
TO RUFUS KING
Washington, 21 April, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I have received your letters of the loth and i8th, I wrote
you advisedly on the 7th, but it appears I was mistaken
in the impression that no definitive answer had been then
' Printed in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, VI. 512. An appoint-
ment to the Supreme Court had been offered to Smith Thompson, who was expected
to decline. The office would then be offered to Van Buren. The story of the in-
decision of Thompson is told in the King volume.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 367
received from the Secretary of the Navy. As I had reason
to believe his recommendation would have great weight, I
perhaps inferred from inconclusive premises that it had not
then been given. The uncertainty after it was given would
lead me now to the belief that the ground was preoccupied,
which when I wrote you last I thought it was not. My own
opinion agreeing with yours remains unchanged.
I am, etc.
TO DANIEL CONY ^
Washington, 28 April, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I received with much pleasure your letter of the 15th
instant, and am highly gratified with your approbation of
the exposures which have been drawn from me of certain
transactions at the negotiation of Ghent and afterwards.
I suppose it to be a settled principle that all lands secured
by the treaty with Great Britain of 1783 to this Union which
were not within the chartered limits of any state belonged
of course to the United States. What lands were and what
lands were not beyond the chartered limits of the state I am
not able to say. Some of the states heretofore have insisted
upon exclusive right to territories which according to the
above principle belonged to the Union. The question of the
boundary between Maine and the British Provinces is yet
open, nor is it in my power to say when It will be closed.
The two commissioners under the 5th article of the treaty
of Ghent having disagreed by about one hundred miles as to
the location of the highlands dividing the waters of the
Atlantic from those of the St. Lawrence, the question was
1 Of Augusta, Maine. The name may be Corry.
368 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
next to be referred to the arbitration of a friendly sovereign,
but it has been thought best to make a previous attempt to
arrange the matter by negotiation. Some delays have oc-
curred in this, and some difficulties may be expected to
arise in adjusting it. If it can be settled to the satisfaction
of the people of Maine and Massachusetts, I am persuaded
it will be so to the whole Union, which would be a great
satisfaction to me. In one thing your opinion is certainly
correct — that when the settlement shall be made, it will
be necessary to specify the line by something more definite
than mere highlands.
What the confederacy of European sovereigns will be
able to effect in Spain, it would require the spirit of prophecy
to foretell. I wait, as Pope says, for the great teacher, fear-
ing for Spain much and hoping, if possible, more.
The situation of Spain is full of terror, and will soon be
covered with humiliation or with glory. It is tasking severely
the patience of the human race to hear Louis the i8th of
France proclaim in the face of the world, that he who had
not legs to stand upon will send a hundred thousand French-
men into Spain to ravage the land with fire and sword, to
teach them to receive their liberties from the grant of Fer-
dinand the 7th. This doctrine cannot be much longer main-
tained in Europe. It grows too absurd.
I learn with great satisfaction that your new state govern-
ment in Maine is likely to prove a blessing to the people and
to the state. Their separation from Massachusetts was an
unwelcome event to me as a citizen of the commonwealth,
but when desired by the people of Maine themselves, Mas-
sachusetts could only acquiesce in the result. You have
been fortunate in the selection of a discreet and intelligent
governor,^ who has sense enough to despise the puny arti-
^ Albion Keith Parris (1788-1857).
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 369
iice of seeking consequence to himself by speeches and
messages insulting to the government of the Union.
I have a perfect recollection of the party at Milton Hill
where we met at dinner in August or September, 1817, and
of much of the conversation in which Mr, Holley,^ now Presi-
dent of the Transylvan University, took so earnest a share.
It is my intention to pay a visit to my father in the course
of the ensuing summer. I have hoped that I might have a
longer vacation this year than I have had at any former
season since my present residence here, but as the time
approaches the prospect of leisure shortens. I think I shall
scarcely have two months to spare.
Your nephew Dr. Sewall ^ bears a respectable character,
and is I believe successful in his profession.
I am, etc.
TO HUGH NELSON '
Department of State
Washington, 28 April, 1823.
Sir,
The period at which you enter upon the mission with
which you are charged is of no common interest, and the
relations of the United States with the country to which
you are destined, at all times important, are now of the
deepest moment. The situation of Spain herself, that of
France, from whence she has been threatened with invasion,
ere this probably commenced, that of the great continental
European powers leagued against her, and that of Great
1 Horace Holley (1781-1827). See Dexter, Yale Biographies, V. 586.
» Thomas Sewall (1786-1845).
2 (1768-1836), of Virginia.
370 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Britain, which now for the first time has seceded from the
poHtical system of the European alliance, all combine to
darken the immediate prospects of the future in the eastern
hemisphere, and to summon the attention of this govern-
ment to the interests of the Union which may be affected by
them.
It has been a maxim in the policy of these United States,
from the time when their independence was achieved, to
keep themselves aloof from the political systems and con-
tentions of Europe. To this principle it is yet the purpose
of the President to adhere: and in the war about to com-
mence, the attitude to be assumed and maintained by the
United States will be that of neutrality.
But the experience of our national history has already
shown that, however sincerely this policy was adopted, and
however earnestly and perseverlngly it was maintained,
it yielded ultimately to a course of events by which the
violence and injustice of European powers involved the
immediate interests and brought in conflict the essential
rights of our own country.
Two of the principal causes of the wars between the na-
tions of Europe since that of our own Revolution, have
been, indeed, the same as those In which that originated —
civil liberty and national independence. To these princi-
ples, and to the cause of those who contend for them, the
people of the United States can never be indifferent. A
feeling of sympathy and of partiality for every nation strug-
gling to secure or to defend these great interests, has been
and will be manifested by this Union; and It Is among the
most difficult and delicate duties of the general government,
in all its branches, to indulge this feeling so far as it may be
compatible with the duties of neutrality, and to withhold
and restrain from encroaching upon them. So far as it is
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 371
Indulged, its tendency is to involve us in foreign wars, while
the first and paramount duty of the government is to main-
tain peace amidst all the convulsions of foreign wars, and
to enter the lists as parties to no cause, other than our own.
In the maritime wars of Europe, we have, indeed, a direct
and important interest of our own; as they are waged upon
an element which is the common property of all; and as
our participation in the possession of that property is per-
haps greater than that of any other nation. The existence
of maritime war, itself, enlarges and deepens the importance
of this interest; and it introduces a state of things in which
the conflict of neutral and belligerent rights becomes itself
a continual and formidable instigation to war. To all mari-
time wars Great Britain can scarcely fail of becoming a
party; and from that moment arises a collision between her
and these states, peculiar to the situation, interests and
rights of the two countries, and which can scarcely form a
subject of discussion between any other nation and either
•of them.
This cause then is peculiarly our own: and we have al-
ready been once compelled to vindicate our rights impli-
cated In it by war. It has been too among the dispensations
of Providence, that the issue of that war should have left
that question unsettled for the future; and that the attempts
which on the part of the United States have been repeatedly
made since the peace for adjusting it by amicable negotia-
tion, have in like manner proved ineffectual. There is
therefore great reason to apprehend, that if Great Britain
should engage in the war, now just kindled in Europe, the
United States will again be called to support by all their
energies, not excepting war, the rights of their national
independence, enjoyed in the persons of their seamen.
But in the war between France and Spain now commenc-
372 THE WRITINGS OF . [1823
ing, other interests, peculiarly ours, will in all probability
be deeply involved. Whatever may be the issue of this war,
as between those two European powers, if may be taken
for granted that the dominion of Spain upon the American
continents. North and South, is irrecoverably gone. But
the islands of Cuba and of Porto Rico still remain nominally
and so far really dependent upon her, that she yet possesses j
the power of transferring her own dominion over them,
together with the possession of them, to others. These
islands, from their local position, are natural appendages
to the North American continent; and one of them, Cuba,
almost in sight of our shores, from a multitude of considera-
tions has become an object of transcendent importance to
the political and commercial interests of our Union. Its
commanding position with reference to the Gulf of Mexico
and the West India seas; the character of its population;
its situation midway between our southern coast and the
island of San Domingo; its safe and capacious harbor of the
Havana, fronting a long line of our shores destitute of the-
same advantage; the nature of its productions and of its
wants, furnishing the supplies and needing the returns of a
commerce immensely profitable and mutually beneficial;
give it an importance in the sum of our national interests,
with which that of no other foreign territory can be com-
pared, and little inferior to that which binds the different
members of this Union together. .
Such indeed are, between the interests of that island and
of this country, the geographical, commercial, moral, and
political relations, formed by nature, gathering in the process
of time, and even now verging to maturity, that in looking
forward to the probable course of events for the short period
of half a century, it is scarcely possible to resist the convic-
tion that the annexation of Cuba to our federal republic
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 373
will be indispensable to the continuance and integrity of
the Union itself. It is obvious however that for this event
we are not yet prepared. Numerous and formidable objec-
tions to the extension of our territorial dominions beyond
the sea present themselves to the first contemplation of the
subject. Obstacles to the system of policy by which it alone
can be compassed and maintained are to be foreseen and
surmounted, both from at home and abroad. But there
are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and
if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree can-
not choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined
from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapa-
ble of self-support, can gravitate only towards the North
American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot
cast her ofi" from its bosom. ^
In any other state of things than that which springs from
this incipient war between France and Spain, these con-
siderations would be premature. They are now merely
touched upon, to illustrate the position that, in the war
opening upon Europe, the United States have deep and
important interests involved, peculiarly their own. The
condition of Cuba cannot but depend upon the issue of this
war. As an integral part of the Spanish territories, Cuba
has been formally and solemnly invested with the liberties
of the Spanish constitution. To destroy those liberties, and
to restore in the stead of that Constitution the dominion
of the Bourbon race, is the avowed object of this new inva-
sion of the Peninsula. There is too much reason to appre-
* In October, 1822, George Canning, acting upon a suggestion contained in a
letter from Havana, instructed Stratford Canning to use all his "endeavours to
ascertain how far such suspicions [of designs of the United States upon Cuba] are
justified." The reply completely exonerated the United States government from
entertaining any such designs.
374
THE WRITINGS OF [1823
hend that in Spain itself this unhallowed purpose will be
attended with immediate, or at least with temporary suc-
cess; the constitution of Spain will be demolished by the
armies of the Holy Alliance; and the Spanish nation will
again bow the neck to the yoke of bigotry and despotic
sway.
Whether the purposes of France, or of her continental
allies, extend to the subjugation of the remaining ultra-
marine possessions of Spain or not, has not yet been suffi-
ciently disclosed. But to confine ourselves to that which
immediately concerns us, the condition of the island of
Cuba, we know that the republican spirit of freedom pre-
vails among its inhabitants. The liberties of the constitution
are to them rights in possession: nor is it to be presumed
that they will be willing to surrender them, because they
may be extinguished by foreign violence in the parent coun-
try. As Spanish territory the island will be liable to inva-
sion from France during the war: and the only reasons for
doubting whether the attempt will be made are the probable
incompetency of the French maritime force to effect the
conquest, and the probability that its accomplishment
would be resisted by Great Britain. In the meantime and
at all events, the condition of the island in regard to that
of Its inhabitants, is a condition of great, Imminent, and
complicated danger: and without resorting to speculation
upon what such a state of things must produce upon a
people so situated, we know that Its approach has already
had a powerful effect upon them, and that the question
what they are to do upon contingencies daily pressing upon
them and ripening into reality, has for the last twelve months
constantly excited their attention and stimulated them to
action.
Were the population of the island of one blood and color,
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 375
there could be no doubt or hesitation with regard to the
course which they would pursue, as dictated by their inter-
ests and their rights. The invasion of Spain by France
would be the signal for their Declaration of Independence.
That even in their present state it will be imposed upon
them as a necessity is not unlikely; but among all their
reflecting men it is admitted as a maxim fundamental to
all deliberation upon their future condition, that they are
not competent to a system of permanent self-dependence.
They must rely for the support of protection upon some
force from without; and as, in the event of the overthrow
of the Spanish constitution, that support can no longer be
expected from Spain, their only alternative of dependence
must be upon Great Britain, or upon the United States.
Hitherto the wishes of this government have been that
the connection between Cuba and Spain should continue,
as it has existed for several years. These wishes are known
to the principal inhabitants of the island, and instructions,
copies of which are now furnished you, were some months
since transmitted to Mr. Forsyth, authorizing him in a
suitable manner to communicate them to the Spanish gov-
ernment. These wishes still continue, so far as they can be
indulged with a rational foresight of events beyond our
control, but for which it is our duty to be prepared. If a
government is to be imposed by foreign violence upon the
Spanish nation, and the liberties which they have assisted
by their constitution are to be crushed, it is neither to be
expected nor desired that the people of Cuba, far from the
reach of the oppressors of Spain, should submit to be gov-
erned by them. Should the cause of Spain herself issue
more propitiously than from Its present prospects can be
anticipated, it is obvious that the trial through which she
must pass at home, and the final loss of all her dominions
376 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
on the American continents, will leave her unable to extend
to the island of Cuba that protection necessary for its in-
ternal security and its outward defence.
Great Britain has formally withdrawn from the councils
of the European Alliance in regard to Spain. She disap-
proves the war which they have sanctioned, and which is
undertaken by France: and she avows her determination
to defend Portugal against the application of the principles,
upon which the invasion of Spain raises its only pretence of
right. To the war as it commences, she has declared her
intention of remaining neutral; but the spirit of the British
nation is so strongly and with so much unanimity pro-
nounced against France, their interests are so deeply in-
volved in the issue, their national resentments and jealousies
will be so forcibly stimulated by the progress of the war,
whatever it may be, that unless the conflict should be as
short and the issue as decisive as that of which Italy was
recently the scene, it is scarcely possible that the neutrality
of Great Britain should be long maintained. The prospect
is that she will be soon engaged on the side of Spain; but in
making common cause with her, it is not to be supposed
that she will yield her assistance upon principles altogether
disinterested and gratuitous. As the price of her alliance
the two remaining islands of Spain in the West Indies present
objects no longer of much possible value or benefit to Spain,
but of such importance to Great Britain, that it is impossi-
ble to suppose her indifferent to the acquisition of them.
The motives of Great Britain for desiring the possession
of Cuba are so obvious, especially since the independence
of Mexico, and the annexation of the Floridas to our Union;
the internal condition of the island since the recent Spanish
revolution, and the possibility of its continued dependence
upon Spain, have been so precarious; the want of protection
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 377
there; the power of affording it possessed by Great Britain,
and the necessities of Spain to secure, by some equivalent,
the support of Great Britain for herself; have formed a
remarkable concurrence of predispositions to the transfer
of Cuba; and during the last two years rumors have been
multiplied, that it was already consummated. We have
been confidentially told by indirect communication from
the French government, that more than two years since
Great Britain was negotiating with Spain for the cession of
Cuba; and so eager in the pursuit as to have offered Gibral-
tar, and more, for it in exchange. There is reason to believe
i that, in this respect, the French government was misin-
I formed; but neither is entire reliance to be placed on the
j declaration lately made by the present British Secretary
I for Foreign Affairs to the French government, and which,
. with precautions indicating distrust, has been also con-
fidentially communicated to us; namely, that Great Britain
would hold it disgraceful to avail herself of the distressed
situation of Spain, to obtain possession of any portion of her
American colonies. The object of this declaration, and of
the communication of it here, undoubtedly was to induce
the belief that Great Britain entertained no purpose of
obtaining the possession of Cuba: but these assurances
were given with reference to a state of peace, then still exist-
ing, and which it was the Intention and the hope of Great
Britain to preserve. The condition of all the parties to them
has since changed; and however indisposed the British gov-
ernment might be, ungenerously to avail themselves of the
distress of Spain, to extort from her any remnant of her
former possessions, they did not forbear to take advantage
of it, by orders of reprisals given to two successive squad-
rons, dispatched to the West Indies, and stationed in the
immediate proximity to the Island of Cuba. By measures
378 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
thus vigorous and peremptory, they obtained from Spain
immediate revocation of the blockade which her generals
had proclaimed on the coast of Terra Firma, and pledges
of reparation for all the captures of British vessels made
under color of that military fiction. They obtained also
an acknowledgment of many long standing claims of British
subjects upon the Spanish government, and promises of
payment of them, as a part of the national debt. The whole
amount of them, however, as well as that of the reparation |
and indemnity promised for the capture of British property
under the blockade of General Morales and by the Porto
Rico privateers, yet exists in the form of claims; and the
whole mass of them now is acknowledged claim, for the
satisfaction of which pledges have been given, to be redeemed
hereafter; and for which the island of Cuba may be the only
indemnity in the power of Spain to grant, as it will un-
doubtedly be to Great Britain the most satisfactory in-
demnity which she could receive.
The war between France and Spain changes so totally f
the circumstances under which the declaration above-
mentioned of Mr. Canning was made, that it may, at its
very outset, produce events, under which the possession of
Cuba may be obtained by Great Britain without even raising
a reproach of intended deception against the British govern-
ment for making it. An alliance between Great Britain and
Spain may be one of the first fruits of this war. A guarantee
of the Island to Spain may be among the stipulations of
that alliance; and In the event either of a threatened attack
upon the Island by France, or of attempts on the part of
the Islanders to assume their independence, a resort to the
temporary occupation of the Havana by British forces may
be among the probable expedients, through which It may
be obtained, by concert between Britain and Spain herself.
I
I
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 379
It is not necessary to point out the numerous contingencies
by which the transition from a temporary and fiduciary
occupation to a permanent and proprietary possession may
be efi"ected.
The transfer of Cuba to Great Britain would be an event
unpropitious to the interests of this Union. This opinion
is so generally entertained, that even the groundless rumors
that it was about to be accomplished, which have spread
abroad and are still teeming, may be traced to the deep and
almost universal feeling of aversion to it, and to the alarm
which the mere probability of its occurrence has stimulated.
The question both of our right and our power to prevent it,
if necessary, by force, already obtrudes itself upon our coun-
cils, and the administration is called upon, in the perform-
ance of its duties to the nation, at least to use all the means
within its competency to guard against and forefend it.
It will be among the primary objects requiring your most
earnest and unremitting attention, to ascertain and report
to us any movement of negotiation between Spain and
Great Britain upon this subject. We cannot indeed pre-
scribe any special instructions in relation to it. We scarcely
know where you will find the government of Spain upon
your arrival in the country; nor can we foresee with cer-
tainty by whom it will be administered. Your credentials
are addressed to Ferdinand, the king of Spain under the
constitution. You may find him under the guardianship
of a Cortes, in the custody of an Army of Faith, or under
the protection of the invaders of his country. So long as
the constitutional government may continue to be adminis-
tered in his name, your official intercourse will be with his
ministers; and to them you will repeat what Mr. Forsyth
has been instructed to say, that the wishes of your govern-
ment are, that Cuba and Porto Rico may continue in con-
38o THE WRITINGS OF [1823
nection with Independent and constitutional Spain. You
will add, that no countenance has been given by us to any
projected plan of separation from Spain, which may have
been formed in the Island. This assurance becomes proper,
as, by a late despatch received from Mr. Forsyth, he inti-
mates that the Spanish government have been Informed,
that a revolution in Cuba was secretly preparing, fomented
by communications between a society of Free Masons there,
and another of the same fraternity in Philadelphia. Of this
we have no other knowledge: and the societies of Free Ma-
sons in this country are so little in the practice of using
agency of a political nature on any occasion, that we think
it most probable the Information of the Spanish govern-
ment in that respect is unfounded. It Is true that the Free
Masons at the Havana have taken part of late In the politics
of Cuba; and so far as it is known to us, It has been an earnest
and active part in favor of the continuance of their connec-
tion with Spain.
While disclaiming all disposition on our part, either to
obtain possession of Cuba, or of Porto Rico, ourselves, you
will declare that the American government had no knowl-
edge of the lawless expedition undertaken against the latter
of those islands last summer. This was one among many
subjects upon which the Spanish minister residing here,
Anduaga, remonstrated in a style of complaint to which,
from respect for Spain, and that alone, no answers were
returned to him. Translations of some of the invectives
in which he has Indulged himself are herewith enclosed.
You will distinctly state to the Spanish government the
President's expectation that Mr. Anduaga will not return in
his official capacity to this country. His character was
already so well known before he came to the United States,
that Mr. Brent, then at Madrid, did even then formally
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 381
remonstrate against his appointment, though without suc-
cess. The President wishes not to dwell upon the character
of his communications, in case he should not come back to
renew them: but in the case of the expedition against Porto
Rico, there is reason to believe that it was known to him
before the departure of the vessels concerned in it from
New York and Philadelphia, and that he voluntarily fore-
bore to call the attention of this government to it.
You will not conceal from the Spanish government the
repugnance of the United States to the transfer of the island
of Cuba by Spain to any other power. The deep interest
which would to them be involved in the event gives them
the right of objecting against it; and as the people of the
island itself are known to be averse to it, the right of Spain
herself to make the cession, at least upon the principles on
which the present Spanish constitution is founded, is more
than questionable. Informal and verbal communications
on this subject with the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs
will be most advisable. In casual conversation, and speaking
as from your own impressions, you may suggest the hope,
that if any question of transferring the island to any other
power is, or shall be in agitation, it will not be withheld
from your knowledge, or from ours; that the condition of
Cuba cannot be changed without affecting in an eminent
degree the welfare of this Union, and consequently the good
understanding between us and Spain; that we should con-
sider an attempt to transfer the island, against the will of
its inhabitants, as subversive of their rights, no less than
of our interests; and that, as it would give them the perfect
right of resisting such transfer, by declaring their own in-
dependence, so if they should, under those circumstances,
resort to that measure, the United States will be fully jus-
tified ih supporting them to carry it into effect.
382 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Should immediate success attend the French invasion
of Spain, its probable consequence will be the restoration
of Ferdinand, not perhaps to the unlimited exercise of
sovereign power, but to a phantom of constitution, which,
under the auspices of a Holy League of absolute monarchs,
he will graciously give to his people. There will in that
event be no disposition, either in Ferdinand or his allies, to
transfer the only remaining colonies of Spain to another
power; but it may incite the people of Cuba to declare
themselves independent, and will certainly give them the
right so to do, if the charter of the restored government
should Import an abridgment of any of the liberties which
they now enjoy under the constitution. It is now necessary
to look forward to this contingency only to say, that if a
counter-revolution should be effected, you will continue
accredited to king Ferdinand, and will hold official inter-
course with whatever administration shall be conducted
in his name. But in the event of a revolution by which he
should be dethroned, or if he should go out of Spain, you
will remain with the government de facto, waiting for new
credentials which in that case become necessary.
In a late answer to an address from the Cortes he declared
his intention, in case the country should be invaded, to put
himself at the head of the army for its defence. Other ac-
counts announce the probability that a removal of the
seat of government to Corunna, or to Cadiz, was in con-
templation. Should the king repair to the army, whether
of the constitution or of the Faith, it is not to be expected
that any foreign minister will be required to attend him:
but in the case of the removal of the government from
Madrid, you will follow it, or remain there, according as the
circumstances, which at this distance of time and place
cannot be foreseen, may guide your discretion.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 383
The critical and convulsed condition of Spain may indeed
bring forth many incidents now unforeseen, and upon which
the President relies upon your own judgment for the course
which under them you will find it prudent to pursue. But
with regard to the ordinary relations between the two
countries, there are various objects upon which I now pro-
ceed to request your attention.
The renewal of the war in Venezuela has been signalized,
on the part of the Spanish commander, by proclamations of
blockade unwarranted by the laws of nations, and by decrees
regardless of those of humanity. With no other naval force
than a single frigate, a brig, and a schooner, employed in
transporting supplies from Curasao to Porto Cabello, they
have presumed to declare a blockade of more than 1200
miles of coast. To this outrage upon all the rights of neu-
trality, they have added the absurd pretension of interdicting
the peaceable commerce of other nations with all the ports of
the Spanish main, upon the pretence that it had heretofore
been forbidden by the Spanish colonial laws: and on the
strength of these two inadmissible principles, they have
issued commissions at Porto Cabello and in the island of
Porto Rico, to a swarm of privateers, which have committed
extensive and ruinous depredations upon the lawful com-
merce of the United States, as well as upon that of other
nations, and particularly of Great Britain.
It was impossible that neutral nations should submit to
such a system; the execution of which has been so strongly
marked with violence and cruelty, as was its origin with
injustice. Repeated remonstrances against it have been
made to the Spanish government, and it became necessary
to give the protection of our naval force to the commerce of
the United States, exposed to these depredations.
By the act of Congress of 3 March, 1819, "to protect the
384 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
commerce of the United States, and to punish the crime of
piracy," the President was authorized to instruct the com-
manders of the public armed vessels of the United States, to
take any armed vessel "which shall have attempted or com-
mitted any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depreda-
tion or seizure, upon any vessel of the United States, or of
the citizens thereof, or upon any other vessel; and also to
retake any vessel of the United States, or its citizens, which
may have been unlawfully captured upon the high seas."
A copy of this act, and of the instructions from the Navy
Department to the officers who have been charged with the
execution of it, is herewith furnished you. The instructions
will enable you to show how cautiously this government,
while affording the protection due to the lawful commerce
of the nation has guarded against the infringement of the
rights of all others.
The privateers from Porto Rico and Porto Cabello have
been by their conduct, distinguishable from pirates only by
commissions of most equivocal character from Spanish
officers, whose authority to issue them has never been
shown: and they have committed outrages and depredations,
which no commission could divest of the piratical character.
During the same period, swarms of pirates and of piratical
vessels, without pretence or color of commission, have issued
from the island of Cuba, and the immediate neighborhood of
the Havana, differing so little in the composition of their
crews and their conduct from the privateers of Porto Cabello
and Porto Rico, as to leave little distinction other than that
of being disavowed, between them. These piracies have now
been for years continued, under the immediate observation
of the government of the island of Cuba; which, as well as
the Spanish government, has been repeatedly and inef-
fectually required to suppress them. Many of them have
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 385
been committed by boats, within the very harbors, and close
upon the shores, of the island. When pursued by superior
force, the pirates have escaped to the shores: and twelve
months have elapsed since the late Captain General Mahy
refused to Captain Biddle the permission to land even
upon the desert and uninhabited parts of the island, where
they should seek refuge from his pursuit. Governor Mahy
at the same time declared, that he had taken the necessary
measures to defend his territorial jurisdiction, and for the
apprehension of every description of outlaws.
Governor Mahy is since deceased; but neither the measures
which he had then taken, nor any since adopted by the
government of the island, have proved effectual to suppress,
or in any manner even to restrain the pirates. From the
most respectable testimony we are informed that these
atrocious robberies are committed by persons well known,
and that the traffic in their plunder is carried on with the
utmost notoriety. They are sometimes committed by
vessels equipped as merchant vessels, and which clear out
as such from the Havana. It has also been remarked, that
they cautiously avoid molesting Spanish vessels, but attack
without discrimination the defenceless vessels of all other
nations. You will see, by a letter from Lieutenant Gregory
to the Secretary of the Navy (p. 64 of the printed docu-
ments) that a large portion of the crews of the Porto Rico
privateers consist of those same pirates from Cuba.
In November last a gallant officer of the navy, Lieutenant
Allen, lost his life in a conflict with some of those pirates; and
an armament was immediately fitted out, and is now on
the spot, under the command of Commodore Porter for
the defence and protection of our commerce against them.
Notice was despatched of this movement to Mr. For-
syth, by a special messenger in January last; with in-
386 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
structions to him to require of the Spanish government the
permission to land in case of necessity, in pursuit of the
robbers. Copies of the instructions from the Secretary of
the Navy are herewith furnished.
From this statement of facts it is apparent, that the naval
officers of the United States who have been instructed to
protect our commerce in that quarter, have been brought in
conflict with two descriptions of unlaivfui captors of our
merchant vessels; the acknowledged and disavowed pirates
of Cuba, and the ostensibly commissioned privateers from
Porto Rico and Porto Cabello; and that in both cases the
actual depredations have been of the same class of Spanish
subjects, and often probably the same persons. The con-
sequence has been that several of the commissioned pri-
vateers have been taken by our cruisers; and that in one
instance a merchant vessel belonging to the Havana, but
charged upon oath of two persons as having been the vessel
from which a vessel of the United States had been robbed,
has been brought into port, and is now at Norfolk, to be
tried at the next session of the District Court of the United
States. In all these cases the Spanish minister, Anduaga,
has addressed to this department complaints and remon-
strances, in language so exceptionable, that it precluded the
possibility of an amicable discussion of the subject with
him. In some of the cases, explanations have been trans-
mitted to Mr. Forsyth, to be given In a spirit of amity and
conciliation to the Spanish government. But as your mis-
sion affords a favorable opportunity for a full and candid
exposition of them all, copies of the correspondence with
Mr. Anduaga relating to them are annexed to these in-
structions; to which I add, upon each case of complaint, the
following remarks:
I. The first is the case of a man named Escandell, prize
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 387
master of a Dutch vessel called the Neptune, taken by a
privateer, armed in Porto Cabello, called the Virgen del
Carmen, and retaken by the United States armed brig
Spark, then commanded by Captain John H. Elton, since
deceased. From the report of Captain Elton it appears:
1st. That the Dutch vessel had been taken within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Dutch island of Curasao;
2ndly. That he, Captain Elton, delivered her up to the
governor of the island of Amaba; jdly. That he retook her
as a vessel piratically captured, the prize master, Escandell,
having produced to him no papers whatsoever. He there-
fore brought him. and the prize crew to Charleston, S. C,
where they were prosecuted as pirates.
Mr. Anduaga's first letter to me on this case was dated the
24th of July, 1822, enclosing a copy of a letter from Escandell
to the Spanish Vice Consul at Charleston, invoking his
protection; Escandell being then in prison, and under an
indictment for piracy. He solicits the interposition of the
Vice Consul, that he may obtain from the Captain General
of the Havana, and the commanding officers at Porto
Cabello, documents to prove that he was lawfully com-
missioned: and he alleges, that the captain of the privateer
had furnished him with a document, to carry the prize into
Porto Cabello; that he did deliver this document to Captain
Elton, who concealed it from the court at Charleston; that
Elton and his officers well know that he, Escandell, was
commissioned by the King of Spain, and had assisted at the
disembarking of General La Torre, with the privateer and
the prize; but that Elton had withheld his knowledge of
these facts from the grand jury. Mr. Anduaga's letter to me
noticed this contradiction between the statement of Captain
Elton and the declaration of Escandell; and requested that
the trial at Charleston might be postponed, till he could
388 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
receive answers from the Captain General of the Havana,
and the Commandant of Porto Cabello, to whom he had
written to obtain the documents necessary to prove the
legaHty of the capture. This was accordingly done.
The letter of Mr. Anduaga was unexceptionable in its
purport; but on the 17th of October he addressed me a
second enclosing the papers he had received from Porto
Cabello, and assuming a style of vituperation, not only
against Captain Elton, then very recently dead, but against
the navy in general, the government, and even the people
of the United States, which required the exertion of some
forbearance to avoid sending it back to him, as unsuitable
to be received at this Department from a foreign minister.
It was the more unwarrantable, because while assuming
as proved against an officer of the United States, no longer
living to justify himself, that he had concealed documents
furnished him by Escandell, he declares It "evident, that,
not the public service, but avarice, and the atrocious desire
of sacrificing upon a gibbet the lives of some innocent citizens
of a friendly power, were the moving principles of this com-
mander's conduct." To those who personally knew Cap-
tain Elton, what language could reply in terms of indigna-
tion adequate to the unworthlness of this charge.^ And
how shall I now express a suitable sense of It, when I say
that it was advanced without a shadow of proof, upon the
mere original assertion of Escandell, made In the most sus-
picious manner, and which the very documents from Porto
Cabello tended rather to disprove than to sustain!
It was made I say In the most suspicious manner. For
in his affidavit before the clerk of the United States court at
Charleston, made on the 8th of June, 1822, where he might
have been confronted by Captain Elton and the officers
of the Spark, Escandell had not even hinted at this conceal-
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 389
ment of his papers by Captain Elton, or pretended that he
had produced any to him. But after he had been arraigned
upon the indictment, and after the court had, at the motion
of his counsel, postponed his trial to the next term, for the
express purpose of giving him time to obtain proof that he
had been commissioned; in a secret letter to Casteo, the
owner of the privateer at Porto Cabello, and in another
to the Spanish Vice Consul at Charleston, he makes these
scandalous allegations against Captain Elton, at times and
places where he could not be present to refute them.
That the documents from Porto Bello, transmitted to
Mr. Anduaga, tended rather to disprove than to sustain
them, you will perceive by an examination of the transla-
tions of them, herewith furnished you. The only documents
among them showing the authority under which Escandell,
when captured by Captain Elton, had possession of the
Neptune, is a copy of the commission of the privateer, Virgen
del Carmen, which had taken the Neptune, and a declaration
by the Captain of the privateer, Lorenzo Puyol, that on
capturing the Neptime, he had put Escandell as prize master,
and six men on board of her, ordering her into the port of
Porto Cabello, and furnishing Escandell with the documents
necessary for his voyage. No copy of these documents is
produced; and the declaration of this Captain Puyol, him-
self, is signed only with a cross, he not knowing how to write
his name.
It is conceived that the only admissible evidence of Escan-
dell's regular authority as prize master of a captured vessel,
would have been an authenticated copy of the document
itself furnished him by Puyol. The extreme ignorance of
this man, who appears on the face of his own declaration
unable to write his own name, raises more than a presump-
tion that he knew as little what could be a regular document
390 THE WRITINGS OF I1823
for a prize master; and is by no means calculated to give
confidence to his declaration as a substitute for the authen-
tic copy of the document itself. The absurdity of the im-
putation of avaricious motives to Captain Elton is demon-
strated by the fact, that he delivered up the prize, which
was a Dutch vessel, to the governor of Amaba, and to her
original captain: and as to that of his having concealed
Escandell's papers, to bring him and six innocent seamen to
the gibbet, I can even now notice it only to leave to the can-
dor of the Spanish government whether it ought ever to be
answered.
Copies are herewith furnished of Captain Elton's report
of this transaction to the Secretary of the Navy; of the
agreement by which the Neptune was by him delivered up
to the Dutch commandant at the island of Arnba Thielen;
and of the receipt given by her original Captain Reynar
Romer, to whom she was restored. In these documents you
will see it is expressly stipulated both by the Dutch com-
mandant and by Captain Romer, that the "vessel and
cargo, or the value thereof, should be returned to any legal
authority of the United States of America, or to the Spanish
government, or prize claimants, in due course of the laws of
nations^ You will find also that in the document signed
by Captain Romer, he expressly declares that the persons
by whom he had been captured, purported to belong to a
Spanish felucca privateer; but not having any credentials
or authority to cruise upon the high seas with them, he sup-
poses them to have been pirates.
This declaration of Romer himself is directly contradic-
tory to the assertion which Escandell in his affidavit at
Charleston, on the 8th of June, 1822, pretends that Captain
Romer made to the boarding oflficer from the Spark, in
answer to his inquiries whether Escandell and his men were
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 391
pirates. Escandell says that Romer answered they were
not. Romer himself says that he supposed they were.
You will remark that in the copy of Escandell's affidavit,
transmitted by Mr. Anduaga to the Department of State,
the name of the Dutch captain of the Neptune is written
Reinas Buman, apparent by a mistake in the copy. The
name as signed by himself is Reynar Romer.
On a review of the whole transaction as demonstrated
by these documents, it will be seen that the conduct of
Captain Elton was fair, honorable, cautiously regardful of
the possible rights of the captors and Spanish government,
and eminently disinterested. He retook the Neptune., a
Dutch vessel, at the request of an officer of the Dutch gov-
ernment. He had already known and protected her as a
neutral before. He restored her to her captain without
claiming salvage, and upon the sole condition that the Dutch
governor should restore to their owners, citizens of the
United States, the proceeds of a vessel and cargo, also wrong-
fully captured by a Spanish privateer, and which had been
brought within her jurisdiction. And he provided that if
the capture of the Neptune should eventually prove to have
been lawfully made, the Dutch commandant and the captain
of the Neptune himself should be responsible to the Spanish
and American governments and to the captors for the
result.
I have entered into this detail of the evidence in this case,
not only to give you the means of satisfying the Spanish
government that the complaints of Mr. Anduaga against
Captain Elton were as groundless in substance as they were
unjust to him, and disrespectful to this government and
nation in form; but to vindicate from unmerited reproach
the memory of a gallant officer, of whose faithful and valu-
able services his country had been deprived by death, only
392
THE WRITINGS OF [1823
twenty days before those dishonorable imputations were
cast upon him by Mr. Anduaga.
The harshness and precipitation of that minister's judg-
ment in preferring this complaint is the more remarkable,
inasmuch as he avows in that very note the opinion that the
bare word, without proof, of a merchant captain, is not evi-
dence sufRcient to furnish even a pretext to the naval officers
of the United States to attack the armed vessel, by which
he had been plundered. If the word of a captain of a mer-
chant vessel, supported by his oath, were of such trivial
account, of what weight in the scale of testimony is the bare
word of a captain of a privateer, who cannot write his name,
to prove the existence and authority of a written or printed
document, pretended to have been given by himself.^
If the capture of the Neptune by Puyol had been lawful,
her owners would at this day possess the means of recover-
ing indemnity for their loss by the recapture, in the written
engagements of the Dutch commandant, Thieleman, and
of Captain Romer. But it was not lawful. By the docu-
ments transmitted by Mr. Anduaga it appears, that a part
of the cargo of the Neptune, after her capture by the Firgen
del Carmen, had been transshipped to another vessel; and
that at Porto Cabello it was condemned by Captain Lavorde,
commander of the Spanish frigate Ligera, who had issued
the privateer's commission, and then sat as judge of the
Admiralty Court upon the prize. And the sole ground of
condemnation assigned is the breach of the pretended block-
ade by the Neptune, and her trading with the independent
patriots. You will remark the great irregularity and in-
compatibility with the principles of general justice, as well
as of the Spanish constitution, that one and the same person
should be acting at once in the capacity of a naval officer, of
a magistrate issuing commissions to privateers, and of a
1823I JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 393
judge to decide upon the prizes taken by them. But the
whole foundation of his decision Is a nullity. The blockade
was a public wrong. The Interdiction of all trade was an
outrage upon the rights of all neutral nations. And the
resort to the two expedients bears on Its face the demon-
stration, that they who assumed them both had no reliance
upon the justice of either: for If the Interdiction of all neutral
trade ivlth the Independents were lawful, there could be as
little occasion or pretence for the Interdiction of the trade.
The correctness of this reasoning can no longer be contested
by the Spanish government Itself. The blockade and Inter-
diction of trade have, from the first notice of them, not only
been denounced and protested against by the government
and officers of the United States, but by those of Great
Britain, even when the ally of Spain, and who has not yet
acknowledged the Independence of the revolted colonies.
The consequences of these pretensions have been still more
serious to Spain; since they terminated In a formal notifica-
tion by the British government, that they had issued orders
of reprisal to their squadrons In the West Indies, to capture
all Spanish vessels, until satisfaction should be made for
the property of all British subjects, taken or detained under
color of this preposterous blockade and Interdiction. And
Spain has formally pledged herself to make this demanded
reparation.
2. The second case of complaint by Mr. Anduaga, upon
which I have to animadvert, Is that of the capture of the
Porto Rico privateer Palmira, by the United States armed
schooner Gra?npus, Lieutenant Gregory commander. With
his letter of the nth of October, 1822, Mr. Anduaga trans-
mitted copies of a letter from the captain of the privateer,
Escurra, to the Spanish consul at Charleston, dated the i6th
of September, 1822, and of sundry depositions taken at
394 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Porto Rico, from seamen who had belonged to her, relating
to the capture. The account of the transaction given by
Lieutenant Gregory is among the documents to be trans-
mitted to Congress with the President's message at the com-
mencement of the last session, pp. 62, 63, 64, to which I refer.
The subject is yet before the competent judicial tribunal
of this country. The captain and seamen of the Palmira,
with the exception of those charged with the robbery of the
Coquette, were discharged by a decree of the District Court
of the United States at Charleston, and the vessel was re-
stored to her captain; but the judge (Drayton, since de-
ceased,) in giving this decree declared that Lieutenant
Gregory had been fully justified in the capture. By a decree
of the Circuit Court of the same district, heavy damages
were awarded against Lieutenant Gregory, from which
sentence there is an appeal pending before the Supreme
Judicial Court of the United States. Whatever their final
decision may be, the character of the court is a sure warrant
that it will be given with every regard due to the rights and
interests of all the parties concerned, and the most perfect
reliance may be placed upon its justice, impartiality, and
independence.
The decision of the Circuit Court indeed would imply
some censure upon the conduct of Lieutenant Gregory, and
may be represented as giving support to the complaints
of the Spanish minister against him. But it is the opinion
of a single judge, in direct opposition to that of his colleague
on the same bench, and liable to the revisal and correction
of the supreme tribunal. It is marked by two principles,
upon which it may be fairly presumed the judgment of the
Supreme Court will be more in accord with that of the
District. The justification of Lieutenant Gregory, for
taking and sending in the Palmira, rests upon two important
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 395
facts; first, the robbery committed by part of her crew,
sworn to by Captain Souther of the schooner Coquette, and
confirmed by the oaths of her mate and two of her seamen;
and secondly, that at the time of her capture she had com-
menced the firing upon the Grampus, by a full volley from
small arms and cannon. But as the fact of the robbery from
the Coquette was not in rigorously judicial evidence before
the Circuit Court, the judge declared, that although he
had no doubt the fact was true, yet in the absence of the
evidence to prove it he must officially decide that it was false;
and as to the circumstance of the first fire, as the Spanish and
American testimony were in contradiction to each other,
he should set them both aside, and form his decision upon
other principles. If indeed Lieutenant Gregory is ulti-
mately to be deprived of the benefit of these two facts, he
will be left judicially without justification. But considered
with reference to the discharge of his duty as an officer of
the United States, if the declaration of Captain Souther
taken upon oath, confirmed by those of his mate and two
of his men, was not competent testimony upon which he
was bound to act, upon what evidence could an officer of
the navy ever dare to execute his instructions and the law,
by rescuing or protecting from the robbers of the sea, the
property of his fellow citizens.^
The robbery of the Coquette by the boats' crew from the
Palmira is assuredly sufficiently proved for all other than
judicial purposes, by the fact which was in evidence before
the District Court, that the memorandum book sworn by
John Peabody, junior, mate of the Coquette, to have been
taken from him together with clothing, was actually found
in a bag with clothing on board the Palmira.
In ansvv^ering Mr. Anduaga's letter of 11 October, I trans-
mitted to him a copy of the printed decree of Judge Drayton,
396 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
In which the most material facts relating to the case, and
the principles applicable to it upon which his decision was
given, are set forth. Some additional facts are disclosed
in a statement published by Lieutenant Gregory, highly
important to this discussion, inasmuch as they identify a
portion of the crew of the Palmira, with a gang of the Cape
Antonio pirates, and with an establishment of the same
character which had before been broken up by that officer.
In a long and elaborate reply to my letter dated the nth
of December, 1822, Mr. Anduaga, without contesting the
fact that the Coquette had been robbed by the boarding crew
from the Palmira, objects to the decision of Judge Drayton,
as if, by detaining for trial the individual seamen belonging
to the Palmira, charged with the robbery, it assumed a
jurisdiction, disclaimed by any acknowledgment that the
privateer was lawfully commissioned, and sanctioned the
right of search, so long and so strenuously resisted by the
American government. In this reply, too, Mr. Anduaga
attempts by laborious arguments to maintain to the fullest
and most unqualified extent the right of the Spanish priva-
teers to capture, and of the Spanish prize courts to condemn,
all vessels of every other nation, trading with any of the
ports of the independent patriots of South America, because
under the old colonial laws of Spain that trade had been
prohibited. And with the consistency of candor at least,
he explicitly says that the decrees issued by the Spanish
commanders on the main, under the name of blockades,
were not properly so called, but were mere enforcements of
the antediluvian colonial exclusions, and such were the in-
structions under which the Palmira, and all the other priva-
teers from Porto Rico and Porto Cabello have been cruising.
Is it surprising that the final answer of Great Britain to this
pretension was an order of reprisals? or that under the laws
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 397
of the United States it has brought their naval officers In
conflict of actual hostility with privateers so commissioned
and so Instructed? The Spanish government have for many
years had notice, both from Great Britain and from the
United States, that they considered as rightful the peaceful
commerce of their people, with the ports In possession of the
independent patriots. Spain herself has opened most of
those of which her forces have been able to retain or to re-
cover the possession. The blockades proclaimed by General
Morillo in 181 5 were coupled with this same absurd preten-
sion: they were formally protested against by the govern-
ment of the United States; and wherever Morillo obtained
possession, he himself immediately opened the port to
foreign and neutral commerce.
Mr. Anduaga seems to have had much confidence in the
conclusiveness of his reasoning, in this letter of 11 December:
for without considering the character of our institutions,
which have committed to the executive authority all com-
munications with the ministers of foreign powers, he per-
mitted himself the request that the President would com-
municate It to Congress; without having the apology for
this indiscretion, which on a prior occasion he had alleged
for a like request, namely, that It was In answer to letters
from this Department which had been communicated to the
legislature. In the former case he was Indulged by com-
pliance with his request. In the latter It was passed over
without notice. But Mr. Anduaga was determined that
his argument should come before the public, and sent a
copy of It to the Havana, where it was published In the news-
papers; whence it has been translated and inserted In some
of our public journals.
The British order of reprisals; the appropriation by the
Cortes of forty millions of reals for reparation to British
398 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
subjects, of damages sustained by them, in part from cap-
ture and condemnation of their property under this absurd
pretension; and the formal revocation by the king of Spain
of these unlawful blockades, will, it is presumed, supersede
the necessity of a serious argument in reply to that of Mr.
Anduaga upon this point. It is in vain for Spain to pretend
that during the existence of a civil war, in which by the uni-
versal law of nations, both parties have equal rights with
reference to foreign nations, she can enforce against all
neutrals by the seizure and condemnation of their property,
the laws of colonial monopoly and prohibition, by which
they had been excluded from commercial intercourse with
the colonies before the existence of the war, and when her
possession and authority were alike undisputed. And if at
any stage of the war, this pretension could have been ad-
vanced with any color of reason, it was preeminently nuga-
tory on the renewal of the war, after the formal treaty
between Morillo and Bolivar, and the express stipulation
which it contained, that if the war should be renewed, it
should be conducted on the principles applicable to wars
between independent nations; and not on the disgusting
and sanguinary doctrine of suppressing rebellion.
As little foundation is there for the inference drawn by
Mr. Anduaga from the decree of the District judge, admitting
the Palmira to have been lawfully commissioned as a priva-
teer, but detaining for trial the portion of her crew charged
with the robbery from the Coquette, that it sanctions the
right of search, against which the United States have so
long and so constantly protested. For in the first place, the
United States have never disputed the belligerent right of
search as required and universally practised conformably
to the laws of nations. They have disputed the right of
belligerents under color of the right of search for contraband
i823l JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 399
of war, to seize and carry away men, at the discretion of the
boarding officer, without trial and without appeal; men,
not as contraband of war, or belonging to the enemy, but as
subjects, real or pretended, of the belligerent himself, and
to be used by him against his enemy. It is the fundamental
abuse of the right of search, for purposes never recognized
or admitted by the laws of nations, purposes in their practical
operation of the greatest oppression and most crying in-
justice, that the United States have resisted and will resist,
and which warns them against assenting to the extension
in time of peace of a right which experience has shown to
be liable to such gross perversion in time of war. And
secondly the Palmira was taken for acts of piratical aggres-
sion and depredation upon a vessel of the United States, and
upon the property of their citizens. Acts of piratical aggres-
sion and depredation may be committed by vessels having
lawful commissions as privateers, and many such had been
committed by the Palmira. The act of robbery from the
Coquette was in every respect piratical; for it was com-
mitted while the privateer was under the Venezuelan flag,
and under that flag she had fired upon the Coquette and
brought her to. It was piratical, therefore, not only as dep-
redation of the property by the boat's crew who took it
away, but as aggression under the sanction of the captain
of the privateer, who was exercising belligerent rights under
false colors. To combat under any other flag than that of
the nation by which she is commissioned, by the laws of
nations subjects a vessel, though lawfully commissioned,
to seizure and condemnation as a pirate; ^ and although the
decree of the District judge ordered the restitution of the
vessel to her captain, because it held him to have been law-
fully commissioned, neither did the law of nations require,
^ Valin, Ordonnance de la Marine, II. 239.
400 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
nor would the law of the United States permit, that men,
brought within the jurisdiction of the court, and charged
with piratical depredations upon citizens of the United
States, should be discharged and turned over to a foreign
tribunal for trial, as was demanded by Mr. Anduaga. They
had been brought within the jurisdiction of the court, not
by the exercise of any right of search, but as part of the
crew of a vessel which had committed piratical depredations
and aggressions upon vessels and citizens of the United
States. The District Court adjudging the commission of
the privateer to have been lawful, and considering the gun
fired under the Venezuelan flag to bring the Coquette to,
though wrongful and unwarrantable, as not amounting
rigorously to that combat, which would have been complete
piracy, discharged the captain and portion of the crew which
had not been guilty of the robbery of the Coquette, but
reserved for trial the individuals charged with that act.
The conduct of the Palmira, for months before her capture,
had been notoriously and flagrantly piratical. She had in
company with another privateer, named the Boves, both
commanded by the same captain, Pablo Llanger, fired upon
the United States schooner Porpoise, Captain Ramage, who
abstained from returning the fire. For this act of unequivo-
cal hostility. Captain Llanger's only apology to Captain
Ramage was that he had taken the Porpoise for a patriot
cruiser.' Numbers of neutral vessels of different nations
had been plundered by her; and among the affidavits made
to Lieutenant Gregory at St. Thomas, was one of the master
and mate of a French schooner, that she had been robbed
by a boat's crew from her of a barrel of beef and a barrel of
rice. In the letter from Captain Escurra to the Spanish
consul at Charleston, he admits the taking of these provi-
• See Documents with the President's message of December, 1822, p. 65.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 401
sions, alleging that the master of the French vessel gave
them to him at his own request. The affidavit of the French
master and mate shows what sort of a gift it was, and is more
coincident with all the other transactions of this privateer.
In the same letter of 11 December, Mr. Anduaga with
more ingenuity than candor, attempts at once to raise a
wall of separation between the pirates of Cuba, and the
privateersmen of Porto Rico and Porto Cabello, and to
identify the pirates, not only with all those who at a prior
period, had abused the several independent flags of South
America, but with the adventurers from the United States
who at different times have engaged in the patriot service;
and he endeavors to blend them all with the foolish expedi-
tion of last summer against Porto Rico. While indulging
his propensity to complain, he revives all the long exploded
and groundless charges of his predecessors in former years,
and does not scruple to insinuate that the Cuba pirates
themselves are North Americans from the United States.
It is easy to discern and point out the fallacy of these
endeavors to blend together things totally distinct, and to
discriminate between things that are identical. It is in
proof before our tribunals in the case of the Palmira itself
that some of the pirates of Cuba and of the Porto Rico
privateersmen, are the same. Among the Cuba pirates
that have been taken, as well by the vessels of the United
States as by British cruisers, not one North American has
been found. A number of those pirates have been executed
at the Bahama Islands, and ten from one vessel at the island
of Jamaica, all Spanish subjects, and from the Spanish
islands. Not a shadow of evidence has been seen that among
the Cuba pirates a single citizen of the United States was
to be found.
As to the complaints of Mr. Anduaga's predecessors,
402 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
meaning those of Don Luis de Onis, it might have been ex-
pected that we should hear no more of them after the ratifi-
cation of the treaty of 1819. Whatever had been the merits
of those complaints, full satisfaction for them all had been
made by that treaty to Spain, and was acknowledged by
the ratification of the Spanish government in October,
1820. Since that time no complaints had been made by
Mr. Anduaga's predecessors. It was reserved for him, as
well to call up those phantoms from the dead, as to conjure
new ones from the living. That supplies of every kind,
including arms, and other implements of war have been in
the way of lawful commerce procured within the United
States for the account of the South America independents,
and at their expense and hazard exported to them is doubt-
less true. And Spain has enjoyed and availed herself of
the same advantages.
The neutrality of the United States has throughout this
contest between Spain and South America been cautiously
and faithfully observed by their government. But the
complaints of Mr. Anduaga, as well as those of his predeces-
sor, Mr. Onis, are founded upon erroneous views and mis-
taken principles of neutrality. They assume that all com-
merce, even the most peaceful commerce of other nations,
with the South Americans is a violation of neutrality; and
while they assert this in principle, the Spanish commanders,
in the few places where they yet hold authority, attempt
to carry it into eflFect in a spirit worthy of itself. The decree
of General Morales of the 15th of September, 1822, is in
perfect accord with the argument of Mr. Anduaga, on the
nth of December of the same year. The unconcerted but
concurring solemn protests against the former; of the Dutch
governor of Curasao, Cantzlaer; of the British admiral
Rowley, and of our own Captain Spencer, was but the chorus
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 403
of all human feeling revolting at the acts of which Mr. An-
duaga's reasoning was the attempted justification.
3. The next case of complaint by Mr. Anduaga is in a
letter of the 23d of February last, against Lieutenant Wil-
kinson, commander of the United States armed schooner
Spark, for capturing oiT the Havana a vessel called the
Ninfa Catalana, or the Santissima Trinidad, Nicholas Gar-
yole master, and sending her into Norfolk. As there are
reasons for believing that in this case Lieutenant Wilkinson
acted upon erroneous information, a court of inquiry has
been ordered upon his conduct, the result of which will be
communicated to you.
The Ninfa Catalana remains for trial at the District
Court to be held in the Eastern District of Virginia in the
course of the next month. Immediately after receiving
Mr. Anduaga's letter on the subject, I wrote to the attorney
of the United States for the District instructing him to
obtain, if possible, an extraordinary session of the court,
that the cause might be decided without delay; but the
judge declined appointing such session, unless all the wit-
nesses summoned to the court upon the case could be noti-
fied of it, which not being practicable, the short delay till
the meeting of the regular session of the court has been un-
avoidable. You will assure the Spanish government that
the most impartial justice will be rendered to all the parties
concerned, as well by the adjudication of the Admiralty
Court as by the military enquiry on the conduct of Lieu-
tenant Wilkinson. I ought to add that no evidence hitherto
has come to the knowledge of the government which has
implicated the correctness of Lieutenant Wilkinson's in-
tentions, or manifested any other motive than that of dis-
charging his duty and protecting the* property of his fellow
citizens.
404 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
4. The capture of the Spanish schooner Carmen alias
Gallega the Third by the United States sloop of war Peacock,
Captain Cassin, has furnished the fourth occasion for this
class of Mr. Anduaga's remonstrances.
There are two declarations or depositions made by the
captain and persons who were on board of this vessel at the
time of her capture, one at Pensacola and the other at New
Orleans. The first before the notary Jose Ecaro, by Jacinto
Correa, Captain of the Gallega, the pilot Ramon Echaverria,
boatswain Manuel Agacis, three sailors, and Juan Martin
Ferreyro, a passenger. All the witnesses after the first
only confirm in general and unqualified terms all his state-
ments; although many of the circumstances asserted by
him as facts could not have been personally known to him-
self, but by hearing from some of them. The protest for
example avers that when first captured by the Peacock,
Captain Correa, with his steward and cook were taken on
board that vessel; and while they were there he represents
various disorders to have been committed on board of his
own vessel, by the boarding officer from the Peacock, though
by his own showing he was not present to witness them.
His whole narrative is composed of alleged occurrences on
board of three vessels, the Peacock, the Louisiana cutter, and
the Gallega, and no discrimination is made between those of
his own knowledge, and those which he had heard from
others. The second declaration was made before Antonio
Argote Villalobos, Spanish consul at New Orleans, only
by Captain Correa and Echaverria the mate, and gives an
account of several other Spanish vessels, captured by the
Peacock, while they were on board of that vessel as prisoners.
A very inadequate reason is assigned by Captain Correa
for not having made it at the same time with the first at
Pensacola; and the whole purport of it is to represent those
b
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 405
other vessels which he had seen captured, as inoffensive
unarmed vessels, and the capture of them by the Peacock
as itself piratical.
Copies of the proceedings in the courts at Pensacola and
at New Orleans upon these cases are expected at this De-
partment, and the substance of them will be duly com-
municated to you. In the meantime the reports of Captain
Cassin of the Peacock, and of Captain Jackson, commander
of the revenue cutter Louisiana to the Navy Department,
will give you a very different, and doubtless more correct
account of these transactions.
There is strong reason for believing that the Gallega did
actually belong to the gang of pirates, of which those pre-
tended inoffensive and unarmed vessels certainly formed
a part. That Correa and Echaverria were testifying in
behalf of their accomplices; and their warm sympathy with
those convicted pirates is much more indicative of their own
guilt than of their belief in the innocence of the others.
That the other vessels were piratical, is no longer a subject
of question or dispute. Two of them were carried by Captain
Cassin to the Havana, where one of them, a schooner of
nine guns, was claimed by a lady, widow of a merchant in
that city, as her property; and at her application, supported
by that of the captain general, was restored to her upon
payment of $1000 salvage. The part of the cargo which
had been saved was sold in like manner, with the approba-
tion of the Captain General. The vessel had been taken
by the pirates but a few days before, and in retaking and
restoring her to the owner, Captain Cassin had not only
rendered an important service to a Spanish subject, but
taken from the pirates the means of committing more ex-
tensive and atrocious depredations.
Among the articles found on board of these vessels were
^c6 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
some of female apparel, rent and blood-stained; and many
other traces to deeds of horror, with which these desperate
wretches are known to be familiar. The pirates had, when
close pursued abandoned their vessels and escaped to the
shore. They were pursued, but not discovered. The coffee
was hidden in the woods, and with the vessel brought into
New Orleans, had been regularly condemned by the sen-
tence of the court.
And these are the characters, and this the description of
people whom Captain Correa and his mate, Echaverria,
represent in their declaration before the Spanish consul at
New Orleans, as innocent Spanish subjects piratically plun-
dered of their lawiul property, by Captain Cassin. And
upon such testimony as this has Mr. Anduaga suffered him-
self to be instigated to a style of invective and reproach
not only against that officer, but against the officers of our
navy generally, against the government and people of this
country, upon which, while pointing it out and markmg
its contrast with the real facts of the case, I forbear all further
comment.
Let it be admitted that the Catalan Nymph and the Gallega
were lawful traders, and that in capturing them as pirates
Lieutenant Wilkinson and Captain Cassin have been mis-
taken. That they had probable cause sufficient for their
justification I cannot doubt, and am persuaded will upon a
full investigation of the cases be made apparent.
In the impartial consideration of this subject it is necessary
to advert to the character of these pirates, and to the cir-
cumstances which have made it so difficult to distinguish
between lawfully commissioned and registered Spanish ves-
sels and the pirates.
The first of these has been the unlawful extent given to
the commissions and instructions of the privateers avowed
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 407
by the Spanish government; an authority to take all com-
mercial vessels bound to any of the ports in possession of
the patriots. The very assumption of this principle, and the
countenance given to it by the adjudications of the courts
was enough to kindle all the passions of lawless rapine in the
maritime population of the islands. It was holding out to
them the whole commerce of the neutral world as lawful
prey.
The next Is the Impunity with which those robberies have
been committed in the very port of the Havana, and under
the eye of the local government. It Is represented and be-
lieved to be true that many Inhabitants of the city, mer-
chants in respectable standing of society, are actively
concerned In these transactions; that of the village of Regla
opposite the city, almost all the Inhabitants are with public
notoriety concerned In them; that some of the deepest
criminals are known and pointed at; while the vigilance or
energy of the government is so deficient that there Is an open
market for the sale of those fruits of robbery; and that
threats of vengeance are heard from the most abandoned of
the culprits against all who molest them In their nefarious
and bloody career.
The third is that many of the piracies have been com-
mitted by merchant vessels, laden with cargoes. The
Spanish vessels of that description in the islands are all
armed, and, when taken by the pirates, are immediately
converted to their own purposes. The schooner of nine
guns taken by Captain Cassin, and restored to Its owner In
the Havana, affords one proof of this fact; and one of the
most atrocious piracies committed upon citizens of the
United States was that upon the Lady'' s Delight by the
Zaragosana, a vessel regularly cleared at the Havana as a
merchant vessel.
4o8 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
There arc herewith furnished you copies of the general
instructions from the Secretary of the Navy, given to all our
naval officers, successively stationed in those seas, for the
protection of our commerce and for carrying into effect the
laws against piracy and the slave trade, together with
printed copies of those laws. They will enable you to
present to the Spanish government the most conclusive
proof of the friendly sentiments towards Spain, and of the
undeviating regard to her rights which have constantly
animated this government, and effectually to counteract any
representations of a different character which may be made
by Mr. Anduaga.
In reflecting upon the conduct of this minister during his
residence in the United States, it has been impossible to
avoid the suspicion that it has been instigated by a disposi-
tion not more friendly to the existing liberal institutions of
his own country, than to the harmonious intercourse to
which they were so well calculated to contribute between
the United States and Spain. From the time of the re-
establishment in Spain of a constitutional government, the
sympathies of this country have been warm, earnest and
unanimous in favor of her freedom and independence. The
principles which she asserts and maintains are emphatically
ours, and in the conflict with which she is now threatened,
for supporting them, a cordial good understanding with us
was as obviously the dictate of her policy, as it was the lead-
ing principle of ours. This national sentiment has not been
silent or unobserved. It was embodied and expressed in the
most public and solemn manner in the message to Congress
at the commencement of their last session, as will be within
your recollection. The conduct of the government has been
invariably conformable to it. The recognition of the South
American governments, flowing from the same principle
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 409
which enlisted all our feelings in the cause of Spain, has been
in its effects a mere formality; it has in no wise changed our
actual relations, either with them or with Spain. All the
European powers, even those which have hitherto most
strenuously denied the recognition inform, have treated and
will treat the South Americans as independent in fact. By
his protest against the formal acknowledgment Mr, Anduaga
had fulfilled his duties to his own government, nor has any
one circumstance arisen from that event which could require
of him to recur to it as a subject of difference between us and
Spain again. We have not been disposed to complain of his
protest, nor even of his permanent residence at a distance
from the seat of government; but the avidity with which he
has seized upon every incident which could cause unpleasant
feelings between the two countries, the bitterness with
which his continual notes have endeavored to exasperate and
envenom, the misrepresentations of others, which he has so
precipitously assumed as undeniable facts, and the language
in which he has vented his reproaches upon the fair and
honorable characters of our naval officers, upon the govern-
ment, and even the people of this Union, and above all, the
artifice by which he suffered the absurd and ridiculous expe-
dition of De Coudray Holstein to obtain some paltry sup-
plies of men and arms in this country, without giving notice
of it to this government, when they might have effectually
broken it up, leaving it unknown to us till after its inevitable
failure, when he could trump it up as a premeditated hostility
of ours against Spain, and a profligate project of invasion of
her possessions, are indications of a temper which we can
trace to no source, either of friendly feeling towards our
country, or of patriotic devotion to his own. It has the
aspect of a deliberate purpose to stir up and inflame dis-
sensions between the United States and Spain; to produce
410 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
and cherish every means of alienation and distrust between
them, with ultimate views to the counteraction of these
diflferences upon the internal administration and government
of his own nation.
It is hoped that he will in no event be permitted to return
hither; and in the full and just explanations which you will
now be enabled to give upon every complaint exhibited by
him while here, the Spanish government will be satisfied with
the justice, and convinced of the friendly disposition towards
Spain, which have governed all our conduct.
With the same spirit, and the just expectation that it will
be met with a reciprocal return, you will represent to them
the claim of all the citizens of the United States, whose
vessels and other property have been captured by the pri-
vateers from Porto Rico and Porto Cabello, and condemned
by the courts of those places, for supposed breaches of the
pretended blockade, or for trading with the South American
independents. Restitution or indemnity is due to them all;
and is immediately due by the Spanish government, inas-
much as those Injuries having been sanctioned by the local
authorities, military and civil, the sufferers in most of the
cases can have no resort to the Individuals by whom the
captures were made. A list of all the cases which have
come yet to the knowledge of this Department Is now en-
closed. There are probably many others. An agent will be
shortly sent to collect at the respective places the evidence
in all the cases not already known, and to obtain as far as
may be practicable restitution by the local authorities.
Whatever may be restored by them will diminish by so much
the amount of claim upon the Spanish government, which
will be the more indisputable, as they have already admitted
the justice, and made provision for the satisfaction of claims
of British subjects, which sprung from the same cause.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 411
Of the formal revocation by the Spanish government of
the nominal blockade, the governor of Porto Rico has given
express notice to Commodore Porter. As a consequence of
this it is hoped that no more commissions for privateers
will be issued. The revocation did indeed come at a critical
time, for it cannot be too strongly impressed upon the
Spanish government, that all the causes of complaint, both
by Spanish subjects against the navy officers of the United
States, and by the citizens of the United States, with which
you are now charged, proceeded directly or as a consequence
from those spurious blockades. They were in violation of the
laws of nations. They were in conflict with the law of Con-
gress for protecting the commerce of the United States. It
was impossible that ships of war of the United States, with
commanders instructed to carry that law into execution, and
Spanish privateers, commissioned and instructed to carry
into effect the atrocious decree of General Morales, should
meet and fulfil their respective instructions without hostile
collision. The decree of General Morales constituted all
these Spanish subjects who acted under it in a state of war
de facto with all neutral nations; and on the sea it was a
war of extermination against all neutral commerce. It is to
the responsibility of her own officers, therefore, that Spain
must look for indemnity to the wrongs endured by her own
subjects, as necessary consequences of their official acts, as
well as for the source of her obligation to indemnify all the
innocent sufferers under them, who are entitled to the
protection of other nations.
You will take an immediate opportunity after your
reception to urge upon the Spanish government, the absolute
necessity of a more vigorous and energetic exercise of the
local authorities in the island of Cuba, for the suppression of
the piracies by which it is yet infested. Their professions of
412 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
cooperation with the naval force of the United States to this
object have not been followed up by corresponding action.
As long since as last May, Captain Biddle, then command-
ing the Macedonian frigate, represented to the Captain
General, Mahy, the necessity that would frequently arise of
pursuing them from their boats to the shores on the desert
and uninhabited parts of the island, and requested permis-
sion to land for such purpose, which was explicitly refused.
Mr. Forsyth has been instructed to renew the demand of
this permission, to the Spanish government itself, and as
there are cases in which the necessity will constitute the
right of anticipating that permission. Commodore Porter
has been instructed accordingly. From a recent debate in
the British Parliament it appears that similar instructions
have been given to the commanders of the British squadrons,
despatched for the protection of the commerce of that na-
tion, and that when notified to the Spanish government,
although at first resisted by them, they finally obtained their
acquiescence. These circumstances will serve for answer to
one of the most aggravated complaints of Mr. Anduaga
against Captain Cassin. That officer did land, and although
not successful in overtaking the pirates themselves, he did
break up one of the deposits of their lawless plunder, burnt
several of their boats, and took from them two of their
armed vessels. Mr. Anduaga sees in all this nothing but a
violation of his Catholic Majesty^s territory; a sentiment on
such an occasion which would be more suitable for an
accessary to the pirates, than for the officer of a government
deeply and earnestly intent upon their suppression.
From the highly esteemed and honorable character of
General Vives, who has probably before this arrived at the
Havana, as Governor and Captain General of the Island, we
hope for more effectual cooperation to this most desirable
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 413
event. There has been according to every account a laxity
and remissness on that subject in the executive authority of
that port, which we hope will no longer be seen. The bold-
ness and notoriety with which crimes of such desperate die
are committed in the very face of authority is of itself
irrefragable proof of its own imbecility or weakness. Spain
must be sensible that she is answerable to the world for the
repression of crimes committed within her jurisdiction, and
of which the people of other nations are almost exclusively
the victims. The pirates have generally, though not uni-
versally, abstained from annoying Spanish subjects, and
from the robbery of Spanish property. It is surely within
the competency of the government of Cuba to put down that
open market of the pirates which has so long been denounced
at the Havana. It appears that masters of American vessels
which had been robbed have seen their own property openly
exposed to sale in that city; but have been dissuaded from
reclaiming it by the warning that it would expose them to
the danger of assassination. One instance at least has
occurred of unpunished murder of a citizen of the United
States, for the indiscreet expression of his expectation that
the arrival of Commodore Porter's squadron would secure
more respect to the persons and property of American
citizens; and other cases have happened of outrages upon
citizens of the United States, in which the protecting power
of the government has been deficient at least in promptitude
and vigor.
To the irritation between the people of the two nations,
produced by the consequences of the abominable decree of
General Morales, must be attributed that base and dastardly
spirit of revenge which recently actuated a Spanish subaltern
officer at Porto Rico, by which Lieutenant Cocke lost his
life. Copies of the correspondence between Commodore
414 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Porter and the governor of Porto Rico on that occasion are
among the enclosed papers. They will show that the act of
firing upon the Fox was utterly wanton and inexcusable, and
the President desires that you would expressly demand that
the officer by whom it was ordered should be brought to
trial and punishment for having ordered it.
There are several subjects connected with the execution
of the treaty of 22 February, 18 19, upon which it may be
proper to advert as being likely to claim your attention.
On the delivery of the two provinces of the Floridas to the
United States, by virtue of stipulations of that treaty, a
question arose, whether under the term fortifications, which
were to be delivered over, with them was included the artil-
lery, without which they could not with propriety bear the
name. By another article of the treaty It was agreed that
the United States should furnish transports for the con-
veyance of the Spanish officers and troops to the Havana.
Under this engagement the Spanish officers understood it
was implied that the provisions necessary for the passage
should also be furnished at the expense of the United States.
In this liberal construction of that article this government
acquiesced, insisting however that on that same principle
provisions for the passage would be understood as Implied
in an engagement to supply the passage Itself, the ordnance
which constituted the essential part of the fortifications
must be considered as embraced by the word, and that the
United States were entitled to claim its delivery with the
buildings, which without It would substantially be no fortifi-
cations at all. The Spanish oflkers at Pensacola and St.
Augustine objected to this liberal construction of the article
which Imposed an obligation upon Spain, while they Insisted
upon it with regard to the article In her favor. It was there-
fore agreed, both at Pensacola and St. Augustine, that the
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 415
artillery In the forts should be left there; receipts for it being
given by General Jackson and Colonel Butler, leaving the
question as to the property in them to the determination of
the two. governments. A correspondence ensued between
this Department and the Spanish legation here, and between
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and our legation at Madrid,
the last document of which is a note of 3 September, 1822,
from Don Evaristo San Miguel to Mr. Forsyth; from whom,
as well as from Mr. Anduaga, separate copies of it have been
transmitted to this Department. This note announces his
Catholic Majesty's final determination to abide by the
strict construction of both the articles in question, on the
acknowledgment that the value of the cannon Is more than
the cost of the provisions. It therefore proposes that the
cannon should be restored to Spain, and offers to repay the
expense incurred by the United States for the provisions; or
It offers to receive proposals for the purchase by the United
States of the cannon, and, If necessary, to sell them at a fan-
appraisement by competent persons to be appointed by the
two governments; and after deducting the amount paid by
the United States for the provisions, to receive the balance.
In the compacts between nations, as In the bargains of
Individuals, the most essential requisites are candor and
fair-dealing. The comparative value of the cannon in the
forts, and of the provisions for the passage of the Spanish
troops, formed no part of the considerations, upon which the
artillery was claimed by the United States,, together with
the walls of which they formed the defence. It was to the
principle alone that our attention was turned. The officers of
Spain, under a stipulation for passage, claimed a supply of
provisions. Acquiescing In that liberal construction of our
engagement which would warrant them in the claim, we
thought it in fairness and reciprocity applicable to another
4i6 THE WRITINGS OF (1823
article, the benefit of which would enure to the United
States. In the course of the discussion no distinction has
been shown on the part of Spain that could justify a different
rule of construction for the two articles. In both cases the
incident was so essential to the main object of the stipula-
tion, as to be Inseparable from Its existence and accomplish-
ment. The passage without provisions was Impracticable.
The walls without their artillery were no fortifications. If
In one case the Implication was just, It was Indispensable in
the other. But we do not wish to press this controversy
further. You are authorized to signify to the Spanish gov-
ernment the acceptance of the proposal contained In Mr. San
Miguel's note; and that on the repayment by the Spanish
government of the money paid by the United States for
provisions for the Spanish officers and troops from the
Florldas to the Havana, the ordnance left behind and re-
ceipted for by General Jackson and Colonel Butler will be
delivered up to the order of the Governor of Cuba, or to any
officer duly authorized to receive It.
There Is In the note of Mr. San Miguel a complaint some-
what gratuitous, that the American government had not In
the first Instant adjusted this question with the Spanish
minister at Washington, or afterwards prevented the com-
promise between the commissioners of the two governments
at the delivery of the provinces.
The government of the United States was not Informed
that the Spanish minister here had any authority to discuss
the mode of execution with regard to the delivery of the
territory. It was not to him but to the governor and captain
general of the island of Cuba that the royal order for the
delivery was addressed; nor was It supposed that he had or
could have any Instructions authorizing him to settle any
question of construction which might arise in the details of
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 417
the execution. That a question might arise, both with
regard to the provisions and to the artillery was foreseen;
but there was no necessity for anticipating it by a reference
to the Spanish minister, when it might not arise at all, and
who, if it should, had no power to settle it. The suggestion
of it as a question to him could in all probability tend only to
delay the delivery itself of the Floridas. For if his views of
the construction of the article concerning the fortifications
should differ from those of this government, he could only
refer it to his own, and in the meantime the delivery of the
country must be postponed, or accepted by the United
States, subject to the construction of the Spanish envoy.
The American government had no motive for starting ques-
tions which might be turned to purposes of delay. It was
sufficient for them to proceed upon principles, fair and
equitable in themselves, and to foresee questions of in-
struction only so far as to preclude the admission of one
rule when its operation would be against the United States,
and of another when its effect would be in their favor. When
the question between the commissioners had arisen, it was
not more in the power of this government to prevent the
compromise upon which they agreed than it was in that of
Spain; a reference of it prior to the delivery might have been
made to Madrid, in little more time than to Washington; and
the intimation of Mr. San Miguel, that the unfortunate dis-
putes in which the ex-governors of St. Augustine and Pensa-
cola were involved, and which issued in occurrences per-
sonally unpleasant to them, originated in this compromise
concerning the artillery, is founded upon erroneous im-
pressions. Those incidents, much and sincerely lamented
by us, arose from the non-delivery, deliberate, concerted and
systematic, by the late Captain General Mahy, and by both
the governors of St. Augustine and Pensacola of the Archives
4 IS THE WRITINGS OF [1823
and Documents which they were required by an express
stipulation of the treaty and an explicit order of the king of
Spain to deliver up. The governor of Cuba, after Informing
Colonel Forbes, who was commissioned to receive that
portion of those Archives and Documents which were at the
Havana, that twenty boxes of documents had been sent
there from Pensacola relating to West Florida, and that all
those relating to East Florida were at St. Augustine, and
after detaining Colonel Forbes at the Havana nearly six
weeks, in the daily protracted expectation of delivering
them, finally obliged him with exhausted patience to depart
without the former, and with an explicit assurance that he
had instructed the governor of St. Augustine to deliver the
latter. Yet the governor of St. Augustine refused to deliver
them on the allegation of doubts, whether the engagement of
the treaty extended to the delivery of any public documents
or archives, relating to private property. This extraordinary
effort to withhold and to carry away all the records of land
titles of both the provinces, has been the fruitful source of
all those subsequent misunderstandings and painful occur-
rences to which Mr. San Miguel's note alludes, and it com-
menced on the part of the governor of Cuba, long before any
question relating to the delivery of the artillery had oc-
curred.
Mr. Thomas Randall is now about to proceed to the
Havana, charged with a new commission to demand and
receive the archives and documents yet remaining there, and
of which, as Mr. Forsyth was informed, a new royal order
has been expedited to command the delivery. There are
also many at Madrid, In the office of the Ultra-Marine
Department, which Mr. Forsyth has taken measures at
different times to obtain, hitherto without success. You will
learn the state of this concern upon your arrival, and as
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 4^9
occasions may present themselves, will give it all the atten-
tion it may require.
By the fourth article of the treaty of 22 February, 18 19,
provision was made for the appointment of commissioners
and surveyors to run the boundary line between the United
States and the then adjoining Spanish provinces, from the
mouth of the Sabine River to the South Sea. They were to
meet at Natchitoches within one year from the ratification
of the treaty; but the appointment of the Spanish commis-
sioner and surveyor, though repeatedly urged by Mr. Forsyth
upon the Spanish government, was not made in seasonable
time, and the revolution in Mexico, having soon after
demolished the Spanish dominion in that country, it became
doubtful whether that article of the treaty could be carried
into execution. There was some hesitation in Congress, and
different votes between the two Houses with regard to mak-
ing the appropriation for that purpose. The appropriation
was however made, and the appointment of the commis-
sioner and surveyor on the part of the United States was
made known to Mr. Anduaga, and also, through Mr. Forsyth,
to the Spanish government; with notice that we were ready
to proceed in the measures agreed upon for carrying the
article into execution. No further notice of the subject has
been taken by the Spanish government, nor have we been
informed who were the commissioner and surveyor appointed
by them. It will not be necessary for you to revive the
subject by any communication to that government, unless it
should be brought up on their part. The new government of
Mexico since the revolution there has made known its assent
to the boundary as marked out by the treaty, and it is prob-
able that Spain will henceforth have no interest in the settle-
ment of the line. It may form a subject of further arrange-
ment between us and our immediate neighbors hereafter.
420 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Of the other subjects of discussion with Spain, which may-
require your official notice, you will be informed by Mr. John
James Appleton, remaining there charged with the affairs of
the legation after the departure of Mr. Forsyth, and by the
archives of the legation, which he will deliver over to you.
The laws relating to commerce since the restoration of the
Cortes have been rather restrictive than favorable to the
relations between the United States and Spain. You will be j
specially attentive to all negotiations, whether commercial
or political, in which Spain may be concerned, during the
continuance of your mission; transmit to this Department
two copies of every treaty, printed by authority, immediately
after its publication, and copies by duplicate of all conven-
tions, treaties, separate articles, or other diplomatic com-
munications, of which you may acquire the knowledge, and
which you can obtain without expense or charge.
An object of considerable importance will be to obtain the
admission of consuls from the United States in the ports of
the colonies, specially in the islands of Cuba and of Porto
Rico. It was incidental to the old colonial system of Spain,
which excluded all commerce of foreign nations with her
colonies, to admit in their ports no foreign consuls. The
special duties and functions of those officers, consisting in
the protection of the commerce, navigation, and seamen of
their respective countries In the ports where they reside,
it was a natural and necessary consequence of the exclusive
colonial principle, that where no commerce was allowed to
foreign nations, there could be no duties for a foreign consul
to perform, and no occasion for the acknowledgment of
such an officer. But when the colonial ports were opened to
foreign trade, all the reasons which recommend, and all the
necessities which urge the appointment and admission of
foreign consuls to reside in them, apply as forcibly to those
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 421
ports as to any others. The commerce between the United
States and the Havana is of greater amount and value than
with all the Spanish dominions in Europe. The number of
American vessels which enter there is annually several
hundreds. Their seamen from the unhealthiness of the
climate are peculiarly exposed to need there the assistance
which it is a primary purpose of the consular office to sup-
ply; nor is there any conceivable motive for continuing to
maintain the pretension to exclude them, and to refuse the
formal acknowledgment of consuls. Informal commercial
agents have in many of the ports been allowed to reside, and
partially to perform the consular duties; but as they are
thus left much dependent on the will of the local government,
and subject to control at its pleasure, they have neither the
dignity nor authority which properly belongs to the office.
There has already been much correspondence between
Mr. Forsyth and the Spanish Department of Foreign
Affairs on this subject. You will follow it up as there may be
opportunity, till a definitive answer shall be obtained. . . .
TO THE PRESIDENT
[James Monroe]
Washington, 4 May, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I enclose herewith the private letter from Mr. Erving,
noticed in your note of this morning. The public dispatch
I will bring or send you tomorrow.^
The answer to Mr. Salmon's note shall be made con-
formable to your suggestion. I have resumed the subject
1 On his Intention to resign.
422 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
in the draft of Instructions to Mr. Nelson, and shall sub-
mit for your consideration what I have thought it would be
proper to say of it in them.
I thank you for the notice that you have understood
Mr. Meade has some document from Mr. Onis, and also from
Mr. De Neuville to show that his case was in the contempla-
tion of the negotiations, pending the negotiation connected
in some form with the navigation of the Mississippi, and ask
the further favor of knowing from whom you received the
information, and what the purport of these documents is
alleged to have been.^ ^
I have not heard from Colonel Preston but will write to
him tomorrow. Inclosed Is a letter also for you from
Mr. Rush this day received.
Faithfully and respectfully yours.
TO THE PRESIDENT
[Jambs Monroe]
Washington, loth May, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I enclose herewith for your consideration and revisal the
draft of general instructions to Mr. Rodney as Minister to
Buenos Ayres. I shall now proceed to prepare those for
Mr. Anderson destined to the Republic of Colombia, In which
I propose to take the review of the conduct of this govern-
ment In relation to the contest between Spain and her Ameri-
can Colonies recommended in your note of the 30th of April.
I had the honor of suggesting to you the reasons for omitting
it from the instructions to Mr. Rodney.
\No reply to this question is on file.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 423
The foundations of the future permanent intercourse
political and commercial between the United States and the
new Spanish American nations must be laid in the instruc-
tions for these diplomatic missions, and they will form in the
history of this union a prominent feature in the character of
your administration. I am exceedingly anxious therefore
not only that they should meet your approbation but that
they should fill up entirely to your satisfaction the outline of
your own ideas and intentions. I ask the favor therefore of
such observations as may occur to you on the perusal of the
drafts and of every suggestion of addition or omission which
you may think advisable. I am, etc.
TO HUGH NELSON
Washington, 16 May, 1823.
Dear Sir:
The uniform which has usually been worn by the Minister
of the United States at royal courts in Europe is in no wise
essential and has never been so considered.
By the established rules of all the monarchical European
governments persons presented to the sovereign must appear
in a court dress, and the uniform was adopted for the con-
venience of using the same dress on all such occasions and
at any of the courts. But should you on your arrival in
Spain find any difficulty in procuring immediately a coat of
the uniform according to the sample, there is not a tailor at
Madrid or wherever you may find the King of Spain but
would furnish you at twelve hours' warning a court dress
with which you will be admitted to the king's presence to
deliver your credentials just as freely as if you were attired
in the uniform. Should you find any inconvenience what-
424 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
ever In procuring an uniform, embroidered like the sample,
there will be no sort of necessity for you even to trouble
yourself about It. Any court dress will answer the purpose
just as well, and at any other place except at court either
the uniform or the court dress would be as strange and as
ludicrous as a Turkish caftan or a Roman toga.
As to the gentlemen going to the South American re-
publics I should hope the uniform or any other court dress
will be as unnecessary, If not as useless, as they are here.
Should it however be expected according to the usages of the
country that they appear in gaudy attire, the tailors of the
respective places will be the only diplomatists whom they
will have occasion to consult for the appropriate garb, and
all the enquiries they will need to make will be for a dress in
which they can be received.
I am, etc.
TO CAESAR AUGUSTUS RODNEY ^
Department of State,
Washington, 17 May, 1823.
Sir:
The establishment of independent nations and govern-
ments In South America forms a remarkable era in the his-
tory of the world, and the formal Interchange of diplomatic
missions with them Is a memorable event In that of our own
country. The Interest which you have taken in the progress
' "The sketch of instructions which I have received from you today for Mr. Rod-
ney, I have carefully examined, and now return with my entire approbation. I
think that it meets the object of marking an epoch in our relations with the new
independent governments south of the United States in a manner worthy of our
own. I have no alteration to make." Monroe to John Quincy Adams, May ii,
1823. Ms.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 425
of the revolution which has released those extensive regions
from their state of colonial dependence, and introduced
them to their equal station among the nations of the earth,
and the part you have already borne in the preceding public
transactions between the United States and the Republic of
Buenos Ayres, concurring with the confidence of the Pres-
ident in your long tried abilities, patriotism and integrity,
have induced your appointment to the mission upon which
you are about to depart.
The circumstances here alluded to supersede the necessity
of reviewing the general course of policy hitherto pursued by
the United States with regard to the struggle for South
American independence. It has been fully known to you,
and should an occasion arise during the continuance of your
mission, in which it may be useful to the public service that
our system of conduct towards South America should be
unfolded, you will be amply competent to the task, without
need of further special instructions from this Department.
The relations of the United States with Buenos Ayres,
however, hitherto, so far as they have been sustained by
agents of the respective governments have been informal and
disconnected. The appointment of a public minister to
reside at that place is the proper occasion for recurring to the
principles, upon which the future and permanent relations
between the two countries should be settled.
Those relations will be either political or commercial.
Of all the southern republics, Buenos Ayres has been the
longest in possession of independence, incontested within
its own territory by the arms of Spain. Its internal con-
vulsions and revolutions have been many, and are yet far
from being at their close. It has on one hand carried the
war of independence into Chile and Peru; but on the other,
by its vicinity to the Portuguese territory of Brazil, it has
426 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
lost the possession of Montevideo, and of the Banda Oriental,
or eastern shore of La Plata. The first establishment of the
Buenos Ayrean government was under the ambitious and
aspiring title of "the Independent Provinces of South
America." It was afterwards changed for that of the
Independent Provinces of La Plata, which It Is believed still
to retain. But It Is far from embracing within Its acknowl-
edged authority all the provinces situated on that river, and
for the last two or three years. Its eflFective government has
been restricted to the single province of Buenos Ayres. It
has undergone many changes of government; violent usurpa-
tions of authority, and forcible dispossessions from It; with-
out having so far as we know, to this day settled down into
any lawful establishment of power, by the only mode In
which It could be effected, a constitution formed and sanc-
tioned by the voice of the people.
Buenos Ayres, also, more than any other of the South
American provinces, has been the theatre of foreign Euro-
pean intrigues. With Spain itself, in a negotiation for re-
ceiving a Spanish prince as their sovereign; with the court of
Rio Janeiro, for Portuguese princes and princesses, and for
cessions of territory as the price of acknowledged independ-
ence; and with France, for the acquisition of a legitimate
monarch In the person of a prince of Lucca. A hankering
after monarchy has Infected the politics of all the successive
governing authorities of Buenos Ayres, and being equally
contrary to the true policy of this country, to the general
feeling of all the native Americans, and to the liberal institu-
tions congenial to the spirit of freedom, has produced its
natural harvest of unappeasable dissensions, sanguinary civil
wars, and loathsome executions, with their appropriate at-
tendance of arbitrary Imprisonments, a subdued and per-
verted press, and a total annihilation of all civil liberty
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 427
and personal security. The existing government of Buenos
Ayres, by all the accounts received from Mr. Forbes, is less
tainted with this corruption than most of their predecessors.
Mr. Rivadavia, the minister of foreign relations and most
effective member of the government, is represented as a
republican in principle, of solid talents, stern integrity, and
faithfully devoted to the cause of order as well as of liberty.
It is with infinite difficulty, and in confiict with repeated
conspiracies, that he has been able to maintain himself
hitherto, and the hope may be entertained, that the prin-
ciples of which he is the supporter will ultimately surmount
all the obstacles with which they are contending, and that a
constitution emanating from the people, and deliberately
adopted by them, will lay the foundations of their happiness
and prosperity on their only possible basis, the enjoyment of
equal rights.
To promote this object, so far as friendly counsel may be
acceptable to the government existing there, will be among
the interesting objects of your mission. At this time and
since October, 1820, the government, confined as is under-
stood, to the single province of Buenos Ayres, is administered
by a governor and captain general, named Martin Rodriguez;
the legislative authority being exercised by a Junta, elected
by popular suffrage, and a portion of which have been
recently chosen. The relations between this province and
the rest of those which heretofore formed the viceroyalty of
La Plata, are altogether unsettled, and although repeated
efforts have been made to assemble a Congress in which
they should be represented, and by which a constitutional
union might be definitively organized, they have hitherto
proved ineffectual.
In the meantime a more extensive confederation has been
projected under the auspices of the new government of the
428 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Republic of Colombia. In the last despatch received from
Mr. Forbes, dated the 27th of January last, he mentions the
arrival and reception at Buenos Ayres of Mr. Joaquin
Mosquera y Arboleda, senator of the republic of Colombia,
and their minister plenipotentiary and extraordinary, upon a
mission, the general object of which he informed Mr. Forbes
was to engage the other independent governments of Spanish
America, to unite with Colombia in a congress to be held at
such point as might be agreed on, to settle a general system of
American policy in relation to Europe, leaving to each section
of country the perfect liberty of independent self-govern-
ment. For this purpose he had already signed a treaty with
Peru, of which he promised Mr. Forbes the perusal; but
there were some doubts with regard to the character of his
associations, and the personal influences to which he was
accessible at Buenos Ayres, and Mr. Forbes had not much
expectation of his success in prevailing on that government
to enter into his project of extensive federation.
By letters of a previous date, November, 1822, received
from Mr. Prevost, it appears that the project is yet more ex-
tensive than Mr. Mosquera had made known to Mr. Forbes.
It embraces North as well as South America, and a formal
proposal to join and take the lead in it is to be made to the
government of the United States.
Intimations of the same design have been given to Mr.
Todd, at Bogota. It will be time for this government to
deliberate concerning it, when it shall be presented in a more
definite and specific form. At present it indicates more dis-
tinctly a purpose on the part of the Colombian Republic to
assume a leading character in this hemisphere, than any
practicable object of utility which can be discerned by us.
With relation to Europe, there is perceived to be only one
object, in which the interests and wishes of the United States
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 429
can be the same as those of the South American nations, and
that is that they should all be governed by republican insti-
tutions, politically and commercially independent of Europe.
To any confederation of Spanish American provinces for
that end, the United States would yield their approbation
and cordial good wishes. If more should be asked of them,
the proposition will be received and considered in a friendly
spirit, and with a due sense of its importance.
The treaty with Peru is not likely to be attended with
much immediate eifect. The state of Peru itself has hitherto
been that rather of declared, than of established independ-
ence. The temporary government, assumed and adminis-
tered by General San Martin, has been succeeded by his
retirement, and by a signal defeat of the patriotic forces,
which may probably restore all Peru to the Spanish royalists.
Mr. Forbes attributes the retreat of San Martin and the
state of Peru, after that event and preceding this last disaster,
to misunderstandings between San Martin and the Pres-
ident of the Colombian Republic, Bolivar. This is highly
probable; at all events it is certain that the combined project
of liberating Peru by the concerted forces of Buenos Ayres,
Chile and Colombia, has entirely failed; and there is every
probability that henceforth the independence of Peru must
be regained by the internal energies of its people, or re-
achieved by the military forces of the Colombian Republic
only.
So far as objects of policy can be distinctly perceived at
this distance, with the information which we possess, and
upon a subject so complicated in itself, so confused by the
incidents with which it is surrounded, and so comprehensive
in its extent, the political interest of Buenos Ayres rather
points to the settlement of its concerns altogether internal,
or in its immediate neighborhood, than to a confederation
430 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
embracing the whole American hemisphere. It is now little
more than the government of a single city, with a population
less than half, perhaps less than one-third, that of New
York. To form a solid union with the provinces, with which
it was heretofore connected in the Viceroyalty; to put down
the remnant of ecclesiastical domination; to curb the arbi-
trary dispositions of military power; to establish a truly
representative government, personal security, and the free-
dom of the press, are purposes which the present adminis-
tration appears to have sincerely at heart, and in the pursuit
of which they may without undue interference in their
internal concerns be exhorted to active and inflexible perse-
verance.
They will doubtless always understand, that to them
independence of Europe does not merely import independ-
ence of Spain, nor political independence alone. The prin-
ciples of the government now in power appear in this respect
to be sound, although from some late communications of
Mr. Forbes, it might be surmised that the dispositions of the
Minister of Government and of Foreign Affairs himself are
not entirely free from European partialities. The occupation
of Montevideo and of the Banda Oriental by the Portuguese
has perhaps been one of the principal causes of the distrac-
tions which have marked the revolutionary movements of
Buenos Ayres. While that occupation continues, the
interests and commerce of all the countries watered by the
rivers Uruguay, Parana, and Paraguay, must be controlled
by the power holding that first and principal port of the
Plate River, Montevideo. The power of Portugal itself
has now ceased in Brazil, and an empire, probably as ephem-
eral as that of Mexico at our doors, has taken its place.
Before this last revolution had been completed, the Portu-
guese government of Brazil had acknowledged the independ-
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 431
ence of Buenos Ayres; but that acknowledgment was dearly
purchased if paid for by the cession of the Banda Oriental.
As yet the possession of Montevideo has been military; by
troops chiefly, if not all, European Portuguese, under the
command of General Lecor, Baron of Lacuna. These
troops have followed the revolutionary movement, not of
Brazil, but of Portugal. The command of their general over
them has been for some time little more than nominal, and
as they neither recognize the Brazilian empire, nor are able
to maintain themselves by resources from Europe, they must
soon evacuate the country and return to Lisbon. From the
time of their departure, Mr. Forbes appears to expect that
the inhabitants of the Oriental Band themselves will prefer
their old and natural connection with Buenos Ayres, to a
forced union with the empire of Brazil. It will certainly be
the favorable moment for Buenos Ayres to recover the
eastern shore of the river, and with it the means of recruiting
under one free and republican government the scattered
fragments of the old Viceroyalty of La Plata.
There will then be much less of incentive for a Buenos
Ayrean government to the contamination of dark intrigues
with Portuguese Princesses, or to the degrading purchase
of a Prince of Lucca to rule over them as a King, The in-
dependence of an American nation can never be completely
secured from European sway, while it tampers for authority
with the families of European sovereigns. It is impossible
that any great American interests should be served by im-
porting a petty Prince from Europe to make him a king in
America. The absurdity of all such negotiations is so glaring,
that nothing but the notorious fact that they have pervaded
the whole history of Buenos Ayres from the first assertion of
its independence could excuse this reference to them. The
special right that we have to object to them is, that they are
432 THE WRITINGS OF - [1823
always connected with systems of subserviency to European
interests — to projects of political and commercial pref-
erences to that European nation from whose stock of royalty
the precious scion is to be engrafted. The government of
Pueyrredon was deeply implicated in these negotiations;
and the consequence was, that in the project of a treaty
drawn up and signed by his authority with Mr. Worthing-
ton, he refused to insert an article stipulating for the United
States commercial advantages on equal footing with the
most favored nation. Dr. Tagle, afterwards endeavoring to
explain this incident to Mr. Prevost, professed that the
object had been to grant special favors to the power which
should first acknowledge their independence — as if the sur-
render of the thing was an equivalent for the acquisition of
the name; and as if by ratifying that very treaty the United
States would not have been the first to acknowledge the
independence of the government with which it was formed.
It is hoped that you will find little of this spirit remaining
to contend with. The head of the government is yet a
military officer; but the principles always avowed by Mr.
Rivadavia, the minister and effective member of govern-
ment, are emphatically American. A government by pop-
ular representation and periodical election, the subordination
of the military to the civil authority, the suppression of
ecclesiastical supremacy, the freedom of the press, and the
security of personal liberty, appear to be duly appreciated
by him, as the only foundations of a social compact suited to
the wants of his country; and with these fundamental prin-
ciples, no preference for European connections; much less
predilections for European princes, can be entertained.
The foundation of our municipal institutions is equal
rights. The basis of all our intercourse with foreign powers
is reciprocity. We have not demanded, nor would we have
i
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 433
accepted special privileges of any kind in return for an ac-
knowledgment of independence. But that which we have not
desired, and would not have accepted for ourselves, we have
a right to insist ought not to be granted to others. Recogni-
tion is in its nature not a subject of equivalent; it is claimable
of right, or not at all. You will, therefore, strenuously main-
tain the right of the United States to be treated in every
respect on the footing of the most favored, or as it is more
properly expressed, the most friendly nation — gentis
amicissimae — and should you negotiate a treaty of com-
merce, you will make that principle the foundation of all its
provisions.
The materials of interest, leading to the negotiation of
such a treaty between the United States and Buenos Ayres,
are indeed so slender, that there is no motive for desiring it
on our part; nor is it the intention of the President that you
should propose it. Our commercial intercourse itself with
Buenos Ayres cannot for ages, if ever, be very considerable;
and while Montevideo remains under the authority of
another government, must be altogether trifling. The
productions of the two countries are so essentially the same,
that in ordinary times of peace and tranquillity their com-
mercial relations must be rather of competition than of
mutual exchange. The trade hitherto subsisting since it
was first opened in 181 5, after the close of our late war with
Great Britain, has been chiefly dependent on the unsettled
and disturbed condition of the country itself, and would in a
great measure cease with the convulsions of the revolution.
The imports to the United States from Buenos Ayres are
confined to a small number of animal productions — hides,
skins, tallow, and furs. The exports have been of arms,
ships, warlike and naval stores, hats, boots, shoes, saddlery,
furniture, chairs, carriages, wooden ware, morocco skins,
I
4
434 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
woollen and cotton goods, lumber, flour, fish and salted
provisions. For almost all these articles we have been in
disadvantageous competition with the British, and for many
of them the necessity of supply at Buenos Ayres will termi-
nate whenever that country shall be at peace. But whatever
the state of trade between the two nations may be, it will
regulate itself most advantageously for both, without need-
ing a treaty, by the simple adherence to the principle of
equal rights and favors, or in other words of treating each
other on the footing of the most friendly nation. From the
physical and geographical constitution of the country, even
if the whole viceroyalty of La Plata should ultimately be
reunited under one government, it can never form, to any
considerable extent, a navigating nation. It produces few
of the materials essential for ship-building, and has neither
a line of coast, studded with seaports and channeled with
navigable rivers directly opening upon the sea, nor ocean
fisheries in its bordering seas, from which nurseries of seamen
can be formed. It is an immense inland region, communicat-
ing with the Atlantic only by one mighty river, with innum-
erable tributary streams. Possessed of inexhaustible re-
sources within itself, such a country is neither allured by the
temptations nor urged by the necessities, which, compen-
sating for the privation of a fruitful soil and stimulating to
the exertion of hardihood and defiance of danger incident
to the sea-faring life, give national importance to the occu-
pation of the mariner, and present his interests and his
rights as among the primary objects of social encouragement
and protection.
It may hereafter constitute a large portion of our com-
mercial intercourse with that country to furnish ships for
the carriage of their trade, both of export and import; and
although they may and doubtless will be to a certain extent
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 435
navigators themselves, yet finding in foreigners cheaper,
more expeditious and safer carriers than they can ever
raise, they will have every rational inducement for giving
them the preference, and they will best promote their own
interests by employing the seamen as well as the ships of
other nations for the conveyance of their foreign commerce.
For this carrying trade the United States possess advan-
tages beyond all other maritime nations; but in times of
general peace in Europe, they will have eager competitors,
always in the British, and sometimes in the French. The
great object to be guarded against in our relations with
Buenos Ayres will be the attempts which may be antic-
ipated by either or both of these rivals, to secure advantages
of preference to themselves, and burdensome to us, in the
internal regulations of the country. You will be always
mindful of this danger, and use every action necessary and
proper for defending the interest of our country against it.
[ Heretofore, while the government of Buenos Ayres au-
thorized and encouraged a system of privateering, as one of
their means of warfare against Spain, among the many
complaints which in its consequences it gave us too much
reason to make, was that of the seduction of the seamen from
our merchant vessels frequenting the port, to man the
privateers, fitting out under the Buenos Ayrean flag. This
mischief was much aggravated by two articles in their
privateering ordinance, substantially violating the laws of
nations, and opening the door to the most outrageous abuses.
Mr. Forbes was instructed to remonstrate against them; and
among the earliest and wisest acts of the present adminis-
tration, after the appointment of Mr. Rivadavia, was the
revocation of all the privateering commissions. The right
to renew them was reserved, but has not been exercised.
Should it be so during your residence there, you will renew
436 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
the remonstrance, particularly against those two articles —
the third and eighth of the privateering ordinance of 15 May, ,
1 817; by the first of which foreigners, never having even 1
been in the country, may be captains and officers of the j
privateers; while by the other, they have a discretionary '
power to send their prizes where they please. These two ,
articles are little less than licences of piracy. They tres- |
passed upon the rights of other nations, and held out the j
worst of temptations to their seamen. It is sincerely hoped '
they will never be revived.
The present administration have in other respects mani- j
fested a disposition to protect our merchant vessels in their
ports from the desertion of their seamen, and, at the repre-
sentation of Mr. Forbes, issued on the 14th of March, 1822,
an ordinance of maritime police, entirely satisfactory.
Since that time it is not known that the masters of any of
our vessels there have had occasion to complain of the loss
of their seamen by desertion; and the principle having been
thus established, it may be hoped there will be no excuse
for complaint hereafter. Your attention to the maritime
ordinance is invited, only as it may point you to the
remedy already provided, should there be a necessity of re-
sorting to it.
But although we perceive no necessity and have no desire
for the negotiation of a treaty of commerce, you are never-
theless- furnished with a full power for that purpose, if it
should be desired by the government at Buenos Ayres. It
was in compliance with such a desire at the time of the ad-
ministration of Pueyrredon, that Mr. Worthington, without
authority from this government, did conclude with an agent
appointed by that Supreme Director, an eventual treaty,
which was of course not ratified here. Had that treaty been
negotiated even with competent powers, it would have been
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 437
a sufficient reason for withholding the ratification of It, that
it did not contain the only article and only principle upon
which we should deem it useful to conclude a treaty with
any of the new Independent states, the principle above
alluded to, of mutual treatment upon a footing of equality
with the most favored nation. This principle was adopted
upon full deliberation, as the great foundation of our foreign
policy, at the time of our declaration of independence, and
forms an essential part of the political system upon which
it was established. It was fully disclosed in our first treaty
of 6 February, 1778, with France, the preamble to which
should be the political manual for every negotiator of the
United States, in every quarter of the globe. The first four
articles of that same treaty contain the practical exposition
of the principle recognized In the preamble, and, in case
you should be invited to negotiate, will furnish a model for
articles of similar Import to be inserted in the treaty. The
convention of 3 July, 181 5, with Great Britain extends yet
farther the grant of reciprocal favor, by admitting the com-
merce and shipping of each party within the ports of the
other; In many respects upon the same footing with Its
own. This rule, with some modification, was offered by the
act of Congress of 3 March, 1815, to all foreign nations will-
ing to secure to our commerce and navigation the same
advantages within their ports. The offer has been accepted
by the Netherlands, Prussia, the Hanseatic cities, and the
Duke of Oldenburg. The government of Norway has gone
one step farther, and admits our vessels Into its ports, and
their cargoes, whencesoever coming and of whatsoever
origin, upon the same footing of duties. Imposts and charges,
as their own. They have claimed for Norwegian vessels
and cargoes the same advantages within our ports, and the
only motive for hesitating with regard to the acceptance of
438 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
this proposal is, that in yielding it to Norway we might
become entangled in our engagements with other powers,
and that in this unqualified extent it could only be com-
patible with the general principle of reciprocity, by obtaining
the assent of all the powers with which we are in relations
of active commercial intercourse. We have now treaties |
with France, Great Britain, Spain and Sweden, each con- !
taining stipulations different from those of all the rest in i
relation to the payment of imposts, duties and charges upon ;
shipping and trade. In the negotiation of any future treaty, j
it will be necessary to provide that nothing in it shall be
understood or construed to impair any of our existing en- ;
gagements with other nations; but with the exception of
certain privileges secured until the 28th of May, 1833, to
Spanish vessels and their cargoes in the ports of St. Augustine
and Pensacola, by the fifteenth article of the late treaty with
Spain, there is no stipulation in any of our treaties of favor j
or advantage to any nation, which we are restrained from
conceding to any other, upon condition of being entitled to
the same in return.
The usual subjects of treaties of commerce are: i. Stipula-
tions of general peace between the contracting parties,
their subjects and citizens. 2. Privileges or exemptions in
favor of the subjects or citizens of either party, visiting or
residing, or dying within the jurisdiction of the other.
3. Payment of duties of tonnage and impost, and charges
upon trading vessels and cargoes, 4. Regulations of con-
flicting belligerent and neutral pretensions and rights in
time of war. 5. Regulations contingent on the event of war '
between the parties. 6. Stipulations concerning the ad-
mission, treatment and authority of consuls. 7. Concerning
seamen. Upon all or any of these subjects, should the
negotiation of a treaty be proposed to you, the existing
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 439
treaties of the United States, containing their engagements
with other nations relating to the same, may be safely-
adopted, or modified, as the circumstances may render
proper, of which your own discretion will better determine,
than could now be prescribed to you. The general principle
of reciprocity and equal favor to all nations being assumed as
the basis of negotiation, the special stipulations, all adapted
to that standard, may be varied according to the circum-
stances peculiar to the intercourse between the two countries,
which will be better known to you than they can be to us.
You will naturally see the uselessness of introducing, as has
often been done in treaties of commerce, articles already in
force by the laws or internal regulations of both parties, and
articles which by the acknowledged and undisputed laws of
nations would be in force between the parties, without any
treaty stipulation at all. A resolution of the House- of
Representatives at the late session of Congress requests the
President of the United States to enter upon, and to pros-
ecute from time to time, such negotiations with the several
maritime powers of Europe and America as he may deem
expedient for the effectual abolition of the African slave
trade; and its ultimate denunciation as piracy under the
laws of nations, by the consent of the civilized world.
In pursuance of the object proposed by this resolution,
you will communicate to the government of Buenos Ayres
copies of the several acts of Congress for the suppression of
the slave trade, of the 20th of April, 181 8 (U. S. Laws, Vol. 6,
p. 325), 3 March, 1819 (p. 435), and of 15 May, 1820 (p. 529),
pointing their attention particularly to the fourth and fifth
sections of the last, which subject to the penalties of piracy
every citizen of the United States guilty of active partic-
ipation in the African slave trade. The adoption of this
principle in the legislative code of all the maritime nations,
440 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
would of itself probably suffice for the suppression of the
trade. But as it would yet not authorize the armed vessels
of any one nation to capture those of another engaged in the
trade, a stipulation to that effect might be agreed to by
treaty, conditioned that the captor shall deliver over the
captured party to the tribunals of his own country for trial;
to which should be added some guard of responsibility upon
the capturing officer, to prevent the abusive exercise of his
power.
You will consider all these instructions rather as advisory
than as of positive injunction. Our intercourse with Buenos
Ayres, as with all the other new nations of this hemisphere, is
of recent origin; formed while their own condition has been
altogether revolutionary, and continually changing its
aspect. Our information concerning them is imperfect, and
among the most important objects of your mission will be
that of adding to its stores; of exploring the untrodden
ground, and of collecting and transmitting to us the knowl-
edge by which the friendly relations between the two coun-
tries may be extended and harmonized, to promote the wel-
fare of both, with due regard to the peace and good-will of
the whole family of civilized man. It is highly important
that the first foundations of the permanent future inter-
course between the two countries should be laid in principles,
benevolent and liberal in themselves, congenial to the
spirit of our institutions, and consistent with the duties of
universal philanthropy.
In all your consultations with the government to which
you will be accredited, bearing upon its political relations
with this Union, your unvarying standard will be the spirit
of independence and of freedom, as equality of rights and
favors will be that of all its commercial relations. Your
own attachment to those principles, conspicuous in the
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 441
whole tenor of your political life, formed one of the principal
motives for inviting you to the acceptance of the trust re-
posed in you by this mission, and sustains the reliance of
u the President that its duties will be discharged to the signal
advantage and general satisfaction of our country, I am,
etc.
TO RICHARD C. ANDERSON
Department of State,
Washington, 27 May, 1823.
Sir,
The revolution which has severed the colonies of Spanish
America from European thraldom, and left them to form
self-dependent governments as members of the society of
civilized nations, is among the most important events in
modern history. As a general movement in human affairs, it
is, perhaps, no more than a development of principles first
brought into action by the separation of these states from
Great Britain, and by the practical illustration given in the
formation and establishment of our Union to the doctrine
that voluntary agreement is the only legitimate source of
authority among men, and that all just government is a
compact.
[Of all the violations of this theory, with which the annals
of our species abound, the colonial system of Spain was
perhaps the most iniquitous and absurd. Resting for the
right upon the most degraded superstition; pursuing for its
means brutal force alone, Spain had taken a grant of half the
world from the Bishop of Rome, to teach to its inhabitants
the most benevolent of all religions. And after ravaging
under these pretences those extensive regions with fire and
442 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
sword; after subduing their people by force and treachery,
and extirpating them by millions, had taken possession of
nearly the whole continent of South America, and of a great
portion of the north, and locking them up from all other
human intercourse but with herself, claimed, and for three
hundred years maintained, exclusive property of the in-
habitants and of the soil, excluding all foreigners from setting
foot on their shores upon the penalty of death.
But if the delusions of the human mind are unbounded in
extent, they are limited in duration. It was impossible that
such a system should stand before the progressive improve-
ment of the understanding in this age, or that the light shed
upon the whole earth by the results of our revolution should
leave in utter darkness the regions immediately adjoining
upon ourselves.]^
The independence of the Spanish colonies, however, has
proceeded from other causes, and has been achieved upon
principles, in many respects different from ours. In our
revolution the principle of the social compact was, from the
beginning, in Immediate Issue. It originated In a question of
right between the government in Europe and the subject in
America. Our independence was declared In defence of our
liberties, and the attempt to make the yoke a yoke of oppres-
sion was the cause and justification for casting it off.
[The revolution of the Spanish colonies was not caused by
the oppression under which they had been held, however
great It had been. Accustomed to the combined weight of
military and ecclesiastical despotism, secluded from all
^ What is enclosed in brackets was struck out and the following substituted:
"It was impossible that such a system as Spain had established over her colonies
should stand before the progressive improvement of the understanding in this age,
or that the light shed upon the whole earth by the results of our revolution should
leave in utter darkness the regions immediately adjoining upon ourselves."
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 443
intercourse with the rest of the world, subdued in mind and
body, with a people heterogeneously composed of European
adventurers, of Creole natives of the country but of Spanish
descent, of aboriginal Indians, and of African slaves, all
under the actual government of the small number of Span-
iards composing the first class, there was no spirit of freedom
pervading any portion of this population, no common prin-
ciple of reason to form an union of mind; no means of com-
bining force for exertions of resistance to power.] ^
The independence of the Spanish colonies was first forced
upon them by the temporary subjugation of Spain herself to
a foreign power. They were by that event cast upon them-
selves and compelled to establish governments of their own.
Spain through all the vicissitudes of her own revolution has
clung to the desperate hope of retaining, or of reclaiming
them to her own control; and has waged, to the extent of her
power, a disastrous and savage war to that intent. In the
mind of every rational man it has been for years apparent
that Spain can never succeed to recover her domination
where it has been abjured, nor is it probable that she can
long retain the small remnant of her authority yet acknowl-
edged In some spots of the South American continent, and
in the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico.
The political course of the United States from the first
dawning of South American independence has been such as
was prescribed by their relative duties to all the parties.
Being on terms of peace and amity with Spain through all the
changes of her own government, they have considered the
struggles of the colonies for independence as a case of civil
war, to which their national obligations prescribed to them
to remain neutral. Their policy, their interest and their
feelings, all concurred to favor the cause of the colonies; and
1 This paragraph was struck out.
444 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
the principles upon which the right of independence has been
maintained by the South American patriots have been ap-
proved, not only as identical with those upon which our own
independence was asserted and achieved, but as involving
the whole theory of government on the emphatically Amer-
ican foundation of the sovereignty of the people, and the
unalienable rights of man. To a cause reposing upon this
basis, the people of this country never could be indlfTerent,
and their sympathies have accordingly been with great
unanimity and constancy enlisted in its favor. The senti-
ments of the government of the United States have been in
perfect harmony with those of their people; and which for-
bearing, as their duties of neutrality prescribed, from every
measure which could justly be construed as hostile to Spain,
they have exercised all the moral influence which they
possessed to countenance and promote the cause of in-
dependence.
So long as a contest of arms, with a rational or even
remote prospect of eventual success, was maintained by
Spain, the United States could not recognize the independ-
ence of the colonies as existing de facto, without trespassing
on their duties to Spain, by assuming as decided that which
was precisely the question of the war. In the history of
South American Independence there are two periods clearly
distinguishable from each other: the first, that of its origin
when it was rather a war of independence against France
than against Spain; and the second, from the restoration of
Ferdinand VII in 1814. Since that period, the territories
now constituting the republic of Colombia have been the
only theatre upon which Spain has been able to maintain the
conflict offensively with even a probable color of ultimate
success. But when in 181 5 she made her greatest effort in
the expedition from Cadiz commanded by Morillo, Mexico,
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 445
Peru, and Chile were yet under her authority; and had she
succeeded in reducing the coast of Terra Firma and New-
Granada, the provinces of La Plata, divided among them-
selves and weakened by the Portuguese occupation of
Montevideo, would probably not have held out against her
long. This, at least, was the calculation of her policy, and
from the geographical position of these countries, which
may be termed the heart of South America, the conclusion
might well be drawn that if the other power of Spain could
not be firmly reseated there, it must be on her part a fruitless
struggle to maintain her supremacy in any part of the
American continents.
The expedition of Morillo on its first arrival was attended
with signal success. Carthagena was taken. The whole
coast of Terra Firma was occupied, and New Grenada was
entirely subdued. A remnant of patriots in Venezuela, with
their leader Bolivar, returning from expulsion, revived the
cause of independence, and after the campaign of 1819, in
which they reconquered the whole of New Grenada, the
demonstration became complete, that every effort of Spain
to recover the South American continent must thencefor-
ward be a desperate waste of her own resources, and that the
truest friendship of other nations to her would consist in
making her sensible that her own interest would be best
consulted by the acknowledgment of that independence
which she could no longer effectually dispute.
To this conclusion the government of the United States
had at an earlier period arrived. From the commencement
of the present administration ^ the President has considered
the question of recognition, both in a moral and political
view, as merely a question of the proper time. While Spam
could entertain a reasonable hope of maintaining the war
1 Altered to "from that emergency."
446 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
and of recovering her authority, the acknowledgment of the
colonies as Independent states would have been a wrong to
her; but she had no right upon the strength of this principle
to maintain the pretension, after she was manifestly disabled
from maintaining the contest, and by unreasonably with-
holding her acknowledgment, to deprive the independents of
their right to demand the acknowledgment of others. To
fix upon the precise time when the duty to respect the prior
sovereign right of Spain should cease, and that of yielding to
the claim of acknowledgment would commence, was a sub-
ject of great delicacy, and, to the President, of constant and
anxious solicitude. It naturally became In the first instance a
proper subject of consultation with other powers having
relations of Interest to themselves with the newly opened
countries, as well as Influence in the general affairs of Europe.
[At the very commencement of this administration. Informal
and indistinct Intimations had been received from France,
that although she could not take the lead In the acknowl-
edgment of Independence of the Spanish colonies, she should
not take offence, if It should be acknowledged by the United
States. The sentiments of the British and of the Russian
cabinets were also sounded and ascertained, and] ^ in August,
1818,^ a formal proposal was made to the British govern-
ment, for a concerted and cotemporary recognition of the
independence of Buenos Ayres, then the only one of the
South American states which, having declared independence,
had no Spanish force contending against It, within Its
borders, and where it therefore most unequivocally existed
in fact.
The British government declined accepting the proposal
themselves, without however expressing any disapprobation
' Sentences in brackets were struck out.
^ Vol. VI. 433, supra.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 447
of it; without discussing it as a question of principle, and
without assigning any reason for the refusal, other than that
it did not then suit with their policy. They also gave
immediate notice of it to Spain, and it became a subject of
consideration at the deliberations of the Congress of Aix-la-
Chapelle in October, 181 8. There is reason to believe that it
disconcerted projects which were there entertained of en-
gaging the European alliance in active operations against the
South Americans, as it is well known that a plan for their
joint mediation between Spain and her colonies, for restoring
them to her authority, was actually matured and finally
failed at that place only by the refusal of Great Britain to
accede to the condition of employing /orc<f eventually against
the South Americans for its accomplishment. Some dis-
satisfaction was manifested by several members of the Con-
gress at Aix-la-Chapelle at this avowal on the part of the
United States of their readiness to recognize the independ-
ence of Buenos Ayres. [It is understood to have been par-
ticularly displeasing to the cabinet of France, notwithstand-
ing the intimation which they had nearly two years before
given here. The cause of this change in her policy has since
been disclosed in the fact, that, at the very time of the Con-
gress at Aix-la-Chapelle, while sharing in the counsels of
the allies at that place for restoring South America to the
Spanish dominion by force, she was actively engaged at
Paris In a separate negotiation with agents of Buenos Ayres
and Chile, for selling her own acknowledgment of their
independence, on condition of their receiving from her a
monarch in the person of the Prince of Lucca.] ^
The reconquest in the campaign of 18 19 of New Grenada
to the patriot cause was Immediately followed by the forma-
tion of the Republic of Colombia, consisting of three great
1 Sentences in brackets were struck out.
448 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
divisions of the preceding Spanish government, Venezuela,
Cundinamarca, and Quito. It was soon succeeded by the
dissolution of the Spanish authority In Mexico; by the
revolution In Spain itself; and by the military operations
which resulted in the declaration of Independence in Peru.
In November, 1820, was concluded the armistice between
the Generals Morlllo and Bolivar, together with a subsequent
treaty, stipulating that in case of the renewal of the war, the
parties would abstain from all hostilities and practices not
consistent with the modern law of nations and the humane
maxims of civilization. In February, 1821, the partial
independence of Mexico was proclaimed at Yguala; and in
August of the same year was recognized by the Spanish
Viceroy and Captain General, O'Donoju, at Cordova.
The formation of the Republic of Colombia by the funda-
mental law of 17 December, 1819, was notified to this govern-
ment by Its agent, the late Don Manuel Torres, on the 20th of
February, 1821, with a request that it might be recognized by
.the government of the United States, and a proposal for the
negotiation of treaties of commerce and navigation founded
upon the bases of reciprocal utility and perfect equality, as
the most efficacious means of strengthening and increasing
the relations of amity between the two republics.
The Request and proposal were renewed in a letter from
Mr. Torres of the 30th of November, 1821, and again re-
peated on the 2d of January, 1822. In the Interval since the
first demand, the general Congress of the new republic had
assembled and formed a constitution, founded upon the
principles of popular representation, and divided into
legislative, executive, and judicial authorities. The govern-
ment under this constitution had been organized, and was in
full operation; while during the same period, the principal
remnants of the Spanish force had been destroyed by the
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 449
battle of Carabobo, and its last fragments were confined to
the two places of Porto Cavello and Panama.
Under these circumstances a resolution of the House of
Representatives of the United States, on the 30th of January,
1822, requested of the President to lay before the House the
communications from the agents of the United States with
the governments south of the United States which had
declared their independence; and those from the agents of
such governments here w^th the Secretary of State, tending
to show the political condition of their governments, and the
state of the war between them and Spain. In transmitting
to the House the papers called for by this resolution, the
President by his message of 8 March, 1822, declared his
own persuasion that the time had arrived when in strict
conformity to the law of nations, and in the fulfilment of the
duties of equal and impartial justice to all parties, the ac-
knowledgment of the independence declared by the Spanish
American colonies could no longer be withheld. Both
houses of Congress having almost unanimously concurred
with these views of the President, an appropriation was
made by law (4 May, 1822), for such missions to the in-
dependent nations on the American continent as the Presi-
dent should deem proper.
On the day after the President's message of the 8th of
March, the Spanish minister, Anduaga, addressed to this
Department a remonstrance against the measure which it
recommended, and a solemn protest against the recognition
of the governments mentioned of the insurgent Spanish
provinces of America. He was answered on the 6th of April,
by a letter recapitulating the circumstances under which
the government of the United States had "yielded to an
obligation of duty of the highest order, by recognizing as
independent States nations which, after deliberately assert-
450
THE WRITINGS OF [1823
ing their right to that character, had maintained and estab-
lished it against all the resistance which had been or could be
brought to oppose it." On the 24th of April he gave in-
formation, that the Spanish government had disavowed the
treaty of 24 August, 1821, between the Captain General
O'Donoju and Colonel Iturbide, and had denied the au-
thority of the former to conclude it.
On the 1 2th of February, 1822, the Spanish extraordinary
Cortes adopted the report of a committee, proposing the ap-
pointment of commissioners to proceed to South America,
to negotiate with the revolutionary patriots concerning the
relations to be established thereafter in regard to their con-
nection with Spain. They declared at the same time all
treaties made with them before that time by Spanish com-
manders implying any acknowledgment of their independ-
ence, null and void, as not having been authorized by the
Cortes; and on the next day they passed three resolutions:
the first annulling expressly the treaty between O'Donoju
and Iturbide. The second, "That the Spanish government,
by a declaration to all others with which it has friendly
relations, make known to them, that the Spanish nation will
regard, at any epoch, as a violation of the treaties, the recog-
nition, either partial or absolute, of the independence of the
Spanish provinces of Ultramar, so long as the dissensions
which exist between some of them and the metropolis are not
terminated, with whatever else may serve to convince foreign
governments that Spain has not yet renounced any of the
rights belonging to it in those countries."
The third resolution recommended to the government to
take all necessary measures and to apply to the Cortes for
the needed resources to preserve and recover the authority
of Spain in the ultramarine provinces.
These measures of the Cortes were not known to the
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 451
President of the United States when he sent to Congress his
message of the 8th of March; but information of them was
received while the bill making an appropriation for the
missions was before Congress, and on the 25th of April a
resolution of the Senate requested of the President any
information he might have proper to be disclosed from our
minister at Madrid, or from the Spanish minister resident in
this country, concerning the views of Spain relative to the
recognition of the independence of the South American
colonies, and of the dictamen of the Spanish Cortes. In
answer to this resolution the letter from Mr. Anduaga, pro-
testing against the recognition, and one from Mr. Forsyth,
enclosing a translation of the dictamen, were transmitted to
the Senate, which, with all these documents before them,
gave their concurrent sanction, with that of the House of
Representatives, to the passage of the bill of appropriation.
This review of the proceedings of the government of the
United States, in relation to the independence of Spanish
America, has been taken, to show the consistency of the
principles by which they were uniformly dictated, and that
they have been always eminently friendly to the new re-
publics, and disinterested. While Spain maintained a
doubtful contest with arms to recover her dominion, it was
regarded as a civil war. When that contest became so
manifestly desperate, that Spanish viceroys, governors and
captain generals themselves concluded treaties with the
insurgents, virtually acknowledging their independence, the
United States frankly and unreserv^edly recognized the fact,
without making their acknowledgment the price of any favor
to themselves, and although at the hazard of incurring the
displeasure of Spain. In this measure they have taken the
lead of the whole civilized world; for although the Portuguese
Brazilian government had a few months before recognized
452 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
the revolutionary government of Buenos Ayres, it was at a
moment when a projected declaration of its own independ-
ence made the question substantially their own cause, and
it was presented as an equivalent for a reciprocal recognition
of their own much more questionable right to the eastern
shore of La Plata.
On the [19] of June, 1822, Mr. Manuel Torres was received
by the President of the United States as the charge d'affaires
from the Republic of Colombia, and the immediate conse-
quence of our recognition was the admission of the vessels
of the South American nations, under their own colors, into
the ports of the principal nations of Europe [ — a half way
step towards the acknowledgment, soon to be succeeded by
the direct avowal, which on the part of Europe will be as
reluctant and ungracious, as on that of the United States it
was open and cordial.
The policy of all the European nations towards South
America has been founded upon selfish principles of interest,
incongruously combined with erroneous principles of govern-
ment. Since the restoration of the Bourbons,] ^ the Euro-
pean alliance of emperors and kings have assumed as the
foundation of human society the doctrine of unalienable
allegiance. Our doctrine is founded upon the principle of
unalienable right. The European allies, therefore, have
viewed the cause of the South Americans as rebellion against
their lawful sovereign. We have considered it as the asser-
tion of natural right. They have invariably shown their
disapprobation of the revolution, and their wishes for the
restoration of the Spanish power. We have as constantly
favored the standard of independence and of America. [As
the necessity of eventual recognition has advanced upon
them^ they have tampered with internal parties, to turn to
• Sentences in brackets were struck out.
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 453
their own account the issue which they could not control;
British agents have been feeling their way for exclusive
privileges of commerce; Portugal has been chaffering for a
fragm.ent of territory; and France has been darkly plotting a
monarchy for the Prince of Lucca, which she seems to have
considered as a sort of compromise between political legit-
imacy and bastardy, to be purified by crossing a breed of the
Bourbon and Braganza blood. It is difficult to treat such
projects with the gravity suitable to the subject; but in
tracing the conduct of nations to their sources, selfish and
sordid motives will stamp their images upon the purposes by
which they are pursued in characters as indelible as those
which indicate their derivation from the pure origin of
freedom, equal rights, and disinterested generosity.] ^
In contrasting the principles and the motives of the Euro-
pean powers, as manifested in their policy towards South
America, with those of the United States, it has not been my
intention to boast of our superior purity, or to lay a claim of
merit to any extraordinary favor from South America m
return. Disinterestedness must be its own reward; but In
the establishment of our future political and commercial
Intercourse with the new republics it will be necessary to
recur often to the principles in which It originated; they will
serve to mark the boundaries of the rights which we may
justly claim In our future relations with them, and to coun-
teract the efforts which, it cannot be doubted, European
negotiators will continue to make in the furtherance of
their monarchical and monopolizing contemplations.
[The Republic of Colombia is, of all the nations which have
arisen from the ruins of the Spanish power in America, that
which has had the most arduous and agonizing struggle to
maintain against the metropolis of Its birth; that which by
> ^ Sentences in brackets were struck out.
454 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
its geographical position and physical constitution presents
the fairest prospective promise of a great and formidable
power; that which amidst the convulsions of the revolution-
ary tempest has assumed the most encouraging appearance
of consistency and stability; and that in which the principles
of civil liberty have apparently made the most successful
progress towards a final triumph over the prejudices of
inveterate ignorance, despotism, and superstition.] ^
Upon a territory by one-half more extensive than the
whole Inhabited part of the United States, with a popula-
tion of less than four millions of souls, they have indeed
undertaken to establish a single, and not a confederated
republic. Whether this attempt will be found practicable
in execution, may be susceptible to doubt; but in the new
organizations of society upon this hemisphere, even unsuc-
cessful experiments lead to results by which the science of
government is advanced and the happiness of man is pro-
moted. The Republic of Colombia has a constitution de-
liberately formed and adopted upon principles entirely
republican, with an elective legislature in two branches, a
distribution of the powers of government, with the exception
of the federative character, almost identical with our own,
and articles declaratory of the natural rights of the citizen
to personal security, property and reputation, and of the
inviolable liberty of the press. With such a constitution, in
such a country, the modifications which experience may
prove to be necessary for rendering the political institutions
most effectually competent to the ends of civil government,
will make their own way by peaceable and gradual conquests
of public opinion. If a single government should be found
inadequate to secure and protect the rights of the people
living under it, a federation of republics may without diffi-
' This paragraph was struck out.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 455
culty be substituted in its place. Practical eflFect having
once been given to the principle that lawful government is a
compact and not a grant, the pretences for resorting to
force for effecting political revolutions disappear. The
subordination of the military to the civil power is the only
principle yet remaining to be established in Colombia, to
ensure the liberties of the future generations as well as those
of the present age; and that subordination although not
directly guaranteed by their present constitution, is alto-
gether conformable to its spirit.
In the letter of 20 February, 1 821, from the late Mr. Torres,
demanding the recognition of the Republic of Colombia, it
has been observed that the additional proposal was made of
negotiating ^Ureaties of navigation and commerce, founded
upon the bases of reciprocal utility and perfect equality, as
the most efficacious means of strengthening and increasing
the relations of amity between the two republics."
In compliance with this proposal, among the documents
furnished you for proceeding upon the mission to which
you have been appointed, of minister plenipotentiary to the
Republic of Colombia, is a full power which will authorize
you to negotiate with any plenipotentiary or plenipoten-
tiaries of that government duly provided with like powers,
such a treaty. The President wishes, however, that every
step in such negotiation should be taken with full delibera-
tion. The treaty, if concluded, must, as you are aware, be
reserved subject to ratification here, with the advice and
consent of the Senate by the constitutional two-thirds; as by
the constitution of Colombia (Art. 120) their treaties to be
valid must receive the consent and approbation of their
Congress.
Our commercial relations with the Colombian territory
are of so recent origin, and have depended so much upon the
456 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
revolutionary condition of that country, under which they
have arisen, that our knowledge of their state and character
is very imperfect, although we are certain that they are
altogether different from those which may be expected to
arise from permanent interests, when the independence of
the republic shall be universally recognized, and a free trade
shall be opened to its inhabitants with all parts of the world.
The only important point now to be settled, as the radical
principle of all our future commercial intercourse, is the basis
proposed by Mr. Torres of reciprocal utility and perfect
equality; as the necessary consequence of which you will
claim that, without waiting for the conclusion of a treaty,
the commerce and navigation of the United States in the
ports of the Colombian Republic should be received on the
footing of equality with the most favored nation. It is
hoped, indeed, that on your arrival at the place of your
destination you will find the principle already settled; as-
surances to that effect having been given by the Minister of
Foreign Relations to Mr. Todd.
By an act of the Congress of Colombia of the 25th of
September, 1821, an impost duty of seven and one-half per
cent was laid upon all articles imported from any part of
America, additio7ial to the duty upon the like articles im-
ported from Europe. This discrimination was mentioned to
Mr. Torres at the time of his reception. He thought it had
arisen only from an inadvertency, and promised to write
concerning it to his government. Mr. Todd was instructed
to remonstrate against it, which he accordingly did. From
his correspondence and conferences relating to it with the
Colombian Minister of Foreign Relations, Dr. Gual, it
appears that the object of the law was to burden with
heavier duties the indirect trade from Great Britain and
France, carried on through the medium of the West India
i823l JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 457
islands, and thereby to present to these powers an induce-
ment to acknowledge the independence of the republic.
However just or reasonable this expedient might be with
reference to the relations between the Colombian people and
European nations, it was manifestly injurious to the United
States, nor was its injustice in any manner compensated by
the provisions of another law of the Congress of 27 Septem-
ber, 1 821, allowing a drawback of duties upon re-exportations
i?i their ozcn vessels of provisions imported from the United
States. It is alleged by Dr. Gual that the object of this
latter law was to favor the United States, by facilitating the
indirect trade between them and the British colonies in the
West Indies, the direct trade being then interdicted by the
laws of the United States and of Great Britain. But this
trade was carried on more advantageously to the United
States by the way of the Swedish, Danish and Dutch islands,
than it could be by that of the Colombian ports, and the
object of favoring their ozvn shipping appears more obviously
as the motive of the law, than that of favoring the commerce
of the United States. The opening of the direct trade
between the United States and the British islands has, at all
events, rendered all the provisions of the Colombian law of
27 September, 1821, inoperative; and assurances have been
given by Dr. Gual that at the meeting of the Congress
which was to take place in Aiarch last, measures would be
taken for procuring the Immediate repeal of the discrimina-
tion to the disadvantage of the United States, prescribed by
the law of the 25th of September.
The spirit of the Colombian constitution is explicitly that
of entire and unqualified independence; and the sentiments
expressed by Dr. Gual to Mr. Todd have been altogether
conformable to it. He has declared that the intention of the
government is to treat all foreign nations upon the footing of
458 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
equal favor and of perfect reciprocity. This is all that the
United States will require, and this, so far as their interests
are concerned, they have a right to exact.
It has been in the first instance proposed by Mr. Torres
that the treaty of commerce and navigation should be
negotiated here, and he informed me that a minister would
be appointed, with powers and instructions sufficient for
concluding it at this place. Dr. Gual has informed Mr. Todd
that the views of the Colombian government have since
undergone a change; and although they have appointed
Mr. Salazar as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten-
tiary to the United States, and in March last he was under
instructions to proceed forthwith upon his mission to this
country, they were nevertheless exceedingly desirous that
the treaty should be negotiated there.
The President deems it of no material importance to the
United States whether the treaty shall be negotiated at
Washington or at Bogota; but the proposal having first been
made for concluding it here, it is natural to enquire what it
was that produced the change in the wishes of the Colombian
government, with regard to the seat of the negotiation.
Dr. Gual intimated confidentially to Mr. Todd that it had
proceeded from two causes: one, the desire to establish a
precedent which might prevail upon the great European
governments to negotiate likewise with the Republic at its
own capital, and thereby hasten them to the recognition of
Colombian independence; and the other a jealousy of their
own negotiators in Europe, who were apt to become them-
selves entangled with European intrigues, and to involve
the Republic in unsuitable and perplexing engagements.
With regard to the second of these causes, whatever
occasion may have been given to the distrust of their own
agents which it avows, it could have no application to their
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 459
transactions with the United States. By assuming the
principles of independence, equality, and reciprocity as the
foundations of all our negotiations, we discard all the in-
centives and all the opportunities for double dealing, over-
reaching, and corrupt caballing. We shall ask nothing .
which the Colombian Republic have any interest to deny.
We shall offer nothing for which she may be unwilling to
yield a fair equivalent. To the other reason, however, the
President the more readily accedes, because perceiving its
full force, it gives him an opportunity of manifesting in
action the friendly disposition of the United States towards
the Republic, and their readiness to promote by all proper
means the recognition of its independence by the great
European powers.
In the negotiation of all commercial treaties there is un-
doubtedly an advantage, at least of convenience, enjoyed by
the party which treats at home; and this advantage acquires
greater importance, when, as is now the case with both the
parties, the treaty to become valid, must obtain the assent of
legislative assemblies. This advantage, in the ordinary
course of things, accrues to the party to whom the proposal
of negotiation is first made. Independent then of all ques-
tions of precedence, and without resorting to the example of
the first treaties negotiated by the United States, both of
which considerations have been mentioned by Mr. Todd to
Dr. Gual, the United States might insist upon having the
negotiation concluded here, not only as the first proposal of
it was made to them, but because the proposal itself was that
it should be concluded here. The President however is well
aware of the stimulus which a treaty negotiated, and even a
negotiation known to be in progress at Bogota, will apply
to the attention and jealous selfishness of European interests,
and has no doubt that it will press them to the recognition
46o THE WRITINGS OF [1823
more powerfully than they have been urged by the example,
or are likely to be by the exhortations of the North American
government. You are accordingly furnished by his direction
with the full power necessary for the conclusion of the treaty.
Dr. Gual informed Mr. Todd, that the project of the treaty
was already prepared, and that a copy of it would be com-
mitted to Mr. Salazar, with powers and instructions, aur
thorizing him to conclude the negotiation, if this government
should insist upon its being completed here. The arrival
of Mr. Salazar may be expected from day to day. In the
meantime we are yet unacquainted with the particular
objects of commercial intercourse which the Colombian
government wishes to regulate with us by treaty. To us, the
only object which we shall have much at heart in the negotia-
tion will be the sanction by solemn compact of the broad and
liberal principles of independence, equal favors, and reciprocity.
With this view I recommend to your particular attention the
preamble and first four articles of the first treaty of amity
and commerce between the United States and France, con-
cluded on the 6th of February, 1778. The preamble is be-
lieved to be the first instance on the diplomatic record of
nations, upon which the true principles of all fair commercial
negotiation between independent states were laid down and
proclaimed to the world. That preamble was to the founda-
tion of our commercial intercourse with the rest of mankind,
what the declaration of independence was to that of our
internal government. The two instruments were parts of
one and the same system, matured by long and anxious
deliberation of the founders of this Union in the ever memora-
ble Congress of 1776; and as the declaration of independence
was the foundation of all our municipal institutions, the
preamble to the treaty with France laid the corner stone for
all our subsequent transactions of intercourse with foreign
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 461
nations. Its principles should be therefore deeply impressed
upon the mind of every statesman and negotiator of this
Union, and the first four articles of the treaty with France
contain the practical exposition of these principles, which
may serve as models for insertion in the projected treaty, or
in any other that we may hereafter negotiate with any of the
rising republics of the south.
There is indeed a principle of still more expansive liberal-
ity, which may be assumed as the basis of commercial inter-
course between nation and nation. It is that of placing the
foreigner, in regard to all objects of navigation and com-
merce, upon a footing of equal favor with the native citizen;
and to that end of abolishing all discriminating duties and
charges whatsoever. This principle is altogether congenial
to the spirit of our institutions, and the main obstacle to its
adoption consists in this: that the fairness of its operation
depends upon its being admitted universally. For while two
maritime and commercial nations should bind themselves to
it as a compact operative only between them, a third power
might avail itself by its own restrictive and discriminating
regulations, to secure advantages to its own people, at the
expense of both the parties to the treaty. The United States
have nevertheless made considerable advances in their
proposals to other nations towards the general establishment
of this most liberal of all principles of commercial intercourse.
On the 3d of March, 181 5, immediately after the conclu-
sion of our late war with Great Britain, an act of Congress
(U. S. Laws, \'ol. 4, p. 824) repealed so much of the dis-
criminating duties of tonnage and impost as were imposed on
foreign vessels and merchandize, beyond the duties imposed
on the same in our own vessels; so far as they respected the
produce or manufacture of the nation to which the foreign vessel
might belong. The repeal to take eflfect in favor of any foreign
462 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
nation, whenever the President of the United States should
be satisfied that the discriminating or countervaiUng duties
of such foreign nation, so far as they operated to the dis-
advantage of the United States had been abolished.
On the 3d of July, 1815 (U. S. Laws, Vol. 6, p. 603), a con-
vention was concluded with Great Britain, by the second
articles of which this .principle was adopted for the commer-
cial intercourse between the United States and the British
territories in Europe, so far as related to duties and charges
of tonnage, impost, export, and bounties upon articles of the
produce or manufacture of the two countries respectively.
It was partially admitted for drazvbacks. But the inter-
course between the United States and the British posses-
sions in India was differently regulated by another article of
the same convention, and that between the United States
and the British colonies in America was expressly excepted
from the convention, leaving each party to the exercise in
this respect of its own rights. This convention, originally
limited to four years, was afterwards by the convention
of 20 October, 181 8 (U. S. Laws, Vol. 6, p. 607), extended for
the term of ten years from that time.
On the 4th of September, 1816 (U. S. Laws, Vol. 6, p. 642),
a treaty with Sweden and Norway was concluded, by the
second article of which the same principle is established and
extended to the Swedish island of St. Bartholomew in the
West Indies, of equal duties and charges of tonnage, impost,
export, and prohibitions upon vessels and their cargoes, being
of the produce or manufacture of the respective countries,
whether in vessels of the foreigner or the native. The dura-
tion of this treaty is limited to the 25th of September, 1826.
On the 20th of April, 1818 (U. S. Laws, V'ol. 6, p. 344), an
act of Congress repealed all discriminating duties of tonnage
and impost in favor of the vessels of the Netherlands and
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 463
their cargoes, being of the produce or manufacture of the
territories in Eiirope of the King of the Netherlands, or
^^ such produce and manufactures as can only be, or most
usually are, first shipped from a port or place in the kingdom
aforesaid;''' such repeal to take effect from the time the
government of the Netherlands had abolished its discrim-
inating duties upon the vessels of the United States, and on
merchandise imported in them, being of the produce or
manufacture of the United States.
By an act of 3 March, 1819, in addition to the abov^e
(U. S. Laws, Vol. 6, p. 411) it was extended in all its provi-
sions and limitations to the vessels of Prussia, of the citv^ of
Hamburg, and of the city of Bremen.
This same act of 3 March, 1819, limited its duration, and
that of the act to which it was in addition, and the act of
3 March, 1815, itself, to the ist of January, 1824.
The provisions of the act of 3 March, 181 5, have been
extended by proclamations of the President of the United
States as follows: 1818, 24 July, to the free and Hanseatic
city of Bremen (U. S. Laws, Vol. 6, p. 599); i August, to the
free and Hanseatic city of Hamburg {lb., p. 600); 1820,
4 May, to the free and Hanseatic city of Liibeck {lb., p. 601) ;
1821, 20 August, to the Kingdom of Norway {lb., p. 602);
22 November, to the dukedom of Oldenburg {lb., p. 774).
You will observe that the act of 3 March, 1819, admitted
the vessels of Hamburg and Bremen to advantages more
extensive than those offered by the act of 3 March, 181 5, and
which had already been secured to them by the proclama-
tions of 24 July and i August, 1818. The same enlargement
of the favors offered by the act of 3 March, 181 5, is extended
to the vessels of the Netherlands and of Prussia; while
Norway has the double security of the principle offered in
the act of 3 March, 181 5, by the stipulation in the treaty
464 THE WRITINGS OF I1823
with Sweden and by the President's proclamation under the
act.
The proclamation with regard to Norway was founded
on an act of the government of that kingdom, not extending,
however, to Sweden, abolishing all discriminating duties
whatsoever in the Norwegian ports, between their own ves-
sels and vessels of the United States, and upon their cargoes,
of whatsoever origin, and whencesoever coming. This is the
consummation of the principle of treating the foreigner in
respect to navigation and foreign commerce upon a footing
of equal favor with the native. The government of Norway,
in adopting this regulation, required that it should be
reciprocally granted to Norwegian vessels and their cargoes
in the ports of the United States. This, however, could be
granted only by an act of Congress, and the proclamation
could only extend to them under the lazv, that to which they
were already entitled by the treaty. The subject was sub-
mitted to Congress by a message of the President towards
the close of the first session of the Seventeenth Congress
(i May, 1822), and the general policy of our commercial
system, with particular reference to the act of 3 March, 181 5,
and the subsequent measures resulting from it, had been
reviewed in the message of 5 December, 1821, at the com-
mencement of the same session. The principle offered by
the Norwegian government could not, however, then have
been accepted without great disadvantage to the United
States. Our direct trade with the British colonies in America
was interdicted by our own and British laws. That with
France was under countervailing regulations of both parties,
equivalent to interdiction. To have granted then to Nor-
wegian vessels unrestricted admission into our ports upon
the same terms with our own, would in fact have granted
them privileges which our own did not and could not enjoy,
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 465
our own being under the operation of restrictions and prohibi-
tions ordained by Britain and France, from which the
Norwegian vessels would have been exempt.
Our direct trade with the British American colonies has
since been opened, and that with France has been restored:
both however shackled with countervailing restrictions and
regulations, burdensome to those by whom it may be carried
on. As the act of Congress of 3 March, 181 5, and all the
regulations founded upon it will expire on the first of January
next, the whole subject will again be before that body at
their next session for revisal. In this state of things it may
be perhaps most prudent in the commercial negotiation with
the Republic of Colombia, to adhere to the principle of
equal favor zvith the most friendly nation, leaving that of
equal favor zvith the native for future consideration and con-
cert between the parties.
To the same extent, however, as we are already bound by
treaty with Great Britain until October, 1828, and with
Sweden, until September, 1826, you may safely proceed,
taking the second article of each of those compacts for a
model, and forming an article embracing the stipulations of
both. Thus far we may safely go with any one or more
foreign nations, without endangering by the liberality of our
engagements with them, the interests of our own country to
be affected by the restrictive ordinances of others. An excep-
tion must be made with regard to the ports of St. Augustine
and Pensacola, where, by the fifteenth article of the late
treaty with Spain, special privileges are secured to Spanish
vessels, until the 22d of May, 1833.
Among the usual objects of negotiation in treaties of
commerce and navigation are the liberty of conscience and
of religious worship. Articles to this eflPect have been seldom
admitted in Roman Catholic countries, and are even inter-
466 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
dieted by the present constitution of Spain. The South
American repubHcs have been too much under the influence
of the same intolerant spirit; but the Colombian constitution
is honorably distinguished by exemption from it. The tenth
and eleventh articles of our treaty with Prussia, or articles
to the like effect, may be proposed for insertion in the pro-
jected treaty; and after setting this first example in South
America of a constitution unsullied by prohibitions of
religious liberty Colombia will deserve new honors in the
veneration of present and future ages, by giving her positive
sanction to the freedom of conscience, and by stipulating it
in her first treaty with these United States.
It is in truth an essential part of the system of American
independence. Civil, political, commercial and religious
liberty, are but various modifications of one great principle
founded in the unalienable rights of human nature, and
before the universal application of which, the colonial
domination of Europe over the American hemisphere has
fallen, and is crumbling into dust. Civil liberty can be
established on no foundation of human reason which will
not at the same time demonstrate the right to religious
freedom; and the control of a Bishop of Rome and a con-
clave of cardinals on the banks of the Tiber over the freedom
of actio?i 0/ American nations on the shores of the Orinoco, or
the Magdalena, is as incompatible with their independence,
as the arbitrary mandate of a Spanish monarch and a Council
of the Indies at Madrid. The tendency of the spirit of the
age is so strong towards religious liberty, that we cannot
doubt it will soon banish from the constitutions of the south-
ern republics of this hemisphere all those intolerant religious
establishments with which they have hitherto been tram-
melled. Religious and military coercion will be alike dis-
carded from all the institutions framed for the protection of
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 467
human rights In civil society of independent nations; and the
freedom of opinion and of faith will be guaranteed by the
same sanctions as the rights to personal liberty and security.
To promote this event by all the moral influence which we
can exercise by our example, is among the duties which
devolve upon us in the formation of our future relations with
our southern neighbors; and in the intercourse which is
hereafter to subsist between us, as their citizens may visit
or transiently reside with us, will enjoy the benefit of religious
freedom in its utmost latitude, we are bound to claim for our
countrymen who may occasionally dwell for a time with
them, the reciprocal exercise of the same natural rights.
In the present imperfect state of our information with
regard to the existing commerce between the two countries,
and the uncertainty what its future and permanent relations
may be. It would be useless to enter into any further detail
of articles which it may be proper to propose for the intended
treaty of commerce. The republic of Colombia, if per-
manently organized to embrace the whole territory which it
now claims, and blessed with a government effectually
protective of the rights of its people, is undoubtedly destined
to become hereafter one of the mightiest nations of the
earth. Its central position upon the surface of the globe,
directly communicating at once with the Pacific and Atlantic
Oceans, north and south, with the Caribbean Sea and the
Gulf of Mexico, brings it into relations of proximity with
every other part of the world, while the number and variety
of its ports on every sea by which it Is surrounded, the
magnitude and extent of its navigable rivers, three of which,
the Amazon, the Orinoco, and the Magdalena, are among the
largest in the world, intersecting with numberless tributary
streams, and in every direction, the continent of South
America, and furnishing the means of intercommunication.
468 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
from every point of Its circumference to every spot upon its
surface; the fertility of its soil, the general healthiness and
beauty of its climate; the profusion with which it breeds and
bears the precious and the useful metals, present a combina-
tion of elements unparalleled in the location of the human
race; and relieve at least from all charge of enthusiasm the
sentiment expressed by the late Mr. Torres, that this Re-
public appeared "to have been destined by the author of
nature, as the center and the empire of the human family."
But it is to man placed in a Paradise like this that nature
with her loudest voice exclaims, "God to thee has done his
part — do thine." And the part of man, so gifted and so
endowed, is to enjoy, and to communicate the bounties of
providence so largely lavished upon him; and not to fancy
himself destined to the empire of the human family. If the
natural advantages bestowed upon the Colombian territory
were to be improved by its inhabitants only for purposes of
empire, that which nature has bestowed as a blessing upon
them would in its consequences prove a curse inflicted upon
the rest of mankind. The territory of Colombia contains at
this moment little more than three millions and a half of
souls. Were it only as populous as its late parent country,
Spain, it would bear one hundred millions; and if as populous
as France, nearly three times that number. At the most
rapid rate of increase which human population has ever
attained, even a doubling every quarter of a century, the
Republic of Colombia for two hundred years to come may
devote all her exertions to the improvement of her internal
means of subsistence for the multiplying myriads of her
people, without seeking support from the extension of her
empire beyond her own borders. Let her look to commerce
and navigation^ and not to empire as her means of communi-
cation with the rest of the human family. These are the
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 469
principles upon which our confederated republic Is founded,
and they are those upon which we hope our sisters of the
southern continent will ultimately perceive It to be for their
own welfare, no less than for that of the world, that they
should found themselves.
The materials of commercial Intercourse between the
United States and the Colombian republic are at present not
many. Our exports to It hitherto have been confined to
flour, rice, salted provisions, lumber, a few manufactured
articles, warlike stores and arms, and some East India
productions, for which we have received cocoa, coffee.
Indigo, hides, copper and specie. Much of this trade has
originated and Is continued only by the war In which that
country has been engaged and will cease with it. As produc-
ing and navigating nations, the United States and Colombia
will be rather competitors and rivals than customers to each
other. But as navigators and manufacturers, zve are already
so far advanced In a career upon which they are yet to enter,
that we may for many years after the conclusion of the war
maintain with them a commercial intercourse highly bene-
ficial to both parties, as carriers to and for them of numerous
articles of manufactures and of foreign produce. It is the
nature of commerce, when unobstructed by the interference
of authority, to find Its own channels and to make its own
way. Let us only not undertake to regulate that which will
best regulate Itself.
In the conferences between Dr. Gual and Mr. Todd, the
Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken of treaties,
almost treaties of alliance, concluded by the Colombian
plenipotentiary, Mosquera, with the governments of Peru
and of Chile, and which he expected would also be shortly
concluded with Buenos Ayres. The purport of these treaties
was mentioned by Dr. Gual only In general terms, but he said
470 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
that Mr. Salazar would be authorized to communicate
copies of them to this government, and eventually to propose
that the United States should accede to them, or take a
part in the system which it was their purpose to originate.
In January last, about the same time when Dr. Gual was
making this confidential communication to Mr. Todd, we
learn by despatches from Mr. Forbes, that Mr. Mosquera
was at Buenos Ayres and had made his proposals of negotia-
tion to the government there. Mr. Forbes speaks doubtfully
of his prospects of success, and with some distrust of the
character of his associations. The general intention but not
the specific purport of the treaties had also been commu-
nicated by Mr. Mosquera to Mr. Forbes; but the Colombian
minister had been more confidential with Mr. Prevost, who,
in a despatch dated the 14th of December last states that he
had obtained a sight of the original treaty. He describes it
in a preceding letter as a treaty of alliance offensive and
defensive, containing "a pledge from each of the contracting
parties to send deputies to the Isthmus within a limited
time, for the double purpose of effecting an union in support
of a representative system throughout, and of preventing
partial associations with any one of the powers of Europe.
An agent (he adds) has gone to Mexico with the same
object, and it is in contemplation as soon as the several
treaties shall be ratified by Colombia to invite a representa-
tive from the United States to preside at a meeting intended
to assimilate the politics of the south with those of the
north." And in the letter, of 14 December, after having
seen the treaty, he says: "it embraces in the most express
terms the several objects to which I alluded, together with a
stipulation not to enter into partial arrangements with
Spain, and not to listen to overtures on her part unaccom-
panied with an acknowledgment of the independence of all."
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 471
Mr. Prevost, as well as Dr. Gaul, entertains higher ex-
pectations of the success of this negotiation at Buenos
Ayres than Mr. Forbes. Mr. Prevost thinks that it must
succeed, although the government of Buenos Ayres is se-
cretly averse to it, and implicated in secret intrigues with the
Portuguese government and General Lecor for a confederacy
of a different character. Dr. Gual told Mr. Todd that
proposals had been made by the Portuguese government at
Lisbon to Colombia, for a general confederacy of all America,
North and South, together with the constitutional govern-
ments of Portugal and Spain, as a counterprise to the Euro-
pean Holy Alliance; but he said they had been rejected on
account of their European aspect. Loose and indefinite
projects of the same kind had been presented by the present
Portuguese government to us, but they have never been
considered even as objects of deliberation. Brazil has de-
clared its own independence of Portugal, and constituted
itself into an empire with an emperor at its head. General
Lecor has lost the real command of his own army, and has
been, or cannot fail shortly to be compelled to embark with
all his European Portuguese troops for Lisbon. Then will
come the question between Buenos Ayres and Brazil for
Montevideo and the Oriental Band of La Plata, and then
will soon be seen that the republican hemisphere will endure
neither emperor nor king upon its shores.
Of this mighty movement in human aflfairs, mightier far
than that of the downfall of the Roman Empire, the United
States may continue to be, as they have been hitherto, the
tranquil but deeply attentive spectators. They may also,
in the various vicissitudes by which it must be followed, be
called to assume a more active and leading part in its progress.
Floating, undigested purposes of this great American con-
federation have been for some time fermenting in the imag-
472 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
inations of many speculative statesmen, nor is the idea to
be disdainfully rejected, because its magnitude may appal
the understanding of politicians accustomed to the more
minute but more complicated machinery of a contracted
political standard.
So far as the proposed Colombian Confederacy has for its
object a combined system of total and unqualified independ-
ence of Europe, to the exclusion of all partial compositions of
any one of the emancipated colonies with Spain, it will have
the entire approbation and good wishes of the United States,
but will require no special agency of theirs to carry it into
effect.
So far as its purposes may be to concert a general system of
popular representation for the government of the several
Independent states which are floating from the wreck of the
Spanish power in America, the United States will still cheer
It with their approbation, and speed with their good wishes
its success.
And so far as its objects may be to accomplish a meeting
at which the United States should preside, to assimilate the
politics of the south with those of the north, a more particu-
lar and definite view of the end proposed by this design and
of the means by which It Is to be effected, will be necessary
to enable us to determine upon our concurrence with it.
An agent from France, named Molien, and Mr. Lorich,
the consul general of Sweden in the United States, arrived at
Bogota in February last. Dr. Gual told Mr. Todd that
Molien had no letters, or avowed powers, though he had
intimated he was there by authority; that he was considered
as a spy on behalf of a faction in France. "He had in-
sinuated that the United States were influenced by interested
motives in recognizing the new governments In South Amer-
ica; that our inflzience in Europe had been impaired by a
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
473
measure which was considered premature^ and that he sup-
posed we were now endeavoring to procure exclusive ad-
vantages for having been the first to recognize. And Dr.
Gual added that Mr. MoHen undertook to give him some
(3J&zV<?as toour views. . . . Mr. Lorich came with authority,
had proposed a grant of some exclusive privileges; but it
would be rejected. The government was determined to
grant none to any nation."
The political systems of Europe are all founded upon
partial rights and exclusive privileges. The colonial system
had no other basis; and having no generous or liberal views
of their own, it is not surprising that they should entertain
and disseminate suspicions of the disinterestedness of others.
The French government sends an agent to Bogota without
daring to trust him with a credential or an avowed power;
and he executes his commission by misrepresenting our
motives, upon suspicions which those to whom he makes the
misrepresentation know to be unfounded, and by testifying
to those who were benefited by our recognition, that we had
made it by the sacrifice of some part of our influence in
Europe. It must be admitted that the address of the agent
in the performance of trust was upon a level with the candor
and frankness in which it originated. While the French
government pursues its new career in the affairs of the world
with such designs, it is to be hoped the development of them
will be committed to such performers.
Mr. Lorich's mission was simply to obtain exclusive
privileges for Sweden, which, as she had nothing of exclusive
benefit to offer in return, were of course rejected.
We are well aware that our recognition of South American
independence was not palatable to the taste of any of the
European governments. But we felt that it was a subject
upon which it became us to take the lead, and as we knew
474
THE WRITINGS OF [1823
that the European governments, sooner or later, must and
would, whether with good or with bad grace, follow our
example, we were determined that both Europe and America
should have the benefit of it. We hope also, and this is the
only return which we ask and have a right to ask from the
South Americans for our forwardness in their favor, that
Europe will be compelled to follow the whole of our example,
that is, to recognize without condition and without equiva-
lent. We claim no exclusive privilege for ourselves. We
trust to the sense of justice, as well as to the interest of the
South Americans, the denial of all exclusive privileges to
others.
The Colombian government at various times have man-
ifested a desire that the United States should take some
further and active part in obtaining the recognition of their
independence by the European governments, and particu-
larly by Great Britain. This has been done even before it
was solicited. All the ministers of the United States in
Europe have for many years been instructed to promote the
cause by any means consistent with propriety, and adapted
to their end, at the respective places of their residence. The
formal proposal of a concerted recognition was made to
Great Britain before the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. At
the request of Mr. Torres on his dying bed, and signified to
us after his decease, Mr. Rush was instructed to give every
aid in his power without oflFence to the British government,
to obtain the admission of Mr. Rovenga; of which instruction
we have recent assurances from Mr. Rush that he is con-
stantly mindful. Our own recognition undoubtedly opened
all the ports of Europe to the Colombian flag, and your
mission to Colombia, as well as those to Buenos Ayres and
Chile cannot fail to stimulate the cabinets of maritime
Europe, if not by the liberal motives which influenced us, at
1 823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
475
least by others more immediately derived from their views
of their own interest, to a direct, simple, and unconditional
recognition. We shall pursue this policy steadily through all
the changes to be foreseen of European aflPairs. Dr. Gual
in his conferences with Mr. Todd appeared to be apprehen-
sive that the new explosion in Europe, by bringing Great
Britain to intimate connections of alliance with Spain, had
not only made the British government more indisposed to the
recognition of South American independence, but had even
induced them to exercise their influence in impeding the
recognition of it by others. This opinion is probably correct;
but there is every reason to believe that the preponderating
tendency of the war in Spain will be to promote the universal
recognition of all the South American governments, and at
all events our course will be to promote it by whatever in-
fluence we may possess.
Several other subjects have been mentioned in the con-
ferences between Dr. Gual and Mr. Todd, upon which it is
proper to apprize you of the President's views.
I. On the 24th of January, Dr. Gual stated that the
government of Peru entertained the desire of communicating
with the United States, and had requested it to be made
through that of Colombia. He afterwards mentioned certain
complaints of the Peruvian government against Captain
Stewart of the Franklin; as having given convoy to our
vessels conveying military stores to the ports of the royalists;
and committed other unfriendly acts on their shores; and
he promised to send Mr. Todd the papers relating to these
complaints. But on the 28th of February he stated that the
papers would be transmitted to Mr. Salazar, to be by him
laid before this government.
The President will readily receive any communication
from the government of Peru, which it may be disposed to
476 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
make through the medium of that of Colombia. With
regard to the complaint against Captain Stewart, we shall
wait for the promised communication from Mr. Salazar, to
take such measures as the occasion may render proper, and
they will be adapted as well to the friendly disposition which
we feel towards the Peruvian patriots, as to the justice due
to a very distinguished and meritorious officer in the service
of our own country. Thus far it may be proper In the present
stage of this concern, for you to notice the subject In your
earliest intercourse with the Colombian government. But
It may also be advisable for you to suggest the enquiry, how
far the Colombian government, in assuming the office of a
complainant for that of Peru, proposes to make itself re-
sponsible for the complaints which we In our turn have to
urge, and have hitherto ineffectually urged upon the justice
of the Peruvian patriots themselves.^ You will state that
more than three years since Lord Cochrane Issued a proc-
lamation of blockade as extensive and as outrageous In its
violation of the laws of nations as that of General Morales
of September, 1821; that the property of many citizens of
the United States has been seized under color of this block-
ade, and of other acts equally unjustifiable, of which the
United States are still to seek the reparation; that the
Colombian minister, if received as the representative of
Peru to complain, will, we trust, also be commissioned as the
representative of Peru to Indemnify; and if we are to answer
to Colombia for complaints for Peru, Colombia will hold
herself responsible to us for the demands we have upon
Peru. To the justice of this principle we have no doubt the
Colombian government will readily accede, and If unwilling
to assume the obligation of making satisfaction to us for
Peruvian wrongs, will excuse us from discussing with them
any question of Peruvian rights.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 477
2. There was a complaint that "some of our officers at
La Guayra had impressed some of their citizens on land as
well as on the waters within their jurisdiction." From a
subsequent representation it appears to have been an at-
tempt on the part of Captain Spruce to seize on shore de-
serters from his vessel. It is scarcely necessary to say that
the government of the United States cannot justify any
trespass on the territorial jurisdiction of another nation;
but in the present state of our information upon the subject,
you can only give this assurance with the additional promise
that upon proper enquiry into the facts full justice will be
done to the complaint of the Colombian government. It
will be proper in the treaty of commerce to insert an article
authorizing the arrest and restoration of deserting seamen;
of which the sixth article of our late convention with France
(U. S. Laws, 17 Cong: 2 Sess: Appendix, page 22) may serve
as a model. Perhaps even without waiting for the conclusion
of a treaty, the restoration of deserters from foreign vessels
may be obtained by an ordinance of police in the sea ports.
Mr. Forbes has actually obtained such an ordinance at
Buenos Ayres, which it is believed has proved an effectual
remedy for an evil of which we had before that time had
great reason to complain at that port.
Dr. Gual intimated to Mr. Todd, as he says with some
warmth of feeling, that in similar instances the United
States had refused to release deserters from the Colombian
service. To what particular instance he alluded is not known;
but it is known that abnost all the seamen in the service of
Colombia are foreigners, and many of them citizens of the
United States, enlisted in the Colombian service in violation
of the laws of their own country. It is highly probable that
if there has been anywhere in this country a refusal to release
deserters from the Colombian service, they have been
478 THE WRITINGS OF (1823
deserters of this description. The encouragement given
to those enlistments has been among the causes of which we
have had reason to complain, and may probably hereafter
require a remonstrance from you. By the present constitu-
tion of Colombia the rights of citizenship are confined to
natives of the territory and their children, landholders at
the commencement of the revolution who have adhered to
the cause of independence, and strangers after obtaining
letters of naturalization. You will ascertain how these letters
of naturalization are obtained. If they are granted of course
to every sailor who enlists in their service, you will take some
proper occasion to represent that this system interferes with
the rights of other nations; and that although the United
States freely admit the right of their native citizens to ex-
patriate themselves, yet they cannot admit the exercise of
that right by the violation of their laws, or of the contracts of
the expatriated individual with others of their citizens.
3. Mr. Robert K. Lowry had, before the formal recogni-
tion of the Republic of Colombia, been for some time exer-
cising the functions of conmiercial agent at La Guayra. This
office of commercial agent is a substitute for that of consul in
ports where consuls cannot be admitted, or to which from
whatever cause they cannot be sent. After the recognition
some exception was taken by the Intendant of Caraccas,
supported by a letter from Dr. Gual, to the regularity of
Mr. Lowry's commission, in consequence of which he has
been much obstructed in the discharge of his official duties.
It is unnecessary to refer to the reasons assigned by Mr. Todd
to Dr. Gual for postponing the regular consulate appoint-
ment of Air. Lowry, though it is to be observed they alleged
a constitutional incompetency of the executive which is not
admitted. Mr. Lowry has now been regularly appointed
consul at La Guayra, and his commission was nearly two
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 479
months since despatched to him. It has doubtless ere this
been received by him, and there can be no further question
as to the extent of his powers, arising from the defective
character of his authority.
But from the nature of Mr. Lowry's complaints to Mr.
Todd it is evident that the authentication of his powers will
not remove all the objections which have been made to his
exercise of them. Of all the cases, in which according to his
representations as referred to by Mr. Todd, the local au-
thorities interfered with what he considered as his official
jurisdiction, there appears to be only one in which it can be
claimed with much earnestness for him even in the fulness of
his formally consular commission. That the registers of
vessels of the United States frequenting the port should be
delivered to him, while they remain there, may be reasonably
required, because it is prescribed by our laws, and because
also by law the consuls of Colombia would be entitled to the
same privilege in relation to the vessels of their nation in
our ports; but we cannot demand for our consuls an exclusive
jurisdiction in the cases of property though of our citizens,
wrecked upon a foreign shore, and still less can we pretend
to interpose to impair the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign
nation within its own ports, in case of offences inv^olving
trials for life and liberty, though committed by citizens and
on board of vessels of the United States.
Mr. Todd recommends that the particulars of the consular
jurisdiction, and the maritime rights most likely to become
subjects of collision, should be amply provided for by the
treaty. To this in the abstract we have no objection, but in
defining consular jurisdiction and authority there are two
sides of a question to be considered. We must look not only
to what it might be pleasant and convenient to us, that our
consuls should be enabled to do in the ports of other nations;
48o THE WRITINGS OF [1823
but to what It might be equally pleasant and convenient to
us, that foreign consuls should be permitted to do in our
own. And this is a question not merely between us and
Colombia, but between each of us on one side and the
other with all the rest of the maritime world on the other
side. That which we may stipulate for our consuls in Colom-
bia we must yield to the consuls of Colombia, and by in-
ference to the consuls of all other maritime nations here.
We once had a consular convention with France, and have
been for some years in negotiation with the present French
government for the revival of it, with such modifications as
may be found expedient. Until the system can be properly
matured, which it is hoped may be at no distant day, the
most prudent course will be, to provide by an article for the
reciprocal admission of consuls into the ports of the parties
respectively, with the powers and authorities belonging to
those officers by the acknowledged law of nations, and an
agreement if desired to concert hereafter a special consular
convention.
One of the complaints of Mr. Lowry was relative to the
case of the ship Caravan from Providence captured by a
Colombian cruiser and carried into La Guayra, where the
vessel had been cleared as neutral, and the cargo condemned
as enemy's property. Mr. Lowry had invoked the stipula-
tions of various treaties establishing and recognizing the
principle that free ships make free goods; the application of
which is denied by Dr. Gual, who appealed to the instruc-
tions from Mr. Pickering in 1797 to Messrs. Marshall,
Pinckney and Gerry, our envoys in France.
By the general usage of nations independent of treaty
stipulations, the property of an enemy is liable to capture
in the vessel of a friend. It is not possible to justify this rule
upon any sound principle of the law of nature, for by that
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 481
law the belligerent party has no right to pursue or attack his
enemy without the jurisdiction of either of them. The high
seas are a general jurisdiction, common to all, qualified by a
special jurisdiction of each nation over Its own vessels. As
the theatre of general and common jurisdiction, the vessels
of one nation and their commanders have no right to exercise
over those of another any act of authority whatsoever. This
Is universally admitted In time of peace. War gives the
belligerent a right to pursue his enemy within the jurisdiction
common to both, but not Into the special jurisdiction of the
neutral party. If the belligerent has a right to take the
property of his enemy on the seas, the neutral has a right to
carry and to protect the property of his friend on the same
element. War gives the belligerent no natural right to take
the property of his enemy from the vessel of his friend. But
as the belligerent Is armed, and the neutral as such is de-
fenceless, It has grown into usage that the belligerent should
take the property of his enemy, paying the neutral his
freight, and submitting the question of facts to the tribunals
of the belligerent party. It Is accident, however, that this
usage has no foundation In natural right, but has arisen
merely from force, used by the belligerent, and which the
neutral In the origin did not resist merely because he had
not the power. It Is a usage harsh and cruel in Its operation,
and unjust In Its nature: and It never fails In time of maritime
war to produce irritation and animosity between the bel-
ligerent and the neutral. So universally has this been
found to be Its consequence, that all the maritime nations of
modern Europe have shown their sense of It by stipulating in
treaties the contrary principle, namely, that the property of
an enemy shall be protected in the vessel of a friend. Great
Britain herself, the most unwilling to admit this principle,
because the most enabled to use the force upon which the
482 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
usage is founded, has recognized the superior justice and
expediency of the other principle by stipulating it at distant
intervals of time in two treaties with France — the treaty
of Utrecht and the treaty of commerce of 1786. In the
Seven Years War the King of Prussia resisted the capture by
British vessels of the property of their enemies in the vessels
of his subjects, then neutrals, and made reprisals upon
British property for such captures. The question was then
ultimately settled by a compromise under which the British
government paid a large sum of money for indemnity to the
Prussian subjects who had suffered by those captures. The
armed neutrality of the American war is a memorable exam-
ple of the testimony by almost all the civilized nations of the
world to the principle, that the protection of all property,
excepting contraband of war, on board of neutral vessels by
neutral force, is of natural right. And of this principle there
can be no question. If, however, a belligerent power founded
upon the usage which has superseded the natural right, prac-
tices the seizure and condemnation of enemy's property
found in the vessel of a friend, it remains for the neutral to
decide, whether he will acquiesce in the usage, or whether he
will maintain his natural right by force. No neutral nation
is bound to submit to the usage, for it has none of the prop-
erties which can give to any usage the sanction of obligatory
law. It is not reasonable; it is not conformable to the law of
nature. It is not uninterrupted. That reduced to the option
of maintaining its right by force, or of acquiescing in the
disturbance of it which has been usual, the neutral nation
may yield at one time to the usage, without sacrificing her
right to vindicate by force the security of her flag at another.
And the belligerent nation, although disposed to admit the
right of neutrals to protect the property of her enemy upon
the seas, may yet justly refuse the benefit of this principle.
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 483
unless admitted also by her enemy, for the protection of her
property by the same neutral flag.
Thus stands the state of this question upon the founda-
tions of natural, voluntary and customary law. How stands it
between us and the Republic of Colombia on the ground of
conventional law? By a treaty between the United States
and Spain, concluded at a time when Colombia was a part of
the Spanish dominions, and so far as the Spanish laws would
admit, enjoyed the benefit of its stipulations, the principle
that free ships should make free goods was expressly recog-
nized and established. Is it asserted that by her declaration
of independence Colombia has been entirely released from
all the obligations by which, as a part of the Spanish nation,
she was bound to other nations .'* This principle is not tenable.
To all the engagements of Spain with other nations affecting
their rights and interests, Colombia, so far as she was af-
fected by them, remains bound in honor and in justice. The
stipulation now referred to is of that character, and the
United States, besides the natural right of protecting by
force in their vessels on the seas the property of their friends,
though enemies of the Republic of Colombia, have the addi-
tional claim to the benefit of the principle by an express
compact with Spain, made when Colombia was a Spanish
country.
Again, by the late treaty of 22 February, 1819, between
the United States and Spain, it is agreed that the fifteenth
article of the treaty of 1795, in which it is stipulated that the
flag shall cover the property, shall be so understood with
respect to those powers who recognize this principle: but if
either of the two contracting parties shall be at war with a
third party, and the other neutral, the flag of the neutral
shall cover the property of enemies whose government
acknowledged this principle, and not of others.
484 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
This treaty having been concluded after the territories
now comprising the Republic of Colombia had ceased to
acknowledge the authority of Spain, they are not parties to
it, but their rights and duties in relation to the subject mat-
ter of it remain as they had existed before it was made. Nor
will she be affected by it at all, if she continues to acknowl-
edge in her new national character, and with reference to the
United States, the principle that free ships make free goods,
which was the conventional law between them while Colom-
bia was a part of Spain.
You will urge all these considerations upon the Colombian
Minister of Foreign AflFairs, to obtain restitution of the
cargo of the Caravan, or indemnity for it. The claim rests
upon foundations so solid, that it is earnestly hoped your
representations in its favor will be successful, and in the
negotiation of the treaty you will press in like manner for the
insertion of an article of the same purport as that of our last
treaty with Spain above recited. The principle can with
safety be recognized only to that extent; and to that extent
the United States would willingly assent to it with every
other nation. It is a principle favorable to the rights of
peace, and of pacific spirit and tendency. It is recommended
by every humane and liberal consideration as a rule of
universal application. But the nation which would enjoy
the benefit of it as a neutral, or as a passive belligerent,
resorting to the neutral flag, must also recognize it as an
active belligerent, and suffer the property of her enemy to be
conveyed safely by the same flag which safely conveys hers.
Otherwise the liberal principle of itself is turned to the ad-
vantage of the belligerent which rejects it, and the mild
spirit of peace is made subservient to the unfeeling rapacity
of war. . . .
There arc several cases of claims by citizens of the United
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 485
States upon the Colombian government, which were given
in charge to Mr. Todd, and concerning which he has been
often promised by Dr. Gual that satisfactory proceedings
would be had. Some of these are already of several years'
standing, and indemnity was acknowledged to be due upon
them so long since as when the late Commodore Perry was
at Angostura. Mr. Todd will put you in possession of the
papers relating to them, and you will follow up the demand
of indemnities with all the earnestness and perseverance
which their justice and the delays already interposed may
require.
Many of them are complaints which have arisen from
maritime captures. Before the establishment of the Re-
public of Colombia the Venezuelan revolutionary authorities
for some time countenanced an irregular system of maritime
warfare, which soon degenerated into absolute piracy. It
became a subject of very earnest remonstrance by the govern-
ment of the United States, whose citizens suffered severelv
under its depredations, whose laws were continually out-
raged by its operative agents, and whose good faith and
justice towards other nations it tended very seriously to
implicate. Since the organization of the new republic, there
has been less reason for complaints, but satisfaction has
not yet been made for those which had arisen before. A list
of the cases committed to Mr. Todd, and copies of papers
recently received at this Department from the Delaware
Insurance Company at Philadelphia, relating to the schooner
Minerva^ are now furnished you. . . .
Our intercourse with the Republic of Colombia and with
the territories of which it is composed, is of recent origin,
formed while their own condition was altogether revolu-
tionary, and continually changing its aspect. Our informa-
tion concerning them is imperfect, and among the most
486 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
important objects of your mission will be that of adding to
its stores; of exploring the untrodden ground, and of col-
lecting and transmitting to us the knowledge by which the
friendly relations between the two countries may be ex-
tended and harmonized to promote the welfare of both, with
due regard to the peace and good will of the whole family of
civilized man. It Is highly important that the first founda-
tions of the permanent future intercourse between the two
countries should be laid in principles, benevolent and liberal
in themselves, congenial to the spirit of our institutions and
consistent with the duties of universal philanthropy.
In all your consultations with the government to which
you will be accredited, bearing upon its political relations
with this union, your unvarying standard will be the spirit
of independence and of freedom, as equality of rights and
favors will be that of its commercial relations. The emanci-
pation of the South American continent opens to the whole
race of man prospects of futurity, in which this union will be
called in the discharge of its duties to itself and to unnum-
bered ages of posterity to take a conspicuous and leading
part. It invokes all that is precious in hope and all that is
desirable in existence to the countless millions of our fellow
creatures, which in the progressive revolutions of time this
hemisphere is destined to rear and to maintain. That the
fabric of our social connections with our southern neighbors
may rise in the lapse of years with a grandeur and harmony
of proportions corresponding with the magnificence of the
means, placed by providence in our power and in that of our
descendants, its foundations must be laid in principles of
politics and of morals new and distasteful to the thrones and
dominations of the elder world, but co-extensive with the
surface of the globe and lasting as the changes of time.
I have, etc.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 487
TO CHARLES JARED INGERSOLL
Washington, 19 June, 1823.
Dear Sir:
I have but one excuse for acknowledging the receipt of
your letters of 8 and 19 of May at this time, and that is so
worn out by long and frequent use that I am ashamed to
offer it. The field opened by them was so extensive that I
was unwilling to answer you in a few words, and the time
necessary for answering at large has not yet [been], and I now
flatter myself will be soon at my disposal. The information
concerning the copyrights and the patents shall be furnished
very shortly. I believe your question relating to the com-
parative state of literary institutions, schools, colleges, and
theatres of public speaking, may all be answered affirma-
tively to the advantage of this country. There is however a
philosophical point of view in which this comparative state of
things may be exhibited, which might present very interest-
ing results, but which you or I could scarcely treat in a
popular discourse without being liable to the charge of
partiality, and which would be closely proximate to and
perhaps inseparable from considerations of a character
somewhat invidious. All our institutions partake of the
nature of our government. All have a tendency to the level.
Our average of intellect and intellectual power is higher than
in any part of Europe, but the range above and below the
horizontal line is not so great. In the physical and mathe-
matical sciences, in the fine arts, and in the literature of
imagination, we are far below the standards of England,
France, Germany, and perhaps Italy, and very disadvanta-
geously so, inasmuch as speaking the language of England we
cannot contribute a tolerable proportion to her literature.
488 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Our great superiority Is in political science, government and
political morality. The European and South American
nations which have received and are acting under the im-
pulse given by us seem destined only to illustrate that
superiority. They have all caught from us the infection of
making constitutions, and not one of them has yet been able
to make a constitution which will work to secure the enjoy-
ment of liberty, property and peace. Their constitutions
result In nothing but civil war. In forty years we have not
had one execution for treason, with a population multiplied
from three to ten millions. The Europeans improve upon
our theories till they become impracticable. In 1793 France
set herself and the world on fire for a legislature in a single
assembly. In 1823 Spain Is doing the same thing. They
are unable to form the conception of a legislature In two
branches without privileged orders. We have reduced it
universally to practice. The Influence of our example has
unsettled all the ancient governments of Europe. It will
overthrow them all without a single exception. I hold this
revolution to be as Infallible as that the earth will perform a
revolution around the sun in a year. But whether Europe
will ever establish governments capable of securing to in-
dividuals all the benefits of good government, almost without
use of force, and altogether without violence, is doubtful. If
ever, certainly not within half a century. Your sentiments
with regard to the Russian ukaze are to me spirited and ra-
tional. I would call them wise, had not my own entirely
coincided with them. They have yielded to a system more
cool, probably more profound, certainly more safe, upon the
principle of preserving peace in our time. The present ad-
ministration of the general government is drawing towards a
close, and as it has been passed In a period of uncommon
tranquillity In the European world, it has itself partaken of
i823l JOHN QUIN'CY ADAMS 489
the character. Servatur adimum is now its motto, and the
ambition of the incumbent is to deliver over the trust in
peace as well as in prosperit}- to his successor. I share so
much in this feeling that although my first impressions were
ven.- distinctly avowed and agreed perfectly with your
advice. I have more than acquiesced in the course deter-
mined upon after full advisement, the result of which you
have seen in a newspaper paragraph. I hope we shall ulti-
mately lose nothing by the adoption of this alternative.
I am, etc.
TO RICH.ARD RUSH ^
Department of State,
Washington, D. C, 24 June, 1823.
Sir.
A resolution of the House of Representatives, almost
unanimously adopted at the close of the last session of Con-
gress, requested "the President of the United States to enter
upon, and to prosecute from time to time, such negotiations
with the several maritime powers of Europe and America, as
he may deem expedient, for the effectual abolition of the
African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy
1 This is one of a series of elaborate statements prepared by the Secretary of
State for Rush's guidance on matters in controversy between the United Sutes and
Great Bntain, such as the commerce between the United States and British Colonies
in North America, the disagreements of the commissioners under the fifth article
of the Treaty of Ghent, the admission of consuls in colonial ports, the Russian
pretensions on the northwest coast of North America, the impressment of seamen
and other topics incident to maritime war and neutrality, and the suppression of the
slave trade. Of these statements only two are printed in these volumes, that on
the slave trade and that on neutral rights.
490 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
under the law of nations, by the consent of the civilized
world."
At the two preceding sessions of Congress committees of
the House had proposed a resolution expressed in more
general terms, that "the President of the United States be
requested to enter into such arrangements as he may deem
suitable and proper, with one or more of the maritime powers
of Europe for the effectual abolition of the African slave-
trade;" and this resolution had in each case been the con-
clusion of a report recommending that the United States
should accede to the proposal of a mutual and qualified con-
cession of the right of search. The sentiments of the com-
mittee were in this respect different from those which had
been expressed by the executive department of the govern-
ment in its previous correspondence with Great Britain.
No decision by the House of Representatives was made upon
these resolutions proposed at the preceding sessions; but
upon the adoption of that which did pass at the last session,
it was well ascertained that the sentiments of the House in
regard to the right of search coincided with those of the
executive, for they explicitly rejected an amendment which
was moved to the resolution, and which would have ex-
pressed an opinion of the House favorable to the mutual
concession of that right.
You have been fully informed of the correspondence be-
tween the governments of the United States and Great
Britain, concerning the suppression of the slave-trade hereto-
fore; and have been from time to time effectively instru-
mental to it yourself. You are aware of the grounds upon
which the proposals on the part of Great Britain, that the
United States should accede to the stipulations similar to
those which she had succeeded in obtaining from Spain,
Portugal, and the Netherlands, were on our part declined.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 491
The subject was resumed by the British minister residing
here, Mr. S. Canning, a short time before the decease of the
Marquis of Londonderry. It was suggested that since the
total disappearance of the British and American iiags, as
well as of those of the nations which had consented to put the
execution of their laws against the trade under the superin-
tendence of British naval officers, it continued to flourish
under that of France. That her laws, though in word and
appearance equally severe in proscribing the traffic, were so
remiss in the essential point of execution, that their effect
was rather to encourage than to suppress it; and the Amer-
ican government was urged to join in friendly representations
to that of France, by instructing the minister of the United
States at Paris to concur in those which the British ambas-
sador at that court had been charged with making, to ensure
a more vigilant fulfilment of the prohibitory laws. This
invitation, at that time given only in oral conference, was
also declined, from an impression that such a concurrence
might give umbrage to the French government, and tend
rather to irritation than to the accomplishment of the object
for which it was desired. Mr. Gallatin was, nevertheless,
instructed separately to bring the subject to the notice of the
French government, and did so by a note communicating to
them copies of the recent laws of the United States for the
suppression of the trade, and particularly of that by which it
has subjected every citizen of the United States who after
the passage of the law should be polluted with it, to the
penalties of piracy.
On the 29th of January last, Mr. Canning in a letter to this
Department repeated the invitation of a joint and concurrent
remonstrance, to be made by the British ambassador and our
minister in France, and at the same time calling with great
earnestness upon the government of the United States, either
492 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
to accede to the principle of the mutual and qualified right of
search, emphatically pronounced In his belief to be the only
effectual measure devised or likely to be devised "for the
accomplishment of the ends, or to bring forward some other
scheme of concert," which It again declared the readiness of
his Majesty's ministers to examine with respect and candor,
as a substitute for that of the British cabinet.
However discouraging this call for an alternative might be,
thus coupled, as It was, with so decisive a declaration of
belief that no effectual alternative had been, or was likely to
be devised, an opportunity was oflfered, in pursuance of the
resolution of the House of Representatives adopted at the
close of the late session of Congress, for proposing a sub-
stitute, In our belief more effectual than the right of search
could be, for the total and final suppression of this nefarious
trade, and less liable either to objections of principle or to
abuses of practice.
This proposition was accordingly made In my letter to
Mr. Canning of the 31st of March last, to which his letter
of the 8th of April was the answer. In this answer Mr. Can-
ning barely notices our proposition, to express an opinion
that his government will see In It nothing but an acknowl-
edgment of the necessity of further and more effectual
measures, and then proceeds with an elaborate review of all
the objections which in the previous correspondence between
the two governments had been taken on our part to the
British connected proposal of a mutual right of search, and a
trial by mixed commissions. Our objections had been of two
kinds: first, to the mixed commissions as Inconsistent with
our constitution, and secondly, to the right of search, as
odious to the feelings and recollections of our country. In
this letter of Mr. Canning the proposal of trial by mixed
commissions is formally withdrawn, and an alternative pre-
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 493
sented as practicable, one side of which only, and that the
inadmissible side, is distinctly offered: namely, of trial by the
courts of the captor. The other side of the alternative would
indeed remove our constitutional objection, and with it
might furnish the means of removing the principal inherent
objection to the concession of the right of search — that, by
which the searching officer is under no responsible control for
that act.
But in the previous correspondence our strong repugnance
to the right of search had been adverted to as merely matter
of fact, without tracing it to its source, or referring to its
cause. The object of this forbearance had been to avoid all
unnecessary collision with feelings and opinions which were
not the same on the part of Great Britain and upon ours.
They had been willingly left undiscussed. This letter of
Mr. Canning, however, professedly reviewing all the previous
correspondence for the removal or avoidance of our objec-
tions, and contesting the analogy between the right of search,
as it had been found obnoxious to us, and as now proposed for
our adoption by formal compact, I have been under the
necessity of pointing out the analogies really existing be-
tween them, and of showing that as right of search, inde-
pendent of the right of capture, and irresponsible, or re-
sponsible only to the tribunals of the captor, it is as proposed
essentially liable to the same objections as it had been, when
exercised as a belligerent right. Its encroaching character,
founded in its nature as an irresponsible exercise of force, and
exemplified in its extension from search for contraband of
war to search for enemy's property, and thence to search for
men of the searcher's own nation, was thus necessarily
brought into view, and connected the exhibition of the evils
inherent in the practice with that of the abuses which have
been found inseparable from it.
494 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
We have declared the slave-trade, so far as it may be
pursued by citizens of the United States, piracy, and as
such made it punishable with death. The resolution of the
House of Representatives recommends negotiation to obtain
the consent of the civilized world to recognize it as piracy
under the law of nations. One of the properties of that de-
scription of piracies is, that those who are guilty of it may be
taken upon the high seas, and tried by the courts of any
nation. But by the prevailing customary law they are tried
only by the tribunals of the nation to which the vessel be-
longs in which the piracy was committed. The crime itself
has been in modern times until very recently of so rare
occurrence, that there is no uniformity in the laws of the
European nations with regard to this point, of which we
have had remarkable and decisive proof within these five
years in the case of piracy and murder committed on board
the schooner Plattsburg, a merchant vessel of the United
States. Nearly the whole crew were implicated in the crime,
which was committed on the high seas. They carried the
vessel into Christiansand, Norway, there abandoned her and
dispersed. Three of them were taken up in Denmark, one in
Sweden, one at Dantzig in Prussia and one in France. Those
taken in Denmark and in Sweden were delivered up to
officers of the United States, brought to this country, tried,
convicted and executed. The man taken at Dantzig was by
consent of the Prussian government sent to Elsineur, and
there confronted with those taken in Denmark. The evi-
dence against him on the examination was decisive; but as he
persisted In the refusal to confess his guilt, the Prussian gov-
ernment, bound by an established maxim of their municipal
law, declined either to deliver him up, or to try him them-
selves, but sent him back to Dantzig, there to remain
imprisoned for life. The French government, upon advise-
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 495
merit of the highest judicial authority of the kingdom,
decHned also either to try the man taken up there, or to
deliver him up, unless upon proof of his guilt being pro-
duced against him at the place where he was confined: with
which condition, It not having been In our power to comply,
the man remained there also In prison, presumably for life.
From these Incidents It Is apparent that there is no uniform-
ity In the modes of trial to which piracy by the law of nations
is subjected in different European countries; but that the
trial Itself is considered as the right and the duty, only of the
nation to which the vessel belongs, on board of which the
piracy was committed. This was, however, a piracy com-
mitted on board of a vessel by Its own crew. External
piracies, or piracies committed by and from one vessel
against another, may be tried by the courts of any country;
but are more usually tried by those of the country whose
vessels have been the sufferers of the piracy, as many of
the Cuba pirates have been tried In the British West India
Islands, and some of them In our courts.
This principle we should wish to introduce into the system
by which the slave-trade should be recognized as piracy under
the law of nations: namely, that although selzable by the
officers and authorities of every nation, they should be triable
only by the tribunals of the country of the slave-trading
vessel. This provision Is indispensable to guard the Inno-
cent navigator against vexatious detentions, and all the evils
of arbitrary search. In committing to foreign officers the
power, even in a case of conventional piracy, of arresting,
confining and delivering over for trial a citizen of the United
States, we feel the necessity of guarding his rights from all
abuses, and from the application of any laws of a country
other than his own.
The draft of a convention is herewith enclosed, which If
496 THE WRITINGS OF I1823
the British government should agree to treat upon this
subject on the basis of a legislative prohibition of the slave-
trade by both parties, under the penalties of piracy, you are
authorized to propose and to conclude. These articles are,
however, not offered to the exclusion of others, which may be
proposed on the part of the British government, nor is any
one of them, excepting the first, to be insisted on as indis-
pensable, if others equally adapted to answer their purposes
should be proposed. It is only from the consideration of the
crime in the character of piracy that we can admit the
visitation of our merchant vessels by foreign officers for any
purpose whatever, and in that case only under the most
effective responsibility of the officer for the act of visitation
itself, and for everything done under it.
If the sentiments of the British government should be
averse to the principle of declaring the trade itself by a
legislative act piratical, you will not propose or communicate
to them the enclosed project of convention. Its objects, you
will distinctly understand, are twofold: to carry into effect
the resolution of the House of Representatives, and to meet
explicitly and fully the call so earnestly urged by the British
government, that in declining the proposals pressed by them
upon us, of conceding a mutual and qualified right of search,
we should offer a substitute for their consideration. The
substitute by declaring the crime piracy, carries with it the
right of search for the pirates, existing in the very nature of
the crime. But to the concession of the right of search, dis-
tinct from the denomination of the crime, our objections
remain in all their original force.
It has been intimated by Mr. S. Canning, that the sugges-
tion itself to the British government of the propriety of
their passing a legislative act, might excite in them some
repugnancy to it. We should regret the excitement of this
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 497
feeling, which the very nature of the negotiation seems to
foreclose. Besides the legislative enactments which have
virtually been pressed upon us by all the invitations to con-
cede the right of search and to subject our citizens to trial for
violations of our own laws by foreign tribunals, Great
Britain in almost all her slave-trade treaties has required and
obtained express stipulations for the enactment of prohibi-
tory laws, by France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands.
It was not expected that she would receive with reluctance
herself a mere invitation to that which she had freely and
expressly required from others. Still, if the sentiment
should exist, we would forbear pressing it to the point of
irritation by importunity. You will in the first instance
simply state that if the British government is prepared to
proclaim the slave-trade piracy by statute, you are au-
thorized to propose and to conclude a convention, by which
the mutual cooperation of the naval force of Great Britain
and of the United States may be secured for carrying into
effect the law, which on that contingency will be common to
both. Should the obstacle to the preliminary prove in-
superable, you will refer the objections on the part of the
British cabinet to this government for consideration.
By the loose information hitherto communicated in the
public journals, it would seem that the proposition for
recognizing the slave-trade as piracy by the law of nations
was discussed at the Congress of Verona. We are expecting
the communication of the papers relating to this subject,
promised by Lord Liverpool to be laid before Parliament.
Heretofore, although the United States have been much
solicited and urged to concur in the measures of Great
Britain and her allies for the suppression of the trade, they
have been always communicated to us as purposes consum-
mated, to which the accession of the United States was
498 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
desired. From the general policy of avoiding to intermeddle
in European affairs, we have acquiesced in this course of
proceeding; but to carry fully into effect the late resolution
of the House of Representatives, and to pursue the discussion
hereafter with Great Britain herself, whether upon her
proposals or upon ours, it is obviously proper that com-
munication should be made to us of the progress of European
negotiation for accomplishing the common purpose, while
it is in deliberation. If we are to cooperate in the result, it is
just that we should be consulted at least with regard to the
means which we are invited to adopt. I am, etc.^
TO STRATFORD CANNING ^
Department of State,
Washington, 24 June, 1823.
Sir,
In the letter which I had the honor of addressing you on
the 31st of March last, a proposal was made to be submitted
to the consideration of your government, that the principle
assumed in an act of Congress of the United States of
15 May, 1820, of considering and punishing the African
^ In instructing Middleton to enter into negotiation witii Russia on the suppres-
sion of the slave-trade, Adams wrote, July 28: "In the meantime you will informally
suggest to his ministry, that it will be the desire of the government of the United
States to proceed in this matter in perfect good understanding and harmony with
them. And you will farther intimate that as this has now become a general concern
of the whole civilized world; and as Great Britain is negotiating yojw^/y and severally
with each and every of her allies in Europe apart, and again with them all together,
while she is also separately treating with us, we wish it to be considered whether it
would not be expedient on all sides that communication should be made to us of all
the jointly concerted measures, while they are mere proposals; and not that the
knowledge of them should be withheld from us until they are matured into positive
treaties."
^ For the cabinet discussion of this paper see Adams, Memoirs, June 19, 1823.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 499
slave-trade as piracy, should be adopted as the basis of a
stipulation by treaty between the United States and Great
Britain; and to be urged separately, upon the adoption of
France, and upon the other maritime nations of Europe in
the manner most conducive to its ultimate success. It was
observed that this offer was presented as a substitute for that
of conceding a mutual right of search and a trial by mixed
commissions, to which the United States could not be recon-
ciled, and which would be rendered useless by it.
Your letter of the 8th of April, to which I have now the
honor to reply, intimating that his Majesty's government
will be disposed to receive this offer only as an acknowledg-
ment that measures more efficient than any now generally
in force are indispensable for the suppression of the slave-
trade; and that although they have never opposed the con-
sideration of any other plan, brought forward as equally
eiTective, yet having from the first regarded a mutual limited
concession of the right of search as the only true and practical
cure for the evil, their prevailing sentiment will be of regret
at the unfavorable view still taken of it by the government
of the United States. Your letter therefore urges a recon-
sideration of the proposal for this mutual concession of the
right of search, and by presenting important modifications of
the proposal heretofore made, removes some of the objections
which had been taken to it as insuperable, while it offers
argumentative answers to the others which had been dis-
closed in my previous communications on this subject to you.
In the treaties of Great Britain for the suppression of the
slave-trade with Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands,
heretofore communicated with the invitation to the United
States to enter into similar engagements, three principles
were involved, to neither of which the government of the
United States felt itself at liberty to accede. The first was
500 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
the mutual concession of the right of search and capture, in
time of peace, over merchant vessels on the coast of Africa.
The second was the exercise of that right even over vessels
under convoy of the public officers of their own nation. And
the third was the trial of the captured vessels by mixed com-
missions in colonial settlements, under no subordination to
the ordinary judicial tribunals of the country to which the
party brought before them for trial should belong. In the
course of the correspondence relating to these proposals, it
has been suggested that a substitute for the trial by a mixed
commission might be agreed to, and in your letter of the
8th of April, an expectation is authorized, that an arrange-
ment for the adjudication of the vessels detained, might leave
them to be disposed of in the ordinary way by the sentence of
a court of admiralty in the country of the captor, or place
them under the jurisdiction of a similar court in the country
to which they belonged; to the former alternative of which
you anticipate the unhesitating admission of the United
States, in consideration of the aggravated nature of the
crime as acknowledged by their laws, which would be thus
submitted to a foreign jurisdiction. But it was precisely
because the jurisdiction was foreign, that the objection was
taken to the trial by mixed commissions; and if it trans-
cended the constitutional authority of the government of the
United States to subject the persons, property, and reputa-
tion of their citizens to the decisions of a court, partly com-
posed of their own countrymen, it might seem needless to
remark that the constitutional objection could not diminish
in proportion as its cause should Increase, or that the power
incompetent to make American citizens amenable to a court
consisting one-half of foreigners, should be adequate to
place their liberty, their fortune, and their fame at the dis-
posal of tribunals entirely foreign. I would further remark
i823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 501
that the sentence of a court of admiralty in the country of
the captor is not the ordinary way by which the merchant
vessels of one nation taken on the high seas by the officers of
another are tried in time of peace. There is in the ordinary
way no right whatever existing to take, to search, or even
to board them; and I take this occasion to express the great
satisfaction with which we have seen this principle solemnly
recognized by the present decision of a British court of
admiralty.
Nor is the aggravation of the crime for the trial of which a
tribunal may be instituted, a cogent motive for assenting to
the principle of subjecting American citizens, their rights and
interests, to the decision of foreign courts. However ready
Great Britain may be ^ to abandon those of her subjects who
defy the laws and tarnish the character of their country by
participating in this trade, to the dispensation of justice even
by foreign hands, the United States are bound to remember
that the power which enables a court to try the guilty,
authorizes them also to pronounce upon the fate of the
innocent; and that the very question of guilt or innocence is
that which the protecting care of their constitution has re-
served for the citizens of this Union to the exclusive decision
of their own countrymen. This principle has not been de-
parted from by the statute which has branded the slave-
trader with the name and doomed him to the punishment of a
pirate. The distinction between piracy by the law of nations
and piracy by statute is well known and understood in
Great Britain, and while the former subjects the transgressor
guilty of it to the jurisdiction of any and every country into
which he may be brought, or wherein he may be taken, the
latter forms a part of the municipal criminal code of the
' These words were changed to, " For although Great Britain, as you remark, may
be willing to" etc.
502 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
country where it is enacted, and can be tried only by its own
courts.
There remains the suggestion that the slave-trader, cap-
tured under the mutual concession of the power to make the
capture, might be delivered over to the jurisdiction of his
own country. This arrangement would not be liable to the
constitutional objection which must ever apply to the juris-
diction of the mixed commission, or of the admiralty courts
of the captor. And if your note is to be understood as pre-
senting it in the character of an alternative to which your
government is disposed to accede, I am authorized to say that
the President considers it as sufficient to remove the in-
superable obstacle which had precluded the assent of the
United States to the former proposals of your government,
resulting from the character and composition of the tribunals
to whom the question of guilt or innocence was to be com-
mitted.
The objections to the right of search, as incident to the
right of detention and capture, are also in a very considerable
degree removed by the introduction of the principle that
neither of them should be exercised, but under the responsi-
bility of the captor, to the tribunals of the captured party in
damages and costs. This guard against the abuses of a
power so liable to abuse would be indispensable, but if the
provisions necessary for securing effectually its practical
operation would reduce the right itself to a power merely
nominal, the stipulation of It in a treaty would serve rather
to mark the sacrifice of a great and precious principle, than
to attain the end for which it would be given up.
In the objections heretofore disclosed to the concession
desired, of the mutual and qualified right of search, the
principal stress was laid upon the repugnance which such a
concession would meet in the public feeling of this country,
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 503
and of those to whom its interests are entrusted in the de-
partment of its government, the sanction of which is re-
quired for the ratification of treaties. The irritating tend-
ency of the practice of search, and the inequaHties of its
probable operation were slightly noticed, and have been
contested in argument, or met by propositions of possible
palliatives or remedies for anticipated abuses in your letter.
But the source and foundation of all those objections was in
our former correspondence scarcely mentioned and never
discussed. They consist in the nature of the right of search
at sea, which as recognized or tolerated by the usage of
nations is an odious right ^ — a right exclusively of zvar,
never exercised but by an outrage upon the rights of peace.
It is an act analogous to that of searching the dwelling houses
of individuals on the land. The vessel of the navigator is
his dwelling house; and like that, in the sentiment of every
people that cherishes the blessings of personal liberty and
security, ought to be a sanctuary, inviolable to the hand of
power, unless upon the most unequivocal public necessity,
and under the most rigorous personal responsibility of the
intruder. Search at sea, as recognized by all maritime na-
tions, is confined to the single object of finding and taking
contraband of war. By the law of nature, when two nations
conflict together in war, a third, remaining neutral, retains
all its rights of peace and friendly intercourse with both.
Each belligerent, indeed, acquires by war the right of pre-
venting a third party from administering to his enemy the
direct and immediate materials of war, and, as incidental to
this right, that of searching the merchant vessels of the
neutral on the high seas to find them. Even thus limited it
is an invidious and oppressive - act of power, which nothing
1 The words "an odious right" were struck out.
2 The words "invidious and oppressive" were struck out.
504 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
but necessity can justify, inasmuch as It cannot be justified
but by carrying the evils of war Into the abode of peace, and
by visiting the innocent with some of the penalties of guilt.
Among the modern maritime nations an usage has crept in,
not founded upon the law of nature, never universally ad-
mitted, often successfully resisted, and against which all
have occasionally borne testimony by renouncing it in
treaties, of extending this practice of search and seizure to
all the property of the enemy in the vessel of the friend.
This practice was in its origin evidently an abusive and
wrongful extension of the search for contraband — effected
by the belligerent, because he was armed; submitted to by
the neutral, because he was defenceless; and acquiesced In
by his sovereign, for the sake of preserving a remnant of
peace, rather than become himself a party to the war. Hav-
ing thus occasionally been practiced by all as belligerents,
and submitted to by all as neutrals, it has acquired the
force of an usage, which at the occurrence of every war, the
belligerent may enforce or relinquish, and which the neutral
may suflFer or resist at their respective options.
The search for and seizure of the property of an enemy in
the vessel of a friend Is a relict of the barbarous warfare of
barbarous ages — the cruel and for the most part now ex-
ploded system of private war. As It concerns the enemy
himself, it is Inconsistent with that mitigated usage of mod-
ern wars which respects the private property of Individuals
on the land. As relates to the neutral, It Is a gross and
flagrant ^ violation of his natural right to pursue unmolested
his peaceful commercial intercourse with his friend. In-
vidious as Is Its character In both these aspects, it has other
essential characteristics equally obnoxious. It Is an un-
controlled exercise of authority by a man In arms over a man
^The words "gross and flagrant" were struck out.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 505
without defence; by an officer of one nation over the citizen
of another; by a man intent upon the annoyance of his
enemy [and eager for the detection of plunder]; ^ responsible
for the act of search to no tribunal, and always prompted to
balance the disappointment of a fruitless search by the
abusive exercise of his power, and to punish the neutral for
the very cleanness of his neutrality. It has in short all the
features of unbridled power stimulated by hostile, selfish ^
and unsocial passions.^
^ The words in brackets were struck out.
* The word "selfish" was struck out.
3 President Monroe wrote some paragraphs to be substituted for what followed:
"I forbear to enlarge upon the further extension of this practice, by referring to
injuries which the United States experienced when neutral, in a case of vital im-
portance, because in digesting a plan for the attainment of an object which both
nations have equally at heart, it is desirable to avoid every topic which may excite
painful sensations on either side. I have adverted to the interest in question from
necessity, it being one which could not be lost sight of in the present discussion.
"Such being the view taken of the right of search as recognized by the law of
nations, and exercised by belligerent powers, it is due to candor to state that my
government has an insuperable objection to its extension, by treaty, in any manner
whatever, lest it might lead to consequences still more injurious to the United States,
and especially in the circumstance alluded to. That the proposed extension will
operate in time of peace, and derive its sanction from compact, present no induce-
ments to its adoption. On the contrary they form strong objections to it. Every
extension of the right of search, on the principles of that right, is disapproved. If
the freedom of the sea is abridged by compact for any new purpose, the example may
lead to other changes. And if its operation is extended to a time of peace as well as
of war, a new system will be commenced for the dominion of the sea, which may
eventually, especially by the abuses into which it may lead, confound all distinction
of time and circumstances, of peace and of war, and of rights applicable to each
state.
"The United States have, on great consideration, thought it most advisable to
consider this trade as piracy, and to treat it as such; they have thought that the
trade itself might, with great propriety, be placed in that class of offences, and that
by placing it there, we should more effectually accomplish the great object of sup-
pressing the trade, than by any other measure we could adopt.
"To this measure none of the objections, which have been urged against the
extension of the right of search, appear to be applicable. Piracy, being an offence
5o6 THE WRITINGS OF I1823
I forbear to enlarge upon the further extension of this
practice, which the United States, when neutral, have
experienced at the hands of Great Britain as a belligerent;
to the search for and seizure of men, upon an arbitrary claim
against the human race, has its well known incidents of capture and punishment by
death, by the people and tribunals of every country. By making this trade piratical,
it is the nature of the crime which draws after it the necessary consequences, of
capture and punishment. The United States have done this by an act of Congress
in relation to themselves. They have also evinced their willingness and expressed
their desire, that the change should become general by the consent of every other
power, whereby it would be made the law of nations. Till then they are bound, by
the injunctions of their constitution, to execute it so far as respects the punishment
of their own citizens, by their own tribunals. They consider themselves, however,
at liberty until that consent is obtained, to cooperate to a certain extent with other
powers, to ensure a more complete effect to their respective acts, they placing them-
selves, severally, on the same ground, by legislative provisions. It is in this spirit
and for this purpose that I have made to you the proposition under consideration,
"By making the slave-trade piratical, and attaching to It the punishment as well
as the odium incident to that crime, it is believed that much has been done by the
United States to suppress it in their vessels and by their citizens. If your gov-
ernment would unite in the policy, it is not doubted that the happiest consequences
would result from it. The example of Great Britain, in a manner so decisive, could
not fail to attract the attention and command the respect of all her European
neighbors. It is the opinion of the United States that no measures, short of that
proposed, will accomplish the object so much desired, and it is the earnest wish of
my government that the government of his Britannic Majesty may cooperate in
carrying it into effect.
"I pray you," etc.
The President suggested that what was omitted from Adams' paper should be
comprised in the letter to Rush, and added: "My Idea is, after glancing at a princi-
pal ground of objection to their [the British] project, in a manner to show that it is
insuperable, to prove, in the most conciliatory manner, that our plan will be more
effectual, and is in short the only one that can succeed. By proposing to go further
than they have done, and to commence the operation immediately to the extent
that the constitution will admit, no Imputation can be raised against our sincerity,
and there Is every reason to presume that we shall obtain the approbation of the
friends of the abolition in England, and secure the support of Congress. The latter
object will be more completely secured by strengthening in the manner proposed
the letter to Mr. Rush, should the subject be brought before Congress." Monroe to
Adams, June 22, 1823. Ms. See Adams, Memoirs, June 20, 23, 1823.
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 50?
to their services as her subjects — a practice warranted by
the usage of no other nation than Great Britain, and habit-
ually practiced by her with no other nation than the United
States. This deadly source of unextinguishable war has
never yet been renounced by Great Britain; and the United
States cannot forget that the only pretence of right, ever
alleged by Great Britain in support of this practice of im-
pressing men from the vessels of the United States on the
high seas, was a supposed derivative right to take her sub-
jects who might he found upon the American vessels, visited
by virtue of the belligerent right of search in neutral vessels,
for contraband and enemy's property.
With this experience and exemplification of the natural
tendency to progressive encroachment of all power in its
nature tyrannous and uncurbed, it cannot be surprising that
the people of the United States, and those to whose charge
their national interests are entrusted, should view with
invincible repugnance any proposal to stretch yet farther
this right of search, to introduce this rancorous and predatory
right of war into the very bosom of peace; nor could this
repugnance fail to be fortified by the observation that in the
treaty specially recommended to their acceptance it was
extended, in time of peace, even to vessels under convoy of
the public force of their own country.
Independent of the separate, and nationally speaking
selfish interest, which may urge the United States or Great
Britain to the total suppression of the African slave-trade,
they have no other motive for the accomplishment of that
object, than those of general benevolence and humanity —
motives so pure and exalted in themselves that the people
of this Union will never be insensible to their call; and which
they are as ready to sanction by their example, as to cheer by
their approbation, when advanced as principles jor practical
508 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
application in the code of international law. They have long
felt, they were the first to feel, that the African slave-trade
is a stain upon the character of the nation which endures it, a
disgrace to human nature itself. They were in the family of
civilized nations the first to stigmatize It with their reproba-
tion, and to consign it to Infamy by their laws. By successive
prohibitions and penalties they have at length classed it
among the most heinous of crimes; and with a political sys-
tem peculiarly tender of human life, and averse to the multi-
plication of capital punishments, they have yet included it
In the list of those aggravated offences which, striking at the
foundations of human society, can be expiated only by an
Ignominious death.
But in the pursuit of objects pointed to the amelioration of
our species, and the Improvement of human virtue, the
United States feel it Incumbent upon them to adapt the
character of their means to that of the ends which they
would wish to obtain. In contributing their cheerful and
zealous aid to the extinction of one species of oppression, they
will be careful not to give their assent or countenance to the
extension of another. In breaking the chains of Africa, they
are not willing to forge fetters and manacles for themselves.
Their reason has convinced them that the uncontrolled right
of search at sea, by the soldier of one nation over the peaceful
mariner of another, Is Itself Incompatible with some of the
most precious of human rights. That in Its most restricted
form. In the only form universally recognized as lawful of
search for contraband, it Is In Its nature harsh and ungra-
cious, and rather an exertion of force than an exercise of
right. Their experience has taught them, that as extended
to the depredation of enemy's property, and still more to the
plaglat of men., it Is among the most intolerable of human
evils. That in resistance against it, they, by principle, by
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 509
interest, and by feeling the most pacific of nations, have been
once driven [by desperation] ^ into a sanguinary [and un-
equal] ^ war. Their abhorrence of it is as profound and as
just as that of the African slave-trade; and far from con-
senting to introduce it into the national code, as under any
possible circumstances among the rights of peace, they would
much more willingly welcome or make the proposal that it
should share the fate of that trade itself, as entirely congenial
to it, and be by universal consent and promise abolished and
exploded from the practice of civilized nations.
The people of the United States are well aware that the
purposes for which it is now proposed to interchange by
compact in time of peace this right of search are not the
same, to which it has been applied in time of war; and they
see that the desire of obtaining it, by conventional law, is a
tacit admission that without convention no such right can be
asserted. But it is not the purposes for which search is
practiced in time of war, which constitute the inherent vice
of the practice; it is the essentially odious character of the
means used. It is the violation of the domicil; it is the
arrogation of control without responsibility; it is the humilia-
tion of the visited and the insolence of the visiting party;
it is the aggravation of abuses springing from the very
nature of the practice; and above all it is its property, when
once conceded for one purpose, of being arbitrarily adapted
to another, which constitute the weightiest objections to it;
and these are all independent of the purposes to which it is
applied — all equally exceptionable in time of peace and in
time of war. As to the admission implied by a convention
that the right conceded by it would not otherwise exist, this
proof is quite unnecessary, so long as no pretension to it has
ever been advanced; and the United States are not disposed
' Words in brackets were struck out.
5IO THE WRITINGS OF [1823
to deprive themselves by their own contract of the en-
joyment of an undisputed blessing, for the benefit of
the proof of its previous existence furnished by its renun-
ciation.
It will be perceived that neither the limitation of the
number of cruisers to be entrusted with the execution of this
vexatious and offensive power, nor that of the range of space
within which it might be confined, nor that of the time by
which its duration might be determined, can remove the
objections to it which are rooted in its nature. Nor can the
presumption be admitted that regulations and instructions
to the officers invested with the power of giving it effect,
would preserve it from the abuses, to the contagion of which
it Is by its nature predisposed. There is Indeed In the
proposal Itself a deep distrust of the regulations and in-
structions and officers of the nation, from whom this conces-
sion of the right of search in time of peace Is desired. The
nation which asks it virtually says to the nation from which
it is asked: "Your laws for the suppression of this evil are
sufficiently severe; but your regulations and instructions are
inadequate, or your officers are unwilling to carry them into
effect. Entrust the execution of them therefore to mzw^."
This sentiment, scarcely veiled in the general concession of
the right of search, is broadly avowed in the extension of it
to vessels under convoy of the officers of their own nation.
Nor Is It disguised by the offer of an apparent and nominal
reciprocity. A nation conscious of its ability, and resolute in
its will to carry its own laws into execution by its own officers,
offers in substance nothing to another, when it says: "Your
officers shall be at liberty to supply upon the seas the de-
ficiencies of energy or of fidelity in mine." It offers a power
for the exercise of which It intends that the occasion shall
never arise; but when it asks for its own officers the same
1823]' JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 51 1
power in return, it asks for a power with a view to the
effective exercise of it; and if not prompted by the ambition
of extending the agency of its physical power, beyond the
bounds of its own sovereign jurisdiction, manifests at least
the prevailing impression that the active energy of the other
nation is not competent to the execution of its own whole-
some laws.
The United States are as little prepared to admit the
justice of the application of this sentiment to them, as to ask
the admission of it from others. If their laws are inadequate
to reach every individual of their citizens, polluted by the
abominations of this traffic, it is not from any defect which
could be remedied by the concession of the right of search.
Their flag has been as effectually banished from the vessels
of the slave-trade, as that of Great Britain; and the state-
ment alluded to in your letter, of the governor of Sierra
Leone in January, 1822, that the rivers Nunez and Pongas
were under the control of renegado European and American
slave-traders, while not necessarily implicating among them
one British subject, or one citizen of the United States, has
evident reference to the jurisdiction of the land, and not of
the ocean; to the trade in slaves upon the shores, and not to
the flag of ships visitable upon the seas.
This exposition of the causes which have rendered the
exercise of the right of search upon the seas, by foreign
officers, over the vessels of the United States, so obnoxious
to the people of this Union, has been necessary in reply to
the argumentative contestation in your letter of the justice
of the sentiments which in our previous correspondence I had
alluded to as being entertained by the people of this country,
and their public servants concerning it. The aversion to it
which we frankly acknowledge arises from no trivial and
groundless jealousy, but from the essential nature and char-
512 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
acter of the power, solicited and offered. If in this develop-
ment sentiments have been expressed with regard to this
search, as practiced by Great Britain in time of war, more
deeply indicative of feeling than of complacency, they have
not been uttered in the temper either of reproach or of Irrita-
tion. In all maritime war there is involved an angry collision
between belligerent and neutral rights. In the recent annals
of the human race, the interests of Great Britain, as under-
stood by herself, have prompted her to the exercise of all the
belligerent rights, in their broadest latitude, to say no more.
Those of the United States have generally consisted in the
maintenance and as far as practicable in the extension of the
rights of neutrality. In all the controversies to which this
relative state of the parties has given birth, the United
States as neutrals have labored under two disadvantages,
one resulting from the necessary condition of the parties;
and the other an incidental consequence from it, contrary to
the natural principles of justice, but sanctioned by that
customary law, which often gives to inveterate usurpation
the claim and the color of right.
The first of these is, that of a contest in which right is to be
determined, the belligerent begins by the exercise of force,
to which the neutral must be passive. The second is that the
belligerent reserves to his own tribunals the exclusive ju-
dicial cognizance of the cause. I have said that this is con-
trary to the natural principles of justice, and am borne out
in the assertion by that fair and honorable provision of the
municipal law of England, that a foreigner, accused of a
crime, shall have a right to trial by a jury consisting one-half
of foreigners. The admiralty courts, which have tried the
questions between American neutral and British belligerent
rights, have been British and belligerent courts; and the con-
sequence as we are told has been the promulgation of a code
1823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 513
of neutral rights by a belligerent tribunal. But in this bel-
ligerent promulgation of neutral rights, it can hardly be
imagined that neutral interests and neutral principles have
had their full and fair proportion of influence. The American
neutral code has not been the dictate of belligerent judges,
and if it has not been, like that of Britain, embodied in a
long series of decisions upon particular cases, in every one of
which the judge was the fellow-subject and official fellow-
servant of one of the parties, embarked in the same cause and
exclusively responsible to the same master whose cause it
was, it has been at least formed upon principles more sym-
pathizing with the interests and more propitious to the
rights of neutrality.
This very asserted promulgation of a code of neutral
rights by a belligerent tribunal is a signal proof of the injus-
tice of that inveterate usurpation, by which the belligerent
party has reserved to his courts the exclusive cognizance of
the causes in which neutral rights are involved. For in its
result the belligerent becomes the sole dictator of the law.
The neutral tribunal has no cognizance of the cause, and the
belligerent decision, sanctioned by the last resort of kings,
stands inaccessible alike to neutral reason and to neutral
power.
In this state of things the only manner in which the voice
of the neutral can be heard is through the medium of diplo-
matic and executive correspondence; and in availing myself
of this occasion of assigning to you and to your government
the reasons of the unextlnguishable aversion of the American
people to the further extension of the right of search upon
the seas, the necessity has been unavoidable of examining it
in its nature, in its origin, in its progressive encroachments
upon the rights of neutrality, and in its results of bitter
experience to the people of the United States.
514 THE WRITINGS OF [1823
Search at sea, as practiced in war, Is the exercise of force
by the armed man of a nation at war over the unarmed man
of a nation at peace. It has in its nature the usual aspects of
uncontrolled and arbitrary power. The original purpose for
which it was introduced, to intercept the supply of warlike
means to the enemy, is in the present state of the world
almost universally useless or ineffectual. As a pretext for
the pillage of private property, it is again nearly useless
against the enemy, though excessively annoying to the
neutral. As an opportunity for the forcible seizure and
abduction of 7nen, it is galling, unqualified, unmitigated
tyranny — in its operation upon the individual marked with
the closest affinity to the slave-trade, and by the abuses
inseparable from it, tainted with moral turpitude more
atrocious than the slave-trade Itself, For the slave at least,
if deprived of all his rights. Is not necessarily forced to the
violation of his duties; while the neutral American mariner,
impressed from a vessel of his country. Into the belligerent
service of Britain, was not only outraged In his dearest rights,
but disabled from the performance of his duties. Snatched
away from the fulfilment of his contracts; torn from his
family and his country; immured In a prison from which
there was no escape but by death, and there forced to fight
against those whom his country's laws made his friends, and
to shed his blood In a cause which his soul abhorred. When
after many years of endurance and of remonstrance against
this practice. It was finally resisted by war, the world was
told that It was the mere exercise of the inalienable right of
the king of Great Britain to the allegiance of his subjects,
aided by the belligerent right of search upon the seas; while
thousands of American mariners, who had been the victims of
these asserted rights, after being offered the alternative of
treason to their country, were transferred from the battle-
,823] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 515
ship to the dungeon on shore, and rewarded for their services
by confinement as prisoners of war.
Such, sir, to the experience of the American people have
been the consequences of the practice of search upon the
seas, and of the promulgation by belligerent tribunals of a
code of neutral rights. Is it surprising that upon receiving
from a nation which holds such doctrines concerning the
right of search as belligerent, a proposal to extend it into the
maritime code of peace, where it never yet had found pretence
for a footing, they should have received it with unwilling-
ness, and met the offer by a firm and settled, though cool and
not willingly offensive denial.^ It is perhaps Impossible that
the British people and their government should /^^/, concern-
ing the practice of search upon the seas, like the people and
government of the United States. But if the British nation
had ever known that thousands of their own native born
fellow subjects had been taken by the violence of foreign
officers upon the high seas, from the commercial service and
from the vessels of their own country, secluded even from
the means of obtaining their release or of making heard their
complaint, forced to fight against the friends of Britain, and
finally treated as prisoners of war, for refusing to fight against
Britain herself, then, if the history of the British nation is not
a fable, they never would have endured the proposition, that
in the midst of peace they should grant to the very foreign
officers from whom they had suffered all this, that identical
right of search upon the seas, under color of which, as prac-
ticed in war, it had been inflicted. They would have loathed
the neutral law of a belligerent legislator, and full of the spirit
of their fathers from the days of Runnymeade, they would
have said to the nation that made the proposal, no British
man shall be taken from a British ship by foreign hands upon
Si6 - THE WRITINGS OF [1823
the sea, but by the acknowledged laws of the sea, or sub-
jected in time of peace to the laws of war.
They might have added, as we now add: we are willing on
our part to declare the African slave-trader the enemy of the
human kind; we are willing even with you to stipulate that
your and our public naval officers, under proper guards of
responsibility, shall be authorized to take the slave-trader of
either nation, and to carry the culprit for conviction before
the tribunals of his own country. But in granting thus far to
foreign officers the ministerial power of executing our laws,
we must reserve to the subject or citizen of either nation,
presumed innocent till proved guilty, the right of judicial
investigation by the laws and judges of his own land, and
by the judgment of his own peers.
This proposition, while it concedes all the benefit that
could be derived from the concession of the right of search
in contributing to the suppression of the trade, would be
more efi^ectual for the direct attainment of that object itself.
Were the slave-trade once recognized as piracy by the laws
of nations, no single nation could afterwards withdraw its
acknowledgment of it in that character; nor could war
dissolve the treaties by which all would be bound to lend
their aid for the accomplishment of its suppression. The
right of search would then be merged in the right of capture,
from which it ought never to have been separated, and the
responsibility to the tribunals of the captured party, secured
by stipulations indispensable for the protection of the inno-
cent navigator, would guard against the abuses to which
power without responsibility must always be liable, and
which the people of the United States have found insup-
portable aggravations of the practice of search upon the
seas.
I pray you, etc.
Printed in the United States of America
T
HE following pages contain advertisements of books
by the same author or on kindred subjects.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
Volume I — 1779-1796 Volume IV — 1811-1813
Volume II — 1796-1801 Volume V — 1814-1816
Volume III — 1801-1810 Volume VI — 1816-1819
The Writings of John Quincy Adams
Edited by WORTHINGTON C. FORD
To he Completed in Twelve Volumes
Vols. I to VI, each, cloth, 8vo, $3.50
Only those writings which are of a permanent historical value and which
are essential to a comprehension of the man in all his private and public
relations are chosen for this notable collection. Nothing has been sup-
pressed by the editor which can contribute to this main purpose. John
Quincy Adams led a very eventfid Hfe, more than fifty years of it having
been passed in public service. He was at all times a prolific writer and
correspondent and has left behind him a great mass of material. A dis-
criminating selection from this will be of the utmost value, not only be-
cause of the light which it throws upon one of the leaders of our early
democracy, but also in that it will serve to vivify the social customs of an
age that is past. The years covered by the first volume are 1 779-1 796. The
second volume covers the years of 1796-1801. It contains the letters and
dispatches which were written by Mr. Adams while he was United States
Minister at The Hague and at Berhn, and when he was the only American
representative in Europe of experience. The third volume covers the im-
portant period between 1801-1810, the fourth the period 1811-1813, the
fifth from 1814-1816, and the sixth from 1816-1819.
"The unsealing of most interesting material . . . the remaining volumes will
be anticipated by students of history with keen interest." — Boston Transcript.
". . . whoever begins the work will be sure not only to finish it, but to follow
it up with the ensuing volumes no matter how many there may be." — James L.
Ford in The New York Herald.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
OTHER IMPORTANT WORKS
The Letters of Richard Henry Lee
Collected and Edited by JAMES CURTIS BALLAGH, Ph.D., LL.D.
Formerly Professor of American History in the Johns Hopkins University
Published under the Auspices of the National Society of the Colonial Dames of
America
In two volumes, each, cloth, 8vo, $2.50
This, the second and final volume of Lee's correspondence, contains
one hundred and ninety-one letters drawn, like those in the preceding
volume, from the most varied sources — the Papers of the Continental
Congress, the Arthur Lee Papers, the Adams Papers, the Papers of Henry
Laurens and Jeflferson and Madison. Most of them have never before been
printed. They are especially abundant for the years 1779, 1780, 1781, 1784
and 1785, but extend to the year of Lee's death, 1794. They cast a flood
of light, in the years mentioned, upon the doings of the Continental Con-
gress, upon Lee's own political activities and those of his relatives and
friends; upon Virginia poHtics, upon the foreign relations of the infant
United States, and upon the period when its present Constitution was being
formed and put into operation.
"Another valuable source of history is put at the disposal of the general reader.
The volume is full of first-hand information, and provides not only interesting
reading, but throws new light upon the most critical period of our history." —
Brooklyn Citizen.
"It contains about five hundred letters written by Richard Henry Lee to various
persons, all of them reliable texts, taken from original manuscripts or transcripts,
many of them of great public and historical importance, much of it preserved by
his correspondents, scattered widely here or there. Lee's distinguished public
services, patriotically given to the founding and development of the American
Republic, together with the wisdom and loyalty which characterized these services,
render these 'Letters' very valuable. They constitute a contribution of rare value
to the historical and colonial literature of the country." — Telescope.
"A welcome and valuable addition to the documentary history of the Revolu-
tion." — New York Sun.
"The letters will be welcomed for their historical as well as intrinsic value for
biographical purposes." — Boston Herald. .
"An important contribution to historical literature and should prove deeply
interesting _to the^u^Jlgt 9^ entertaining to any reader." — Baltimore Evening
Sun.
resting to the/Studjpt 9^
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
V Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
.0^
»
'I CI
• * «
V^*- '^X> A^ .^>^1^' ^^
&
'• ''"^^ / ^a^¥A^o "^-^ ^^^ *'"
^a^_ .^"^ *
'. '^■=--.^' ••^'•- ^--/ -•■*^^*'°
^o V^
^0- ,-'
<<^'
3.0-7-.
or
^^
.-ip -^'
"o . . » A. ->
^
%
-•^m-. %,** .'^'•- \/ :'M^, %,^* .'j
.^
o " o
'o • »
A
:Ma% V>« .-f^??'-, %,/ ..'A^^^--. V>-^ „•'€
ST. AUGUSTINE ?.', ^ -a}^ Z^^XhV- "V^ ^ ** " "
'(^^. FLA. ^- ^o^ I'^m^^- ^^^ ;,
k'?-
^
*1 Qy. •
* » „ o '
e H o
■■)' J ; i ■;■»'» f
' * ^5 > '' '
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
011 895 076 8 %
•(>;;.
;^ ^'';: ;■;>w^:^.';i;(^""
' ' ■' ' '■ ■ '! ■', ' ,'(5
-K -;'' ";^>'.':,".J
•' -,". . \'.-'
''■'.} •.'■'. 'r^^
„ *. ■ I • f , ' ' . r > ' I ' , .
ft- , ' . ■ » . . ^
;>f^!"- ■■■:■ ■.','■- 'ie
:^ -'j'i' it
; ■','>'''. '
[• -. :- ', ,:. :'■'. .'.5; «
i> v^v--- 'n^;:''..
