[Transcriber's note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected. The original spelling has been retained. Missing page numbers correspond to blank pages. Page numbers for illustration have been changed in the index to matchthe content of this file. ]

[Illustration: John Quincy Adams]

 American Statesmen

 STANDARD LIBRARY EDITION

[Illustration: The Home of John Quincy Adams]

 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. 

 American Statesmen

 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

 BY

 JOHN T. MORSE, JR. 

 BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY The Riverside Press, Cambridge

 Copyright, 1882 and 1898, By JOHN T. MORSE, JR. 

 Copyright, 1898, By HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. 

 _All rights reserved. _

PREFACE (p. V)

Nearly sixteen years have elapsed since this book was written. In thattime sundry inaccuracies have been called to my attention, and havebeen corrected, and it may be fairly hoped that after the lapse of solong a period all errors in matters of fact have been eliminated. I amnot aware that any fresh material has been made public, or that anynew views have been presented which would properly lead to alterationsin the substance of what is herein said. If I were now writing thebook for the first time, I should do what so many of the latercontributors to the series have very wisely and advantageously done: Ishould demand more space. But this was the first volume published, andat a time when the enterprise was still an experiment insistence uponsuch a point, especially on the part of the editor, would have beenunreasonable. Thus it happens that, though Mr. Adams was appointedminister resident at the Hague in 1794, and thereafter continued inpublic life, almost without interruption, until his death in (p. Vi)February, 1848, the narrative of his career is compressed withinlittle more than three hundred pages. The proper function of a workupon this scale is to draw a picture of the man. 

With the picture which I have drawn of Mr. Adams, I still remainmoderately contented--by which remark I mean nothing more egotisticalthan that I believe it to be a correct picture, and done with whatevermeasure of skill I may happen to possess in portraiture. I should liketo change it only in one particular, viz. : by infusing throughout thevolume somewhat more of admiration. Adams has never received thepraise which was his due, and probably he never will receive it. Inorder that justice should be done him by the public, his biographerought to speak somewhat better of him than his real deserts wouldrequire. He presents one of those cases where exaggeration is theservant of truth; for this moderate excess of appreciation would onlyoffset that discount from an accurate estimate which his personalunpopularity always has caused, and probably always will cause, to bemade. He was a good instance of the rule that the world will for themost part treat the individual as the individual treats the world. Adams was censorious, not to say uncharitable in the extreme, (p. Vii)always in an attitude of antagonism, always unsparing and denunciatory. The measure which he meted has been by others in their turn meted tohim. This habit of ungracious criticism was his great fault; perhapsit was almost his only very serious fault; it cost him dear in hislife, and has continued to cost his memory dear since his death. Sometimes we are not sorry to see men get the punishments which theyhave brought on themselves; yet we ought to be sorry for Mr. Adams. After all, his fault-finding was in part the result of his respect forvirtue and his hatred of all that was ignoble and unworthy. If hedespised a low standard, at least he held his own standard high, andhimself lived by the rules by which he measured others. Men withvastly greater defects have been much more kindly served both bycontemporaries and by posterity. There can be no question that Adamsdeserved all the esteem which ought to be accorded to the highestmoral qualities, to very high, if a little short of the highest, intellectual endowment, and to immense acquirements. His politicalintegrity was of a grade rarely seen; and, in unison with hisextraordinary courage and independence, it seemed to the averagepolitician actually irritating and offensive. He was in the samedifficulty in which Aristides the Just found himself. But neither (p. Viii)assaults nor political solitude daunted or discouraged him. His careerin the House of Representatives is a tale which has not a rival incongressional history. I regret that it could not be told here atgreater length. Stubbornly fighting for freedom of speech and againstthe slaveholders, fierce and unwearied in old age, falling literallyout of the midst of the conflict into his grave, Mr. Adams, during theclosing years of his life, is one of the most striking figures ofmodern times. I beg the reader of this volume to put into its pagesmore warmth of praise than he will find therein, and so do a morecorrect justice to an honest statesman and a gallant friend of theoppressed. Doing this, he will improve my book in the particularwherein I think that it chiefly needs improvement. JOHN T. MORSE, JR. July, 1898. 

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. Page Youth and Diplomacy 1

CHAPTER II. 

 Secretary of State and President 101

CHAPTER III. 

 In the House of Representatives 225

Index 309

ILLUSTRATIONS

John Quincy Adams Frontispiece

 From the original painting by John Singleton Copley, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 

 Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston Public Library. 

 The vignette of Mr. Adams's home in Quincy is from a photograph. PageWilliam H. Crawford 107

 From the painting by Henry Ulke, in the Treasury Department at Washington. 

 Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston Public Library. 

Stratford Canning 149

 After a drawing (1853) by George Richmond. Autograph from "Life of Stratford Canning. "

Henry A. Wise 291

 From a photograph by Brady, in the Library of the State Department at Washington. 

 Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston Public Library. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (p. 001)

CHAPTER I

YOUTH AND DIPLOMACY

On July 11, 1767, in the North Parish of Braintree, since set off asthe town of Quincy, in Massachusetts, was born John Quincy Adams. Twostreams of as good blood as flowed in the colony mingled in the veinsof the infant. If heredity counts for anything he began life with anexcellent chance of becoming famous--_non sine dîs animosus infans_. He was called after his great-grandfather on the mother's side, JohnQuincy, a man of local note who had borne in his day a distinguishedpart in provincial affairs. Such a naming was a simple and naturaloccurrence enough, but Mr. Adams afterward moralized upon it in hischaracteristic way:--

 "The incident which gave rise to this circumstance is not without its moral to my heart. He was dying when I was baptized; and his daughter, my grandmother, present at my birth, requested that I might receive his name. The fact, recorded by my father at (p. 002) the time, has connected with that portion of my name a charm of mingled sensibility and devotion. It was filial tenderness that gave the name. It was the name of one passing from earth to immortality. These have been among the strongest links of my attachment to the name of Quincy, and have been to me through life a perpetual admonition to do nothing unworthy of it. "

Fate, which had made such good preparation for him before his birth, wasnot less kind in arranging the circumstances of his early training anddevelopment. His father was deeply engaged in the patriot cause, andthe first matters borne in upon his opening intelligence concerned thepublic discontent and resistance to tyranny. He was but seven yearsold when he clambered with his mother to the top of one of the highhills in the neighborhood of his home to listen to the sounds of conflictupon Bunker's Hill, and to watch the flaming ruin of Charlestown. Profound was the impression made upon him by the spectacle, and it wasintensified by many an hour spent afterward upon the same spot duringthe siege and bombardment of Boston. Then John Adams went as adelegate to the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, and his wife andchildren were left for twelve months, as John Quincy Adams says, --itis to be hoped with a little exaggeration of the barbarity of (p. 003)British troops toward women and babes, --"liable every hour of the dayand of the night to be butchered in cold blood, or taken and carriedinto Boston as hostages, by any foraging or marauding detachment. "Later, when the British had evacuated Boston, the boy, barely nineyears old, became "post-rider" between the city and the farm, adistance of eleven miles each way, in order to bring all the latestnews to his mother. 

Not much regular schooling was to be got amid such surroundings oftimes and events, but the lad had a natural aptitude or affinity forknowledge which stood him in better stead than could any dame of avillage school. The following letter to his father is worthpreserving:--

 BRAINTREE, _June the 2d, 1777_. 

 DEAR SIR, --I love to receive letters very well, much better than I love to write them. I make but a poor figure at composition, my head is much too fickle, my thoughts are running after birds' eggs, play and trifles till I get vexed with myself. I have but just entered the 3d volume of Smollett, tho' I had designed to have got it half through by this time. I have determined this week to be more diligent, as Mr. Thaxter will be absent at Court and I Cannot pursue my other Studies. I have Set myself a Stent and determine to read the 3d volume Half out. If I can but (p. 004) keep my resolution I will write again at the end of the week and give a better account of myself. I wish, Sir, you would give me some instructions with regard to my time, and advise me how to proportion my Studies and my Play, in writing, and I will keep them by me and endeavor to follow them. I am, dear Sir, with a present determination of growing better. Yours. 

 P. S. Sir, if you will be so good as to favor me with a Blank book, I will transcribe the most remarkable occurrences I met with in my reading, which will serve to fix them upon my mind. 

Not long after the writing of this model epistle, the simple villagelife was interrupted by an unexpected change. John Adams was sent on adiplomatic journey to Paris, and on February 13, 1778, embarked in thefrigate Boston. John Quincy Adams, then eleven years old, accompaniedhis father and thus made his first acquaintance with the foreign landswhere so many of his coming years were to be passed. This initialvisit, however, was brief; and he was hardly well established atschool when events caused his father to start for home. Unfortunatelythis return trip was a needless loss of time, since within threemonths of their setting foot upon American shores the two travellerswere again on their stormy way back across the Atlantic in a leakyship, which had to land them at the nearest port in Spain. One (p. 005)more quotation must be given from a letter written just after thefirst arrival in France:--

 PASSY, _September the 27th, 1778_. 

 HONORED MAMMA, --My Pappa enjoins it upon me to keep a Journal, or a Diary of the Events that happen to me, and of objects that I see, and of Characters that I converse with from day to day; and altho' I am Convinced of the utility, importance and necessity of this Exercise, yet I have not patience and perseverance enough to do it so Constantly as I ought. My Pappa, who takes a great deal of pains to put me in the right way, has also advised me to Preserve Copies of all my letters, and has given me a Convenient Blank Book for this end; and altho' I shall have the mortification a few years hence to read a great deal of my Childish nonsense, yet I shall have the Pleasure and advantage of Remarking the several steps by which I shall have advanced in taste, judgment and knowledge. A Journal Book and a letter Book of a Lad of Eleven years old Can not be expected to Contain much of Science, Literature, arts, wisdom, or wit, yet it may serve to perpetuate many observations that I may make, and may hereafter help me to recollect both persons and things that would other ways escape my memory. 

He continues with resolutions "to be more thoughtful and industriousfor the future, " and reflects with pleasure upon the prospect thathis scheme "will be a sure means of improvement to myself, and (p. 006)enable me to be more entertaining to you. " What gratification mustthis letter from one who was quite justified in signing himself her"dutiful and affectionate son" have brought to the Puritan bosom ofthe good mother at home! If the plan for the diary was not pursuedduring the first short flitting abroad, it can hardly be laid at thedoor of the "lad of eleven years" as a serious fault. He did in factbegin it when setting out on the aforementioned second trip to Europe, calling it

 A JOURNAL BY J. Q. A. , _From America to Spain. _

 Vol. I. 

 Begun Friday, 12 of November, 1779. 

The spark of life in the great undertaking flickered in a somewhatfeeble and irregular way for many years thereafter, but apparentlygained strength by degrees until in 1795, as Mr. C. F. Adams tells us, "what may be denominated the diary proper begins, " a very vigorouswork in more senses than one. Continued with astonishing persistencyand faithfulness until within a few days of the writer's death, thelatest entry is of the 4th of January, 1848. Mr. Adams achieved manysuccesses during his life as the result of conscious effort, but (p. 007)the greatest success of all he achieved altogether unconsciously. Heleft a portrait of himself more full, correct, vivid, and picturesquethan has ever been bequeathed to posterity by any other personage ofthe past ages. Any mistakes which may be made in estimating his mentalor moral attributes must be charged to the dulness or prejudice of thejudge, who could certainly not ask for better or more abundantevidence. Few of us know our most intimate friends better than any ofus may know Mr. Adams, if we will but take the trouble. Even the briefextracts already given from his correspondence show us the boy; itonly concerns us to get them into the proper light for seeing themaccurately. If a lad of seven, nine, or eleven years of age shouldwrite such solemn little effusions amid the surroundings andinfluences of the present day, he would probably be set down justlyenough as either an offensive young prig or a prematurely developedhypocrite. But the precocious Adams had only a little of the prig andnothing of the hypocrite in his nature. Being the outcome of manygenerations of simple, devout, intelligent Puritan ancestors, livingin a community which loved virtue and sought knowledge, all inheritedand all present influences combined to make him, as it may be put (p. 008)in a single word, sensible. He had inevitably a mental boyhood andyouth, but morally he was never either a child or a lad; all hisleading traits of character were as strongly marked when he was sevenas when he was seventy, and at an age when most young people simplywin love or cause annoyance, he was preferring wisdom to mischief, andactually in his earliest years was attracting a certain respect. 

These few but bold and striking touches which paint the boy arechanged for an infinitely more elaborate and complex presentation fromthe time when the Diary begins. Even as abridged in the printing, thisimmense work ranks among the half-dozen longest diaries to be found inany library, and it is unquestionably by far the most valuable. Henceforth we are to travel along its broad route to the end; we shallsee in it both the great and the small among public men halting onwardin a way very different from that in which they march along thestately pages of the historian, and we shall find many side-lights, byno means colorless, thrown upon the persons and events of theprocession. The persistence, fulness, and faithfulness with which itwas kept throughout so busy a life are marvellous, but are also highlycharacteristic of the most persevering and industrious of men. (p. 009)That it has been preserved is cause not only for thankfulness butfor some surprise also. For if its contents had been known, it iscertain that all the public men of nearly two generations who figurein it would have combined into one vast and irresistible conspiracy toobtain and destroy it. There was always a superfluity of gall in thediarist's ink. Sooner or later every man of any note in the UnitedStates was mentioned in his pages, and there is scarcely one of them, who, if he could have read what was said of him, would not havepreferred the ignominy of omission. As one turns the leaves he feelsas though he were walking through a graveyard of slaughteredreputations wherein not many headstones show a few words of measuredcommendation. It is only the greatness and goodness of Mr. Adamshimself which relieve the universal atmosphere of sadness far moredepressing than the melancholy which pervades the novels of GeorgeEliot. The reader who wishes to retain any comfortable degree ofbelief in his fellow men will turn to the wall all the portraits inthe gallery except only the inimitable one of the writer himself. Forit would be altogether too discouraging to think that so wide anexperience of men as Mr. Adams enjoyed through his long, varied, andactive life must lead to such an unpleasant array of human faces (p. 010)as those which are scattered along these twelve big octavos. Fortunately at present we have to do with only one of theselikenesses, and that one we are able to admire while knowing also thatit is beyond question accurate. One after another every trait of Mr. Adams comes out; we shall see that he was a man of a very high andnoble character veined with some very notable and disagreeableblemishes; his aspirations were honorable, even the lowest of thembeing more than simply respectable; he had an avowed ambition, but itwas of that pure kind which led him to render true and distinguishedservices to his countrymen; he was not only a zealous patriot, but aprofound believer in the sound and practicable tenets of the liberalpolitical creed of the United States; he had one of the most honestand independent natures that was ever given to man; personal integrityof course goes without saying, but he had the rarer gift of anelevated and rigid political honesty such as has been unfrequentlyseen in any age or any nation; in times of severe trial this qualitywas even cruelly tested, but we shall never see it fail; he was ascourageous as if he had been a fanatic; indeed, for a long part of hislife to maintain a single-handed fight in support of a despised orunpopular opinion seemed his natural function and almost exclusivecalling; he was thoroughly conscientious and never knowingly did (p. 011)wrong, nor even sought to persuade himself that wrong was right;well read in literature and of wide and varied information in nearlyall matters of knowledge, he was more especially remarkable for hisacquirements in the domain of politics, where indeed they were vastand ever growing; he had a clear and generally a cool head, and wasnearly always able to do full justice to himself and to his cause; hehad an indomitable will, unconquerable persistence, and infinitelaboriousness. Such were the qualities which made him a greatstatesman; but unfortunately we must behold a hardly less strikingreverse to the picture, in the faults and shortcomings which made himso unpopular in his lifetime that posterity is only just beginning toforget the prejudices of his contemporaries and to render concerninghim the judgment which he deserves. Never did a man of pure life andjust purposes have fewer friends or more enemies than John QuincyAdams. His nature, said to have been very affectionate in his familyrelations, was in its aspect outside of that small circle singularlycold and repellent. If he could ever have gathered even a smallpersonal following his character and abilities would have insured hima brilliant and prolonged success; but, for a man of his calibre (p. 012)and influence, we shall see him as one of the most lonely and desolateof the great men of history; instinct led the public men of his timeto range themselves against him rather than with him, and we shallfind them fighting beside him only when irresistibly compelled to doso by policy or strong convictions. As he had little sympathy withthose with whom he was brought in contact, so he was very uncharitablein his judgment of them; and thus having really a low opinion of somany of them he could indulge his vindictive rancor without stint; hisinvective, always powerful, will sometimes startle us by its venom, and we shall be pained to see him apt to make enemies for a good causeby making them for himself. 

This has been, perhaps, too long a lingering upon the threshold. ButMr. Adams's career in public life stretched over so long a period thatto write a full historical memoir of him within the limited space ofthis volume is impossible. All that can be attempted is to present asketch of the man with a few of his more prominent surroundingsagainst a very meagre and insufficient background of the history ofthe times. So it may be permissible to begin with a general outline ofhis figure, to be filled in, shaded, and colored as we proceed. Atbest our task is much more difficult of satisfactory achievement (p. 013)than an historical biography of the customary elaborate order. 

During his second visit to Europe, our mature youngster--if the wordmay be used of Mr. Adams even in his earliest years--began to see agood deal of the world and to mingle in very distinguished society. For a brief period he got a little schooling, first at Paris, next atAmsterdam, and then at Leyden; altogether the amount wasinsignificant, since he was not quite fourteen years old when heactually found himself engaged in a diplomatic career. Francis Dana, afterward Chief Justice of Massachusetts, was then accredited as anenvoy to Russia from the United States, and he took Mr. Adams with himas his private secretary. Not much came of the mission, but it was avaluable experience for a lad of his years. Upon his return he spentsix months in travel and then he rejoined his father in Paris, wherethat gentleman was engaged with Franklin and John Jay in negotiatingthe final treaty of peace between the revolted colonies and the mothercountry. The boy "was at once enlisted in the service as an additionalsecretary, and gave his help to the preparation of the papersnecessary to the completion of that instrument which dispersed allpossible doubt of the Independence of his Country. "

On April 26, 1785, arrived the packet-ship Le Courier de L'Orient, (p. 014)bringing a letter from Mr. Gerry containing news of the appointment ofJohn Adams as Minister to St. James's. This unforeseen occurrence madeit necessary for the younger Adams to determine his own career, whichapparently he was left to do for himself. He was indeed a singularyoung man, not unworthy of such confidence! The glimpses which we getof him during this stay abroad show him as the associate upon terms ofequality with grown men of marked ability and exercising importantfunctions. He preferred diplomacy to dissipation, statesmen tomistresses, and in the midst of all the temptations of the gayestcapital in the world, the chariness with which he sprinkled his wildoats amid the alluring gardens chiefly devoted to the culture of thosecereals might well have brought a blush to the cheeks of some amonghis elders, at least if the tongue of slander wags not with grossuntruth concerning the colleagues of John Adams. But he was not inEurope to amuse himself, though at an age when amusement is naturaland a tinge of sinfulness is so often pardoned; he was there with thedefinite and persistent purpose of steady improvement and acquisition. At his age most young men play the cards which a kind fortune putsinto their hands, with the reckless intent only of immediate gain, (p. 015)but from the earliest moment when he began the game of life Adamscoolly and wisely husbanded every card which came into his hand, witha steady view to probable future contingencies, and with the resolveto win in the long run. So now the resolution which he took in thepresent question illustrated the clearness of his mind and thestrength of his character. To go with his father to England would beto enjoy a life precisely fitted to his natural and acquired tastes, to mingle with the men who were making history, to be cognizant of theweightiest of public affairs, to profit by all that the grandest cityin the world had to show. It was easy to be not only allured by theprospect but also to be deceived by its apparent advantages. Adams, however, had the sense and courage to turn his back on it, and to gohome to the meagre shores and small society of New England, there tobecome a boy again, to enter Harvard College, and come under all itsat that time rigid and petty regulations. It almost seems a mistake, but it was not. Already he was too ripe and too wise to blunder. Hehimself gives us his characteristic and sufficient reasons:--

 "Were I now to go with my father probably my immediate satisfaction might be greater than it will be in returning (p. 016) to America. After having been travelling for these seven years almost and all over Europe, and having been in the world and among company for three; to return to spend one or two years in the pale of a college, subjected to all the rules which I have so long been freed from; and afterwards not expect (however good an opinion I may have of myself) to bring myself into notice under three or four years more, if ever! It is really a prospect somewhat discouraging for a youth of my ambition, (for I have ambition though I hope its object is laudable). But still

 'Oh! how wretched Is that poor man, that hangs on Princes' favors, '

 or on those of any body else. I am determined that so long as I shall be able to get my own living in an honorable manner, I will depend upon no one. My father has been so much taken up all his lifetime with the interests of the public, that his own fortune has suffered by it: so that his children will have to provide for themselves, which I shall never be able to do if I loiter away my precious time in Europe and shun going home until I am forced to it. With an ordinary share of common sense, which I hope I enjoy, at least in America I can live _independent_ and _free_; and rather than live otherwise I would wish to die before the time when I shall be left at my own discretion. I have before me a striking example of the distressing and humiliating situation a person is reduced to by adopting a different line of conduct, and I am determined not to fall into the same error. "

It is needless to comment upon such spirit and sense, or upon (p. 017)such just appreciation of what was feasible, wise, and right for him, as a New Englander whose surroundings and prospects were widelydifferent from those of the society about him. He must have beenstrongly imbued by nature with the instincts of his birthplace tohave formed, after a seven years' absence at his impressible age, socorrect a judgment of the necessities and possibilities of his owncareer in relationship to the people and ideas of his own country. 

Home accordingly he came, and by assiduity prepared himself in a veryshort time to enter the junior class at Harvard College, whence he wasgraduated in high standing in 1787. From there he went to Newburyport, then a thriving and active seaport enriched by the noble trade ofprivateering in addition to more regular maritime business, and enteredas a law student the office of Theophilus Parsons, afterwards theChief Justice of Massachusetts. On July 15, 1790, being twenty-threeyears old, he was admitted to practice. Immediately afterward heestablished himself in Boston, where for a time he felt strangelysolitary. Clients of course did not besiege his doors in the firstyear, and he appears to have waited rather stubbornly than cheerfullyfor more active days. These came in good time, and during the (p. 018)second, third, and fourth years, his business grew apace to encouragingdimensions. 

He was, however, doing other work than that of the law, and much moreimportant in its bearing upon his future career. He could not keep histhoughts, nor indeed his hands, from public affairs. When, in 1791, Thomas Paine produced the "Rights of Man, " Thomas Jefferson acting asmidwife to usher the bantling before the people of the United States, Adams's indignation was fired, and he published anonymously a seriesof refuting papers over the signature of Publicola. These attractedmuch attention, not only at home but also abroad, and were by manyattributed to John Adams. Two years later, during the excitementaroused by the reception and subsequent outrageous behavior here ofthe French minister, Genet, Mr. Adams again published in the Boston"Centinel" some papers over the signature of Marcellus, discussingwith much ability the then new and perplexing question of theneutrality which should be observed by this country in European wars. These were followed by more, over the signature of Columbus, andafterward by still more in the name of Barnevelt, all stronglyreprobating the course of the crazy-headed foreigner. The writer wasnot permitted to remain long unknown. It is not certain, but it (p. 019)is highly probable, that to these articles was due the nominationwhich Mr. Adams received shortly afterward from President Washington, as Minister Resident at the Hague. This nomination was sent in to theSenate, May 29, 1794, and was unanimously confirmed on the followingday. It may be imagined that the change from the moderate practice ofhis Boston law office to a European court, of which he so well knewthe charms, was not distasteful to him. There are passages in hisDiary which indicate that he had been chafing with irrepressibleimpatience "in that state of useless and disgraceful insignificancy, "to which, as it seemed to him, he was relegated, so that at the age oftwenty-five, when "many of the characters who were born for thebenefit of their fellow creatures, have rendered themselves conspicuousamong their contemporaries, . . . I still find myself as obscure, asunknown to the world, as the most indolent or the most stupid of humanbeings. " Entertaining such a restless ambition, he of course acceptedthe proffered office, though not without some expression of unexplaineddoubt. October 31, 1794, found him at the Hague, after a voyage ofconsiderable peril in a leaky ship, commanded by a blundering captain. He was a young diplomat, indeed; it was on his twenty-seventh (p. 020)birthday that he received his commission. 

The minister made his advent upon a tumultuous scene. All Europe wasgetting under arms in the long and desperate struggle with France. Scarcely had he presented his credentials to the Stadtholder ere thatdignitary was obliged to flee before the conquering standards of theFrench. Pichegru marched into the capital city of the Low Countries, hung out the tri-color, and established the "Batavian Republic" as theally of France. The diplomatic representatives of most of the Europeanpowers forthwith left, and Mr. Adams was strongly moved to do the same, though for reasons different from those which actuated his compeers. He was not, like them, placed in an unpleasant position by the newcondition of affairs, but on the contrary he was very cordiallytreated by the French and their Dutch partisans, and was obliged tofall back upon his native prudence to resist their compromisingovertures and dangerous friendship. Without giving offence he yet keptclear of entanglements, and showed a degree of wisdom and skill whichmany older and more experienced Americans failed to evince, eitherabroad or at home, during these exciting years. But he appeared to beleft without occupation in the altered condition of affairs, and (p. 021)therefore was considering the propriety of returning, when advicesfrom home induced him to stay. Washington especially wrote that hemust not think of retiring, and prophesied that he would soon be"found at the head of the diplomatic corps, be the governmentadministered by whomsoever the people may choose. " He remained, therefore, at the Hague, a shrewd and close observer of the excitingevents occurring around him, industriously pursuing an extensivecourse of study and reading, making useful acquaintances, acquiringfamiliarity with foreign languages, with the usages of diplomacy andthe habits of distinguished society. He had little public business totransact, it is true; but at least his time was well spent for his ownimprovement. 

An episode in his life at the Hague was his visit to England, where hewas directed to exchange ratifications of the treaty lately negotiatedby Mr. Jay. But a series of vexatious delays, apparently maliciouslycontrived, detained him so long that upon his arrival he found thisspecific task already accomplished by Mr. Deas. He was probably notdisappointed that his name thus escaped connection with engagements soodious to a large part of the nation. He had, however, some furtherbusiness of an informal character to transact with Lord Grenville, (p. 022)and in endeavoring to conduct it found himself rather awkwardly placed. He was not minister to the Court of St. James, having been onlyvaguely authorized to discuss certain arrangements in a tentative way, without the power to enter into any definitive agreement. But theEnglish Cabinet strongly disliking Mr. Deas, who in the absence of Mr. Pinckney represented for the time the United States, and muchpreferring to negotiate with Mr. Adams, sought by many indirect andartful subterfuges to thrust upon him the character of a regularlyaccredited minister. He had much ado to avoid, without offence, theassumption of functions to which he had no title, but which were withdesigning courtesy forced upon him. His cool and moderate temper, however, carried him successfully through the whole business, alike inits social and its diplomatic aspect. 

Another negotiation, of a private nature also, he brought to asuccessful issue during these few months in London. He made theacquaintance of Miss Louisa Catherine Johnson, daughter of JoshuaJohnson, then American Consul at London, and niece of that GovernorJohnson, of Maryland, who had signed the Declaration of Independenceand was afterwards placed on the bench of the Supreme Court of (p. 023)the United States. To this lady he became engaged; and returningnot long afterward he was married to her on July 26, 1797. It was athoroughly happy and, for him, a life-long union. 

President Washington, toward the close of his second term, transferredMr. Adams to the Court of Portugal. But before his departure thitherhis destination was changed. Some degree of embarrassment was feltabout this time concerning his further continuance in public office, by reason of his father's accession to the Presidency. He wrote to hismother a manly and spirited letter, rebuking her for carelesslydropping an expression indicative of a fear that he might look forsome favor at his father's hands. He could neither solicit nor expectanything, he justly said, and he was pained that his mother should notknow him better than to entertain any apprehension of his feelingotherwise. It was a perplexing position in which the two were placed. It would be a great hardship to cut short the son's career because ofthe success of the father, yet the reproach of nepotism could not belightly encountered, even with the backing of clear consciences. Washington came kindly to the aid of his doubting successor, and in aletter highly complimentary to Mr. John Quincy Adams strongly urgedthat well-merited promotion ought not to be kept from him, (p. 024)foretelling for him a distinguished future in the diplomatic service. These representations prevailed; and the President's only action asconcerned his son consisted in changing his destination from Portugalto Prussia, both missions being at that time of the same grade, thoughthat to Prussia was then established for the first time by the makingand confirming of this nomination. 

To Berlin, accordingly, Mr. Adams proceeded in November, 1797, and hadthe somewhat cruel experience of being "questioned at the gates by adapper lieutenant, who did not know, until one of his private soldiersexplained to him, who the United States of America were. " Overcomingthis unusual obstacle to a ministerial advent, and succeeding, aftermany months, in getting through all the introductory formalities, hefound not much more to be done at Berlin than there had been at theHague. But such useful work as was open to him he accomplished in theshape of a treaty of amity and commerce between Prussia and the UnitedStates. This having been duly ratified by both the powers, his furtherstay seemed so useless that he wrote home suggesting his readiness toreturn; and while awaiting a reply he travelled through some portionsof Europe which he had not before seen. His recall was one of the (p. 025)last acts of his father's administration, made, says Mr. Seward, "that Mr. Jefferson might have no embarrassment in that direction, "but quite as probably dictated by a vindictive desire to show how widewas the gulf of animosity which had opened between the family of thedisappointed ex-President and his triumphant rival. 

Mr. Adams, immediately upon his arrival at home, prepared to return tothe practice of his profession. It was not altogether an agreeabletransition from an embassy at the courts of Europe to a law office inBoston, with the necessity of furbishing up long disused knowledge, and a second time patiently awaiting the influx of clients. But hefaced it with his stubborn temper and practical sense. The slenderpromise which he was able to discern in the political outlook couldnot fail to disappoint him, since his native predilections wereunquestionably and strongly in favor of a public career. During hisabsence party animosities had been developing rapidly. The first greatparty victory since the organization of the government had just beenwon, after a very bitter struggle, by the Republicans or Democrats, asthey were then indifferently called, whose exuberant delight found itsfull counterpart in the angry despondency of the Federalists. Thatirascible old gentleman, the elder Adams, having experienced a (p. 026)very Waterloo defeat in the contest for the Presidency, had riddenaway from the capital, actually in a wild rage, on the night of the 3dof March, 1801, to avoid the humiliating pageant of Mr. Jefferson'sinauguration. Yet far more fierce than this natural party warfare wasthe internal dissension which rent the Federal party in twain. Thosecracks upon the surface and subterraneous rumblings, which theexperienced observer could for some time have noted, had opened withterrible uproar into a gaping chasm, when John Adams, still in thePresidency, suddenly announced his determination to send a mission toFrance at a crisis when nearly all his party were looking for war. Perhaps this step was, as his admirers claim, an act of pure anddisinterested statesmanship. Certainly its result was fortunate forthe country at large. But for John Adams it was ruinous. At the momentwhen he made the bold move, he doubtless expected to be followed byhis party. Extreme was his disappointment and boundless his wrath, when he found that he had at his back only a fraction, not improbablyless than half, of that party. He learned with infinite chagrin thathe had only a divided empire with a private individual; that it wasnot safe for him, the President of the United States, to originateany important measure without first consulting a lawyer quietly (p. 027)engaged in the practice of his profession in New York; that, in short, at least a moiety, in which were to be found the most intelligentmembers, of the great Federal party, when in search of guidance, turned their faces toward Alexander Hamilton rather than toward JohnAdams. These Hamiltonians by no means relished the French mission, sothat from this time forth a schism of intense bitterness kept theFederal party asunder, and John Adams hated Alexander Hamilton with avigor not surpassed in the annals of human antipathies. His rage wasnot assuaged by the conduct of this dreaded foe in the presidentialcampaign; and the defeated candidate always preferred to charge hisfailure to Hamilton's machinations rather than to the real will of thepeople. This, however, was unfair; it was perfectly obvious that amajority of the nation had embraced Jeffersonian tenets, and thatFederalism was moribund. 

To this condition of affairs John Quincy Adams returned. Fortunatelyhe had been compelled to bear no part in the embroilments of the past, and his sagacity must have led him, while listening with filialsympathy to the interpretations placed upon events by his incensedparent, yet to make liberal allowance for the distorting effects (p. 028)of the old gentleman's rage. Still it was in the main only natural forhim to regard himself as a Federalist of the Adams faction. Hisproclivities had always been with that party. In Massachusetts theeducated and well-to-do classes were almost unanimously of that way ofthinking. The select coterie of gentlemen in the State, who in thosetimes bore an active and influential part in politics, were nearly allHamiltonians, but the adherents of President Adams were numericallystrong. Nor was the younger Adams himself long left without hisprivate grievance against Mr. Jefferson, who promptly used theauthority vested in him by a new statute to remove Mr. Adams from theposition of commissioner in bankruptcy, to which, at the time of hisresuming business, he had been appointed by the judge of the districtcourt. Long afterward Jefferson sought to escape the odium of thisapparently malicious and, for those days, unusual action, by a veryJeffersonian explanation, tolerably satisfactory to those persons whobelieved it. 

On April 5, 1802, Mr. Adams was chosen by the Federalists of Boston torepresent them in the State Senate. The office was at that time stillsought by men of the best ability and position, and though it washardly a step upward on the political ladder for one who hadrepresented the nation in foreign parts for eight years, yet (p. 029)Mr. Adams was well content to accept it. At least it reopened the doorof political life, and moreover one of his steadfast maxims was neverto refuse any function which the people sought to impose upon him. Itis worth noting, for its bearing upon controversies soon to beencountered in this narrative, that forty-eight hours had not elapsedafter Mr. Adams had taken his seat before he ventured upon a displayof independence which caused much irritation to his Federalistassociates. He had the hardihood to propose that the Federalistmajority in the legislature should permit the Republican minority toenjoy a proportional representation in the council. "It was the firstact of my legislative life, " he wrote many years afterward, "and itmarked the principle by which my whole public life has been governedfrom that day to this. My proposal was unsuccessful, and perhaps itforfeited whatever confidence might have been otherwise bestowed uponme as a party follower. " Indeed, all his life long Mr. Adams was neversubmissive to the party whip, but voted upon every question preciselyaccording to his opinion of its merits, without the slightest regardto the political company in which for the time being he might findhimself. A compeer of his in the United States Senate once said (p. 030)of him, that he regarded every public measure which came up as hewould a proposition in Euclid, abstracted from any party considerations. These frequent derelictions of his were at first forgiven with amagnanimity really very creditable, so long as it lasted, especiallyto the Hamiltonians in the Federal party; and so liberal was thisforbearance that when in February, 1803, the legislature had to electa Senator to the United States Senate, he was chosen upon the fourthballot by 86 votes out of 171. This was the more gratifying to him andthe more handsome on the part of the anti-Adams men in the party, because the place was eagerly sought by Timothy Pickering, an old manwho had strong claims growing out of an almost life-long and veryefficient service in their ranks, and who was moreover a most stanchadherent of General Hamilton. 

So in October, 1803, we find Mr. Adams on his way to Washington, theraw and unattractive village which then constituted the nationalcapital, wherein there was not, as the pious New Englander instantlynoted, a church of any denomination; but those who were religiouslydisposed were obliged to attend services "usually performed on Sundaysat the Treasury Office and at the Capitol. " With what anticipationsMr. Adams's mind was filled during his journey to this embryotic (p. 031)city his Diary does not tell; but if they were in any degree cheerfulor sanguine they were destined to cruel disappointment. He was nowprobably to appreciate for the first time the fierce vigor of thehostility which his father had excited. In Massachusetts socialconnections and friendships probably mitigated the open display ofrancor to which in Washington full sway was given. It was not only theRepublican majority who showed feelings which in them were at leastfair if they were strong, but the Federal minority were maliciouslypleased to find in the son of the ill-starred John Adams a victim onwhom to vent that spleen and abuse which were so provokinglyineffective against the solid working majority of their opponents inCongress. The Republicans trampled upon the Federalists, and theFederalists trampled on John Quincy Adams. He spoke seldom, andcertainly did not weary the Senators, yet whenever he rose to his feethe was sure of a cold, too often almost an insulting, reception. By nochance or possibility could anything which he said or suggested pleasehis prejudiced auditors. The worst augury for any measure was hissupport; any motion which he made was sure to be voted down, thoughnot unfrequently substantially the same matter being afterward movedby somebody else would be readily carried. That cordiality, (p. 032)assistance, and sense of fellowship which Senators from the same Statecustomarily expect and obtain from each other could not be enjoyed byhim. For shortly after his arrival in Washington, Mr. Pickering hadbeen chosen to fill a vacancy in the other Massachusetts senatorship, and appeared upon the scene as a most unwelcome colleague. For a time, indeed, an outward semblance of political comradeship was maintainedbetween them, but it would have been folly for an Adams to put faithin a Pickering, and perhaps _vice versa_. This position of his, as theunpopular member of an unpopular minority, could not be misunderstood, and many allusions to it occur in his Diary. One day he notes a motionrejected; another day, that he has "nothing to do but to makefruitless opposition;" he constantly recites that he has voted with asmall minority, and at least once he himself composed the whole ofthat minority; soon after his arrival he says that an amendmentproposed by him "will certainly not pass; and, indeed, I have alreadyseen enough to ascertain that no amendments of my proposing willobtain in the Senate as now filled;" again, "I presented my threeresolutions, which raised a storm as violent as I expected;" and onthe same day he writes, "I have no doubt of incurring much censureand obloquy for this measure;" a day or two later he speaks of (p. 033)certain persons "who hate me rather more than they love anyprinciple;" when he expressed an opinion in favor of ratifying atreaty with the Creeks, he remarks quite philosophically, that hebelieves it "surprised almost every member of the Senate, anddissatisfied almost all;" when he wanted a committee raised he did notmove it himself, but suggested the idea to another Senator, for "Iknew that if I moved it a spirit of jealousy would immediately beraised against doing anything. " Writing once of some resolutions whichhe intended to propose, he says that they are "another feather againsta whirlwind. A desperate and fearful cause in which I have embarked, but I must pursue it or feel myself either a coward or a traitor. "Another time we find a committee, of which he was a member, making itsreport when he had not even been notified of its meeting. 

It would be idle to suppose that any man could be sufficiently callousnot to feel keenly such treatment. Mr. Adams was far from callous andhe felt it deeply. But he was not crushed or discouraged by it, asweaker spirits would have been, nor betrayed into any acts of foolishanger which must have recoiled upon himself. In him warm feelings werefound in singular combination with a cool head. An unyielding (p. 034)temper and an obstinate courage, an invincible confidence in his ownjudgment, and a stern conscientiousness carried him through theseearlier years of severe trial as they had afterwards to carry himthrough many more. "The qualities of mind most peculiarly called for, "he reflects in the Diary, "are firmness, perseverance, patience, coolness, and forbearance. The prospect is not promising; yet the partto act may be as honorably performed as if success could attend it. "He understood the situation perfectly and met it with a better skillthan that of the veteran politician. By a long and tedious but sureprocess he forced his way to steadily increasing influence, and by theclose of his fourth year we find him taking a part in the business ofthe Senate which may be fairly called prominent and important. He wasconquering success. 

But if Mr. Adams's unpopularity was partly due to the fact that he wasthe son of his father, it was also largely attributable not only tohis unconciliatory manners but to more substantial habits of mind andcharacter. It is probably impossible for any public man, reallyindependent in his political action, to lead a very comfortable lifeamid the struggles of party. Under the disadvantages involved in thishabit Mr. Adams labored to a remarkable degree. Since parties (p. 035)were first organized in this Republic no American statesman has everapproached him in persistent freedom of thought, speech, and action. He was regarded as a Federalist, but his Federalism was subject tomany modifications; the members of that party never were sure of hisadherence, and felt bound to him by no very strong ties of politicalfellowship. Towards the close of his senatorial term he recorded, inreminiscence, that he had more often voted with the administrationthan with the opposition. 

The first matter of importance concerning which he was obliged to actwas the acquisition of Louisiana and its admission as a state of theUnion. The Federalists were bitterly opposed to this measure, regarding it as an undue strengthening of the South and of the slaveryinfluence, to the destruction of the fair balance of power between thetwo great sections of the country. It was not then the moral aspect ofthe slavery element which stirred the northern temper, but only theantagonism of interests between the commercial cities of the North andthe agricultural communities of the South. In the discussions andvotes which took place in this business Mr. Adams was in favor of thepurchase, but denied with much emphasis the constitutionality of theprocess by which the purchased territory was brought into the (p. 036)fellowship of States. This imperfect allegiance to the party gave moreoffence than satisfaction, and he found himself soundly berated inleading Federalist newspapers in New England, and angrily threatenedwith expulsion from the party. But in the famous impeachment of JudgeChase, which aroused very strong feelings, Mr. Adams was fortunatelyable to vote for acquittal. He regarded this measure, as well as theimpeachment of Judge Pickering at the preceding session, as parts ofan elaborate scheme on the part of the President for degrading thenational judiciary and rendering it subservient to the legislativebranch of the government. So many, however, even of Mr. Jefferson'sstanch adherents revolted against his requisitions on this occasion, and he himself so far lost heart before the final vote was taken, thatseveral Republicans voted with the Federalists, and Mr. Adams couldhardly claim much credit with his party for standing by them in thisemergency. 

It takes a long while for such a man to secure respect, and greatability for him ever to achieve influence. In time, however, Mr. Adamssaw gratifying indications that he was acquiring both, and inFebruary, 1806, we find him writing:--

 "This is the third session I have sat in Congress. I came in (p. 037) as a member of a very small minority, and during the two former sessions almost uniformly avoided to take a lead; any other course would have been dishonest or ridiculous. On the very few and unimportant objects which I did undertake, I met at first with universal opposition. The last session my influence rose a little, at the present it has hitherto been apparently rising. "

He was so far a cool and clear-headed judge, even in his own case, that this encouraging estimate may be accepted as correct upon hissole authority without other evidence. But the fair prospect wasovercast almost in its dawning, and a period of supreme trial and ofapparently irretrievable ruin was at hand. 

Topics were coming forward for discussion concerning which no Americancould be indifferent, and no man of Mr. Adams's spirit could be silent. The policy of Great Britain towards this country, and the manner inwhich it was to be met, stirred profound feelings and opened suchfierce dissensions as it is now difficult to appreciate. For a brieftime Mr. Adams was to be a prominent actor before the people. It isfortunately needless to repeat, as it must ever be painful to remember, the familiar and too humiliating tale of the part which France andEngland were permitted for so many years to play in our nationalpolitics, when our parties were not divided upon American (p. 038)questions, but wholly by their sympathies with one or other of thesecontending European powers. Under Washington the English party had, with infinite difficulty, been able to prevent their adversaries fromfairly enlisting the United States as active partisans of France, inspite of the fact that most insulting treatment was received from thatcountry. Under John Adams the same so-called British faction had beenbaulked in their hope of precipitating a war with the French. Now inMr. Jefferson's second administration, the French party having won theascendant, the new phase of the same long struggle presented thequestion, whether or not we should be drawn into a war with GreatBritain. Grave as must have been the disasters of such a war in 1806, grave as they were when the war actually came six years later, yet itis impossible to recall the provocations which were inflicted upon uswithout almost regretting that prudence was not cast to the winds andany woes encountered in preference to unresisting submission to suchinsolent outrages. Our gorge rises at the narration three quarters ofa century after the acts were done. 

Mr. Adams took his position early and boldly. In February, 1806, heintroduced into the Senate certain resolutions strongly condemnatoryof the right, claimed and vigorously exercised by the British, (p. 039)of seizing neutral vessels employed in conducting with the enemies ofGreat Britain any trade which had been customarily prohibited by thatenemy in time of peace. This doctrine was designed to shut outAmerican merchants from certain privileges in trading with Frenchcolonies, which had been accorded only since France had becomeinvolved in war with Great Britain. The principle was utterly illegaland extremely injurious. Mr. Adams, in his first resolution, stigmatized it "as an unprovoked aggression upon the property of thecitizens of these United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroachment upon their national independence. " By his secondresolution, the President was requested to demand and insist upon therestoration of property seized under this pretext, and uponindemnification for property already confiscated. By a rare goodfortune, Mr. Adams had the pleasure of seeing his propositionscarried, only slightly modified by the omission of the words "toinsist. " But they were carried, of course, by Republican votes, andthey by no means advanced their mover in the favor of the Federalistparty. Strange as it may seem, that party, of which many of theforemost supporters were engaged in the very commerce which GreatBritain aimed to suppress and destroy, seemed not to be so much (p. 040)incensed against her as against their own government. The theoryof the party was, substantially, that England had been driven intothese measures by the friendly tone of our government towards France, and by her own stringent and overruling necessities. The cure was notto be sought in resistance, not even in indignation and remonstranceaddressed to that power, but rather in cementing an alliance with her, and even, if need should be, in taking active part in her holy cause. The feeling seemed to be that we merited the chastisement because wehad not allied ourselves with the chastiser. These singular notions ofthe Federalists, however, were by no means the notions of Mr. JohnQuincy Adams, as we shall soon see. 

On April 18, 1806, the Non-importation Act received the approval ofthe President. It was the first measure indicative of resentment orretaliation which was taken by our government. When it was upon itspassage it encountered the vigorous resistance of the Federalists, butreceived the support of Mr. Adams. On May 16, 1806, the Britishgovernment made another long stride in the course of lawless oppressionof neutrals, which phrase, as commerce then was, signified little elsethan Americans. A proclamation was issued declaring the whole (p. 041)coast of the European continent, from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe, to be under blockade. In fact, of course, the coast was not blockaded, and the proclamation was a falsehood, an unjustifiable effort to makewords do the work of war-ships. The doctrine which it was thusendeavored to establish had never been admitted into internationallaw, has ever since been repudiated by universal consent of all nations, and is intrinsically preposterous. The British, however, designed tomake it effective, and set to work in earnest to confiscate allvessels and cargoes captured on their way from any neutral nation toany port within the proscribed district. On November 21, next following, Napoleon retaliated by the Berlin decree, so called, declaring theentire British Isles to be under blockade, and forbidding any vesselwhich had been in any English port after publication of his decree toenter any port in the dominions under his control. In January, 1807, England made the next move by an order, likewise in contravention ofinternational law, forbidding to neutrals all commerce between portsof the enemies of Great Britain. On November 11, 1807, the famousBritish Order in Council was issued, declaring neutral vessels andcargoes bound to any port or colony of any country with which (p. 042)England was then at war, and which was closed to English ships, to beliable to capture and confiscation. A few days later, November 25, 1807, another Order established a rate of duties to be paid in Englandupon all neutral merchandise which should be permitted to be carriedin neutral bottoms to countries at war with that power. December 17, 1807, Napoleon retorted by the Milan decree, which declareddenationalized and subject to capture and condemnation every vessel, to whatsoever nation belonging, which should have submitted to searchby an English ship, or should be on a voyage to England, or shouldhave paid any tax to the English government. All these regulations, though purporting to be aimed at neutrals generally, in fact borealmost exclusively upon the United States, who alone were undertakingto conduct any neutral commerce worthy of mention. As Mr. Adamsafterwards remarked, the effect of these illegal proclamations andunjustifiable novel doctrines "placed the commerce and shipping of theUnited States, with regard to all Europe and European colonies (Swedenalone excepted), in nearly the same state as it would have been, if, on that same 11th of November, England and France had both declaredwar against the United States. " The merchants of this country might aswell have burned their ships as have submitted to these decrees. (p. 043)

All this while the impressment of American seamen by British ships ofwar was being vigorously prosecuted. This is one of those outrages solong ago laid away among the mouldering tombs in the historicalgraveyard that few persons now appreciate its enormity, or the extentto which it was carried. Those who will be at the pains to ascertainthe truth in the matter will feel that the bloodiest, most costly, andmost disastrous war would have been better than tame endurance oftreatment so brutal and unjustifiable that it finds no parallel evenin the long and dark list of wrongs which Great Britain has been wontto inflict upon all the weaker or the uncivilized peoples with whomshe has been brought or has gratuitously forced herself into unwelcomecontact. It was not an occasional act of high-handed arrogance thatwas done; there were not only a few unfortunate victims, of whom alarge proportion might be of unascertained nationality. It was anorganized system worked upon a very large scale. Every American seamanfelt it necessary to have a certificate of citizenship, accompanied bya description of his features and of all the marks upon his person, asMr. Adams said, "like the advertisement for a runaway negro slave. "Nor was even this protection by any means sure to be always (p. 044)efficient. The number of undoubted American citizens who were seizedrose in a few years actually to many thousands. They were often takenwithout so much as a false pretence to right; but with the acknowledgmentthat they were Americans, they were seized upon the plea of a necessityfor their services in the British ship. Some American vessels wereleft so denuded of seamen that they were lost at sea for want of handsto man them; the destruction of lives as well as property, unquestionably thus caused, was immense. When after the lapse of along time and of infinite negotiation the American citizenship of someindividual was clearly shown, still the chances of his return weresmall; some false and ignoble subterfuge was resorted to; he was notto be found; the name did not occur on the rolls of the navy; he haddied, or been discharged, or had deserted, or had been shot. The moreillegal the act committed by any British officer the more sure he wasof reward, till it seemed that the impressment of American citizenswas an even surer road to promotion than valor in an engagement withthe enemy. Such were the substantial wrongs inflicted by GreatBritain; nor were any pains taken to cloak their character; on thecontrary, they were done with more than British insolence andoffensiveness, and were accompanied with insults which alone (p. 045)constituted sufficient provocation to war. To all this, for a longtime, nothing but empty and utterly futile protests were opposed bythis country. The affair of the Chesapeake, indeed, threatened for abrief moment to bring things to a crisis. That vessel, an Americanfrigate, commanded by Commodore Barron, sailed on June 22, 1807, fromHampton Roads. The Leopard, a British fifty-gun ship, followed her, and before she was out of sight of land, hailed her and demanded thedelivery of four men, of whom three at least were surely nativeAmericans. Barron refused the demand, though his ship was whollyunprepared for action. Thereupon the Englishman opened his broadsides, killed three men and wounded sixteen, boarded the Chesapeake and tookoff the four sailors. They were carried to Halifax and tried bycourt-martial for desertion: one of them was hanged; one died inconfinement, and five years elapsed before the other two were returnedto the Chesapeake in Boston harbor. This wound was sufficiently deepto arouse a real spirit of resentment and revenge, and England went sofar as to dispatch Mr. Rose to this country upon a pretended missionof peace, though the fraudulent character of his errand was sufficientlyindicated by the fact that within a few hours after his departure thefirst of the above named Orders in Council was issued but had not (p. 046)been communicated to him. As Mr. Adams indignantly said, "the samepenful of ink which signed his instructions might have been used alsoto sign these illegal orders. " Admiral Berkeley, the commander of theLeopard, received the punishment which he might justly have expectedif precedent was to count for anything in the naval service of GreatBritain, --he was promoted. 

It is hardly worth while to endeavor to measure the comparativewrongfulness of the conduct of England and of France. The behavior ofeach was utterly unjustifiable; though England by committing the firstextreme breach of international law gave to France the excuse ofretaliation. There was, however, vast difference in the practicaleffect of the British and French decrees. The former wrought seriousinjury, falling little short of total destruction, to Americanshipping and commerce; the latter were only in a much less degreehurtful. The immense naval power of England and the channels in whichour trade naturally flowed combined to make her destructive capacityas towards us very great. It was the outrages inflicted by her whichbrought the merchants of the United States face to face with ruin;they suffered not very greatly at the hands of Napoleon. Neither couldthe villainous process of impressment be conducted by Frenchmen. (p. 047)France gave us cause for war, but England seemed resolved to drive usinto it. 

As British aggressions grew steadily and rapidly more intolerable, Mr. Adams found himself straining farther and farther away from thoseFederalist moorings at which, it must be confessed, he had long swungvery precariously. The constituency which he represented was indeed ina quandary so embarrassing as hardly to be capable of maintaining anyconsistent policy. The New England of that day was a tradingcommunity, of which the industry and capital were almost exclusivelycentred in ship-owning and commerce. The merchants, almost to a man, had long been the most Anglican of Federalists in their politicalsympathies. Now they found themselves suffering utterly ruinoustreatment at the hands of those whom they had loved overmuch. Theywere being ruthlessly destroyed by their friends, to whom they hadbeen, so to speak, almost disloyally loyal. They saw their businessannihilated, their property seized, and yet could not give utteranceto resentment, or counsel resistance, without such a humiliatingdevouring of all their own principles and sentiments as they could byno possibility bring themselves to endure. There was but one road opento them, and that was the ignoble one of casting themselves wholly (p. 048)into the arms of England, of rewarding her blows with caresses, ofsubmitting to be fairly scourged into a servile alliance with her. Itis not surprising that the independent temper of Mr. Adams revolted atthe position which his party seemed not reluctant to assume at thisjuncture. Yet not very much better seemed for a time the policy of theadministration. Jefferson was far from being a man for troubledseasons, which called for high spirit and executive energy. Hisflotillas of gunboats and like idle and silly fantasies only excitedMr. Adams's disgust. In fact, there was upon all sides a strong dreadof a war with England, not always openly expressed, but now perfectlyvisible, arising with some from regard for that country, in othersprompted by fear of her power. Alone among public men Mr. Adams, whileearnestly hoping to escape war, was not willing to seek that escape byunlimited weakness and unbounded submission to lawless injury. 

On November 17, 1807, Mr. Adams, who never in his life allowed fear tobecome a motive, wrote, with obvious contempt and indignation: "Iobserve among the members great embarrassment, alarm, anxiety, andconfusion of mind, but no preparation for any measure of vigor, and anobvious strong disposition to yield all that Great Britain may (p. 049)require, to preserve peace, under a thin external show of dignity andbravery. " This tame and vacillating spirit roused his ire, and as itwas chiefly manifested by his own party it alienated him from themfarther than ever. Yet his wrath was so far held in reasonable checkby his discretion that he would still have liked to avoid the perilousconclusion of arms, and though his impulse was to fight, yet he couldnot but recognize that the sensible course was to be content, for thetime at least, with a manifestation of resentment, and the most vigorousacts short of war which the government could be induced to undertake. On this sentiment were based his introduction of the aforementionedresolutions, his willingness to support the administration, and hisvote for the Non-importation Act in spite of a dislike for it as avery imperfectly satisfactory measure. But it was not alone hisnaturally independent temper which led him thus to feel so differentlyfrom other members of his party. In Europe he had had opportunities offorming a judgment more accurate than was possible for most Americansconcerning the sentiments and policy of England towards this country. Not only had he been present at the negotiations resulting in thetreaty of peace, but he had also afterwards been for several monthsengaged in the personal discussion of commercial questions with (p. 050)the British minister of foreign affairs. From all that he had thusseen and heard he had reached the conviction, unquestionably correct, that the British were not only resolved to adopt a selfish coursetowards the United States, which might have been expected, but thatthey were consistently pursuing the further distinct design of cripplingand destroying American commerce, to the utmost degree which their ownextensive trade and great naval authority and power rendered possible. So long as he held this firm belief, it was inevitable that he shouldbe at issue with the Federalists in all matters concerning our policytowards Great Britain. The ill-will naturally engendered in him bythis conviction was increased to profound indignation when illiberalmeasures were succeeded by insults, by substantial wrongs in directcontravention of law, and by acts properly to be described as of realhostility. For Mr. Adams was by nature not only independent, butresentful and combative. When, soon after the attack of the Leopardupon the Chesapeake, he heard the transaction "openly justified atnoon-day, " by a prominent Federalist, [1] "in a public insurance officeupon the exchange at Boston, " his temper rose. "This, " he afterwardwrote, "this was the cause . . . Which alienated me from that day (p. 051)and forever from the councils of the Federal party. " When the newsof that outrage reached Boston, Mr. Adams was there, and desired thatthe leading Federalists in the city should at once "take the lead inpromoting a strong and clear expression of the sentiments of thepeople, and in an open and free-hearted manner, setting aside allparty feelings, declare their determination at that crisis to supportthe government of their country. " But unfortunately these gentlemenwere by no means prepared for any such action, and foolishly left itfor the friends of the administration to give the first utterance to afeeling which it is hard to excuse any American for not entertainingbeneath such provocation. It was the Jeffersonians, accordingly, whoconvened "an informal meeting of the citizens of Boston and theneighboring towns, " at which Mr. Adams was present, and by which hewas put upon a committee to draw and report resolutions. Theseresolutions pledged a cheerful coöperation "in any measures, howeverserious, " which the government might deem necessary and a support ofthe same with "lives and fortunes. " The Federalists, learning too latethat their backwardness at this crisis was a blunder, caused a townmeeting to be called at Faneuil Hall a few days later. This also (p. 052)Mr. Adams attended, and again was put on the committee to draftresolutions, which were only a little less strong than those of theearlier assemblage. But though many of the Federalists thus tardilyand reluctantly fell in with the popular sentiment, they were for themost part heartily incensed against Mr. Adams. They threatened himthat he should "have his head taken off for apostasy, " and gave him tounderstand that he "should no longer be considered as having anycommunion with the party. " If he had not already quite left them, theynow turned him out from their community. But such abusive treatmentwas ill adapted to influence a man of his temper. Martyrdom, which intime he came to relish, had not now any terrors for him; and he wouldhave lost as many heads as ever grew on Hydra, ere he would haveyielded on a point of principle. 

 [Footnote 1: Mr. John Lowell. ]

His spirit was soon to be demonstrated. Congress was convened in extrasession on October 26, 1807. The administration brought forward thebill establishing an embargo. The measure may now be pronounced ablunder, and its proposal created a howl of rage and anguish from thecommercial states, who saw in it only their utter ruin. Already astrong sectional feeling had been developed between the planters (p. 053)of the South and the merchants of the North and East, and the latternow united in the cry that their quarter was to be ruined by theignorant policy of this Virginian President. Terrible then was theirwrath, when they actually saw a Massachusetts Senator boldly give hisvote for what they deemed the most odious and wicked bill which hadever been presented in the halls of Congress. Nay, more, they learnedwith horror that Mr. Adams had even been a member of the committeewhich reported the bill, and that he had joined in the report. Henceforth the Federal party was to be like a hive of enraged hornetsabout the devoted renegade. No abuse which they could heap upon himseemed nearly adequate to the occasion. They despised him; theyloathed him; they said and believed that he was false, selfish, designing, a traitor, an apostate, that he had run away from a failingcause, that he had sold himself. The language of contumely wasexhausted in vain efforts to describe his baseness. Not even yet hasthe echo of the hard names which he was called quite died away in theland; and there are still families in New England with whom hisdishonest tergiversation remains a traditional belief. 

Never was any man more unjustly aspersed. It is impossible to view allthe evidence dispassionately without not only acquitting Mr. (p. 054)Adams but greatly admiring his courage, his constancy, his independence. Whether the embargo was a wise and efficient or a futile and uselessmeasure has little to do with the question of his conduct. The emergencycalled for strong action. The Federalists suggested only a temporizingsubmission, or that we should avert the terrible wrath of England bycrawling beneath her lashes into political and commercial servitude. Mr. Jefferson thought the embargo would do, that it would aid him inhis negotiations with England sufficiently to enable him to bring herto terms; he had before thought the same of the Non-importation Act. Mr. Adams felt, properly enough, concerning both these schemes, thatthey were insufficient and in many respects objectionable; but that togive the administration hearty support in the most vigorous measureswhich it was willing to undertake, was better than to aid an oppositionutterly nerveless and servile and altogether devoid of so much as thedesire for efficient action. It was no time to stay with the party ofweakness; it was right to strengthen rather than to hamper a man sopacific and spiritless as Mr. Jefferson; to show a readiness toforward even his imperfect expedients; to display a united andindignant, if not quite a hostile front to Great Britain, rather (p. 055)than to exhibit a tame and friendly feeling towards her. It was forthese reasons, which had already controlled his action concerning thenon-importation bill, that Mr. Adams joined in reporting the embargobill and voted for it. He never pretended that he himself had anyespecial fancy for either of these measures, or that he regarded themas the best that could be devised under the circumstances. On thecontrary, he hoped that the passage of the embargo would allow of therepeal of its predecessor. That he expected some good from it, andthat it did some little good, cannot be denied. It did save a greatdeal of American property, both shipping and merchandise, from seizureand condemnation; and if it cut off the income it at least saved muchof the principal of our merchants. If only the bill had been promptlyrepealed so soon as this protective purpose had been achieved, withoutawaiting further and altogether impossible benefits to accrue from itas an offensive measure, it might perhaps have left a better memorybehind it. Unfortunately no one can deny that it was continued muchtoo long. Mr. Adams saw this error and dreaded the consequences. Afterhe had left Congress and had gone back to private life, he exerted allthe influence which he had with the Republican members of Congress tosecure its repeal and the substitution of the Non-intercourse (p. 056)Act, an exchange which was in time accomplished, though much too tardily. Nay, much more than this, Mr. Adams stands forth almost alone as theadvocate of threatening if not of actually belligerent measures. Heexpressed his belief that "our internal resources [were] competent tothe establishment and maintenance of a naval force, public andprivate, if not fully adequate to the protection and defence of ourcommerce, at least sufficient to induce a retreat from hostilities, and to deter from a renewal of them by either of the warring parties;"and he insisted that "a system to that effect might be formed, ultimately far more economical, and certainly more energetic, " thanthe embargo. But his "resolution met no encouragement. " He found thatit was the embargo or nothing, and he thought the embargo was a littlebetter than nothing, as probably it was. 

All the arguments which Mr. Adams advanced were far from satisfyinghis constituents in those days of wild political excitement, and theyquickly found the means of intimating their unappeasable displeasurein a way certainly not open to misapprehension. Mr. Adams's term ofservice in the Senate was to expire on March 3, 1809. On June 2 and 3, 1808, anticipating by many months the customary time for filling (p. 057)the coming vacancy, the legislature of Massachusetts proceeded tochoose James Lloyd, junior, his successor. The votes were, in theSenate 21 for Mr. Lloyd, 17 for Mr. Adams; in the House 248 for Mr. Lloyd, and 213 for Mr. Adams. A more insulting method of administeringa rebuke could not have been devised. At the same time, in furtherexpression of disapprobation, resolutions strongly condemnatory of theembargo were passed. Mr. Adams was not the man to stay where he wasnot wanted, and on June 8 he sent in his letter of resignation. On thenext day Mr. Lloyd was chosen to serve for the balance of his term. 

Thus John Quincy Adams changed sides. The son of John Adams lost thesenatorship for persistently supporting the administration of ThomasJefferson. It was indeed a singular spectacle! In 1803 he had beensent to the Senate of the United States by Federalists as a Federalist;in 1808 he had abjured them and they had repudiated him; in 1809, aswe are soon to see, he received a foreign appointment from theRepublican President Madison, and was confirmed by a RepublicanSenate. Many of Mr. Adams's acts, many of his traits, have beenharshly criticised, but for no act that he ever did or ever wascharged with doing has he been so harshly assailed as for this (p. 058)journey from one camp to the other. The gentlemen of wealth, position, and influence in Eastern Massachusetts, almost to a man, turnedagainst him with virulence; many of their descendants still cherishthe ancestral prejudice; and it may yet be a long while before thelast mutterings of this deep-rooted antipathy die away. But that theywill die away in time cannot be doubted. Praise will succeed to blame. Truth must prevail in a case where such abundant evidence isaccessible; and the truth is that Mr. Adams's conduct was not ignoble, mean, and traitorous, but honorable, courageous, and disinterested. Those who singled him out for assault, though deaf to his arguments, might even then have reflected that within a few years a largeproportion of the whole nation had changed in their opinions as he hadnow at last changed in his, so that the party which under Washingtonhardly had an existence and under John Adams was not, until the lastmoment, seriously feared, now showed an enormous majority throughoutthe whole country. Even in Massachusetts, the intrenched camp of theFederalists, one half of the population were now Republicans. But thatchange of political sentiment which in the individual voter is oftenadmired as evidence of independent thought is stigmatized in (p. 059)those more prominent in politics as tergiversation and apostasy. 

It may be admitted that there are sound reasons for holding partyleaders to a more rigid allegiance to party policy than is expected ofthe rank and file; yet certainly, at those periods when substantiallynew measures and new doctrines come to the front, the old party nameslose whatever sacredness may at other times be in them, and thepolitical fellowships of the past may properly be reformed. Novelproblems cannot always find old comrades still united in opinions. Precisely such was the case with John Quincy Adams and the Federalists. The earlier Federalist creed related to one set of issues, the laterFederalist creed to quite another set; the earlier creed was sound anddeserving of support; the later creed was not so. It is easy to see, as one looks backward upon history, that every great and successfulparty has its mission, that it wins its success through the substantialrighteousness of that mission, and that it owes its downfall toassuming an erroneous attitude towards some subsequent matter whichbecomes in turn of predominating importance. Sometimes, though rarely, a party remains on the right side through two or even more successiveissues of profound consequence to the nation. The Federalist missionwas to establish the Constitution of the United States as a (p. 060)vigorous, efficient, and practical system of government, to prove itssoundness, safety, and efficacy, and to defend it from the underminingassaults of those who distrusted it and would have reduced it toimbecility. Supplementary and cognate to this was the further task ofgiving the young nation and the new system a chance to get fairlystarted in life before being subjected to the strain of war andEuropean entanglements. To this end it was necessary to hold in checkthe Jeffersonian or French party, who sought to embroil us in aforeign quarrel. These two functions of the Federalist party werequite in accord; they involved the organizing and domestic instinctagainst the disorganizing and meddlesome; the strengthening againstthe enfeebling process; practical thinking against fanciful theories. Fortunately the able men had been generally of the sound persuasion, and by powerful exertions had carried the day and accomplished theirallotted tasks so thoroughly that all subsequent generations ofAmericans have been reaping the benefit of their labors. But by thetime that John Adams had concluded his administration the greatFederalist work had been sufficiently done. Those who still believethat there is an overruling Providence in the affairs of men andnations may well point to the history of this period in support (p. 061)of their theory. Republicanism was not able to triumph till Federalismhad fulfilled all its proper duty and was on the point of going wrong. 

During this earlier period John Quincy Adams had been a Federalist byconviction as well as by education. Nor was there any obvious reasonfor him to change his political faith with the change of partysuccess, brought about as that was before its necessity was apparentbut by the sure and inscrutable wisdom so marvellously enclosed in thegreat popular instinct. It was not patent, when Mr. Jeffersonsucceeded Mr. Adams, that Federalism was soon to become an unsoundpolitical creed--unsound, not because it had been defeated, butbecause it had done its work, and in the new emergency was destined toblunder. During Mr. Jefferson's first administration no questions ofnovel import arose. But they were not far distant, and soon werepresented by the British aggressions. A grave crisis was created bythis system of organized destruction of property and wholesalestealing of citizens, now suddenly practised with such terribleenergy. What was to be done? What had the two great parties to adviseconcerning the policy of the country in this hour of peril?Unfortunately for the Federalists old predilections were allowed (p. 062)now to govern their present action. Excusably Anglican in the bygonedays of Genet's mission, they now remained still Anglican, when to beAnglican was to be emphatically un-American. As one reads the historyof 1807 and 1808 it is impossible not to feel almost a sense ofpersonal gratitude to John Quincy Adams that he dared to step out fromhis meek-spirited party and do all that circumstances renderedpossible to promote resistance to insults and wrongs intolerable. Intruth, he was always a man of high temper, and eminently a patrioticcitizen of the United States. Unlike too many even of the best amonghis countrymen in those early years of the Republic, he had no foreignsympathies whatsoever; he was neither French nor English, but wholly, exclusively, and warmly American. He had no second love; the UnitedStates filled his public heart and monopolized his politicalaffections. When he was abroad he established neither affiliations norantipathies, and when he was at home he drifted with no party whosecourse was governed by foreign magnets. It needs only that thischaracteristic should be fully understood in order that his conduct in1808 should be not alone vindicated but greatly admired. 

At that time it was said, and it has been since repeated, that he (p. 063)was allured by the loaves and fishes which the Republicans coulddistribute, while the Federalists could cast to him only meagre anduncertain crusts. Circumstances gave to the accusation such asuperficial plausibility that it was believed by many honest men underthe influence of political prejudice. But such a charge, allegedconcerning a single act in a long public career, is to be scanned withsuspicion. Disproof by demonstration is impossible; but it is fair toseek for the character of the act in a study of the character of theactor, as illustrated by the rest of his career. Thus seeking we shallsee that, if any traits can be surely predicated of any man, independence, courage, and honesty may be predicated of Mr. Adams. Hislong public life had many periods of trial, yet this is the soleoccasion when it is so much as possible seriously to question thepurity of his motives--for the story of his intrigue with Mr. Clay tosecure the Presidency was never really believed by any one exceptGeneral Jackson, and the beliefs of General Jackson are of littleconsequence. From the earliest to the latest day of his public life, he was never a party man. He is entitled to the justification to bederived from this life-long habit, when, in 1807-8, he voted againstthe wishes of those who had hoped to hold him in the bonds of (p. 064)partisan alliance. In point of fact, so far from these acts being ayielding to selfish and calculating temptation, they called for greatcourage and strength of mind; instead of being tergiversation, theywere a triumph in a severe ordeal. Mr. Adams was not so dull as tounderrate, nor so void of good feeling as to be careless of, the stormof obloquy which he had to encounter, not only in such shape as iscustomary in like instances of a change of sides in politics, but, inhis present case, of a peculiarly painful kind. He was to seemunfaithful, not only to a party, but to the bitter feud of a fatherwhom he dearly loved and greatly respected; he was to be reviled bythe neighbors and friends who constituted his natural social circle inBoston; he was to alienate himself from the rich, the cultivated, theinfluential gentlemen of his neighborhood, his comrades, who wouldalmost universally condemn his conduct. He was to lose his position asSenator, and probably to destroy all hopes of further politicalsuccess so far as it depended upon the good will of the people of hisown State. In this he was at least giving up a certainty in exchangefor what even his enemies must admit to have been only an expectation. 

But in fact it is now evident that there was not upon his part even anexpectation. At the first signs of the views which he was likely (p. 065)to hold, that contemptible but influential Republican, Giles, ofVirginia, also one or two others of the same party, sought to approachhim with insinuating suggestions. But Mr. Adams met these advances ina manner frigid and repellent even beyond his wont, and far fromseeking to conciliate these emissaries, and to make a bargain, or evenestablish a tacit understanding for his own benefit, he held them faraloof, and simply stated that he wished and expected nothing from theadministration. His mind was made up, his opinion was formed; no bribewas needed to secure his vote. Not thus do men sell themselves inpolitics. The Republicans were fairly notified that he was going to dojust as he chose; and Mr. Jefferson, the arch-enemy of all Adamses, had no occasion to forego his feud to win this recruit from thatfamily. 

Mr. Adams's Diary shows unmistakably that he was acting rigidly uponprinciple, that he believed himself to be injuring or even destroyinghis political prospects, and that in so doing he taxed his moralcourage severely. The whole tone of the Diary, apart from those fewdistinct statements which hostile critics might view with distrust, isdespondent, often bitter, but defiant and stubborn. If in later lifehe ever anticipated the possible publication of these private (p. 066)pages, yet he could hardly have done so at this early day. Amongcertain general reflections at the close of the year 1808, he writes:"On most of the great national questions now under discussion, mysense of duty leads me to support the Administration, and I findmyself, of course, in opposition to the Federalists in general. But Ihave no communication with the President, other than that in theregular order of business in the Senate. In this state of things mysituation calls in a peculiar manner for prudence; my politicalprospects are declining, and, as my term of service draws near itsclose, I am constantly approaching to the certainty of being restoredto the situation of a private citizen. For this event, however, I hopeto have my mind sufficiently prepared. "

In July, 1808, the Republicans of the Congressional District wished tosend him to the House of Representatives, but to the gentleman whowaited upon him with this proposal he returned a decided negative. Other considerations apart, he would not interfere with the reëlectionof his friend, Mr. Quincy. 

Certain remarks, written when his senatorial term was far advanced, when he had lost the confidence of the Federalists without obtainingthat of the Republicans, may be of interest at this point. He wrote, October 30, 1807: "I employed the whole evening in looking over (p. 067)the Journal of the Senate, since I have been one of its members. Ofthe very little business which I have commenced during the foursessions, at least three fourths has failed, with circumstances ofpeculiar mortification. The very few instances in which I havesucceeded, have been always after an opposition of great obstinacy, often ludicrously contrasting with the insignificance of the object inpursuit. More than one instance has occurred where the same thingwhich I have assiduously labored in vain to effect has been afterwardsaccomplished by others, without the least resistance; more than once, where the pleasure of disappointing me has seemed to be the prominentprinciple of decision. Of the preparatory business, matured incommittees, I have had a share, gradually increasing through the foursessions, but always as a subordinate member. The merely laboriousduties have been readily assigned to me, and as readily undertaken anddischarged. My success has been more frequent in opposition than incarrying any proposition of my own, and I hope I have beeninstrumental in arresting many unadvised purposes and projects. Thoughas to the general policy of the country I have been uniformly in asmall, and constantly deceasing minority; my opinions and votes havebeen much oftener in unison with the Administration than with (p. 068)their opponents; I have met with at least as much opposition frommy party friends as from their adversaries, --I believe more. I knownot that I have made any personal enemies now in Senate, nor can Iflatter myself with having acquired any personal friends. There havebeen hitherto two, Mr. Tracey and Mr. Plumer, upon whom I could rely, but it has pleased Providence to remove one by death, and the changesof political party have removed the other. " This is a strikingparagraph, certainly not written by a man in a very cheerful orsanguine frame of mind, not by one who congratulates himself on havingskilfully taken the initial steps in a brilliant political career;but, it is fair to say, by one who has at least tried to do his duty, and who has not knowingly permitted himself to be warped either bypassion, prejudice, party alliances, or selfish considerations. 

As early as November, 1805, Mr. Adams, being still what may bedescribed as an independent Federalist, was approached by Dr. Rushwith tentative suggestions concerning a foreign mission. Mr. Madison, then Secretary of State, and even President Jefferson were apparentlynot disinclined to give him such employment, provided he would bewilling to accept it at their hands. Mr. Adams simply replied, (p. 069)that he would not refuse a nomination merely because it came from Mr. Jefferson, though there was no office in the President's gift forwhich he had any wish. Perhaps because of the unconciliatory coolnessof this response, or perhaps for some better reason, the nominationdid not follow at that time. No sooner, however, had Mr. Madisonfairly taken the oath of office as President than he bethought him ofMr. Adams, now no longer a Federalist, but, concerning the presentissues, of the Republican persuasion. On March 6, 1809, Mr. Adams wasnotified by the President personally of the intention to nominate himas Minister Plenipotentiary to Russia. It was a new mission, the firstminister ever nominated to Russia having been only a short time beforerejected by the Senate. But the Emperor had often expressed his wishto exchange ministers, and Mr. Madison was anxious to comply with thecourteous request. Mr. Adams's name was accordingly at once sent tothe Senate. But on the following day, March 7, that body resolved that"it is inexpedient at this time to appoint a minister from the UnitedStates to the Court of Russia. " The vote was seventeen to fifteen, andamong the seventeen was Mr. Adams's old colleague, Timothy Pickering, who probably never in his life cast a vote which gave him so much (p. 070)pleasure. Mr. Madison, however, did not readily desist from hispurpose, and a few months later, June 26, he sent a message to theSenate, stating that the considerations previously leading him tonominate a minister to Russia had since been strengthened, and againnaming Mr. Adams for the post. This time the nomination was confirmedwith readiness, by a vote of nineteen to seven, Mr. Pickering, ofcourse, being one of the still hostile minority. 

At noon on August 5, 1809, records Mr. Adams, "I left my house at thecorner of Boylston and Nassau streets, in Boston, " again to make thetedious and uncomfortable voyage across the Atlantic. A miserable anda dangerous time he had of it ere, on October 23, he reached St. Petersburg. Concerning the four years and a half which he is now tospend in Russia very little need be said. His active duties were ofthe simplest character, amounting to little more than renderingoccasional assistance to American shipmasters suffering beneath theseverities so often illegally inflicted by the contesting powers ofEurope. But apart from the slender practical service to be done, theperiod must have been interesting and agreeable for him personally, for he was received and treated throughout his stay by the Emperorand his courtiers with distinguished kindness. The Emperor, who (p. 071)often met him walking, used to stop and chat with him, while CountRomanzoff, the minister of foreign affairs, was cordial beyond theordinary civility of diplomacy. The Diary records a series of courtpresentations, balls, fêtes, dinners, diplomatic and other, launches, displays of fireworks, birthday festivities, parades, baptisms, plays, state funerals, illuminations, and Te Deums for victories; in short, every species of social gayety and public pageant. At all these Mr. Adams was always a bidden and apparently a welcome guest. It must beadmitted, even by his detractors, that he was an admirablerepresentative of the United States abroad. Having already seen muchof the distinguished society of European courts, but retaining arepublican simplicity, which was wholly genuine and a natural part ofhis character and therefore was never affected or offensive in itsmanifestations, he really represented the best element in the politicsand society of the United States. Winning respect for himself he wonit also for the country which he represented. Thus he was able torender an indirect but essential service in cementing the kindlyfeeling which the Russian Empire entertained for the American Republic. Russia could then do us little good and almost no harm, yet the (p. 072)friendship of a great European power had a certain moral value inthose days of our national infancy. That friendship, so cordiallyoffered, Mr. Adams was fortunately well fitted to conciliate, showingin his foreign callings a tact which did not mark him in other publicrelations. He was perhaps less liked by his travelling fellowcountrymen than by the Russians. The paltry ambition of a certainclass of Americans for introduction to high society disgusted himgreatly, and he was not found an efficient ally by these would-becomrades of the Russian aristocracy. "The ambition of young Americansto crowd themselves upon European courts and into the company ofnobility is a very ridiculous and not a very proud feature of theircharacter, " he wrote; "there is nothing, in my estimate of things, meaner than courting society where, if admitted, it is only to bedespised. " He himself happily combined extensive acquirements, excellent ability, diplomatic and courtly experience, and naturalindependence of character without ill-bred self-assertion, and neverfailed to create a good impression in the many circles into which hisforeign career introduced him. 

The ambassadors and ministers from European powers at St. Petersburgwere constantly wrangling about precedence and like petty matters ofcourt etiquette. "In all these controversies, " writes Mr. Adams, (p. 073)"I have endeavored to consider it as an affair in which I, as an_American_ minister, had no concern; and that my only principle is todispute upon precedence with nobody. " A good-natured contempt forEuropean follies may be read between the lines of this remark; whereinit may be said that the Monroe Doctrine is applied to court etiquette. 

He always made it a point to live within the meagre income which theUnited States allowed him, but seems to have suffered no diminution ofconsideration for this reason. One morning, walking on the Fontanka, he met the Emperor, who said: "Mons. Adams, il y a cent ans que je nevous ai vu;" and then continuing the conversation, "asked me whether Iintended to take a house in the country this summer. I said, No. . . . 'And why so?' said he. I was hesitating upon an answer when herelieved me from embarrassment by saying, 'Peut-être sont-ce desconsiderations de finance?' As he said it with perfect good humor andwith a smile, I replied in the same manner: 'Mais Sire, elles y sontpour une bonne part. '"[2]

 [Footnote 2: An interesting sketch of his household and its expenses is to be found in ii. Diary, 193. ]

The volume of the journal which records this residence in St. Petersburgis very interesting as a picture of Russian life and manners in highsociety. Few travellers write anything nearly so vivid, so (p. 074)thorough, or so trustworthy as these entries. Moreover, during thewhole period of his stay the great wars of Napoleon were constantlyincreasing the astonishment of mankind, and created intense excitementat the Court of Russia. These feelings waxed stronger as it grew dailymore likely that the Emperor would have to take his turn also as aparty defendant in the great conflict. Then at last came the fact ofwar, the invasion of Russia, the burning of Moscow, the disastrousretreat of the invaders ending in ignominious flight, the advance ofthe allies, finally the capture of Paris. All this while Mr. Adams atSt. Petersburg witnessed first the alarm and then the exultation ofthe court and the people as the rumors now of defeat, anon of victory, were brought by the couriers at tantalizing intervals; and he saw therejoicings and illuminations which rendered the Russian capital sobrilliant and glorious during the last portion of his residence. Itwas an experience well worth having, and which is pleasantly depictedin the Diary. 

In September, 1812, Count Romanzoff suggested to Mr. Adams thereadiness of the Emperor to act as mediator in bringing about peacebetween the United States and England. The suggestion was promptlyacted upon, but with no directly fortunate results. The American (p. 075)government acceded at once to the proposition, and at the risk of animpolitic display of readiness dispatched Messrs. Gallatin and Bayardto act as Commissioners jointly with Mr. Adams in the negotiations. These gentlemen, however, arrived in St. Petersburg only to findthemselves in a very awkward position. Their official character mightnot properly be considered as attaching unless England should acceptthe offer of mediation. But England had refused, in the firstinstance, to do this, and she now again reiterated her refusal withoutregard for the manifestation of willingness on the part of the UnitedStates. Further, Mr. Gallatin's nomination was rejected by the Senateafter his departure, on the ground that his retention of the post ofSecretary of the Treasury was incompatible, under the Constitution, with this diplomatic function. So the United States appeared in a veryannoying attitude, her Commissioners were uncomfortable and somewhathumiliated; Russia felt a certain measure of vexation at the brusqueand positive rejection of her friendly proposition on the part ofGreat Britain; and that country alone came out of the affair with anyself-satisfaction. 

But by the time when all hopes of peace through the friendly officesof Russia were at an end, that stage of the conflict had been (p. 076)reached at which both parties were quite ready to desist. The UnitedStates, though triumphing in some brilliant naval victories, had beenhaving a sorry experience on land, where, as the Russian ministerremarked, "England did as she pleased. " A large portion of the peoplewere extremely dissatisfied, and it was impossible to ignore that theoutlook did not promise better fortunes in the future than had beenencountered in the past. On the other hand, England had nothingsubstantial to expect from a continuance of the struggle, except heavyadditional expenditure which it was not then the fashion to compel theworsted party to recoup. She accordingly intimated her readiness tosend Commissioners to Göttingen, for which place Ghent was afterwardssubstituted, to meet American Commissioners and settle terms ofpacification. The United States renewed the powers of Messrs. Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin, a new Secretary of the Treasury having in themeantime been appointed, and added Jonathan Russell, then Minister toSweden, and Henry Clay. England deputed Lord Gambier, an admiral, Dr. Adams, a publicist, and Mr. Goulburn, a member of Parliament and UnderSecretary of State. These eight gentlemen accordingly met in Ghent onAugust 7, 1814. 

It was upwards of four months before an agreement was reached. (p. 077)During this period Mr. Adams kept his Diary with much more even thanhis wonted faithfulness, and it undoubtedly presents the most vividpicture in existence of the labors of treaty-making diplomatists. Theeight were certainly an odd assemblage of peacemakers. The ill-bloodand wranglings between the opposing Commissions were bad enough, yethardly equalled the intestine dissensions between the AmericanCommissioners themselves. That the spirit of peace should ever haveemanated from such an universal embroilment is almost sufficientlysurprising to be regarded as a miracle. At the very beginning, or evenbefore fairly beginning, the British party roused the jealous ire ofthe Americans by proposing that they all should meet, for exchangingtheir full powers, at the lodgings of the Englishmen. The Americanstook fire at this "offensive pretension to superiority" which was "theusage from Ambassadors to Ministers of an inferior order. " Mr. Adamscited Martens, and Mr. Bayard read a case from Ward's "Law of Nations. "Mr. Adams suggested sending a pointed reply, agreeing to meet theBritish Commissioners "at any place other than their own lodgings;"but Mr. Gallatin, whose valuable function was destined to be thekeeping of the peace among his fractious colleagues, as well as (p. 078)betwixt them and the Englishmen, substituted the milder phrase, "atany place which may be mutually agreed upon. " The first meetingaccordingly took place at the Hôtel des Pays Bas, where it wasarranged that the subsequent conferences should be held alternately atthe quarters of the two Commissions. Then followed expressions, conventional and proper but wholly untrue, of mutual sentiments ofesteem and good will. 

No sooner did the gentlemen begin to get seriously at the work beforethem than the most discouraging prospects were developed. The Britishfirst presented their demands, as follows: 1. That the United Statesshould conclude a peace with the Indian allies of Great Britain, andthat a species of neutral belt of Indian territory should beestablished between the dominions of the United States and GreatBritain, so that these dominions should be nowhere conterminous, uponwhich belt or barrier neither power should be permitted to encroacheven by purchase, and the boundaries of which should be settled inthis treaty. 2. That the United States should keep no naval force uponthe Great Lakes, and should neither maintain their existing forts norbuild new ones upon their northern frontier; it was even required thatthe boundary line should run along the southern shore of the (p. 079)lakes; while no corresponding restriction was imposed upon GreatBritain, because she was stated to have no projects of conquest asagainst her neighbor. 3. That a piece of the province of Maine shouldbe ceded, in order to give the English a road from Halifax to Quebec. 4. That the stipulation of the treaty of 1783, conferring on Englishsubjects the right of navigating the Mississippi, should be nowformally renewed. 

The Americans were astounded; it seemed to them hardly worth while tohave come so far to listen to such propositions. Concerning theproposed Indian pacification they had not even any powers, the UnitedStates being already busied in negotiating a treaty with the tribes asindependent powers. The establishment of the neutral Indian belt wasmanifestly contrary to the established policy and obvious destiny ofthe nation. Neither was the answer agreeable, which was returned byDr. Adams to the inquiry as to what was to be done with those citizensof the United States who had already settled in those parts ofMichigan, Illinois, and Ohio, included within the territory which itwas now proposed to make inalienably Indian. He said that thesepeople, amounting perhaps to one hundred thousand, "must shift forthemselves. " The one-sided disarmament upon the lakes and along thefrontier was, by the understanding of all nations, such an (p. 080)humiliation as is inflicted only on a crushed adversary. No return wasoffered for the road between Halifax and Quebec; nor for the right ofnavigating the Mississippi. The treaty of peace of 1783, made inignorance of the topography of the unexplored northern country, hadestablished an impossible boundary line running from the Lake of theWoods westward along the forty-ninth parallel to the Mississippi; andas appurtenant to the British territory, thus supposed to touch theriver, a right of navigation upon it was given. It had since beendiscovered that a line on that parallel would never touch theMississippi. The same treaty had also secured for the United Statescertain rights concerning the Northeastern fisheries. The English nowinsisted upon a re-affirmance of the privilege given to them, withouta re-affirmance of the privilege given to the United States; ignoringthe fact that the recent acquisition of Louisiana, making theMississippi wholly American, materially altered the propriety of aBritish right of navigation upon it. 

Apart from the intolerable character of these demands, the personalbearing of the English Commissioners did not tend to mitigate thechagrin of the Americans. The formal civilities had counted with theAmerican Commissioners for more than they were worth, and had (p. 081)induced them, in preparing a long dispatch to the home government, to insert "a paragraph complimentary to the personal deportment" ofthe British. But before they sent off the document they revised it andstruck out these pleasant phrases. Not many days after the firstconference Mr. Adams notes that the tone of the English Commissionerswas even "more peremptory, and their language more overbearing, thanat the former conferences. " A little farther on he remarks that "theBritish note is overbearing and insulting in its tone, like the twoformer ones. " Again he says:--

 "The tone of all the British notes is arrogant, overbearing, and offensive. The tone of ours is neither so bold nor so spirited as I think it should be. It is too much on the defensive, and too excessive in the caution to say nothing irritating. I have seldom been able to prevail upon my colleagues to insert anything in the style of retort upon the harsh and reproachful matter which we receive. "

Many little passages-at-arms in the conferences are recited whichamply bear out these remarks as regards both parties. Perhaps, however, it should be admitted that the Americans made up for theself-restraint which they practised in conference by the disagreementsand bickerings in which they indulged when consulting among (p. 082)themselves. Mr. Gallatin's serene temper and cool head were hardlytaxed to keep the peace among his excited colleagues. Mr. Adams andMr. Clay were especially prone to suspicions and to outbursts ofanger. Mr. Adams often and candidly admits as much of himself, apparently not without good reason. At first the onerous task ofdrafting the numerous documents which the Commission had to presentdevolved upon him, a labor for which he was well fitted in allrespects save, perhaps, a tendency to prolixity. He did not, however, succeed in satisfying his comrades, and the criticisms to which theysubjected his composition galled his self-esteem severely, so much sothat erelong he altogether relinquished this function, which wasthereafter performed chiefly by Mr. Gallatin. As early as August 21, Mr. Adams says, not without evident bitterness, that though they allwere agreed on the general view of the subject, yet in his "expositionof it, one objects to the form, another to the substance, of almostevery paragraph. " Mr. Gallatin would strike out everything possiblyoffensive to the Englishmen; Mr. Clay would draw his pen through everyfigurative expression; Mr. Russell, not content with agreeing to allthe objections of both the others, would further amend the constructionof every sentence; and finally Mr. Bayard would insist upon (p. 083)writing all over again in his own language. All this nettled Mr. Adamsexceedingly. On September 24 he again writes that it was agreed toadopt an article which he had drawn, "though with objections to almostevery word" which he had used. "This, " he says, "is a severity withwhich I alone am treated in our discussions by all my colleagues. Almost everything written by any of the rest is rejected, or agreed towith very little criticism, verbal or substantial. But every line thatI write passes a gauntlet of objections by every one of my colleagues, which finally issues, for the most part, in the rejection of it all. "He reflects, with a somewhat forced air of self-discipline, that thismust indicate some faultiness in his composition which he must try tocorrect; but in fact it is sufficiently evident that he was seldompersuaded that his papers were improved. Amid all this we see in theDiary many exhibitions of vexation. One day he acknowledges, "I cannotalways restrain the irritability of my temper;" another day heinformed his colleagues, "with too much warmth, that they might beassured I was as determined as they were;" again he reflects, "I, too, must not forget to keep a constant guard upon my temper, for the timeis evidently approaching when it will be wanted. " Mr. Gallatin aloneseems not to have exasperated him; Mr. Clay and he were constantly (p. 084)in discussion, and often pretty hotly. Instead of coming nearertogether, as time went on, these two fell farther apart. What Mr. Claythought of Mr. Adams may probably be inferred from what we know thatMr. Adams thought of Mr. Clay. "Mr. Clay is losing his temper, andgrowing peevish and fractious, " he writes on October 31; and constantlyhe repeats the like complaint. The truth is, that the precise NewEnglander and the impetuous Westerner were kept asunder not only bylocal interests but by habits and modes of thought utterly dissimilar. Some amusing glimpses of their private life illustrate thisdifference. Mr. Adams worked hard and diligently, allowing himselflittle leisure for pleasure; but Mr. Clay, without actually neglectinghis duties, yet managed to find ample time for enjoyment. More thanonce Mr. Adams notes that, as he rose about five o'clock in themorning to light his own fire and begin the labors of the day bycandle-light, he heard the parties breaking up and leaving Mr. Clay'srooms across the entry, where they had been playing cards all nightlong. In these little touches one sees the distinctive characters ofthe men well portrayed. 

The very extravagance of the British demands at least saved the (p. 085)Americans from perplexity. Mr. Clay, indeed, cherished an "inconceivableidea" that the Englishmen would "finish by receding from the groundthey had taken;" but meantime there could be no difference of opinionconcerning the impossibility of meeting them upon that ground. Mr. Adams, never lacking in courage, actually wished to argue with themthat it would be for the interests of Great Britain not less than ofthe United States if Canada should be ceded to the latter power. Unfortunately his colleagues would not support him in this audaciouspolicy, the humor of which is delicious. It would have been infinitelydroll to see how the British Commissioners would have hailed such aproposition, by way of appropriate termination of a conflict in whichthe forces of their nation had captured and ransacked the capital cityof the Americans!

On August 21 the Englishmen invited the Americans to dinner on thefollowing Saturday. "The chance is, " wrote Mr. Adams, "that beforethat time the whole negotiation will be at an end. " The banquet, however, did come off, and a few more succeeded it; feasts not markedby any great geniality or warmth, except perhaps occasionally warmthof discussion. So sure were the Americans that they were about tobreak off the negotiations that Mr. Adams began to consider by (p. 086)what route he should return to St. Petersburg; and they declined torenew the tenure of their quarters for more than a few days longer. Like alarms were of frequent occurrence, even almost to the very dayof agreement. On September 15, at a dinner given by the AmericanCommissioners, Lord Gambier asked Mr. Adams whether he would returnimmediately to St. Petersburg. "Yes, " replied Mr. Adams, "that is, ifyou send us away. " His lordship "replied with assurances how deeply helamented it, and with a hope that we should one day be friends again. "On the same occasion Mr. Goulburn said that probably the last note ofthe Americans would "terminate the business, " and that they "mustfight it out. " Fighting it out was a much less painful prospect forGreat Britain just at that juncture than for the United States, as theAmericans realized with profound anxiety. "We so fondly cling to thevain hope of peace, that every new proof of its impossibility operatesupon us as a disappointment, " wrote Mr. Adams. No amount of pridecould altogether conceal the fact that the American Commissionersrepresented the worsted party, and though they never openly said soeven among themselves, yet indirectly they were obliged to recognizethe truth. On November 10 we find Mr. Adams proposing to make (p. 087)concessions not permitted by their instructions, because, as he said:--

 "I felt so sure that [the home government] would now gladly take the state before the war as the general basis of the peace, that I was prepared to take on me the responsibility of trespassing upon their instructions thus far. Not only so, but I would at this moment cheerfully give my life for a peace on this basis. If peace was possible, it would be on no other. I had indeed no hope that the proposal would be accepted. "

Mr. Clay thought that the British would laugh at this: "They would say, Ay, ay! pretty fellows you, to think of getting out of the war as wellas you got into it. " This was not consoling for the representatives ofthat side which had declared war for the purpose of curing grievancesand vindicating alleged rights. But that Mr. Adams correctly read thewishes of the government was proved within a very few days by thereceipt of express authority from home "to conclude the peace on thebasis of the _status ante bellum_. " Three days afterwards, on November27, three and a half months after the vexatious haggling had beenbegun, we encounter in the Diary the first real gleam of hope of asuccessful termination: "All the difficulties to the conclusion of apeace appear to be now so nearly removed, that my colleagues all (p. 088)consider it as certain. I myself think it probable. "

There were, however, some three weeks more of negotiation to be gonethrough before the consummation was actually achieved, and the illblood seemed to increase as the end was approached. The differencesbetween the American Commissioners waxed especially serious concerningthe fisheries and the navigation of the Mississippi. Mr. Adamsinsisted that if the treaty of peace had been so far abrogated by thewar as to render necessary a re-affirmance of the British right ofnavigating the Mississippi, then a re-affirmance of the Americanrights in the Northeastern fisheries was equally necessary. This theEnglish Commissioners denied. Mr. Adams said it was only an exchangeof privileges presumably equivalent. Mr. Clay, however, was firmlyresolved to prevent all stipulations admitting such a right ofnavigation, and the better to do so he was quite willing to let thefisheries go. The navigation privilege he considered "much tooimportant to be conceded for the mere liberty of drying fish upon adesert, " as he was pleased to describe a right for which the UnitedStates has often been ready to go to war and may yet some time do so. "Mr. Clay lost his temper, " writes Mr. Adams a day or two later, (p. 089)"as he generally does whenever this right of the British to navigatethe Mississippi is discussed. He was utterly averse to admitting it asan equivalent for a stipulation securing the contested part of thefisheries. He said the more he heard of this [the right of fishing], the more convinced he was that it was of little or no value. He shouldbe glad to get it if he could, but he was sure the British would notultimately grant it. That the navigation of the Mississippi, on theother hand, was an object of immense importance, and he could see nosort of reason for granting it as an equivalent for the fisheries. "Thus spoke the representative of the West. The New Englander--the sonof the man whose exertions had been chiefly instrumental in originallyobtaining the grant of the Northeastern fishery privileges--naturallywent to the other extreme. He thought "the British right of navigatingthe Mississippi to be as nothing, considered as a grant from us. Itwas secured to them by the peace of 1783, they had enjoyed it at thecommencement of the war, it had never been injurious in the slightestdegree to our own people, and it appeared to [him] that the Britishclaim to it was just and equitable. " Further he "believed the right tothis navigation to be a very useless thing to the British. . . . Buttheir national pride and honor were interested in it; the (p. 090)government could not make a peace which would abandon it. " Thefisheries, however, Mr. Adams regarded as one of the most inestimableand inalienable of American rights. It is evident that the UnitedStates could ill have spared either Mr. Adams or Mr. Clay from thenegotiation, and the joinder of the two, however fraught withdiscomfort to themselves, well served substantial American interests. 

Mr. Adams thought the British perfidious, and suspected them of notentertaining any honest intention of concluding a peace. On December12, after an exceedingly quarrelsome conference, he records his beliefthat the British have "insidiously kept open" two points, "for thesake of finally breaking off the negotiations and making all theirother concessions proofs of their extreme moderation, to put upon usthe blame of the rupture. "

On December 11 we find Mr. Clay ready "for a war three years longer, "and anxious "to begin to play at _brag_" with the Englishmen. Hiscolleagues, more complaisant or having less confidence in their ownskill in that game, found it difficult to placate him; he "stalked toand fro across the chamber, repeating five or six times, 'I will neversign a treaty upon the _status ante bellum_ with the Indian article. So help me God!'" The next day there was an angry controversy (p. 091)with the Englishmen. The British troops had taken and held MooseIsland in Passamaquoddy Bay, the rightful ownership of which was indispute. The title was to be settled by arbitrators. But the question, whether the British should restore possession of the island pendingthe arbitration, aroused bitter discussion. "Mr. Goulburn and Dr. Adams (the Englishman) immediately took fire, and Goulburn lost allcontrol of his temper. He has always in such cases, " says the Diary, "a sort of convulsive agitation about him, and the tone in which hespeaks is more insulting than the language which he uses. " Mr. Bayardreferred to the case of the Falkland Islands. "'Why' (in a transportof rage), said Goulburn, 'in that case we sent a fleet and troops anddrove the fellows off; and that is what we ought to have done in thiscase. '" Mr. J. Q. Adams, whose extensive and accurate information morethan once annoyed his adversaries, stated that, as he remembered it, "the Spaniards in that case had driven the British off, "--and LordGambier helped his blundering colleague out of the difficulty bysuggesting a new subject, much as the defeated heroes of the Iliadused to find happy refuge from death in a god-sent cloud of dust. Itis amusing to read that in the midst of such scenes as these the (p. 092)show of courtesy was still maintained; and on December 13 theAmericans "all dined with the British Plenipotentiaries, " though "theparty was more than usually dull, stiff, and reserved. " It wascertainly forcing the spirit of good fellowship. The next day Mr. Claynotified his colleagues that they were going "to make a damned badtreaty, and he did not know whether he would sign it or not;" and Mr. Adams also said that he saw that the rest had made up their minds "atlast to yield the fishery point, " in which case he also could not signthe treaty. On the following day, however, the Americans weresurprised by receiving a note from the British Commissioners, whereinthey made the substantial concession of omitting from the treaty allreference to the fisheries and the navigation of the Mississippi. ButMr. Clay, on reading the note, "manifested some chagrin, " and "stilltalked of breaking off the negotiation, " even asking Mr. Adams to joinhim in so doing, which request, however, Mr. Adams very reasonablyrefused. Mr. Clay had also been anxious to stand out for a distinctabandonment of the alleged right of impressment; but upon this pointhe found none of his colleagues ready to back him, and he was compelledperforce to yield. Agreement was therefore now substantially (p. 093)reached; a few minor matters were settled, and on December 24, 1814, the treaty was signed by all the eight negotiators. 

It was an astonishing as well as a happy result. Never, probably, inthe history of diplomacy has concord been produced from such discordantelements as had been brought together in Ghent. Dissension seemed tohave become the mother of amity; and antipathies were merepreliminaries to a good understanding; in diplomacy as in marriage ithad worked well to begin with a little aversion. But, in truth, thisconsummation was largely due to what had been going on in the EnglishCabinet. At the outset Lord Castlereagh had been very unwilling toconclude peace, and his disposition had found expression in theoriginal intolerable terms prepared by the British Commissioners. ButLord Liverpool had been equally solicitous on the other side, and wassaid even to have tendered his resignation to the Prince Regent, if anaccommodation should not be effected. His endeavors were fortunatelyaided by events in Europe. Pending the negotiations Lord Castlereaghwent on a diplomatic errand to Vienna, and there fell into suchthreatening discussions with the Emperor of Russia and the King ofPrussia, that he thought it prudent to have done with the American (p. 094)war, and wrote home pacific advices. Hence, at last, came suchconcessions as satisfied the Americans. 

The treaty established "a firm and universal peace between hisBritannic Majesty and the United States. " Each party was to restoreall captured territory, except that the islands of which the title wasin dispute were to remain in the occupation of the party holding themat the time of ratification until that title should be settled bycommissioners; provision was made also for the determination of allthe open questions of boundary by sundry boards of commissioners; eachparty was to make peace with the Indian allies of the other. Suchwere, in substance, the only points touched upon by this document. Ofthe many subjects mooted between the negotiators scarcely any hadsurvived the fierce contests which had been waged concerning them. Thewhole matter of the navigation of the Mississippi, access to thatriver, and a road through American territory, had been dropped by theBritish; while the Americans had been well content to say nothing ofthe Northeastern fisheries, which they regarded as still their own. The disarmament on the lakes and along the Canadian border, and theneutralization of a strip of Indian territory, were yielded by the (p. 095)English. The Americans were content to have nothing said aboutimpressment; nor was any one of the many illegal rights exercised byEngland formally abandoned. The Americans satisfied themselves withthe reflection that circumstances had rendered these points now onlymatters of abstract principle, since the pacification of Europe hadremoved all opportunities and temptations for England to persist inher previous objectionable courses. For the future it was hardly to befeared that she would again undertake to pursue a policy against whichit was evident that the United States were willing to conduct aserious war. There was, however, no provision for indemnification. 

Upon a fair consideration, it must be admitted that though the treatywas silent upon all the points which the United States had made warfor the purpose of enforcing, yet the country had every reason to begratified with the result of the negotiation. The five Commissionershad done themselves ample credit. They had succeeded in agreeing witheach other; they had avoided any fracture of a negotiation which, upto the very end, seemed almost daily on the verge of being broken offin anger; they had managed really to lose nothing, in spite of thefact that their side had had decidedly the worst of the struggle. (p. 096)They had negotiated much more successfully than the armies of theircountrymen had fought. The Marquis of Wellesley said, in the House ofLords, that "in his opinion the American Commissioners had shown amost astonishing superiority over the British during the whole of thecorrespondence. " One cannot help wishing that the battle of New Orleanshad taken place a little earlier, or that the negotiation had fallen alittle later, so that news of that brilliant event could have reachedthe ears of the insolent Englishmen at Ghent, who had for three monthsbeen enjoying the malicious pleasure of lending to the AmericansEnglish newspapers containing accounts of American misfortunes. Butthat fortunate battle was not fought until a few days after the eightCommissioners had signed their compact. It is an interestingillustration of the slowness of communication which our forefathershad to endure, that the treaty crossed the Atlantic in a sailing shipin time to travel through much of the country simultaneously with thereport of this farewell victory. Two such good pieces of news comingtogether set the people wild with delight. Even on the dry pages ofNiles's "Weekly Register" occurs the triumphant paragraph: "Who wouldnot be an American? Long live the Republic! All hail! last asylum (p. 097)of oppressed humanity! Peace is signed in the arms of victory!" It wasnatural that most of the ecstasy should be manifested concerning themilitary triumph, and that the mass of the people should find morepleasure in glorifying General Jackson than in exalting the Commissioners. The value of their work, however, was well proved by the voice ofGreat Britain. In the London "Times" of December 30 appeared a mostangry tirade against the treaty, with bitter sneers at those whocalled the peace an "honorable" one. England, it was said, "hadattempted to force her principles on America, and had failed. " Foreignpowers would say that the English "had retired from the combat withthe stripes yet bleeding on their backs, --with the recent defeats atPlattsburgh and on Lake Champlain unavenged. " The most gloomyprognostications of further wars with America when her naval powershould have waxed much greater were indulged. The loss of prestige inEurope, "the probable loss of our trans-Atlantic provinces, " wereamong the results to be anticipated from this treaty into which theEnglish Commissioners had been beguiled by the Americans. These latterwere reviled with an abuse which was really the highest compliment. Thefamily name of Mr. Adams gained no small access of distinction in (p. 098)England from this business. 

After the conclusion of the treaty Mr. Adams went to Paris, andremained there until the middle of May, 1815, thus having the goodfortune to witness the return of Napoleon and a great part of theevents of the famous "hundred days. " On May 26 he arrived in London, where there awaited him, in the hands of the Barings, his commissionas Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain. His first duty was, in connection with Mr. Clay and Mr. Gallatin, tonegotiate a treaty of commerce, in which business he again met thesame three British Commissioners by whom the negotiations at Ghent hadbeen conducted, of whose abilities the government appeared toentertain a better opinion than the Marquis of Wellesley hadexpressed. This negotiation had been brought so far towards conclusionby his colleagues before his own arrival that Mr. Adams had little todo in assisting them to complete it. This little having been done, they departed and left him as Minister at the Court of St. James. Thushe fulfilled Washington's prophecy, by reaching the highest rank inthe American diplomatic service. 

Of his stay in Great Britain little need be said. He had few duties ofimportance to perform. The fisheries, the right of impressment, (p. 099)and the taking away and selling of slaves by British naval officersduring the late war, formed the subjects of many interviews betweenhim and Lord Castlereagh, without, however, any definite results beingreached. But he succeeded in obtaining, towards the close of his stay, some slight remission of the severe restrictions placed by Englandupon our trade with her West Indian colonies. His relations with acabinet in which the principles of Castlereagh and Canningpredominated could hardly be cordial, yet he seems to have beentreated with perfect civility. Indeed, he was not a man whom it waseasy even for an Englishman to insult. He remarks of Castlereagh, after one of his first interviews with that nobleman: "His deportmentis sufficiently graceful, and his person is handsome. His manner wascold, but not absolutely repulsive. " Before he left he had thepleasure of having Mr. Canning specially seek acquaintance with him. He met, of course, many distinguished and many agreeable personsduring his residence, and partook of many festivities, especially ofnumerous civic banquets at which toasts were formally given in thedullest English fashion and he was obliged to display his capacity for"table-cloth oratory, " as he called it, more than was agreeable tohim. He was greatly bored by these solemn and pompous feedings. (p. 100)Partly in order to escape them he took a house at Ealing, and livedthere during the greater part of his stay in England. "One of thestrongest reasons for my remaining out of town, " he writes, "is toescape the frequency of invitations at late hours, which consume somuch precious time, and with the perpetually mortifying consciousnessof inability to return the civility in the same manner. " Therepublican simplicity, not to say poverty, forced upon Americanrepresentatives abroad, was a very different matter in the censoriousand unfriendly society of London from what it had been at the kindlydisposed Court of St. Petersburg. The relationship between the mothercountry and the quondam colonies, especially at that juncture, wassuch as to render social life intolerably trying to an under-paidAmerican minister. 

Mr. Adams remained in England until June 15, 1817, when he sailed fromCowes, closing forever his long and honorable diplomatic career, andbidding his last farewell to Europe. He returned home to take the postof Secretary of State in the cabinet of James Monroe, then latelyinaugurated as President of the United States. 

CHAPTER II (p. 101)

SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENT

From the capitals of Russia and Great Britain to the capital of theUnited States was a striking change. Washington, in its early strugglefor existence, was so unattractive a spot, that foreigners must havebeen at a loss to discover the principle which had governed theselection. It combined all the ugliness with all the discomfort of anunprosperous frontier settlement on an ill-chosen site. What mustEuropean diplomats have thought of a capital city where snakes twofeet long invaded gentlemen's drawing-rooms, and a carriage, bringinghome the guests from a ball, could be upset by the impenetrable depthof quagmire at the very door of a foreign minister's residence. Adescription of the city given by Mr. Mills, a Representative fromMassachusetts, in 1815, is pathetic in its unutterable horror:--

 "It is impossible [he writes] for me to describe to you my feelings on entering this miserable desert, this scene of desolation and horror. . . . My anticipations were almost (p. 102) infinitely short of the reality, and I can truly say that the first appearance of this seat of the national government has produced in me nothing but absolute loathing and disgust. "

If the place wore such a dreadful aspect to the simple denizen of aNew England country town, what must it have seemed to those who werefamiliar with London and Paris? To them the social life must have beenscarcely less dreary than the rest of the surroundings. Accordingly, with this change of scene, the Diary, so long a record of festivitiessometimes dull and formal, but generally collecting interesting anddistinguished persons, ceases almost wholly to refer to topics ofsociety. Yet, of course, even the foul streets could not preventpeople from occasionally meeting together. There were simpletea-drinkings, stupid weekly dinners at the President's, infrequentreceptions by Mrs. Monroe, card-parties and conversation-parties, which at the British minister's were very "elegant, " and at the Frenchminister's were more gay. Mons. De Neuville, at his dinners, used topuzzle and astound the plain-living Yankees by serving dishes of"turkeys without bones, and puddings in the form of fowls, fresh coddisguised like a salad, and celery like oysters;" further, hescandalized some and demoralized others by having dancing on (p. 103)Saturday evenings, which the New England ladies had been "educated toconsider as holy time. " Mr. And Mrs. Adams used to give weekly partieson Tuesday evenings, and apparently many persons stood not a little inawe of these entertainments and of the givers of them, by reason oftheir superior familiarity with the manners and customs of the bestsociety of Europe. Mrs. Adams was, "on the whole, a very pleasant andagreeable woman; but the Secretary [had] no talent to entertain amixed company, either by conversation or manners;" thus writes thissame Mr. Mills, whose sentiments towards Mr. Adams were those ofrespect rather than of personal liking. The favorite dissipation thenconsisted in card-playing, and the stakes were too often out of alljust proportion to the assets of the gamesters. At one time Mr. Claywas reputed to have lost $8, 000, an amount so considerable for him asto weigh upon his mind to the manifest detriment of his publicfunctions. But sometimes the gentlemen resident in the capital met forpurposes less innocent than Saturday evening cotillons, or even thanextravagant betting at the card-table, and stirred the dulness ofsociety by a duel. Mr. Adams tells of one affair of this sort, foughtbetween ex-Senator Mason, of Virginia, and his cousin, wherein theweapons used were muskets, and the distance was only six paces. (p. 104)Mason was killed; his cousin was wounded, and only by a luckyaccident escaped with his life. Mr. Adams had little time and lesstaste for either the amusements or the dangers thus offered to him; hepreferred to go to bed in good season, to get up often long beforedaybreak, and to labor assiduously the livelong day. His favoriteexercise was swimming in the Potomac, where he accomplished featswhich would have been extraordinary for a young and athletic man. 

The most important, perplexing, and time-consuming duties then calledfor by the condition of public affairs happened to fall within Mr. Adams's department. Monroe's administration has been christened the"era of good feeling;" and, so far as political divisions among thepeople at large were concerned, this description is correct enough. There were no great questions of public policy dividing the nation. There could hardly be said to be two political parties. With the closeof the war the malcontent Federalists had lost the only substantialprinciple upon which they had been able vigorously to oppose theadministration, and as a natural consequence the party rapidly shrankto insignificant proportions, and became of hardly more importancethan were the Jacobites in England after their last hopes had (p. 105)been quenched by the failure of the Rebellion of '45. The Federalistfaith, like Jacobitism, lingered in a few neighborhoods, and wasmaintained by a few old families, who managed to associate it with asense of their own pride and dignity; but as an effective oppositionor influential party organization it was effete, and no successor wasrising out of its ruins. In a broad way, therefore, there waspolitical harmony to a very remarkable degree. 

But among individuals there was by no means a prevailing good feeling. Not held together by the pressure exerted by the antagonism of astrong hostile force, the prominent men of the Cabinet and in Congresswere busily employed in promoting their own individual interests. Having no great issues with which to identify themselves, and uponwhich they could openly and honorably contend for the approval of thenation, their only means for securing their respective private endslay in secretly overreaching and supplanting each other. Infiniteskill was exerted by each to inveigle his rival into an unpopularposition or a compromising light. By a series of precedents Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State, appeared most prominent as a candidate for thesuccession to the Presidency. But Mr. Crawford, in the TreasuryDepartment, had been very near obtaining the nomination instead (p. 106)of Monroe, and he was firmly resolved to secure it so soon as Mr. Monroe's eight years should have elapsed. He, therefore, finding muchleisure left upon his hands by the not very exacting business of hisoffice, devoted his ingenuity to devising schemes for injuring theprestige of Mr. Adams. Mr. Clay also had been greatly disappointedthat he had not been summoned to be Secretary of State, and so madeheir apparent. His personal enmity was naturally towards Mr. Monroe;his political enmity necessarily also included Mr. Adams, whoseappointment he had privately sought to prevent. He therefore at onceset himself assiduously to oppose and thwart the administration, andto make it unsuccessful and unpopular. That Clay was in the main andupon all weighty questions an honest statesman and a real patriot mustbe admitted, but just at this period no national crisis called hisnobler qualities into action, and his course was largely influenced byselfish considerations. It was not long before Mr. Calhoun alsoentered the lists, though in a manner less discreditable to himself, personally, than were the resources of Crawford and Clay. The dailynarrations and comments of Mr. Adams display and explain in a mannerhighly instructive, if not altogether agreeable, the ambitions (p. 107)and the manoeuvres, the hollow alliances and unworthy intrigues, notonly of these three, but also of many other estimable gentlemen thenin political life. The difference between those days and our own seemsnot so great as the _laudatores temporis acti_ are wont to proclaimit. The elaborate machinery which has since been constructed was thenunknown; rivals relied chiefly upon their own astuteness and the aidof a few personal friends and adherents for carrying on contests andattaining ends which are now sought by vastly more complex methods. What the stage-coach of that period was to the railroads of to-day, orwhat the hand-loom was to our great cotton mills, such also was thepolitical intriguing of cabinet ministers, senators, andrepresentatives to our present party machinery. But the temper was nobetter, honor was no keener, the sense of public duty was little moredisinterested then than now. One finds no serious traces of vulgarfinancial dishonesty recorded in these pages, in which Mr. Adams hashanded down the political life of the second and third decades of ourcentury with a photographic accuracy. But one does not see a muchhigher level of faithfulness to ideal standards in political life thannow exists. 

[Illustration: Wm. H. Crawford. ]

As has been said, it so happened that in Mr. Monroe's (p. 108)administration the heaviest burden of labor and responsibility restedupon Mr. Adams; the most important and most perplexing questions fellwithin his department. Domestic breaches had been healed, but foreignbreaches gaped with threatening jaws. War with Spain seemed imminent. Her South American colonies were then waging their contest forindependence, and naturally looked to the late successful rebels ofthe northern continent for acts of neighborly sympathy and goodfellowship. Their efforts to obtain official recognition and theexchange of ministers with the United States were eager and persistent. Privateers fitted out at Baltimore gave the State Department scarcelyless cause for anxiety than the shipbuilders of Liverpool gave to theEnglish Cabinet in 1863-64. These perplexities, as is well known, caused the passage of the first "Neutrality Act, " which firstformulated and has since served to establish the principle ofinternational obligation in such matters, and has been the basis ofall subsequent legislation upon the subject not only in this countrybut also in Great Britain. 

The European powers, impelled by a natural distaste for rebellion bycolonists, and also believing that Spain would in time prevail overthe insurgents, turned a deaf ear to South American agents. But in theUnited States it was different. Here it was anticipated that the (p. 109)revolted communities were destined to win; Mr. Adams records this ashis own opinion; besides which there was also a natural sympathy feltby our people in such a conflict in their own quarter of the globe. Nevertheless, in many anxious cabinet discussions, the President andthe Secretary of State established the policy of reserve and caution. Rebels against an established government are like plaintiffs inlitigation; the burden of proof is upon them, and the neutral nationswho are a sort of quasi-jurors must not commit themselves to adecision prematurely. The grave and inevitable difficulties besettingthe administration in this matter were seriously enhanced by theconduct of Mr. Clay. Seeking nothing so eagerly as an opportunity toharass the government, he could have found none more to his taste thanthis question of South American recognition. His enthusiastic andrhetorical temperament rejoiced in such a topic for his luxuriantoratory, and he lauded freedom and abused the administration with aforce of expression far from gratifying to the responsible heads ofgovernment in their troublesome task. 

Apart from these matters the United States had direct disputes of athreatening character pending with Spain concerning the boundaries ofLouisiana. Naturally enough boundary lines in the half explored (p. 110)wilderness of this vast continent were not then marked with thatindisputable accuracy which many generations and much bloodshed hadachieved in Europe; and of all uncertain boundaries that of Louisianawas the most so. Area enough to make two or three States, more orless, might or might not be included therein. Such doubts had proved aready source of quarrel, which could hardly be assuaged by GeneralJackson marching about in unquestionable Spanish territory, seizingtowns and hanging people after his lawless, ignorant, energeticfashion. Mr. Adams's chief labor, therefore, was by no means of apromising character, being nothing less difficult than to conclude atreaty between enraged Spain and the rapacious United States, wherethere was so much wrong and so much right on both sides, and such awide obscure realm of doubt between the two that an amicable agreementmight well seem not only beyond expectation but beyond hope. 

Many and various also were the incidental obstacles in Mr. Adams'sway. Not the least lay in the ability of Don Onis, the SpanishMinister, an ambassador well selected for his important task and whomthe American thus described:--

 "Cold, calculating, wily, always commanding his own temper, (p. 111) proud because he is a Spaniard, but supple and cunning, accommodating the tone of his pretensions precisely to the degree of endurance of his opponent, bold and overbearing to the utmost extent to which it is tolerated, careless of what he asserts or how grossly it is proved to be unfounded, his morality appears to be that of the Jesuits as exposed by Pascal. He is laborious, vigilant, and ever attentive to his duties; a man of business and of the world. "

Fortunately this so dangerous negotiator was hardly less anxious thanMr. Adams to conclude a treaty. Yet he, too, had his grave difficultiesto encounter. Spanish arrogance had not declined with the decline ofSpanish strength, and the concessions demanded from that ancientmonarchy by the upstart republic seemed at once exasperating andhumiliating. The career of Jackson in Florida, while it exposed theweakness of Spain, also sorely wounded her pride. Nor could thegrandees, three thousand miles away, form so accurate an opinion ofthe true condition and prospects of affairs as could Don Onis uponthis side of the water. One day, begging Mr. Adams to meet him upon aquestion of boundary, "he insisted much upon the infinite pains he hadtaken to prevail upon his government to come to terms of accommodation, "and pathetically declared that "the King's Council was composed (p. 112)of such ignorant and stupid _nigauds_, grandees of Spain, and priests, "that Mr. Adams "could have no conception of their obstinacy andimbecility. "

Other difficulties in Mr. Adams's way were such as ought not to havebeen encountered. The only substantial concession which he was willingto make was in accepting the Sabine instead of the Rio del Norte asthe southwestern boundary of Louisiana. But no sooner did rumors ofthis possible yielding get abroad than he was notified that Mr. Clay"would take ground against" any treaty embodying it. From Mr. Crawforda more dangerous and insidious policy was to be feared. Presumably hewould be well pleased either to see Mr. Adams fail altogether in thenegotiation, or to see him conclude a treaty which would be in someessential feature odious to the people. 

 "That all his conduct [wrote Mr. Adams] is governed by his views to the Presidency, as the ultimate successor to Mr. Monroe, and that his hopes depend upon a result unfavorable to the success or at least to the popularity of the Administration, is perfectly clear. . . . His talent is intrigue. And as it is in the foreign affairs that the success or failure of the Administration will be most conspicuous, and as their success would promote the reputation and influence, and their failure would lead to (p. 113) the disgrace of the Secretary of State, Crawford's personal views centre in the ill-success of the Administration in its foreign relations; and, perhaps unconscious of his own motives, he will always be impelled to throw obstacles in its way, and to bring upon the Department of State especially any feeling of public dissatisfaction that he can, . . . And although himself a member of the Administration, he perceives every day more clearly that his only prospect of success hereafter depends upon the failure of the Administration by measures of which he must take care to make known his disapprobation. "

President Monroe was profoundly anxious for the consummation of thetreaty, and though for a time he was in perfect accord with Mr. Adams, yet as the Spanish minister gradually drew nearer and nearer to a fullcompliance with the American demands, Monroe began to fear that theSecretary would carry his unyielding habit too far, and by insistenceupon extreme points which might well enough be given up, would allowthe country to drift into war. 

Fortunately, as it turned out, Mr. Adams was not afraid to take thewhole responsibility of success or failure upon his own shoulders, showing indeed a high and admirable courage and constancy amid suchgrave perplexities, in which it seemed that all his future politicalfortunes were involved. He caused the proffered mediation of (p. 114)Great Britain to be rejected. He availed himself of no aid save onlythe services of Mons. De Neuville, the French minister, who took awarm interest in the negotiation, expostulated and argued constantlywith Don Onis and sometimes with Mr. Adams, served as a channel ofcommunication and carried messages, propositions, and denials, whichcould better come filtered through a neutral go-between than passdirect from principal to principal. In fact, Mr. Adams needed no otherkind of aid except just this which was so readily furnished by thecivil and obliging Frenchman. As if he had been a mathematiciansolving a problem in dynamics, he seemed to have measured the preciseline to which the severe pressure of Spanish difficulties would compelDon Onis to advance. This line he drew sharply, and taking his standupon it in the beginning he made no important alterations in it to theend. Day by day the Spaniard would reluctantly approach toward him atone point or another, solemnly protesting that he could not makeanother move, by argument and entreaty urging, almost imploring, Mr. Adams in turn to advance and meet him. But Mr. Adams stood rigidlystill, sometimes not a little vexed by the other's lingering manoeuvres, and actually once saying to the courtly Spaniard that he "was so (p. 115)wearied out with the discussion that it had become nauseous;" and, again, that he "really could discuss no longer, and had given it up indespair. " Yet all the while he was never wholly free from anxietyconcerning the accuracy of his calculations as to how soon the Donmight on his side also come to a final stand. Many a tedious andalarming pause there was, but after each halt progress was in timerenewed. At last the consummation was reached, and except in theaforementioned matter of the Sabine boundary no concession even indetails had been made by Mr. Adams. The United States was to receiveFlorida, and in return only agreed to settle the disputed claims ofcertain of her citizens against Spain to an amount not to exceed fivemillion dollars; while the claims of Spanish subjects against theUnited States were wholly expunged. The western boundary was soestablished as to secure for this country the much-coveted outlet tothe shores of the "South Sea, " as the Pacific Ocean was called, southof the Columbia River; the line also was run along the southern banksof the Red and Arkansas rivers, leaving all the islands to the UnitedStates and precluding Spain from the right of navigation. Mr. Adamshad achieved a great triumph. 

On February 22, 1819, the two negotiators signed and sealed the (p. 116)counterparts of the treaty. Mr. Adams notes that it is "perhapsthe most important day of my life, " and justly called it "a greatepoch in our history. " Yet on the next day the "Washington CityGazette" came out with a strong condemnation of the Sabine concession, and expressed the hope that the Senate would not agree to it. "Thisparagraph, " said Mr. Adams, "comes directly or indirectly from Mr. Clay. " But the paragraph did no harm, for on the following day thetreaty was confirmed by an unanimous vote of the Senate. 

It was not long, however, before the pleasure justly derivable fromthe completion of this great labor was cruelly dashed. It appearedthat certain enormous grants of land, made by the Spanish king tothree of his nobles, and which were supposed to be annulled by thetreaty, so that the territory covered by them would become the publicproperty of the United States, bore date earlier than had beenunderstood, and for this reason would, by the terms of the treaty, beleft in full force. This was a serious matter, and such steps as werestill possible to set it right were promptly taken. Mr. Adams appealedto Don Onis to state in writing that he himself had understood thatthese grants were to be annulled, and that such had been the intentionof the treaty. The Spaniard replied in a shape imperfectly (p. 117)satisfactory. He shuffled, evaded, and laid himself open to suspicionof unfair dealing, though the charge could not be regarded as fullyproved against him. Mr. Adams, while blaming himself for carelessnessin not having more closely examined original documents, yet felt"scarce a doubt" that Onis "did intend by artifice to cover the grantswhile we were under the undoubting impression they were annulled;" andhe said to M. De Neuville, concerning this dark transaction, that "itwas not the ingenious device of a public minister, but '_une fourberiede Scapin_. '" Before long the rumor got abroad in the public prints inthe natural shape of a "malignant distortion, " and Mr. Adams wascompelled to see with chagrin his supposed brilliant successthreatening to turn actually to his grave discredit by reason of thisunfortunate oversight. 

What might have been the result had the treaty been ratified by Spaincan only be surmised. But it so befell--happily enough for the UnitedStates and for Mr. Adams, as it afterwards turned out--that theSpanish government refused to ratify. The news was, however, that theywould forthwith dispatch a new minister to explain this refusal and torenew negotiations. 

For his own private part Mr. Adams strove to endure this buffet (p. 118)of unkindly fortune with that unflinching and stubborn temper, slightly dashed with bitterness, which stood him in good stead in manya political trial during his hard-fighting career. But in his officialcapacity he had also to consider and advise what it behooved theadministration to do under the circumstances. The feeling waswidespread that the United States ought to possess Florida, and thatSpain had paltered with us long enough. More than once in cabinetmeetings during the negotiation the Secretary of State, who was alwaysprone to strong measures, had expressed a wish for an act of Congressauthorizing the Executive to take forcible possession of Florida andof Galveston in the event of Spain refusing to satisfy the reasonabledemands made upon her. Now, stimulated by indignant feeling, hisprepossession in favor of vigorous action was greatly strengthened, and his counsel was that the United States should prepare at once totake and hold the disputed territory, and indeed some undisputedSpanish territory also. But Mr. Monroe and the rest of the Cabinetpreferred a milder course; and France and Great Britain ventured toexpress to this country a hope that no violent action would beprecipitately taken. So the matter lay by for a while, awaiting thecoming of the promised envoy from Spain. 

At this time the great question of the admission of Missouri into (p. 119)the Union of States began to agitate Congress and the nation. Mr. Adams, deeply absorbed in the perplexing affairs of his department, into which this domestic problem did not enter, was at first carelessof it. His ideas concerning the matter, he wrote, were a "chaos;" butit was a "chaos" into which his interest in public questions sooncompelled him to bring order. In so doing he for the first time fairlyexposes his intense repulsion for slavery, his full appreciation ofthe irrepressible character of the conflict between the slave and thefree populations, and the sure tendency of that conflict to adissolution of the Union. Few men at that day read the future soclearly. While dissolution was generally regarded as a threat notreally intended to be carried out, and compromises were supposed to beamply sufficient to control the successive emergencies, the underlyingmoral force of the anti-slavery movement acting against theencroaching necessities of the slave-holding communities constitutedan element and involved possibilities which Mr. Adams, from hisposition of observation outside the immediate controversy, noted withforeseeing accuracy. He discerned in passing events the "title-page toa great tragic volume;" and he predicted that the more or less distantbut sure end must be an attempt to dissolve the Union. His own (p. 120)position was distinctly defined from the outset, and his strongfeelings were vigorously expressed. He beheld with profound regret thesuperiority of the slave-holding party in ability; he remarked sadlyhow greatly they excelled in debating power their lukewarm opponents;he was filled with indignation against the Northern men of Southernprinciples. "Slavery, " he wrote, "is the great and foul stain upon theNorth American Union, and it is a contemplation worthy of the mostexalted soul whether its total abolition is or is not practicable. " "Alife devoted to" the emancipation problem "would be nobly spent orsacrificed. " He talks with much acerbity of expression about the"slave-drivers, " and the "flagrant image of human inconsistency"presented by men who had "the Declaration of Independence on theirlips and the merciless scourge of slavery in their hands. " "Never, " hesays, "since human sentiments and human conduct were influenced byhuman speech was there a theme for eloquence like the free side ofthis question. . . . Oh, if but one man could arise with a genius capableof comprehending, and an utterance capable of communicating thoseeternal truths that belong to this question, to lay bare in all itsnakedness that outrage upon the goodness of God, human slavery; (p. 121)now is the time and this is the occasion, upon which such a man wouldperform the duties of an angel upon earth. " Before the Abolitionistshad begun to preach their great crusade this was strong and ardentlanguage for a statesman's pen. Nor were these exceptional passages;there is much more of the same sort at least equally forcible. Mr. Adams notes an interesting remark made to him by Calhoun at this time. The great Southern chief, less prescient than Mr. Adams, declared thathe did not think that the slavery question "would produce adissolution of the Union; but if it should, the South would be fromnecessity compelled to form an alliance offensive and defensive withGreat Britain. "

Concerning a suggestion that civil war might be preferable to theextension of slavery beyond the Mississippi, Adams said: "This is aquestion between the rights of human nature and the Constitution ofthe United States"--a form of stating the case which leaves no doubtconcerning his ideas of the intrinsic right and wrong in the matter. His own notion was that slavery could not be got rid of within theUnion, but that the only method would be dissolution, after which hetrusted that the course of events would in time surely lead toreorganization upon the basis of universal freedom for all. He (p. 122)was not a disunionist in any sense, yet it is evident that his strongtendency and inclination were to regard emancipation as a weight inthe scales heavier than union, if it should ever come to the point ofan option between the two. 

Strangely enough the notion of a forcible retention of the slaveStates within the Union does not seem to have been at this time asubstantial element of consideration. Mr. Adams acknowledged thatthere was no way at once of preserving the Union and escaping from thepresent emergency save through the door of compromise. He maintainedstrenuously the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in theTerritories, and denied that either Congress or a state governmentcould establish slavery as a new institution in any State in which itwas not already existing and recognized by law. 

This agitation of the slavery question made itself felt in a waypersonally interesting to Mr. Adams, by the influence it was exertingupon men's feelings concerning the still pending and dubious treatywith Spain. The South became anxious to lay hands upon the Floridasand upon as far-reaching an area as possible in the direction ofMexico, in order to carve it up into more slave States; the North, onthe other hand, no longer cared very eagerly for an extension of theUnion upon its southern side. Sectional interests were getting to (p. 123)be more considered than national. Mr. Adams could not but recognizethat in the great race for the Presidency, in which he could hardlyhelp being a competitor, the chief advantage which he seemed to havewon when the Senate unanimously ratified the Spanish treaty, hadalmost wholly vanished since that treaty had been repudiated by Spainand was now no longer desired by a large proportion of his owncountrymen. 

Matters stood thus when the new Spanish envoy, Vivês, arrived. Otherelements, which there is not space to enumerate here, besides thosereferred to, now entering newly into the state of affairs, furtherreduced the improbability of agreement almost to hopelessness. Mr. Adams, despairing of any other solution than a forcible seizure ofFlorida, to which he had long been far from averse, now visiblyrelaxed his efforts to meet the Spanish negotiator. Perhaps no othercourse could have been more effectual in securing success than thisobvious indifference to it. In the prevalent condition of publicfeeling and of his own sentiments Mr. Adams easily assumed towardsGeneral Vivês a decisive bluntness, not altogether consonant to thehabits of diplomacy, and manifested an unchangeable stubbornness whichleft no room for discussion. His position was simply that Spain mightmake such a treaty as the United States demanded, or might take (p. 124)the consequences of her refusal. His dogged will wore out theSpaniard's pride, and after a fruitless delay the King and Cortesratified the treaty in its original shape, with the important additionof an explicit annulment of the land grants. It was again sent in tothe Senate, and in spite of the "continued, systematic, and laboriouseffort" of "Mr. Clay and his partisans to make it unpopular, " it wasratified by a handsome majority, there being against it "only fourvotes--Brown, of Louisiana, who married a sister of Clay's wife;Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, against his own better judgment, frommere political subserviency to Clay; Williams, of Tennessee, fromparty impulses connected with hatred of General Jackson; and Trimble, of Ohio, from some maggot of the brain. " Two years had elapsed sincethe former ratification, and no little patience had been required toawait so long the final achievement of a success so ardently longedfor, once apparently gained, and anon so cruelly thwarted. But thetriumph was rather enhanced than diminished by all this difficulty anddelay. A long and checkered history, wherein appeared infinite labor, many a severe trial of temper and hard test of moral courage, bitterdisappointment, ignoble artifices of opponents, ungenerous (p. 125)opposition growing out of unworthy personal motives at home, was nowat last closed by a chapter which appeared only the more gratifying bycontrast with what had gone before. Mr. Adams recorded, with less ofexultation than might have been pardonable, the utter discomfiture of"all the calculators of my downfall by the Spanish negotiation, " andreflected cheerfully that he had been left with "credit rather augmentedthan impaired by the result, "--credit not in excess of his deserts. Many years afterwards, in changed circumstances, an outcry was raisedagainst the agreement which was arrived at concerning the southwesternboundary of Louisiana. Most unjustly it was declared that Mr. Adamshad sacrificed a portion of the territory of the United States. Butpolitical motives were too plainly to be discerned in these tardycriticisms; and though General Jackson saw fit, for personal reasons, to animadvert severely upon the clause establishing this boundaryline, yet there was abundant evidence to show not only that he, likealmost everybody else, had been greatly pleased with it at the time, but even that he had then upon consultation expressed a deliberate andspecial approval. 

The same day, February 22, 1821, closed, says Mr. Adams, "two of themost memorable transactions of my life. " That he should speak thus (p. 126)of the exchange of ratifications of the Spanish treaty is natural; butthe other so "memorable transaction" may not appear of equal magnitude. It was the sending in to Congress of his report upon weights andmeasures. This was one of those vast labors, involving tenfold moretoil than all the negotiations with Onis and Vivês, but bringing noproportionate fame, however well it might be performed. The subjectwas one which had "occupied for the last sixty years many of theablest men in Europe, and to which all the power and all thephilosophical and mathematical learning and ingenuity of France and ofGreat Britain" had during that period been incessantly directed. Itwas fairly enough described as a "fearful and oppressive task. " Uponits dry and uncongenial difficulties Mr. Adams had been employed withhis wonted industry for upwards of four years; he now spoke of theresult modestly as "a hurried and imperfect work. " But others, whohave had to deal with the subject, have found this report a solid andmagnificent monument of research and reflection, which has not evenyet been superseded by later treatises. Mr. Adams was honest in laboras in everything, and was never careless at points where inaccuracy orlack of thoroughness might be expected to escape detection. (p. 127)Hence his success in a task upon which it is difficult to imagine otherstatesmen of that day--Clay, Webster, or Calhoun, for example--so muchas making an effort. The topic is not one concerning which readerswould tolerate much lingering. Suffice it then to say that thedocument illustrated the ability and the character of the man, and sowith this brief mention to dismiss in a paragraph an achievementwhich, had it been accomplished in any more showy department, wouldalone have rendered Mr. Adams famous. 

It is highly gratifying now to look back upon the high spirit andindependent temper uniformly displayed by Mr. Adams abroad and at homein all dealings with foreign powers. Never in any instance did hedisplay the least tinge of that rodomontade and boastful extravagancewhich have given an underbred air to so many of our diplomats, andwhich inevitably cause the basis for such self-laudation to appear ofdubious sufficiency. But he had the happy gift of a native pride whichenabled him to support in the most effective manner the dignity of thepeople for whom he spoke. For example, in treaties between the UnitedStates and European powers the latter were for a time wont to namethemselves first throughout the instruments, contrary to the custom ofalternation practised in treaties between themselves. With some (p. 128)difficulty, partly interposed, it must be confessed, by his ownAmerican coadjutors, Mr. Adams succeeded in putting a stop to thisusage. It was a matter of insignificant detail, in one point of view;but in diplomacy insignificant details often symbolize importantfacts, and there is no question that this habit had been construed asa tacit but intentional arrogance of superiority on the part of theEuropeans. 

For a long period after the birth of the country there was a strongtendency, not yet so eradicated as to be altogether undiscoverable, onthe part of American statesmen to keep one eye turned covertly askanceupon the trans-Atlantic courts, and to consider, not without a certainanxious deference, what appearance the new United States might bepresenting to the critical eyes of foreign countries and diplomats. Mr. Adams was never guilty of such indirect admissions of an inferioritywhich apparently he never felt. In the matter of the acquisition ofFlorida, Crawford suggested that England and France regarded thepeople of the United States as ambitious and encroaching; wherefore headvised a moderate policy in order to remove this impression. Mr. Adams on the other side declared that he was not in favor of ourgiving ourselves any concern whatever about the opinions of any (p. 129)foreign power. "If the world do not hold us for Romans, " he said, "they will take us for Jews, and of the two vices I would rather becharged with that which has greatness mingled in its composition. " Hisviews were broad and grand. He was quite ready to have the worldbecome "familiarized with the idea of considering our proper dominionto be the continent of North America. " This extension he declared tobe a "law of nature. " To suppose that Spain and England could, throughthe long lapse of time, retain their possessions on this side of theAtlantic seemed to him a "physical, moral, and political absurdity. "

The doctrine which has been christened with the name of PresidentMonroe seems likely to win for him the permanent glory of havingoriginated the wise policy which that familiar phrase now signifies. It might, however, be shown that by right of true paternity thebantling should have borne a different patronymic. Not only is the"Monroe Doctrine, " as that phrase is customarily construed in our day, much more comprehensive than the simple theory first expressed byMonroe and now included in the modern doctrine as a part in the whole, but a principle more fully identical with the imperial one of to-dayhad been conceived and shaped by Mr. Adams before the delivery of (p. 130)Monroe's famous message. As has just been remarked, he looked forwardto the possession of the whole North American continent by the UnitedStates as a sure destiny, and for his own part, whenever opportunityoffered, he was never backward to promote this glorious ultimateconsummation. He was in favor of the acquisition of Louisiana, whateverfault he might find with the scheme of Mr. Jefferson for making it astate; he was ready in 1815 to ask the British plenipotentiaries tocede Canada simply as a matter of common sense and mutual convenience, and as the comfortable result of a war in which the United States hadbeen worsted; he never labored harder than in negotiating for theFloridas, and in pushing our western boundaries to the Pacific; inApril, 1823, he wrote to the American minister at Madrid the significantremark: "It is scarcely possible to resist the conviction that theannexation of Cuba to our Federal Republic will be indispensable tothe continuance and integrity of the Union. " Encroachments neverseemed distasteful to him, and he was always forward to stretch apoint in order to advocate or defend a seizure of disputed NorthAmerican territory, as in the cases of Amelia Island, Pensacola, andGalveston. When discussion arose with Russia concerning her (p. 131)possessions on the northwest coast of this continent, Mr. Adamsaudaciously told the Russian minister, Baron Tuyl, July 17, 1823, "that we should contest the rights of Russia to _any_ territorialestablishment on this continent, and that we should assume distinctlythe principle that the American continents are no longer subjects forany new European colonial establishments. " "This, " says Mr. CharlesFrancis Adams in a footnote to the passage in the Diary, "is the firsthint of the policy so well known afterwards as the Monroe Doctrine. "Nearly five months later, referring to the same matter in his messageto Congress, December 2, 1823, President Monroe said: "The occasionhas been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which therights and interests of the United States are involved, that theAmerican continents, by the free and independent condition which theyhave assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered assubjects for future colonization by any European powers. "

It will be observed that both Mr. Adams and President Monroe used thephrase "continents, " including thereby South as well as North America. A momentous question was imminent, which fortunately never called fora determination by action, but which in this latter part of 1823threatened to do so at any moment. Cautious and moderate as the (p. 132)United States had been, under Mr. Adams's guidance, in recognizingthe freedom and autonomy of the South American states, yet in time therecognition was made of one after another, and the emancipation ofSouth America had come, while Mr. Adams was yet Secretary, to beregarded as an established fact. But now, in 1823-24, came mutteringsfrom across the Atlantic indicating a strong probability that themembers of the Holy Alliance would interfere in behalf of monarchicaland anti-revolutionary principles, and would assist in the resubjugationof the successful insurgents. That each one of the powers who shouldcontribute to this huge crusade would expect and receive territorialreward could not be doubted. Mr. Adams, in unison with most of hiscountrymen, contemplated with profound distrust and repulsion thepossibility of such an European inroad. Stimulated by the prospect ofso unwelcome neighbors, he prepared some dispatches, "drawn tocorrespond exactly" with the sentiments of Mr. Monroe's message, inwhich he appears to have taken a very high and defiant position. Thesedocuments, coming before the Cabinet for consideration, caused someflutter among his associates. In the possible event of the HolyAlliance actually intermeddling in South American affairs, it was (p. 133)said, the principles enunciated by the Secretary of State wouldinvolve this country in war with a very formidable confederation. Mr. Adams acknowledged this, but courageously declared that in such acrisis he felt quite ready to take even this spirited stand. Hisaudacious spirit went far in advance of the cautious temper of theMonroe administration; possibly it went too far in advance of thedictates of a wise prudence, though fortunately the course of eventsnever brought this question to trial; and it is at least gratifying tocontemplate such a manifestation of daring temper. 

But though so bold and independent, Mr. Adams was not habituallyreckless nor prone to excite animosity by needless arrogance in actionor extravagance in principle. In any less perilous extremity than waspresented by this menaced intrusion of combined Europe he followedrigidly the wise rule of non-interference. For many years before thisstage was reached he had been holding in difficult check theenthusiasts who, under the lead of Mr. Clay, would have embroiled uswith Spain and Portugal. Once he was made the recipient of a veryamusing proposition from the Portuguese minister, that the UnitedStates and Portugal, as "the two great powers of the western hemisphere, "should concert together a grand American system. The drollery pf (p. 134)this notion was of a kind that Mr. Adams could appreciate, thoughto most manifestations of humor he was utterly impervious. But aftergiving vent to some contemptuous merriment he adds, with a just andserious pride: "As to an American system, we have it; we constitutethe whole of it; there is no community of interests or of principlesbetween North and South America. " This sound doctrine was put forth in1820; and it was only modified in the manner that we have seen duringa brief period in 1823, in face of the alarming vision not only ofSpain and Portugal restored to authority, but of Russia in possessionof California and more, France in possession of Mexico, and perhapsGreat Britain becoming mistress of Cuba. 

So far as European affairs were concerned, Mr. Adams always andconsistently refused to become entangled in them, even in the slightestand most indirect manner. When the cause of Greek liberty aroused theusual throng of noisy advocates for active interference, he contentedhimself with expressions of cordial sympathy, accompanied by perfectlydistinct and explicit statements that under no circumstances could anyaid in the way of money or auxiliary forces be expected from thiscountry. Neutrals we were and would remain in any and all (p. 135)European quarrels. When Stratford Canning urged, with the uttermostmeasure of persistence of which even he was capable, that for thesuppression of the slave trade some such arrangement might be made asthat of mixed tribunals for the trial of slave-trading vessels, andalleged that divers European powers were uniting for this purpose, Mr. Adams suggested, as an insuperable obstacle, "the general extra-Europeanpolicy of the United States--a policy which they had always pursued asbest suited to their own interests, and best adapted to harmonize withthose of Europe. This policy had also been that of Europe, which hadnever considered the United States as belonging to her system. . . . Itwas best for both parties that they should continue to do so. " In anyEuropean combinations, said Mr. Adams, in which the United Statesshould become a member, she must soon become an important power, andmust always be, in many respects, an uncongenial one. It was best thatshe should keep wholly out of European politics, even of such leaguesas one for the suppression of the slave trade. He added, that he didnot wish his language to be construed as importing "an unsocial andsulky spirit on the part of the United States;" for no such temperexisted; it had simply been the policy of Europe to consider (p. 136)this country as standing aloof from all European federations, and inthis treatment "we had acquiesced, because it fell in with our ownpolicy. "

In a word, Mr. Adams, by his language and actions, established anddeveloped precisely that doctrine which has since been adopted by thiscountry under the doubly incorrect name of the "Monroe Doctrine, "--aname doubly incorrect, because even the real "Monroe Doctrine" was notan original idea of Mr. Monroe, and because the doctrine which nowgoes by that name is not identical with the doctrine which Monroe didonce declare. Mr. Adams's principle was simply that the United Stateswould take no part whatsoever in foreign politics, not even in thoseof South America, save in the extreme event, eliminated from amongthings possible in this generation, of such an interference as wascontemplated by the Holy Alliance; and that, on the other hand, shewould permit no European power to gain any new foothold upon thiscontinent. Time and experience have not enabled us to improve upon theprinciples which Mr. Adams worked out for us. 

Mr. Adams had some pretty stormy times with Mr. Stratford Canning--thesame gentleman who in his later life is familiar to the readers of (p. 137)Kinglake's "History of the Crimean War" as Lord Stratford deRedclyffe, or Eltchi. That minister's overbearing and dictatorialdeportment was afterwards not out of place when he was representingthe protecting power of Great Britain in the court of the "sick man. "But when he began to display his arrogance in the face of Mr. Adams hefound that he was bearding one who was at least his equal in pride andtemper. The naïve surprise which he manifested on making thisdiscovery is very amusing, and the accounts of the interviews betweenthe two are among the most pleasing episodes in the history of ourforeign relations. Nor are they less interesting as a sort ofconfidential peep at the asperities of diplomacy. It appears thatbesides the composed and formal dignity of phrase which alone thepublic knows in published state papers and official correspondence, there is also an official language of wrath and retort not at allartificial or stilted, but quite homelike and human in its sound. 

One subject much discussed between Mr. Adams and Mr. Canning relatedto the English propositions for joint efforts to suppress the slavetrade. Great Britain had engaged with much vigor and certainly with anadmirable humanity in this cause. Her scheme was that each powershould keep armed cruisers on the coast of Africa, that the (p. 138)war-ships of either nation might search the merchant vessels of theother, and that mixed courts of joint commissioners should try allcases of capture. This plan had been urged upon the several Europeannations, but with imperfect success. Portugal, Spain, and theNetherlands had assented to it; Russia, France, Austria, and Prussiahad rejected it. Mr. Adams's notion was that the ministry were, intheir secret hearts, rather lukewarm in the business, but that theywere so pressed by "the party of the saints in Parliament" that theywere obliged to make a parade of zeal. Whether this suspicion wascorrect or not, it is certain that Mr. Stratford Canning was verypersistent in the presentation of his demands, and could not bepersuaded to take No for an answer. Had it been possible to give anymore favorable reply no one in the United States in that day wouldhave been better pleased than Mr. Adams to do so. But the obstacleswere insuperable. Besides the undesirability of departing from the"extra-European policy, " the mixed courts would have beenunconstitutional, and could not have been established even by act ofCongress, while the claims advanced by Great Britain to search ourships for English-born seamen in time of war utterly precluded thepossibility of admitting any rights of search whatsoever upon her (p. 139)part, even in time of peace, for any purpose or in any shape. In vaindid the Englishman reiterate his appeal. Mr. Adams as often explainedthat the insistence of England upon her outrageous claim had renderedthe United States so sensitive upon the entire subject of search thatno description of right of that kind could ever be tolerated. "Allconcession of principle, " he said, "tended to encourage encroachment, and if naval officers were once habituated to search the vessels ofother nations in time of peace for one thing, they would be still moreencouraged to practise it for another thing in time of war. " The onlyway for Great Britain to achieve her purpose would be "to bind herselfby an article, as strong and explicit as language can make it, neveragain in time of war to take a man from an American vessel. " This ofcourse was an inadmissible proposition, and so Mr. Stratford Canning'sincessant urgency produced no substantial results. This discussion, however, was generally harmonious. Once only, in its earlier stages, Mr. Adams notes a remark of Mr. Canning, repeated for the second time, and not altogether gratifying. He said, writes Mr. Adams, "that heshould always receive any observations that I may make to him with ajust deference to my advance of years--over him. This is one of (p. 140)those equivocal compliments which, according to Sterne, a Frenchmanalways returns with a bow. "

It was when they got upon the matter of the American settlement at themouth of the Columbia River, that the two struck fire. Possession ofthis disputed spot had been taken by the Americans, but was broken upby the British during the war of 1812. After the declaration of peaceupon the _status ante bellum_, a British government vessel had beendispatched upon the special errand of making formal return of the portto the Americans. In January, 1821, certain remarks made in debate inthe House of Representatives, followed soon afterward by publicationin the "National Intelligencer" of a paper signed by Senator Eaton, led Mr. Canning to think that the Government entertained the design ofestablishing a substantial settlement at the mouth of the river. OnJanuary 26 he called upon Mr. Adams and inquired the intentions of theAdministration in regard to this. Mr. Adams replied that an increaseof the present settlement was not improbable. Thereupon Mr. Canningdropping the air of "easy familiarity" which had previously marked theintercourse between the two, and "assuming a tone more peremptory"than Mr. Adams "was disposed to endure, " expressed his great (p. 141)surprise. Mr. Adams "with a corresponding change of tone" expressedequal surprise, "both at the form and substance of his address. " Mr. Canning said that "he conceived such a settlement would be a directviolation of the article of the Convention of 20th October, 1818. " Mr. Adams took down a volume, read the article, and said, "Now, sir, ifyou have any charge to make against the American Government for aviolation of this article, you will please to make the communicationin writing. " Mr. Canning retorted, with great vehemence:--

 "'And do you suppose, sir, that I am to be dictated to as to the manner in which I may think proper to communicate with the American Government?' I answered, 'No, sir. We know very well what are the privileges of foreign ministers, and mean to respect them. But you will give us leave to determine what communications we will receive, and how we will receive them; and you may be assured we are as little disposed to submit to dictation as to exercise it. ' He then, in a louder and more passionate tone of voice, said: 'And am I to understand that I am to be refused henceforth any conference with you upon the subject of my mission?' 'Not at all, sir, ' said I, 'my request is, that if you have anything further to say to me _upon this subject_, you would say it in writing. And my motive is to avoid what, both from the nature of the subject and from the manner in which you (p. 142) have thought proper to open it, I foresee will tend only to mutual irritation, and not to an amicable arrangement. ' With some abatement of tone, but in the same peremptory manner, he said, 'Am I to understand that you refuse any further conference with me on this subject?' I said, 'No. But you will understand that I am not pleased either with the grounds upon which you have sought this conference, nor with the questions which you have seen fit to put to me. '"

Mr. Adams then proceeded to expose the impropriety of a foreignminister demanding from the Administration an explanation of wordsuttered in debate in Congress, and also said that he supposed that theBritish had no claim to the territory in question. Mr. Canningrejoined, and referred to the sending out of the American ship of warOntario, in 1817, without any notice to the British minister[3] atWashington, --

 "speaking in a very emphatic manner and as if there had been an intended secret expedition . . . Which had been detected only by the vigilance and penetration of the British minister. I answered, 'Why, Mr. Bagot did say something to me about it; but I certainly did not think him serious, and we had a good-humored laughing conversation on the occasion. ' Canning, with great vehemence: 'You may rely upon it, sir, that it was no laughing matter to him; for I have seen his report to his government and know what his feelings concerning it were. ' I replied, (p. 143) 'This is the first intimation I have ever received that Mr. Bagot took the slightest offence at what then passed between us, . . . And you will give me leave to say that when he left this country'--Here I was going to add that the last words he said to me were words of thanks for the invariable urbanity and liberality of my conduct and the personal kindness which he had uniformly received from me. But I could not finish the sentence. Mr. Canning, in a paroxysm of extreme irritation, broke out: 'I stop you there. I will not endure a misrepresentation of what I say. I never said that Mr. Bagot took offence at anything that had passed between him and you; and nothing that I said imported any such thing. ' Then . . . Added in the same passionate manner: 'I am treated like a school-boy. ' I then resumed: 'Mr. Canning, I have a distinct recollection of the substance of the short conversation between Mr. Bagot and me at that time; and it was this'--'No doubt, sir, ' said Canning, interrupting me again, 'no doubt, sir, Mr. Bagot answered you like a man of good breeding and good humor. '"

 [Footnote 3: Then Mr. Bagot. ]

Mr. Adams began again and succeeded in making, without furtherinterruption, a careful recital of his talk with Mr. Bagot. While hewas speaking Mr. Canning grew cooler, and expressed some surprise atwhat he heard. But in a few moments the conversation again became warmand personal. Mr. Adams remarked that heretofore he had thrown off (p. 144)some of the "cautious reserve" which might have been "strictlyregular" between them, and that

 "'so long as his (Canning's) professions had been supported by his conduct'--Here Mr. Canning again stopped me by repeating with great vehemence, 'My conduct! I am responsible for my conduct only to my government!'"

Mr. Adams replied, substantially, that he could respect the rights ofMr. Canning and maintain his own, and that he thought the best mode oftreating this topic in future would be by writing. Mr. Canning thenexpressed himself as

 "'willing to forget all that had now passed. ' I told him that I neither asked nor promised him to forget. . . . He asked again if he was to understand me as refusing to confer with him further on the subject. I said, 'No. ' 'Would I appoint a time for that purpose?' I said, 'Now, if he pleased. . . . But as he appeared to be under some excitement, perhaps he might prefer some other time, in which case I would readily receive him to-morrow at one o'clock;' upon which he rose and took leave, saying he would come at that time. "

The next day, accordingly, this genial pair again encountered. Mr. Adams noted at first in Mr. Canning's manner "an effort at coolness, but no appearance of cheerfulness or good humor. I saw there was (p. 145)no relaxation of the tone he had yesterday assumed, and felt thatnone would on my part be suitable. " They went over quietly enough someof the ground traversed the day before, Mr. Adams again explaining theimpropriety of Mr. Canning questioning him concerning remarks made indebate in Congress. It was, he said, as if Mr. Rush, hearing in theHouse of Commons something said about sending troops to the ShetlandIslands, should proceed to question Lord Castlereagh about it. 

 "'Have you, ' said Mr. Canning, 'any claim to the Shetland Islands?' 'Have you any _claim_, ' said I, 'to the mouth of Columbia River?' 'Why, do you not _know_, ' replied he, 'that we have a claim?' 'I do not _know_, ' said I, 'what you claim nor what you do not claim. You claim India; you claim Africa; you claim'--'Perhaps, ' said he, 'a piece of the moon. ' 'No, ' said I, 'I have not heard that you claim exclusively any part of the moon; but there is not a spot on _this_ habitable globe that I could affirm you do not claim!'"

The conversation continued with alternations of lull and storm, Mr. Canning at times becoming warm and incensed and interrupting Mr. Adams, who retorted with a dogged asperity which must have beenextremely irritating. Mr. Adams said that he did "not expect to be (p. 146)plied with captious questions" to obtain indirectly that whichhad been directly denied. Mr. Canning, "exceedingly irritated, "complained of the word "captious. " Mr. Adams retaliated by recitingoffensive language used by Mr. Canning, who in turn replied that hehad been speaking only in self-defence. Mr. Canning found occasion tomake again his peculiarly rasping remark that he should always striveto show towards Mr. Adams the deference due to his "more advancedyears. " After another very uncomfortable passage, Mr. Adams said thatthe behavior of Mr. Canning in making the observations of members ofCongress a basis of official interrogations was a pretension the morenecessary to be resisted because this

 "'was not the first time it had been raised by a British minister here. ' He asked, with great emotion, who that minister was. I answered, 'Mr. Jackson. ' 'And you got rid of him!' said Mr. Canning, in a tone of violent passion--'and you got rid of him!--and you got rid of him!' This repetition of the same words, always in the same tone, was with pauses of a few seconds between each of them, as if for a reply. I said: 'Sir, my reference to the pretension of Mr. Jackson was not'--Here Mr. Canning interrupted me by saying: 'If you think that by reference to Mr. Jackson I am to be intimidated from the performance of my (p. 147) duty you will find yourself greatly mistaken. ' 'I had not, sir, ' said I, 'the most distant intention of intimidating you from the performance of your duty; nor was it with the intention of alluding to any subsequent occurrences of his mission; but'--Mr. Canning interrupted me again by saying, still in a tone of high exasperation, --'Let me tell you, sir, that your reference to the case of Mr. Jackson is _exceedingly offensive_. ' 'I do not know, ' said I, 'whether I shall be able to finish what I intended to say, under such continual interruptions. '"

Mr. Canning thereupon intimated by a bow his willingness to listen, and Mr. Adams reiterated what in a more fragmentary way he had alreadysaid. Mr. Canning then made a formal speech, mentioning his desire "tocultivate harmony and smooth down all remnants of asperity between thetwo countries, " again gracefully referred to the deference which heshould at all times pay to Mr. Adams's age, and closed by declaring, with a significant emphasis, that he would "never forget the respectdue from him _to the American Government_. " Mr. Adams bowed in silenceand the stormy interview ended. A day or two afterward the disputantsmet by accident, and Mr. Canning showed such signs of resentment thatthere passed between them a "bare salutation. "

In the condition of our relations with Great Britain at the time (p. 148)of these interviews any needless ill-feeling was strongly to bedeprecated. But Mr. Adams's temperament was such that he always sawthe greater chance of success in strong and spirited conduct; norcould he endure that the dignity of the Republic, any more than itssafety, should take detriment in his hands. Moreover he understoodEnglishmen better perhaps than they have ever been understood by anyother of the public men of the United States, and he handled andsubdued them with a temper and skill highly agreeable to contemplate. The President supported him fully throughout the matter, and thediscomfiture and wrath of Mr. Canning never became even indirectly acause of regret to the country. 

As the years allotted to Monroe passed on, the manoeuvring among thecandidates for the succession to the Presidency grew in activity. There were several possible presidents in the field, and during the"era of good feeling" many an aspiring politician had his brief periodof mild expectancy followed in most cases only too surely by a hopelessrelegation to obscurity. There were, however, four whose anticipationsrested upon a substantial basis. William H. Crawford, Secretary of theTreasury, had been the rival of Monroe for nomination by theCongressional caucus, and had then developed sufficient strength (p. 149)to make him justly sanguine that he might stand next to Monroe in thesuccession as he apparently did in the esteem of their common party. Mr. Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives, had suchexpectations as might fairly grow out of his brilliant reputation, powerful influence in Congress, and great personal popularity. Mr. Adams was pointed out not only by his deserts but also by his positionin the Cabinet, it having been the custom heretofore to promote theSecretary of State to the Presidency. It was not until the time ofelection was near at hand that the strength of General Jackson, founded of course upon the effect of his military prestige upon themasses of the people, began to appear to the other competitors aformidable element in the great rivalry. For a while Mr. Calhoun mighthave been regarded as a fifth, since he had already become the greatchief of the South; but this cause of his strength was likewise hisweakness, since it was felt that the North was fairly entitled topresent the next candidate. The others, who at one time and anotherhad aspirations, like De Witt Clinton and Tompkins, were never reallyformidable, and may be disregarded as insignificant threads in thecomplex political snarl which must be unravelled. 

[Illustration: Stratford Canning]

As a study of the dark side of political society during this (p. 150)period Mr. Adams's Diary is profoundly interesting. He writes with acharming absence of reserve. If he thinks there is rascality at work, he sets down the names of the knaves and expounds their variousvillainies of act and motive with delightfully outspoken frankness. All his life he was somewhat prone, it must be confessed, todepreciate the moral characters of others, and to suspect unworthydesigns in the methods or ends of those who crossed his path. It wasthe not unnatural result of his own rigid resolve to be honest. Refraining with the stern conscientiousness, which was in thecomposition of his Puritan blood, from every act, whether in public orin private life, which seemed to him in the least degree tinged withimmorality, he found a sort of compensation for the restraints anddiscomforts of his own austerity in judging severely the lesspunctilious world around him. Whatever other faults he had, it isunquestionable that his uprightness was as consistent and unvarying ascan be reached by human nature. Yet his temptations were made thegreater and the more cruel by the beliefs constantly borne in upon himthat his rivals did not accept for their own governance in the contestthe same rules by which he was pledged to himself to abide. Jealousyenhanced suspicion, and suspicion in turn pricked jealousy. It is (p. 151)necessary, therefore, to be somewhat upon our guard in acceptinghis estimates of men and acts at this period; though the broad generalimpression to be gathered from his treatment of his rivals, even inthese confidential pages, is favorable at least to his justice ofdisposition and honesty of intention. 

At the outset Mr. Clay excited Mr. Adams's most lively resentment. Thepolicy which seemed most promising to that gentleman lay in antagonismto the Administration, whereas, in the absence of substantial partyissues, there seemed, at least to members of that Administration, tobe no proper grounds for such antagonism. When, therefore, Mr. Clayfound or devised such grounds, the President and his Cabinet, vexedand harassed by the opposition of so influential a man, notunnaturally attributed his tactics to selfish and, in a politicalsense, corrupt motives. Thus Mr. Adams stigmatized his opposition tothe Florida treaty as prompted by no just objection to itsstipulations, but by a malicious wish to bring discredit upon thenegotiator. Probably the charge was true, and Mr. Clay's honesty inopposing an admirable treaty can only be vindicated at the expense ofhis understanding, --an explanation certainly not to be accepted. Butwhen Mr. Adams attributed to the same motive of embarrassing the (p. 152)Administration Mr. Clay's energetic endeavors to force a recognitionof the insurgent states of South America, he exaggerated the inimicalelement in his rival's motives. It was the business of the Presidentand Cabinet, and preëminently of the Secretary of State, to see to itthat the country should not move too fast in this very nice andperilous matter of recognizing the independence of rebels. Mr. Adamswas the responsible minister, and had to hold the reins; Mr. Clay, outside the official vehicle, cracked the lash probably a little moreloudly than he would have done had he been on the coach-box. It may beassumed that in advocating his various motions looking to theappointment of ministers to the new states and to other acts ofrecognition, he felt his eloquence rather fired than dampened by thethought of how much trouble he was making for Mr. Adams; but that hewas at the same time espousing the cause to which he sincerely wishedwell is probably true. His ardent temper was stirred by this strugglefor independence, and his rhetorical nature could not resist theopportunities for fervid and brilliant oratory presented by thisstruggle for freedom against mediæval despotism. Real convictions weresometimes diluted with rodomontade, and a true feeling was to someextent stimulated by the desire to embarrass a rival. 

Entire freedom from prejudice would have been too much to expect (p. 153)from Mr. Adams; but his criticisms of Clay are seldom marked byany serious accusations or really bitter explosions of ill-temper. Early in his term of office he writes that Mr. Clay has "alreadymounted his South American great horse, " and that his "project is thatin which John Randolph failed, to control or overthrow the Executiveby swaying the House of Representatives. " Again he says that "Clay isas rancorously benevolent as John Randolph. " The sting of theseremarks lay rather in the comparison with Randolph than in theirdirect allegations. In January, 1819, Adams notes that Clay has"redoubled his rancor against me, " and gives himself "free swing toassault me . . . Both in his public speeches and by secret machinations, without scruple or delicacy. " The diarist gloomily adds, that "allpublic business in Congress now connects itself with intrigues, andthere is great danger that the whole Government will degenerate into astruggle of cabals. " He was rather inclined to such pessimisticvaticinations; but it must be confessed that he spoke with too muchreason on this occasion. In the absence of a sufficient supply ofimportant public questions to absorb the energies of the men in publiclife, the petty game of personal politics was playing with unusualzeal. As time went on, however, and the South American questions (p. 154)were removed from the arena, Adams's ill-feeling towards Clay becamegreatly mitigated. Clay's assaults and opposition also graduallydwindled away; go-betweens carried to and fro disclaimers, made by theprincipals, of personal ill-will towards each other; and before thetime of election was actually imminent something as near the _ententecordiale_ was established as could be reasonably expected to existbetween competitors very unlike both in moral and mentalconstitution. [4]

 [Footnote 4: For a deliberate estimate of Clay's character see Mr. Adams's Diary, v. 325. ]

Mr. Adams's unbounded indignation and profound contempt were reservedfor Mr. Crawford, partly, it may be suspected by the cynically minded, because Crawford for a long time seemed to be by far the mostformidable rival, but partly also because Crawford was in fact unableto resist the temptation to use ignoble means for attaining an endwhich he coveted too keenly for his own honor. It was only by degreesthat Adams began to suspect the underhand methods and maliciouspractices of Crawford; but as conviction was gradually brought home tohim his native tendency towards suspicion was enhanced to an extremedegree. He then came to recognize in Crawford a wholly selfish (p. 155)and scheming politician, who had the baseness to retain his seat inMr. Monroe's Cabinet with the secret persistent object of giving themost fatal advice in his power. From that time forth he saw in everysuggestion made by the Secretary of the Treasury only an insidiousintent to lead the Administration, and especially the Department ofState, into difficulty, failure, and disrepute. He notes, evidentlywith perfect belief, that for this purpose Crawford was even covertlybusy with the Spanish ambassador to prevent an accommodation of ourdifferences with Spain. "Oh, the windings of the human heart!" heexclaims; "possibly Crawford is not himself conscious of his realmotives for this conduct. " Even the slender measure of charityinvolved in this last sentence rapidly evaporated from the poisonedatmosphere of his mind. He mentions that Crawford has killed a man ina duel; that he leaves unanswered a pamphlet "supported by documents"exhibiting him "in the most odious light, as sacrificing everyprinciple to his ambition. " Because Calhoun would not support him forthe Presidency, Crawford stimulated a series of attacks upon the WarDepartment. He was the "instigator and animating spirit of the wholemovement both in Congress and at Richmond against Jackson and theAdministration. " He was "a worm preying upon the vitals of the (p. 156)Administration in its own body. " He "solemnly deposed in a courtof justice that which is not true, " for the purpose of bringingdiscredit upon the testimony given by Mr. Adams in the same cause. ButMr. Adams says of this that he cannot bring himself to believe thatCrawford has been guilty of wilful falsehood, though convicted ofinaccuracy by his own words; for "ambition debauches memory itself. " Alittle later he would have been less merciful. In some vexatious anddifficult commercial negotiations which Mr. Adams was conducting withFrance, Crawford is "afraid of [the result] being too favorable. "

To form a just opinion of the man thus unpleasantly sketched isdifficult. For nearly eight years Mr. Adams was brought into close andconstant relations with him, and as a result formed a very low opinionof his character and by no means a high estimate of his abilities. Even after making a liberal allowance for the prejudice naturallysupervening from their rivalry there is left a residuum of condemnationabundantly sufficient to ruin a more vigorous reputation than Crawfordhas left behind him. Apparently Mr. Calhoun, though a fellowSoutherner, thought no better of the ambitious Georgian than did Mr. Adams, to whom one day he remarked that Crawford was "a very (p. 157)singular instance of a man of such character rising to the eminence henow occupies; that there has not been in the history of the Unionanother man with abilities so ordinary, with services so slender, andso thoroughly corrupt, who had contrived to make himself a candidatefor the Presidency. " Nor was this a solitary expression of thefeelings of the distinguished South Carolinian. 

Mr. E. H. Mills, Senator from Massachusetts, and a dispassionateobserver, speaks of Crawford with scant favor as "coarse, rough, uneducated, of a pretty strong mind, a great intriguer, and determinedto make himself President. " He adds: "Adams, Jackson, and Calhoun allthink well of each other, and are united at least in one thing, --towit, a most thorough dread and abhorrence of Crawford. "

Yet Crawford was for many years not only never without eagerexpectations of his own, which narrowly missed realization and mightnot have missed it had not his health broken down a few months toosoon, but he had a large following, strong friends, and an extensiveinfluence. But if he really had great ability he had not the goodfortune of an opportunity to show it; and he lives in history ratheras a man from whom much was expected than as a man who achieved (p. 158)much. One faculty, however, not of the best, but serviceable, he hadin a rare degree: he thoroughly understood all the artifices ofpolitics; he knew how to interest and organize partisans, to obtainnewspaper support, and generally to extend and direct his followingafter that fashion which soon afterward began to be fully developed bythe younger school of our public men. He was the _avant courier_ of abad system, of which the first crude manifestations were received withwell-merited disrelish by the worthier among his contemporaries. 

It is the more easy to believe that Adams's distrust of Crawford was asincere conviction, when we consider his behavior towards anotherdangerous rival, General Jackson. In view of the new phase which therelationship between these two men was soon to take on, Adams's heartychampionship of Jackson for several years prior to 1825 deservesmention. The Secretary stood gallantly by the General at a crisis inJackson's life when he greatly needed such strong official backing, and in an hour of extreme need Adams alone in the Cabinet of Monroelent an assistance which Jackson afterwards too readily forgot. Seldomhas a government been brought by the undue zeal of its servants into aquandary more perplexing than that into which the reckless militaryhero brought the Administration of President Monroe. Turned loose (p. 159)in the regions of Florida, checked only by an uncertain and disputedboundary line running through half-explored forests, confronted by ahated foe whose strength he could well afford to despise, GeneralJackson, in a war properly waged only against Indians, ran a wild andlawless, but very vigorous and effective, career in Spanishpossessions. He hung a couple of British subjects with as scant trialand meagre shrift as if he had been a mediæval free-lance; he marchedupon Spanish towns and peremptorily forced the blue-blooded commandersto capitulate in the most humiliating manner; afterwards, when theSpanish territory had become American, in his civil capacity asGovernor, he flung the Spanish Commissioner into jail. He treatedinstructions, laws, and established usages as teasing cobwebs whichany spirited public servant was in duty bound to break; then hequietly stated his willingness to let the country take the benefit ofhis irregular proceedings and make him the scapegoat or martyr if suchshould be needed. How to treat this too successful chieftain was nosimple problem. He had done what he ought not to have done, yeteverybody in the country was heartily glad that he had done it. Heought not to have hung Arbuthnot and Ambrister, nor to have seized (p. 160)Pensacola, nor later on to have imprisoned Callava; yet the generalefficiency of his procedure fully accorded with the secret dispositionof the country. It was, however, not easy to establish the proprietyof his trenchant doings upon any acknowledged principles of law, andduring the long period through which these disturbing feats extended, Jackson was left in painful solitude by those who felt obliged tojudge his actions by rule rather than by sympathy. The President wasconcerned lest his Administration should be brought into indefensibleembarrassment; Calhoun was personally displeased because theinstructions issued from his department had been exceeded; Crawfordeagerly sought to make the most of such admirable opportunities fordestroying the prestige of one who might grow into a dangerous rival;Clay, who hated a military hero, indulged in a series of fiercedenunciations in the House of Representatives; Mr. Adams alone stoodgallantly by the man who had dared to take vigorous measures upon hisown sole responsibility. His career touched a kindred chord in Adams'sown independent and courageous character, and perhaps for the onlytime in his life the Secretary of State became almost sophistical inthe arguments by which he endeavored to sustain the impetuous warrioragainst an adverse Cabinet. The authority given to Jackson to (p. 161)cross the Spanish frontier in pursuit of the Indian enemy wasjustified as being only defensive warfare; then "all the rest, " arguedAdams, "even to the order for taking the Fort of Barrancas by storm, was incidental, deriving its character from the object, which was nothostility to Spain, but the termination of the Indian war. " Throughlong and anxious sessions Adams stood fast in opposing "the unanimousopinions" of the President, Crawford, Calhoun, and Wirt. Their policyseemed to him a little ignoble and wholly blundering, because, hesaid, "it is weakness and a confession of weakness. The disclaimer ofpower in the Executive is of dangerous example and of evilconsequences. There is injustice to the officer in disavowing him, when in principle he is strictly justifiable. " This behavior upon Mr. Adams's part was the more generous and disinterested because theearlier among these doings of Jackson incensed Don Onis extremely andwere near bringing about the entire disruption of that importantnegotiation with Spain upon which Mr. Adams had so much at stake. Butfew civilians have had a stronger dash of the fighting element thanhad Mr. Adams, and this impelled him irresistibly to stand shoulder toshoulder with Jackson in such an emergency, regardless of possibleconsequences to himself. He preferred to insist that the hanging (p. 162)of Arbuthnot and Ambrister was according to the laws of war and tomaintain that position in the teeth of Stratford Canning rather thanto disavow it and render apology and reparation. So three years laterwhen Jackson was again in trouble by reason of his arrest of Callava, he still found a stanch advocate in Adams, who, having made an argumentfor the defence which would have done credit to a subtle-mindedbarrister, concluded by adopting the sentiment of Hume concerning theexecution of Don Pantaleon de Sa by Oliver Cromwell, --if the laws ofnations had been violated, "it was by a signal act of justicedeserving universal approbation. " Later still, on January 8, 1824, being the anniversary of the victory of New Orleans, as if to make aconspicuous declaration of his opinions in favor of Jackson, Mr. Adamsgave a great ball in his honor, "at which about one thousand personsattended. "[5]

 [Footnote 5: Senator Mills says of this grand ball: "Eight large rooms were open and literally filled to overflowing. There must have been at least a thousand people there; and so far as Mr. Adams was concerned it certainly evinced a great deal of taste, elegance, and good sense. . . . Many stayed till twelve and one. . . . It is the universal opinion that nothing has ever equalled this party here either in brilliancy of preparation or elegance of the company. "]

He was in favor of offering to the General the position of (p. 163)minister to Mexico; and before Jackson had developed into a rival ofhimself for the Presidency, he exerted himself to secure theVice-Presidency for him. Thus by argument and by influence in theCabinet, in many a private interview, and in the world of society, also by wise counsel when occasion offered, Mr. Adams for many yearsmade himself the noteworthy and indeed the only powerful friend ofGeneral Jackson. Nor up to the last moment, and when Jackson hadbecome his most dangerous competitor, is there any derogatory passageconcerning him in the Diary. 

As the period of election drew nigh, interest in it absorbedeverything else; indeed during the last year of Monroe'sAdministration public affairs were so quiescent and the publicbusiness so seldom transcended the simplest routine, that there waslittle else than the next Presidency to be thought or talked of. Therivalship for this, as has been said, was based not upon conflictingtheories concerning public affairs, but solely upon individualpreference for one or another of four men no one of whom at thatmoment represented any great principle in antagonism to any of theothers. Under no circumstances could the temptation to petty intrigueand malicious tale-bearing be greater than when votes were (p. 164)to be gained or lost solely by personal predilection. In such acontest Adams was severely handicapped as against the showy prestigeof the victorious soldier, the popularity of the brilliant orator, andthe artfulness of the most dexterous political manager then in publiclife. Long prior to this stage Adams had established his rule ofconduct in the campaign. So early as March, 1818, he was asked one dayby Mr. Everett whether he was "determined to do nothing with a view topromote his future election to the Presidency as the successor of Mr. Monroe, " and he had replied that he "should do absolutely nothing. " Tothis resolution he sturdily adhered. Not a breach of it was everbrought home to him, or indeed--save in one instance soon to benoticed--seriously charged against him. There is not in the Diary thefaintest trace of any act which might be so much as questionable orsusceptible of defence only by casuistry. That he should haveperpetuated evidence of any flagrant misdoing certainly could not beexpected; but in a record kept with the fulness and frankness of thisDiary we should read between the lines and detect as it were in itsgeneral flavor any taint of disingenuousness or concealment; we shoulddiscern moral unwholesomeness in its atmosphere. A thoughtlesssentence would slip from the pen, a sophistical argument would be (p. 165)formulated for self-comfort, some acquaintance, interview, orarrangement would slide upon some unguarded page indicative ofundisclosed matters. But there is absolutely nothing of this sort. There is no tinge of bad color; all is clear as crystal. Not aneditor, nor a member of Congress, nor a local politician, not even aprivate individual, was intimidated or conciliated. On the contrary itoften happened that those who made advances, at least sometimesstimulated by honest friendship, got rebuffs instead of encouragement. Even after the contest was known to have been transferred to the Houseof Representatives, when Washington was actually buzzing with theceaseless whisperings of many secret conclaves, when the air was thickwith rumors of what this one had said and that one had done, when, asWebster said, there were those who pretended to foretell how arepresentative would vote from the way in which he put on his hat, when of course stories of intrigue and corruption poisoned the honestbreeze, and when the streets seemed traversed only by the busy treadof the go-betweens, the influential friends, the wire-pullers of thevarious contestants, --still amid all this noisy excitement and extremetemptation Mr. Adams held himself almost wholly aloof, wrapped in thecloak of his rigid integrity. His proud honesty was only not quite (p. 166)repellent; he sometimes allowed himself to answer questionscourteously, and for a brief period held in check his strong naturalpropensity to give offence and make enemies. This was the uttermostlength that he could go towards political corruption. He became for afew weeks tolerably civil of speech, which after all was much for himto do and doubtless cost him no insignificant effort. Since the daysof Washington he alone presents the singular spectacle of a candidatefor the Presidency deliberately taking the position, and in a longcampaign really never flinching from it: "that, if the people wish meto be President I shall not refuse the office; but I ask nothing fromany man or from any body of men. "

Yet though he declined to be a courtier of popular favor he did notconceal from himself or from others the chagrin which he would feel ifthere should be a manifestation of popular disfavor. Before thepopular election he stated that if it should go against him he shouldconstrue it as the verdict of the people that they were dissatisfiedwith his services as a public man, and he should then retire toprivate life, no longer expecting or accepting public functions. Hedid not regard politics as a struggle in which, if he should now (p. 167)be beaten in one encounter, he would return to another in the hopeof better success in time. His notion was that the people had hadample opportunity during his incumbency in appointive offices tomeasure his ability and understand his character, and that the actionof the people in electing or not electing him to the Presidency wouldbe an indication that they were satisfied or dissatisfied with him. Inthe latter event he had nothing more to seek. Politics did notconstitute a profession or career in which he felt entitled to persistin seeking personal success as he might in the law or in business. Neither did the circumstances of the time place him in the position ofan advocate of any great principle which he might feel it his duty torepresent and to fight for against any number of reverses. No suchelement was present at this time in national affairs. He construed thequestion before the people simply as concerning their opinion of him. He was much too proud to solicit and much too honest to scheme for afavorable expression. It was a singular and a lofty attitude even if atrifle egotistical and not altogether unimpeachable by argument. Itcould not diminish but rather it intensified his interest in a contestwhich he chose to regard not simply as a struggle for a glittering (p. 168)prize but as a judgment upon the services which he had been for alifetime rendering to his countrymen. 

How profoundly his whole nature was moved by the position in which hestood is evident, often almost painfully, in the Diary. Any attempt toconceal his feeling would be idle, and he makes no such attempt. Herepeats all the rumors which come to his ears; he tells the storiesabout Crawford's illness; he records his own temptations; he trieshard to nerve himself to bear defeat philosophically by constantlypredicting it; indeed, he photographs his whole existence for manyweeks; and however eagerly any person may aspire to the Presidency ofthe United States there is little in the picture to make one long forthe preliminary position of candidate for that honor. It is too muchlike the stake and the flames through which the martyr passed toeternal beatitude, with the difference as against the candidate thathe has by no means the martyr's certainty of reward. 

In those days of slow communication it was not until December, 1824, that it became everywhere known that there had been no election of apresident by the people. When the Electoral College met the result oftheir ballots was as follows:--

 General Jackson led with 99 votes. (p. 169) Adams followed with 84 " Crawford had 41 " Clay had 37 " --- Total 261 votes. 

Mr. Calhoun was elected Vice-President by the handsome number of 182votes. 

This condition of the election had been quite generally anticipated;yet Mr. Adams's friends were not without some feeling ofdisappointment. They had expected for him a fair support at the South, whereas he in fact received seventy-seven out of his eighty-four votesfrom New York and New England; Maryland gave him three, Louisiana gavehim two, Delaware and Illinois gave him one each. 

When the electoral body was known to be reduced within the narrowlimits of the House of Representatives, intrigue was rather stimulatedthan diminished by the definiteness which became possible for it. Mr. Clay, who could not come before the House, found himself transmutedfrom a candidate to a President-maker; for it was admitted by all thathis great personal influence in Congress would almost undoubtedlyconfer success upon the aspirant whom he should favor. Apparently hispredilections were at least possibly in favor of Crawford; but (p. 170)Crawford's health had been for many months very bad; he had had asevere paralytic stroke, and when acting as Secretary of the Treasuryhe had been unable to sign his name, so that a stamp or die had beenused; his speech was scarcely intelligible; and when Mr. Clay visitedhim in the retirement in which his friends now kept him, the factcould not be concealed that he was for the time at least a wreck. Mr. Clay therefore had to decide for himself, his followers, and thecountry whether Mr. Adams or General Jackson should be the nextPresident of the United States. A cruel attempt was made in thiscrisis either to destroy his influence by blackening his character, orto intimidate him, through fear of losing his reputation forintegrity, into voting for Jackson. An anonymous letter charged thatthe friends of Clay had hinted that, "like the Swiss, they would fightfor those who pay best;" that they had offered to elect Jackson if hewould agree to make Clay Secretary of State, and that upon hisindignant refusal to make such a bargain the same proposition had beenmade to Mr. Adams, who was found less scrupulous and had promptlyformed the "unholy coalition. " This wretched publication, made a fewdays before the election in the House, was traced to a dull-wittedPennsylvania Representative by the name of Kremer, who had (p. 171)obviously been used as a tool by cleverer men. It met, however, thefate which seems happily always to attend such ignoble devices, andfailed utterly of any more important effect than the utterannihilation of Kremer. In truth, General Jackson's fate had beensealed from the instant when it had fallen into Mr. Clay's hands. Clayhad long since expressed his unfavorable opinion of the "militaryhero, " in terms too decisive to admit of explanation or retraction. Without much real liking for Adams, Clay at least disliked him muchless than he did Jackson, and certainly his honest judgment favoredthe civilian far more than the disorderly soldier whose lawless careerin Florida had been the topic of some of the great orator's fiercestinvective. The arguments founded on personal fitness were stronglyupon the side of Adams, and other arguments advanced by the Jacksonianscould hardly deceive Clay. They insisted that their candidate was thechoice of the people so far as a superiority of preference had beenindicated, and that therefore he ought to be also the choice of theHouse of Representatives. It would be against the spirit of theConstitution and a thwarting of the popular will, they said, to prefereither of his competitors. The fallacy of this reasoning, if reasoningit could be called, was glaring. If the spirit of the Constitution (p. 172)required the House of Representatives not to _elect_ from threecandidates before it, but only to induct an individual into thePresidency by a process which was in form voting but in fact only asimple certification that he had received the highest number ofelectoral votes, it would have been a plain and easy matter for theletter of the Constitution to have expressed this spirit, or indeed tohave done away altogether with this machinery of a sham election. TheJackson men had only to state their argument in order to expose itshollowness; for they said substantially that the Constitutionestablished an election without an option; that the electors were tovote for a person predestined by an earlier occurrence to receivetheir ballots. But besides their unsoundness in argument, theirstatistical position was far from being what they undertook torepresent it. The popular vote had been so light that it really lookedas though the people had cared very little which candidate shouldsucceed; and to talk about a manifestation of the _popular will_ wasabsurd, for the only real manifestation had been of popularindifference. For example, in 1823 Massachusetts had cast upwards of66, 000 votes in the state election, whereas in this national electionshe cast only a trifle more than 37, 000. Virginia distributed (p. 173)a total of less than 15, 000 among all four candidates. Pluralities didnot signify much in such a condition of sentiment as was indicated bythese figures. Moreover, in six States, viz. , Vermont, New York, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, the electors were chosenby the legislatures, not by the people; so that there was no correctway of counting them at all in a discussion of pluralities. Guessesand approximations favored Adams, and to an important degree; forthese six States gave to Adams thirty-six votes, to Jackson nineteen, to Crawford six, to Clay four. In New York, Jackson had hardly anappreciable following. Moreover, in other States many thousands ofvotes which had been "cast for no candidate in particular, but inopposition to the caucus ticket generally, " were reckoned as if theyhad been cast for Jackson or against Adams, as suited the especialcase. Undoubtedly Jackson did have a plurality, but undoubtedly itfell very far short of the imposing figure, nearly 48, 000, which hissupporters had the audacity to name. 

The election took place in the House on February 9, 1825. DanielWebster and John Randolph were tellers, and they reported that therewere "for John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, thirteen votes; forAndrew Jackson, of Tennessee, seven votes; for William H. Crawford, of Georgia, four votes. " Thereupon the speaker announced Mr. Adams (p. 174)to have been elected President of the United States. 

This end of an unusually exciting contest thus left Mr. Adams inpossession of the field, Mr. Crawford the victim of an irretrievabledefeat, Mr. Clay still hopeful and aspiring for a future which hadonly disappointment in store for him, General Jackson enraged andrevengeful. Not even Mr. Adams was fully satisfied. When the committeewaited upon him to inform him of the election, he referred in hisreply to the peculiar state of things and said, "could my refusal toaccept the trust thus delegated to me give an opportunity to thepeople to form and to express with a nearer approach to unanimity theobject of their preference, I should not hesitate to decline theacceptance of this eminent charge and to submit the decision of thismomentous question again to their decision. " That this singular andstriking statement was made in good faith is highly probable. WilliamH. Seward says that it was "unquestionably uttered with greatsincerity of heart. " The test of action of course could not beapplied, since the resignation of Mr. Adams would only have made Mr. Calhoun President, and could not have been so arranged as to bringabout a new election. Otherwise the course of his argument would (p. 175)have been clear; the fact that such action involved an enormoussacrifice would have been to his mind strong evidence that it was aduty; and the temptation to perform a duty, always strong with him, became ungovernable if the duty was exceptionally disagreeable. Underthe circumstances, however, the only logical conclusion lay in theinauguration, which took place in the customary simple fashion onMarch 4, 1825. Mr. Adams, we are told, was dressed in a black suit, ofwhich all the materials were wholly of American manufacture. Prominentamong those who after the ceremony hastened to greet him and to shakehands with him appeared General Jackson. It was the last time that anyfriendly courtesy is recorded as having passed between the two. 

Many men eminent in public affairs have had their best years embitteredby their failure to secure the glittering prize of the Presidency. Mr. Adams is perhaps the only person to whom the gaining of that prouddistinction has been in some measure a cause of chagrin. This strangesentiment, which he undoubtedly felt, was due to the fact that what hehad wished was not the office in and for itself, but the office as asymbol or token of the popular approval. He had held important andresponsible public positions during substantially his whole active (p. 176)life; he was nearly sixty years old, and, as he said, he now for thefirst time had an opportunity to find out in what esteem the people ofthe country held him. What he wished was that the people should nowexpress their decided satisfaction with him. This he hardly could besaid to have obtained; though to be the choice of a plurality in thenation and then to be selected by so intelligent a body ofconstituents as the Representatives of the United States involved apeculiar sanction, yet nothing else could fully take the place of thatnational indorsement which he had coveted. When men publicly professmodest depreciation of their successes they are seldom believed; butin his private Diary Mr. Adams wrote, on December 31, 1825:--

 "The year has been the most momentous of those that have passed over my head, inasmuch as it has witnessed my elevation at the age of fifty-eight to the Chief Magistracy of my country, to the summit of laudable or at least blameless worldly ambition; not however in a manner satisfactory to pride or to just desire; not by the unequivocal suffrages of a majority of the people; with perhaps two thirds of the whole people adverse to the actual result. "

No President since Washington had ever come into office so entirelyfree from any manner of personal obligations or partisan (p. 177)entanglements, express or implied, as did Mr. Adams. Throughout thecampaign he had not himself, or by any agent, held out any manner oftacit inducement to any person whomsoever, contingent upon hiselection. He entered upon the Presidency under no indebtedness. He atonce nominated his Cabinet as follows: Henry Clay, Secretary of State;Richard Rush, Secretary of the Treasury; James Barbour, Secretary ofWar; Samuel L. Southard, Secretary of the Navy; William Wirt, Attorney-General. The last two were renominations of the incumbentsunder Monroe. The entire absence of chicanery or the use of influencein the distribution of offices is well illustrated by the followingincident: On the afternoon following the day of inauguration PresidentAdams called upon Rufus King, whose term of service as Senator fromNew York had just expired, and who was preparing to leave Washingtonon the next day. In the course of a conversation concerning thenominations which had been sent to the Senate that forenoon thePresident said that he had nominated no minister to the English court, and

 "asked Mr. King if he would accept that mission. His first and immediate impulse was to decline it. He said that his determination to retire from the public service had been (p. 178) made up, and that this proposal was utterly unexpected to him. Of this I was aware; but I urged upon him a variety of considerations to induce his acceptance of it. . . . I dwelt with earnestness upon all these motives, and apparently not without effect. He admitted the force of them, and finally promised fully to consider of the proposal before giving me a definite answer. "

The result was an acceptance by Mr. King, his nomination by thePresident, and confirmation by the Senate. He was an old Federalist, to whom Mr. Adams owed no favors. With such directness and simplicitywere the affairs of the Republic conducted. It is a quaint andpleasing scene from the period of our forefathers: the President, without discussion of "claims" to a distinguished and favorite post, actually selects for it a member of a hostile political organization, an old man retiring from public life; then quietly walks over to hishouse, surprises him with the offer, and finding him reluctanturgently presses upon him arguments to induce his acceptance. But thewhole business of office-seeking and office-distributing, now soovershadowing, had no place under Mr. Adams. On March 5 he sent inseveral nominations which were nearly all of previous incumbents. "Efforts had been made, " he writes, "by some of the senators to obtaindifferent nominations, and to introduce a principle of change or (p. 179)rotation in office at the expiration of these commissions, which wouldmake the Government a perpetual and unintermitting scramble foroffice. A more pernicious expedient could scarcely have beendevised. . . . I determined to renominate every person against whom therewas no complaint which would have warranted his removal. " A notableinstance was that of Sterret, naval officer at New Orleans, "a noisyand clamorous reviler of the Administration, " and lately busy in aproject for insulting a Louisiana Representative who had voted for Mr. Adams. Secretary Clay was urgent for the removal of this man, plausibly saying that in the cases of persons holding office at thepleasure of the Administration the proper course was to avoid on theone hand political persecution, and on the other any appearance ofpusillanimity. Mr. Adams replied that if Sterret had been actuallyengaged in insulting a representative for the honest and independentdischarge of duty, he would make the removal at once. But the designhad not been consummated, and an _intention_ never carried into effectwould scarcely justify removal. 

 "Besides [he added], should I remove this man for this cause it must be upon some fixed principle, which would apply to others as well as to him. And where was it possible to draw the line? (p. 180) Of the custom-house officers throughout the Union, four fifths in all probability were opposed to my election. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury, had distributed these positions among his own supporters. I had been urged very earnestly and from various quarters to sweep away my opponents and provide with their places for my friends. I can justify the refusal to adopt this policy only by the steadiness and consistency of my adhesion to my own. If I depart from this in one instance I shall be called upon by my friends to do the same in many. An invidious and inquisitorial scrutiny into the personal dispositions of public officers will creep through the whole Union, and the most selfish and sordid passions will be kindled into activity to distort the conduct and misrepresent the feelings of men whose places may become the prize of slander upon them. "

Mr. Clay was silenced, and Sterret retained his position, constitutingthereafter only a somewhat striking instance among many to show thatnothing was to be lost by political opposition to Mr. Adams. 

It was a cruel and discouraging fatality which brought about that aman so suicidally upright in the matter of patronage should find thatthe bitterest abuse which was heaped upon him was founded in anallegation of corruption of precisely this nature. When before theelection the ignoble George Kremer anonymously charged that (p. 181)Mr. Clay had sold his friends in the House of Representatives to Mr. Adams, "as the planter does his negroes or the farmer his team andhorses;" when Mr. Clay promptly published the unknown writer as "abase and infamous calumniator, a dastard and a liar;" when nextKremer, being unmasked, avowed that he would make good his charges, but immediately afterward actually refused to appear or testify beforea Committee of the House instructed to investigate the matter, it wassupposed by all reasonable observers that the outrageous accusationWas forever laid at rest. But this was by no means the case. Theauthor of the slander had been personally discredited; but the slanderitself had not been destroyed. So shrewdly had its devisers who sawfuture usefulness in it managed the matter, that while Kremer slunkaway into obscurity, the story which he had told remained an assertiondenied, but not disproved, still open to be believed by suspicious orwilling friends. With Adams President and Clay Secretary of State andGeneral Jackson nominated, as he quickly was by the TennesseeLegislature, as a candidate for the next Presidential term, theaccusation was too plausible and too tempting to be allowed to fallforever into dusty death; rather it was speedily exhumed from itsshallow burial and galvanized into new life. The partisans of (p. 182)General Jackson sent it to and fro throughout the land. No denial, no argument, could kill it. It began to gain that sort of half beliefwhich is certain to result from constant repetition; since many mindsare so constituted that truth may be actually, as it were, manufactured for them by ceaseless iteration of statement, the manyhearings gaining the character of evidence. 

It is long since all students of American history, no matter what aretheir prejudices, or in whose interest their researches areprosecuted, have branded this accusation as devoid of even the mostshadowy basis of probability, and it now gains no more credit thanwould a story that Adams, Clay, and Jackson had conspired together toget Crawford out of their way by assassination, and that his paralysiswas the result of the drugs and potions administered in performance ofthis foul plot. But for a while the rumor stalked abroad among thepeople, and many conspicuously bowed down before it because it servedtheir purpose, and too many others also, it must be confessed, didlikewise because they were deceived and really believed it. Even thelegislature of Tennessee were not ashamed to give formal countenanceto a calumny in support of which not a particle of evidence had everbeen adduced. In a preamble to certain resolutions passed by this (p. 183)body upon this subject in 1827, it was recited that: "Mr. Adamsdesired the office of President; he went into the combination withoutit, and came out with it. Mr. Clay desired that of Secretary of State;he went into the combination without it, and came out with it. " Noother charge could have wounded Mr. Adams so keenly; yet no course wasopen to him for refuting the slander. Mr. Clay, beside himself with ajust rage, was better able to fight after the fashion of the day--ifindeed he could only find somebody to fight. This he did at last inthe person of John Randolph, of Roanoke, who adverted in one of hisrambling and vituperative harangues to "the coalition of Blifil andBlack George--the combination unheard of till then of the Puritan andthe black-leg. " This language led naturally enough to a challenge fromMr. Clay. The parties met[6] and exchanged shots without result. Thepistols were a second time loaded; Clay fired; Randolph fired into theair, walked up to Clay and without a word gave him his hand, whichClay had as it were perforce to take. There was no injury done save tothe skirts of Randolph's long flannel coat which were pierced by oneof the bullets. 

 [Footnote 6: April 8, 1826. ]

By way of revenge a duel may be effective if the wrong man does (p. 184)not happen to get shot; but as evidence for intelligent men a bloodierending than this would have been inconclusive. It so happened, however, that Jackson, altogether contrary to his own purpose, broughtconclusive aid to President Adams and Secretary Clay. Whether theGeneral ever had any real faith in the charge can only be surmised. Not improbably he did, for his mental workings were so peculiar intheir violence and prejudice that apparently he always sincerelybelieved all persons who crossed his path to be knaves and villains ofthe blackest dye. But certain it is that whether he credited the taleor not he soon began to devote himself with all his wonted vigor andpertinacity to its wide dissemination. Whether in so doing he wasstupidly believing a lie, or intentionally spreading a known slander, is a problem upon which his friends and biographers have exhaustedmuch ingenuity without reaching any certain result. But sure it isthat early in the year 1827 he was so far carried beyond the bounds ofprudence as to declare before many persons that he had proof of thecorrupt bargain. The assertion was promptly sent to the newspapers bya Mr. Carter Beverly, one of those who heard it made in the presenceof several guests at the Hermitage. The name of Mr. Beverly, at firstconcealed, soon became known, and he was of course compelled to (p. 185)vouch in his principal. General Jackson never deserted his adherents, whether their difficulties were noble or ignoble. He came gallantly tothe aid of Mr. Beverly, and in a letter of June 6 declared that earlyin January, 1825, he had been visited by a "member of Congress of highrespectability, " who had told him of "a great intrigue going on" ofwhich he ought to be informed. This gentleman had then proceeded toexplain that Mr. Clay's friends were afraid that if General Jacksonshould be elected President, "Mr. Adams would be continued Secretaryof State (innuendo, there would be no room for Kentucky); that if Iwould say, or permit any of my confidential friends to say, that incase I were elected President, Mr. Adams should not be continuedSecretary of State, by a complete union of Mr. Clay and his friendsthey would put an end to the Presidential contest in one hour. And hewas of opinion it was right to fight such intriguers with their ownweapons. " This scarcely disguised suggestion of bargain and corruptionthe General said that he repudiated indignantly. Clay at once publiclychallenged Jackson to produce some evidence--to name the "respectable"member of Congress who appeared in the very unrespectable light of (p. 186)advising a candidate for the Presidency to emulate the allegedbaseness of his opponents. Jackson thereupon uncovered James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Buchanan was a friend of the General, and to whatpoint it may have been expected or hoped that his allegiance wouldcarry him in support of his chief in this dire hour of extremity ismatter only of inference. Fortunately, however, his fealty does notappear to have led him any great distance from the truth. He yieldedto the prevailing desire to pass along the responsibility to some oneelse so far as to try to bring in a Mr. Markley, who, however, neverbecame more than a dumb figure in the drama in which Buchanan wasobliged to remain as the last important character. With obviousreluctance this gentleman then wrote that if General Jackson hadplaced any such construction as the foregoing upon an interview whichhad occurred between them, and which he recited at length, then theGeneral had totally misconstrued--as was evident enough--what he, Mr. Buchanan, had said. Indeed, that Jackson could have supposed him toentertain the sentiments imputed to him made Mr. Buchanan, as he said, "exceedingly unhappy. " In other words, there was no foundationwhatsoever for the charge thus traced back to an originator who deniedhaving originated it and said that it was all a mistake. General (p. 187)Jackson was left to be defended from the accusation of deliberatefalsehood only by the charitable suggestion that he had been unable tounderstand a perfectly simple conversation. Apparently Mr. Adams andMr. Clay ought now to be abundantly satisfied, since not only werethey amply vindicated, but their chief vilifier seemed to have beenpierced by the point which he had sharpened for them. They had yet, however, to learn what vitality there is in falsehood. 

General Jackson and his friends had alone played any active part inthis matter. Of these friends Mr. Kremer had written a letter ofretraction and apology which he was with difficulty prevented frompublishing; Mr. Buchanan had denied all that he had been summoned toprove; a few years later Mr. Beverly wrote and sent to Mr. Clay acontrite letter of regret. General Jackson alone remained for the restof his life unsilenced, obstinately reiterating a charge disproved byhis own witnesses. But worse than all this, accumulations of evidencelong and laboriously sought in many quarters have established atolerably strong probability that advances of precisely the characteralleged against Mr. Adams's friends were made to Mr. Clay by the mostintimate personal associates of General Jackson. The discussion (p. 188)of this unpleasant suspicion would not, however, be an excusableepisode in this short volume. The reader who is curious to pursue thematter further will find all the documentary evidence collected in itsoriginal shape in the first volume of Colton's "Life of Clay, "accompanied by an argument needlessly elaborate and surcharged withfeeling yet in the main sufficiently fair and exhaustive. 

Mr. Benton says that "no President could have commenced his administrationunder more unfavorable auspices, or with less expectation of a popularcareer, " than did Mr. Adams. From the first a strong minority in theHouse of Representatives was hostile to him, and the next electionmade this a majority. The first indication of the shape which theopposition was to take became visible in the vote in the Senate uponconfirming Mr. Clay as Secretary of State. There were fourteen naysagainst twenty-seven yeas, and an inspection of the list showed thatthe South was beginning to consolidate more closely than heretofore asa sectional force in politics. The formation of a Southern partydistinctly organized in the interests of slavery, already apparent inthe unanimity of the Southern Electoral Colleges against Mr. Adams, thus received further illustration; and the skilled eye of the (p. 189)President noted "the rallying of the South and of Southern interestsand prejudices to the men of the South. " It is possible now to seeplainly that Mr. Adams was really the first leader in the long crusadeagainst slavery; it was in opposition to him that the South became apolitical unit; and a true instinct taught him the trend of Southernpolitics long before the Northern statesmen apprehended it, perhapsbefore even any Southern statesman had distinctly formulated it. Thisnew development in the politics of the country soon received furtherillustration. The first message which Mr. Adams had occasion to sendto Congress gave another opportunity to his ill-wishers. Therein hestated that the invitation which had been extended to the UnitedStates to be represented at the Congress of Panama had been accepted, and that he should commission ministers to attend the meeting. Neitherin matter nor in manner did this proposition contain any just elementof offence. It was customary for the Executive to initiate newmissions simply by the nomination of envoys to fill them; and in suchcase the Senate, if it did not think the suggested mission desirable, could simply decline to confirm the nomination upon that ground. Anexample of this has been already seen in the two nominations of Mr. Adams himself to the Court of Russia in the Presidency of Mr. (p. 190)Madison. But now vehement assaults were made upon the President, alike in the Senate and in the House, on the utterly absurd groundthat he had transcended his powers. Incredible, too, as it may seem atthis day it was actually maintained that there was no occasionwhatsoever for the United States to desire representation at such agathering. Prolonged and bitter was the opposition which theAdministration was compelled to encounter in a measure to which thereso obviously ought to have been instant assent if considered solelyupon its intrinsic merits, but upon which nevertheless the discussionactually overshadowed all other questions which arose during thesession. The President had the good fortune to find the powerful aidof Mr. Webster enlisted in his behalf, and ultimately he prevailed;but it was of ill augury at this early date to see that personalhostility was so widespread and so rancorous that it could make such aprolonged and desperate resistance with only the faintest pretext ofright as a basis for its action. Yet a great and fundamental cause ofthe feeling manifested lay hidden away beneath the surface in theinstinctive antipathy of the slaveholders to Mr. Adams and all histhoughts, his ways, and his doings. For into this question of (p. 191)countenancing the Panama Congress, slavery and "the South" entered andimported into a portion of the opposition a certain element ofreasonableness and propriety in a political sense. When we see theSouthern statesmen banded against President Adams in these debates, aswe know the future which was hidden from them, it almost makes usbelieve that their vindictiveness was justified by an instinctiveforecasting of his character and his mission in life, and that withoutknowing it they already felt the influence of the acts which he wasyet to do against them. For the South, without present dread of anabolition movement, yet hated this Panama Congress with a contemptuousloathing not alone because the South American states had freed allslaves within their limits, but because there was actually a fairchance that Hayti would be admitted to representation at the sessionsas a sovereign state. That the President of the United States shouldpropose to send white citizens of that country to sit cheek by jowl onterms of official equality with the revolted blacks of Hayti fired theSouthern heart with rage inexpressible. The proposition was a furtherinfusion of cement to aid in the Southern consolidation so rapidlygoing forward, and was substantially the beginning of the sense ofpersonal alienation henceforth to grow steadily more bitter on (p. 192)the part of the slaveholders towards Mr. Adams. Without designingit he had struck the first blow in a fight which was to absorb hisenergies for the rest of his life. 

Such evil forebodings as might too easily be drawn from the course ofthis debate were soon and amply fulfilled. The opposition increasedrapidly until when Congress came together in December, 1827, it hadattained overshadowing proportions. Not only was a member of thatparty elected Speaker of the House of Representatives, but a decidedmajority of both Houses of Congress was arrayed against theAdministration--"a state of things which had never before occurredunder the Government of the United States. " All the committees toowere composed of four opposition and only three Administrationmembers. With more exciting issues this relationship of the executiveand legislative departments might have resulted in dangerous collisions;but in this season of political quietude it only made the position ofthe President extremely uncomfortable. Mr. Van Buren soon becamerecognized as the formidable leader and organizer of the Jacksonforces. His capacity as a political strategist was so far in advanceof that of any other man of those times that it might have securedsuccess even had he been encountered by tactics similar to his (p. 193)own. But since on the contrary he had only to meet straightforwardsimplicity, it was soon apparent that he would have everything his ownway. It was disciplined troops against the militia of honest merchantsand farmers; and the result was not to be doubted. Mr. Adams and hisfriends were fond of comparing Van Buren with Aaron Burr, thoughpredicting that he would be too shrewd to repeat Burr's blunders. Fromthe beginning they declined to meet with his own weapons a man whomthey so contemned. It was about this time that a new nomenclature ofparties was introduced into our politics. The administrationistscalled themselves National Republicans, a name which in a few yearswas changed for that of Whigs, while the opposition or Jacksonianswere known as Democrats, a title which has been ever since retained bythe same party. 

The story of Mr. Adams's Administration will detain the historian, andeven the biographer, only a very short time. Not an event occurredduring those four years which appears of any especial moment. Ourforeign relations were all pacific; and no grave crisis or great issuewas developed in domestic affairs. It was a period of tranquillity, inwhich the nation advanced rapidly in prosperity. For many years dulnesshad reigned in business, but returning activity was encouraged by (p. 194)the policy of the new Government, and upon all sides variousindustries became active and thriving. So far as the rule of Mr. Adamswas marked by any distinguishing characteristic, it was by a care forthe material welfare of the people. More commercial treaties werenegotiated during his Administration than in the thirty-six yearspreceding his inauguration. He was a strenuous advocate of internalimprovements, and happily the condition of the national financesenabled the Government to embark in enterprises of this kind. Hesuggested many more than were undertaken, but not perhaps more than itwould have been quite possible to carry out. He was always chary ofmaking a show of himself before the people for the sake of gainingpopularity. When invited to attend the annual exhibition of theMaryland Agricultural Society, shortly after his inauguration, hedeclined, and wrote in his Diary: "To gratify this wish I must givefour days of my time, no trifle of expense, and set a precedent forbeing claimed as an article of exhibition at all the cattle-showsthroughout the Union. " Other gatherings would prefer equallyreasonable demands, in responding to which "some duty must beneglected. " But the opening of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal was anevent sufficiently momentous and national in its character to (p. 195)justify the President's attendance. He was requested in the presenceof a great concourse of people to dig the first shovelful of earth andto make a brief address. The speech-making was easy; but when thedigging was to be done he encountered some unexpected obstacle and thesoil did not yield to his repeated efforts. Not to be defeated, however, he stripped off his coat, went to work in earnest with thespade and raised the earth successfully. Naturally such readiness washailed with loud applause and pleased the great crowd who saw it. Butin Mr. Adams's career it was an exceptional occurrence that enabledhim to conciliate a momentary popularity; it was seldom that heenjoyed or used an opportunity of gaining the cheap admiration orshallow friendship of the multitude. 

At least one moral to be drawn from the story of Mr. Adams'sPresidency perhaps deserves rather to be called an _immoral_, andcertainly furnishes unwelcome support to those persons who believethat conscientiousness is out of place in politics. It has been saidthat no sooner was General Jackson fairly defeated than he was againbefore the people as a candidate for the next election. An oppositionto the new Administration was in process of formation actually beforethere had been time for that Administration to declare, much less (p. 196)to carry out, any policy or even any measure. The opposition wastherefore not one of principle; it was not dislike of anything done orto be done; it did not pretend to have a purpose of saving the peoplefrom blunders or of offering them greater advantages. It was simply anopposition, or more properly an hostility, to the President and hisCabinet, and was conducted by persons who wished in as short a time aspossible themselves to control and fill those positions. The soleground upon which these opponents stood was, that they would ratherhave General Jackson at the head of affairs than Mr. Adams. The issuewas purely personal; it was so when the opposition first developed, and it remained so until that opposition triumphed. 

Under no circumstances can it be more excusable for an electivemagistrate to seek personal good will towards himself than when hisrival seeks to supplant him simply on the basis of enjoying a greatermeasure of such good will. Had any important question of policy beendividing the people, it would have been easy for a man of less moralcourage and independence than belonged to Mr. Adams to select the sidewhich he thought right, and to await the outcome at least withconstancy. But the only real question raised was this: will Mr. Adamsor General Jackson--two individuals representing as yet no (p. 197)antagonistic policies--be preferred by the greater number of voters in1829? If, however, there was no great apparent issue open betweenthese two men, at least there was a very wide difference between theircharacters, a point of some consequence in a wholly personalcompetition. It is easy enough now to see how this gaping differencedisplayed itself from the beginning, and how the advantage for winningwas throughout wholly on the side of Jackson. The course to be pursuedby Mr. Adams in order to insure victory was obvious enough; beingsimply to secure the largest following and most efficient supportpossible. The arts by which these objects were to be attained were notobscure nor beyond his power. If he wished a second term, as beyondquestion he did, two methods were of certain utility. He should makethe support of his Administration a source of profit to thesupporters; and he should conciliate good will by every means thatoffered. To the former end what more efficient means could be devisedthan a body of office-holders owing their positions to his appointmentand likely to have the same term of office as himself? His neglect tocreate such a corps of stanch supporters cannot be explained on theground that so plain a scheme of perpetuating power had not then (p. 198)been devised in the Republic. Mr. Jefferson had practised it, to anextent which now seems moderate, but which had been sufficientlyextensive to deprive any successor of the honor of novelty in originatingit. The times were ripe for it, and the nation would not have revoltedat it, as was made apparent when General Jackson, succeeding Mr. Adams, at once carried out the system with a thoroughness that hasnever been surpassed, and with a success in achieving results so greatthat almost no politician has since failed to have recourse to thesame practice. Suggestions and temptations, neither of which werewanting, were however alike thrown away upon Mr. Adams. Friendship orhostility to the President were the only two matters which were sureto have no effect whatsoever upon the fate of an incumbent or anaspirant. Scarcely any removals were made during his Administration, and every one of the few was based solely upon a proved unfitness ofthe official. As a consequence very few new appointments were made, and in every instance the appointee was, or was believed to be, thefittest man without regard to his political bias. This entireelimination of the question of party allegiance from every departmentof the public service was not a specious protestation, but anundeniable fact at which friends grumbled bitterly, and upon which (p. 199)foes counted often with an ungenerous but always with an implicitreliance. It was well known, for example, that in the CustomsDepartment there were many more avowed opponents than supporters ofthe Administration. What was to be thought, the latter angrily asked, of a president who refused to make any distinction between the sheepand the goats? But while Mr. Adams, unmoved by argument, anger, orentreaty, thus alienated many and discouraged all, every one was madeacquainted with the antipodal principles of his rival. The consequencewas inevitable; many abandoned Adams from sheer irritation; multitudesbecame cool and indifferent concerning him; the great number of thosewhose political faith was so weak as to be at the ready command oftheir own interests, or the interests of a friend or relative, yieldedto a pressure against which no counteracting force was employed. In aword, no one who had not a strong and independent personal convictionin behalf of Mr. Adams found the slightest inducement to belong to hisparty. It did not require much political sagacity to see that in quiettimes, with no great issue visibly at stake, a following thus composedcould not include a majority of the nation. It is true that in factthere was opening an issue as great as has ever been presented to theAmerican people, --an issue between government conducted with a (p. 200)sole view to efficiency and honesty and government conducted verylargely, if not exclusively, with a view to individual and partyascendency. The new system afterward inaugurated by General Jackson, directly opposite to that of Mr. Adams and presenting a contrast to itas wide as is to be found in history, makes this fact glaringly plainto us. But during the years of Mr. Adams's Administration it was dimlyperceived only by a few. Only one side of the shield had then beenshown. The people did not appreciate that Adams and Jackson wererepresentatives of two conflicting principles of administration whichwent to the very basis of our system of government. Had the issue beenas apparent and as well understood then as it is now, in retrospect, the decision of the nation might have been different. Butunfortunately the voters only beheld two individuals pitted againsteach other for the popular suffrage, of whom one, a brilliant soldier, would stand by and reward his friends, and the other, an uninterestingcivilian, ignored all distinction between friend and foe. 

It was not alone in the refusal to use patronage that Mr. Adams'srigid conscientiousness showed itself. He was equally obstinate indeclining ever to stretch a point however slightly in order to (p. 201)win the favor of any body of the people whether large or small. Hewas warned that his extensive schemes for internal improvement wouldalienate especially the important State of Virginia. He could not ofcourse be expected to change his policy out of respect to Virginianprejudices; but he was advised to mitigate his expression of thatpolicy, and to some extent it was open to him to do so. But he wouldnot; his utterances went the full length of his opinions, and hepersistently urged upon Congress many plans which he approved, butwhich he could not have the faintest hopes of seeing adopted. Theconsequence was that he displeased Virginia. He notes the fact in theDiary in the tone of one who endures persecution for righteousness'sake, and who means to be very stubborn in his righteousness. Again itwas suggested to him to embody in one of his messages "somethingsoothing for South Carolina. " But there stood upon the statute booksof South Carolina an unconstitutional law which had greatlyembarrassed the national government, and which that rebellious littleState with characteristic contumaciousness would not repeal. Undersuch circumstances, said Mr. Adams, I have no "soothing" words forSouth Carolina. 

It was not alone by what he did and by what he would not do that (p. 202)Mr. Adams toiled to insure the election of General Jackson far moresedulously and efficiently than did the General himself or any of hispartisans. In most cases it was probably the manner quite as much asthe act which made Mr. Adams unpopular. In his anxiety to be uprighthe was undoubtedly prone to be needlessly disagreeable. Hisuncompromising temper put on an ungracious aspect. His conscientiousnesswore the appearance of offensiveness. The Puritanism in his characterwas strongly tinged with that old New England notion that whatever isdisagreeable is probably right, and that a painful refusal would losehalf its merit in being expressed courteously; that a right actionshould never be done in a pleasing way; not only that no pill shouldbe sugar-coated, but that the bitterest ingredient should be placed onthe outside. In repudiating attractive vices the Puritans had rejectedalso those amenities which might have decently concealed or evenmildly decorated the forbidding angularities of a naked Virtue whichcertainly did not imitate the form of any goddess who had ever beforeattracted followers. Mr. Adams was a complete and thorough Puritan, wonderfully little modified by times and circumstances. The ordinaryarts of propitiation would have appeared to him only a feeble anddiluted form of dishonesty; while suavity and graciousness of (p. 203)demeanor would have seemed as unbecoming to this rigid official aslove-making or wine-bibbing seem to a strait-laced parson. It wasinevitable, therefore, that he should never avert by his words anyill-will naturally caused by his acts; that he should never soothedisappointment, or attract calculating selfishness. He was an adept inalienation, a novice in conciliation. His magnetism was negative. Hemade few friends; and had no interested following whatsoever. No onewas enthusiastic on his behalf; no band worked for him with the ardorof personal devotion. His party was composed of those who hadsufficient intelligence to appreciate his integrity and sufficienthonesty to admire it. These persons respected him, and when electionday came they would vote for him; but they did not canvass zealouslyin his behalf, nor do such service for him as a very different kind offeeling induced the Jackson men to do for their candidate. [7] Thefervid laborers in politics left Mr. Adams alone in his chilling (p. 204)respectability, and went over to a camp where all scruples wereconsumed in the glowing heat of a campaign conducted upon the singleand simple principle of securing victory. 

 [Footnote 7: Mr. Mills, in writing of Mr. Adams's inauguration, expressed well what many felt. "This same President of ours is a man that I can never court nor be on very familiar terms with. There is a cold, repulsive atmosphere about him that is too chilling for my respiration, and I shall certainly keep at a distance from its influence. I wish him God-speed in his Administration, and am heartily disposed to lend him my feeble aid whenever he may need it in a correct course; but he cannot expect me to become his warm and devoted partisan. " A like sentiment was expressed also much more vigorously by Ezekiel Webster to Daniel Webster, in a letter of February 15, 1829. The writer there attributes the defeat of Mr. Adams to personal dislike to him. People, he said, "always supported his cause from a cold sense of duty, " and "we soon satisfy ourselves that we have discharged our duty to the cause of any man when we do not entertain for him one personal kind feeling, nor cannot unless we disembowel ourselves like a trussed turkey of all that is human nature within us. " With a candidate "of popular character, like Mr. Clay, " the result would have been different. "The measures of his [Adams's] Administration were just and wise and every honest man should have supported them, but many honest men did not for the reason I have mentioned. "--_Webster's Private Correspondence_, vol. I. P. 469. ]

 * * * * *

Mr. Adams's relations with the members of his Cabinet were friendlythroughout his term. Men of their character and ability, brought intodaily contact with him, could not fail to appreciate and admire thepurity of his motives and the patriotism of his conduct; nor was hewanting in a measure of consideration and deference towards themperhaps somewhat greater than might have been expected from him, sometimes even carried to the point of yielding his opinion in (p. 205)matters of consequence. It was his wish that the unity of the bodyshould remain unbroken during his four years of office, and the wishwas very nearly realized. Unfortunately, however, in his last year itbecame necessary for him to fill the mission to England, and GovernorBarbour was extremely anxious for the place. It was already apparentthat the coming election was likely to result in the succession ofJackson, and Mr. Adams notes that Barbour's extreme desire to receivethe appointment was due to his wish to find a good harbor ere theapproaching storm should burst. The remark was made without anger, inthe tone of a man who had seen enough of the world not to expect toomuch from any of his fellow men; and the appointment was made, somewhat to the chagrin of Webster and Rush, either one of whom wouldhave gladly accepted it. The vacancy thus caused, the only one whicharose during his term, was filled by General Peter B. Porter, agentleman whom Mr. Adams selected not as his own choice, but out ofrespect to the wishes of the Cabinet, and in order to "terminate theAdministration in harmony with itself. " The only seriously unpleasantoccurrence was the treachery of Postmaster-General McLean, who saw fitto profess extreme devotion to Mr. Adams while secretly aiding GeneralJackson. His perfidy was not undetected, and great pressure was (p. 206)brought to bear on the President to remove him. Mr. Adams, however, refused to do so, and McLean had the satisfaction of stepping from hispost under Mr. Adams into a judgeship conferred by General Jackson, having shown his impartiality and judicial turn of mind, it is to besupposed, by declaring his warm allegiance to each master in turn. 

The picture of President Adams's daily life is striking in itssimplicity and its laboriousness. This chief magistrate of a greatnation was wont to rise before daybreak, often at four or five o'clockeven in winter, not unfrequently to build and light his own fire, andto work hard for hours when most persons in busy life were stillcomfortably slumbering. The forenoon and afternoon he devoted topublic affairs, and often he complains that the unbroken stream ofvisitors gives him little opportunity for hard or continuous labor. Such work he was compelled to do chiefly in the evening; and he didnot always make up for early hours of rising by a correspondinglyearly bedtime; though sometimes in the summer we find him going to bedbetween eight and nine o'clock, an hour which probably few Presidentshave kept since then. He strove to care for his health by dailyexercise. In the morning he swam in the Potomac, often for a long (p. 207)time; and more than once he encountered no small risk in thispastime. During the latter part of his Presidential term he triedriding on horseback. At times when the weather compelled him to walk, and business was pressing, he used to get his daily modicum of freshair before the sun was up. A life of this kind with more of hardshipthan of relaxation in it was ill fitted to sustain in robust health aman sixty years of age, and it is not surprising that Mr. Adams oftencomplained of feeling ill, dejected, and weary. Yet he never sparedhimself, nor apparently thought his habits too severe, and actuallytoward the close of his term he spoke of his trying daily routine asconstituting a very agreeable life. He usually began the day byreading "two or three chapters in the Bible with Scott's and Hewlett'sCommentaries, " being always a profoundly religious man of theold-fashioned school then prevalent in New England. 

It could hardly have added to the meagre comforts of such a life to bethreatened with assassination. Yet this danger was thrust upon Mr. Adams's attention upon one occasion at least under circumstances whichgave to it a very serious aspect. The tranquillity with which he wentthrough the affair showed that his physical courage was as imperturbableas his moral. The risk was protracted throughout a considerable (p. 208)period, but he never let it disturb the even tenor of his dailybehavior or warp his actions in the slightest degree, save only thatwhen he was twice or thrice brought face to face with the intendingassassin he treated the fellow with somewhat more curt brusquenessthan was his wont. But when the danger was over he bore his would-bemurderer no malice, and long afterward actually did him a kindlyservice. 

 * * * * *

Few men in public life have been subjected to trials of temper sosevere as vexed Mr. Adams during his Presidential term. To play anintensely exciting game strictly in accordance with rigid moral rulesof the player's own arbitrary enforcement, and which are utterlyrepudiated by a less scrupulous antagonist, can hardly tend to promotecontentment and amiability. Neither are slanders and falsehoodsmollifying applications to a statesman inspired with an upright andnoble ambition. Mr. Adams bore such assaults, ranging from the chargeof having corruptly bought the Presidency down to that of being aFreemason with such grim stoicism as he could command. Thedisappearance and probable assassination of Morgan at this time led toa strong feeling throughout the country against Freemasonry, and (p. 209)the Jackson men at once proclaimed abroad that Adams was one of thebrotherhood, and offered, if he should deny it, to produce the recordsof the lodge to which he belonged. The allegation was false; he wasnot a Mason, and his friends urged him to say so publicly; but hereplied bitterly that his denial would probably at once be met by acomplete set of forged records of a fictitious lodge, and the peoplewould not know whom to believe. Next he was said to have bargained forthe support of Daniel Webster, by promising to distribute offices toFederalists. This accusation was a cruel perversion of his veryvirtues; for its only foundation lay in the fact that in theventuresome but honorable attempt to be President of a nation ratherthan of a party, he had in some instances given offices to oldFederalists, certainly with no hope or possibility of reconciling tohimself the almost useless wreck of that now powerless and shrunkenparty, one of whose liveliest traditions was hatred of him. Storieswere even set afloat that some of his accounts, since he had been inthe public service, were incorrect. But the most extraordinary andridiculous tale of all was that during his residence in Russia he hadprostituted a beautiful American girl, whom he then had in hisservice, in order "to seduce the passions of the Emperor Alexander (p. 210)and sway him to political purposes. "

These and other like provocations were not only discouraging but veryirritating, and Mr. Adams was not of that careless disposition whichis little affected by unjust accusation. On the contrary he wasgreatly incensed by such treatment, and though he made the most sternand persistent effort to endure an inevitable trial with a patienceborn of philosophy, since indifference was not at his command, yet hecould not refrain from the expression of his sentiments in his secretcommunings. Occasionally he allowed his wrath to explode with harmlessviolence between the covers of the Diary, and doubtless he foundrelief while he discharged his fierce diatribes on these privatesheets. His vituperative power was great, and some specimens of it maynot come amiss in a sketch of the man. The senators who did not callupon him he regarded as of "rancorous spirit. " He spoke of thefalsehoods and misrepresentations which "the skunks of party slander. . . Have been . . . Squirting round the House of Representatives, thenceto issue and perfume the atmosphere of the Union. " His most intensehatred and vehement denunciation were reserved for John Randolph, whomhe thought an abomination too odious and despicable to be describedin words, "the image and superscription of a great man stamped (p. 211)upon base metal. " "The besotted violence" of Randolph, he said, hasdeprived him of "all right to personal civility from me;" andcertainly this excommunication from courtesy was made complete andeffective. He speaks again of the same victim as a "frequenter of ginlane and beer alley. " He indignantly charges that Calhoun, as Speaker, permitted Randolph "in speeches of ten hours long to drink himselfdrunk with bottled porter, and in raving balderdash of the meridian ofWapping to revile the absent and the present, the living and thedead. " This, he says, was "tolerated by Calhoun, because Randolph'sribaldry was all pointed against the Administration, especiallyagainst Mr. Clay and me. " Again he writes of Randolph: "The rancor ofthis man's soul against me is that which sustains his life: the agonyof [his] envy and hatred of me, and the hope of effecting my downfall, are [his] chief remaining sources of vitality. The issue of thePresidential election will kill [him] by the gratification of [his]revenge. " So it was also with W. B. Giles, of Virginia. But Giles'sabuse was easier to bear since it had been poured in torrents uponevery reputable man, from Washington downwards, who had been prominentin public affairs since the adoption of the Constitution, so that (p. 212)Giles's memory is now preserved from oblivion solely by the connectionwhich he established with the great and honorable statesmen of theRepublic by a course of ceaseless attacks upon them. Some of theforegoing expressions of Mr. Adams may be open to objection on thescore of good taste; but the provocation was extreme; public retaliationhe would not practise, and wrath must sometimes burst forth inlanguage which was not so unusual in that day as it is at present. Itis an unquestionable fact, of which the credit to Mr. Adams can hardlybe exaggerated, that he never in any single instance found an excusefor an unworthy act on his own part in the fact that competitors oradversaries were resorting to such expedients. 

 * * * * *

The election of 1828 gave 178 votes for Jackson and only 83 for Adams. Calhoun was continued as Vice-President by 171 votes, showing plainlyenough that even yet there were not two political parties, in anycustomary or proper sense of the phrase. The victory of Jackson hadbeen foreseen by every one. What had been so generally anticipatedcould not take Mr. Adams by surprise; yet it was idle for him to seekto conceal his disappointment that an Administration which he (p. 213)had conducted with his best ability and with thorough conscientiousnessshould not have seemed to the people worthy of continuance for anotherterm. Little suspecting what the future had in store for him, he feltthat his public career had culminated and probably had closed forever, and that if it had not closed exactly in disgrace, yet at least itcould not be regarded as ending gloriously or even satisfactorily. Buthe summoned all his philosophy and fortitude to his aid; he fell backupon his clear conscience and comported himself with dignity, showingall reasonable courtesy to his successor and only perhaps seeming alittle deficient in filial piety in presenting so striking a contrastto the shameful conduct of his father in a like crucial hour. Hisretirement brought to a close a list of Presidents who deserved to becalled statesmen in the highest sense of that term, honorable men, pure patriots, and, with perhaps one exception, all of the first orderof ability in public affairs. It is necessary to come far down towardsthis day before a worthy successor of those great men is met with inthe list. Dr. Von Holst, by far the ablest writer who has yet dealtwith American history, says: "In the person of Adams the laststatesman who was to occupy it for a long time left the White House. "General Jackson, the candidate of the populace and the (p. 214)representative hero of the ignorant masses, instituted a new system ofadministering the Government in which personal interests became themost important element, and that organization and strategy weredeveloped which have since become known and infamous under the name ofthe "political machine. "

While Mr. Adams bore his defeat like a philosopher, he felt secretlyvery depressed and unhappy by reason of it. He speaks of it as leavinghis "character and reputation a wreck, " and says that the "sun of hispolitical life sets in the deepest gloom. " On January 1, 1829, hewrites: "The year begins in gloom. My wife had a sleepless and painfulnight. The dawn was overcast, and as I began to write my shaded lampwent out, self-extinguished. It was only for lack of oil, and thenotice of so trivial an incident may serve but to mark the presenttemper of my mind. " It is painful to behold a man of his vigor, activity, and courage thus prostrated. Again he writes:--

 "Three days more and I shall be restored to private life, and left to an old age of retirement though certainly not of repose. I go into it with a combination of parties and public men against my character and reputation, such as I believe never before was exhibited against any man since this Union existed. Posterity will scarcely believe it, but so it is, that this combination against me has been formed and is now exulting in triumph (p. 215) over me, for the devotion of my life and of all the faculties of my soul to the Union, and to the improvement, physical, moral, and intellectual of my country. "

Melancholy words these to be written by an old man who had worked sohard and been so honest, and whose ambition had been of the kind thatennobles him who feels it! Could the curtain of the future have beenlifted but for a moment what relief would the glimpse have brought tohis crushed and wearied spirit. But though coming events may castshadows before them, they far less often send bright rays in advance. So he now resolved "to go into the deepest retirement and withdrawfrom all connection with public affairs. " Yet it was with regret thathe foretold this fate, and he looked forward with solicitude to theeffect which such a mode of life, newly entered upon at his age, wouldhave upon his mind and character. He hopes rather than dares topredict that he will be provided "with useful and profitableoccupation, engaging so much of his thoughts and feelings that hismind may not be left to corrode itself. "

His return to Quincy held out the less promise of comfort, because theold chasm between him and the Federalist gentlemen of Boston had beenlately reopened. Certain malicious newspaper paragraphs, born of (p. 216)the mischievous spirit of the wretched Giles, had recently set afloatsome stories designed seriously to injure Mr. Adams. These were, substantially, that in 1808-9 he had been convinced that some amongthe leaders of the Federalist party in New England were entertaining aproject for separation from the Union, that he had feared that thisevent would be promoted by the embargo, that he foresaw that theseceding portion would inevitably be compelled into some sort ofalliance with Great Britain, that he suspected negotiations to thisend to have been already set on foot, that he thereupon gave privatelysome more or less distinct intimations of these notions of his tosundry prominent Republicans, and even to President Jefferson. Thesetales, much distorted from the truth and exaggerated as usual, led tothe publication of an open letter, in November, 1828, addressed bythirteen Federalists of note in Massachusetts to John Quincy Adams, demanding names and specifications and the production of evidence. Mr. Adams replied briefly, with dignity, and, considering thecircumstances, with good temper, stating fairly the substantial importof what he had really said, declaring that he had never mentionednames, and refusing, for good reasons given, either to do so now (p. 217)or to publish the grounds of such opinions as he had entertained. It was sufficiently clear that he had said nothing secretly which hehad reason to regret; and that if he sought to shun the discussionopened by his adversaries, he was influenced by wise forbearance, andnot at all by any fear of the consequences to himself. A dispassionateobserver could have seen that behind this moderate, rather deprecatoryletter there was an abundant reserve of controversial material heldfor the moment in check. But his adversaries were not dispassionate;on the contrary they were greatly excited and were honestly convincedof the perfect goodness of their cause. They were men of the highestcharacter in public and private life, deservedly of the best repute inthe community, of unimpeachable integrity in motives and dealings, influential and respected, men whom it was impossible in New Englandto treat with neglect or indifference. For this reason it was only theharder to remain silent beneath their published reproach when arefutation was possible. Hating Mr. Adams with an animosity notdiminished by the lapse of years since his defection from their party, strong in a consciousness of their own standing before their fellowcitizens, the thirteen notables responded with much acrimony to Mr. Adams's unsatisfactory letter. Thus persistently challenged and (p. 218)assailed, at a time when his recent crushing political defeat madean attack upon him seem a little ungenerous, Mr. Adams at last wentinto the fight in earnest. He had the good fortune to be thoroughlyright, and also to have sufficient evidence to prove and justify atleast as much as he had ever said. All this evidence he broughttogether in a vindicatory pamphlet, which, however, by the time he hadcompleted it he decided not to publish. But fortunately he did notdestroy it, and his grandson, in the exercise of a wise discretion, has lately given it to the world. His foes never knew how deeply theywere indebted to the self-restraint which induced him to keep thisformidable missive harmless in his desk. Full of deep feeling, yetfree from ebullitions of temper, clear in statement, concise in style, conclusive in facts, unanswerable in argument, unrelentingly severe indealing with opponents, it is as fine a specimen of politicalcontroversy as exists in the language. Its historical value cannot beexaggerated, but apart from this as a mere literary production it isadmirable. Happy were the thirteen that they one and all went down totheir graves complaisantly thinking that they had had the last word inthe quarrel, little suspecting how great was their obligation to Mr. Adams for having granted them that privilege. One would think (p. 219)that they might have writhed beneath their moss-grown headstoneson the day when his last word at length found public utterance, albeitthat the controversy had then become one of the dusty tales ofhistory. [8]

 [Footnote 8: It is with great reluctance that these comments are made, since some persons may think that they come with ill grace from one whose grandfather was one of the thirteen and was supposed to have drafted one or both of their letters. But in spite of the prejudice naturally growing out of this fact, a thorough study of the whole subject has convinced me that Mr. Adams was unquestionably and completely right, and I have no escape from saying so. His adversaries had the excuse of honesty in political error--an excuse which the greatest and wisest men must often fall back upon in times of hot party warfare. ]

But this task of writing a demolishing pamphlet against the prominentgentlemen of the neighborhood to which he was about to return for hisdeclining years could hardly have been a grateful task. The passagefrom political disaster to social enmities could not but be painful;and Mr. Adams was probably never more unhappy than at this period ofhis life. The reward which virtue was tendering to him seemed unmixedbitterness. 

 * * * * *

Thus at the age of sixty-two years, Mr. Adams found himself thatmelancholy product of the American governmental system--an ex-President. At this stage it would seem that the fruit ought to drop from the (p. 220)bough, no further process of development being reasonably probablefor it. Yet Mr. Adams had by no means reached this measure ofripeness; he still enjoyed abundant vigor of mind and body, and tolapse into dignified decrepitude was not agreeable, indeed was hardlypossible for him. The prospect gave him profound anxiety; he dreadedidleness, apathy, and decay with a keen terror which perhapsconstituted a sufficient guaranty against them. Yet what could he do?It would be absurd for him now to furbish up the rusty weapons of thelaw and enter again upon the tedious labor of collecting a clientage. His property was barely sufficient to enable him to live respectably, even according to the simple standard of the time, and could open tohim no occupation in the way of gratifying unremunerative tastes. InMarch, 1828, he had been advised to use five thousand dollars in a wayto promote his reëlection. He refused at once, upon principle; butfurther set forth "candidly, the state of his affairs:"--

 "All my real estate in Quincy and Boston is mortgaged for the payment of my debts; the income of my whole private estate is less than $6, 000 a year, and I am paying at least two thousand of that for interest on my debt. Finally, upon going out of office in one year from this time, destitute of all means of (p. 221) acquiring property, it will only be by the sacrifice of that which I now possess that I shall be able to support my family. "

At first he plunged desperately into the Latin classics. He had astrong taste for such reading, and he made a firm resolve to compelthis taste now to stand him in good stead in his hour of need. Hecourageously demanded solace from a pursuit which had yielded himpleasure enough in hours of relaxation, but which was altogetherinadequate to fill the huge vacuum now suddenly created in his timeand thoughts. There is much pathos in this spectacle of the old mansetting himself with ever so feeble a weapon, yet with sterndetermination, to conquer the cruelty of circumstances. But he knew, of course, that the Roman authors could only help him for a time, byway of distraction, in carrying him through a transition period. Hesoon set more cheerfully at work upon a memoir of his father, and hadalso plans for writing a history of the United States. Literature hadalways possessed strong charms for him, and he had cultivated it afterhis usual studious and conscientious fashion. But his style was toooften prolix, sententious, and turgid--faults which marked nearly allthe writing done in this country in those days. The world has (p. 222)probably not lost much by reason of the non-completion of thecontemplated volumes. He could have made no other contribution to thehistory of the country at all approaching in value or interest to theDiary, of which a most important part was still to be written. For abrief time just now this loses its historic character, but makes upfor the loss by depicting admirably some traits in the mentalconstitution of the diarist. Tales of enchantment, he says, pleasedhis boyhood, but "the humors of Falstaff hardly affected me at all. Bardolph and Pistol and Nym were personages quite unintelligible tome; and the lesson of Sir Hugh Evans to the boy Williams was quite tooserious an affair. " In truth, no man can ever have been more utterlyvoid of a sense of humor or an appreciation of wit than was Mr. Adams. Not a single instance of an approach to either is to be foundthroughout the twelve volumes of his Diary. Not even in the simpleform of the "good story" could he find pleasure, and subtler delicacieswere wasted on his well-regulated mind as dainty French dishes wouldbe on the wholesome palate of a day-laborer. The books which bore thestamp of well-established approval, the acknowledged classics of theEnglish, Latin, and French languages he read with a mingled sense ofduty and of pleasure, and evidently with cultivated appreciation, (p. 223)though whether he would have made an original discovery of theirmerits may be doubted. Occasionally he failed to admire even thosevolumes which deserved admiration, and then with characteristichonesty he admitted the fact. He tried Paradise Lost ten times beforehe could get through with it, and was nearly thirty years old when hefirst succeeded in reading it to the end. Thereafter he became veryfond of it, but plainly by an acquired taste. He tried smoking andMilton, he says, at the same time, in the hope of discovering the"recondite charm" in them which so pleased his father. He was moreeasily successful with the tobacco than with the poetry. Many anotherhas had the like experience, but the confession is not always sofrankly forthcoming. 

Fate, however, had in store for Mr. Adams labors to which he wasbetter suited than those of literature, and tasks to be performedwhich the nation could ill afford to exchange for an apotheosis of oursecond President, or even for a respectable but probably not veryreadable history. The most brilliant and glorious years of his careerwere yet to be lived. He was to earn in his old age a noble fame anddistinction far transcending any achievement of his youth and middleage, and was to attain the highest pinnacle of his fame after he (p. 224)had left the greatest office of the Government, and during a periodfor which presumably nothing better had been allotted than that heshould tranquilly await the summons of death. It is a strikingcircumstance that the fullness of greatness for one who had beenSenator, Minister to England, Secretary of State, and President, remained to be won in the comparatively humble position of aRepresentative in Congress. 

CHAPTER III (p. 225)

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

In September, 1830, Mr. Adams notes in his Diary a suggestion made tohim that he might if he wished be elected to the national House ofRepresentatives from the Plymouth district. The gentleman who threwout this tentative proposition remarked that in his opinion theacceptance of this position by an ex-President "instead of degradingthe individual would elevate the representative character. " Mr. Adamsreplied, that he "had in that respect no scruple whatever. No personcould be degraded by serving the people as a Representative inCongress. Nor in my opinion would an ex-President of the United Statesbe degraded by serving as a selectman of his town, if elected theretoby the people. " A few weeks later his election was accomplished by aflattering vote, the poll showing for him 1817 votes out of 2565, withonly 373 for the next candidate. He continued thenceforth to representthis district until his death, a period of about sixteen years. Duringthis time he was occasionally suggested as a candidate for the (p. 226)governorship of the State, but was always reluctant to stand. Thefeeling between the Freemasons and the anti-Masons ran very high forseveral years, and once he was prevailed upon to allow his name to beused by the latter party. The result was that there was no election bythe people; and as he had been very loath to enter the contest in thebeginning, he insisted upon withdrawing from before the legislature. We have now therefore only to pursue his career in the lower house ofCongress. 

Unfortunately, but of obvious necessity, it is possible to touch onlyupon the more salient points of this which was really by far the moststriking and distinguished portion of his life. To do more than thiswould involve an explanation of the politics of the country and themeasures before Congress much more elaborate than would be possible inthis volume. It will be necessary, therefore, to confine ourselves todrawing a picture of him in his character as the great combatant ofSouthern slavery. In the waging of this mighty conflict we shall seeboth his mind and his character developing in strength even in theseyears of his old age, and his traits standing forth in bolder reliefthan ever before. In his place on the floor of the House ofRepresentatives he was destined to appear a more impressive figurethan in any of the higher positions which he had previously (p. 227)filled. There he was to do his greatest work and to win a peculiar anddistinctive glory which takes him out of the general throng even offamous statesmen, and entitles his name to be remembered with anespecial reverence. Adequately to sketch his achievements, and so todo his memory the honor which it deserves, would require a pen aseloquent as has been wielded by any writer of our language. I can onlyattempt a brief and insufficient narrative. 

 * * * * *

In his conscientious way he was faithful and industrious to a raredegree. He was never absent and seldom late; he bore unflinchingly theburden of severe committee work, and shirked no toil on the plea ofage or infirmity. He attended closely to all the business of theHouse; carefully formed his opinions on every question; never failedto vote except for cause; and always had a sufficient reasonindependent of party allegiance to sustain his vote. Living in the ageof oratory, he earned the name of "the old man eloquent. " Yet he wasnot an orator in the sense in which Webster, Clay, and Calhoun wereorators. He was not a rhetorician; he had neither grace of manner nora fine presence, neither an imposing delivery, nor even pleasingtones. On the contrary, he was exceptionally lacking in all these (p. 228)qualities. He was short, rotund, and bald; about the time when heentered Congress, complaints become frequent in his Diary of weak andinflamed eyes, and soon these organs became so rheumy that the waterwould trickle down his cheeks; a shaking of the hand grew upon him tosuch an extent that in time he had to use artificial assistance tosteady it for writing; his voice was high, shrill, liable to break, piercing enough to make itself heard, but not agreeable. This hardlyseems the picture of an orator; nor was it to any charm of elocutionthat he owed his influence, but rather to the fact that men soonlearned that what he said was always well worth hearing. When heentered Congress he had been for much more than a third of a centuryzealously gathering knowledge in public affairs, and during his careerin that body every year swelled the already vast accumulation. Moreover, listeners were always sure to get a bold and an honestutterance and often pretty keen words from him, and he never spoke toan inattentive audience or to a thin house. Whether pleased orincensed by what he said, the Representatives at least always listenedto it. He was by nature a hard fighter, and by the circumstances ofhis course in Congress this quality was stimulated to such a degreethat parliamentary history does not show his equal as a gladiator. (p. 229)His power of invective was extraordinary, and he was untiring andmerciless in his use of it. Theoretically he disapproved of sarcasm, but practically he could not refrain from it. Men winced and coweredbefore his milder attacks, became sometimes dumb, sometimes furiouswith mad rage before his fiercer assaults. Such struggles evidentlygave him pleasure, and there was scarce a back in Congress that didnot at one time or another feel the score of his cutting lash; thoughit was the Southerners and the Northern allies of Southerners whomchiefly he singled out for torture. He was irritable and quick towrath; he himself constantly speaks of the infirmity of his temper, and in his many conflicts his principal concern was to keep it incontrol. His enemies often referred to it and twitted him with it. Ofalliances he was careless, and friendships he had almost none. But inthe creation of enmities he was terribly successful. Not so much atfirst, but increasingly as years went on, a state of ceaseless, vigilant hostility became his normal condition. From the time when hefairly entered upon the long struggle against slavery, he enjoyed fewpeaceful days in the House. But he seemed to thrive upon the warfare, and to be never so well pleased as when he was bandying hot words withslave-holders and the Northern supporters of slave-holders. When (p. 230)the air of the House was thick with crimination and abuse he seemed tosuck in fresh vigor and spirit from the hate-laden atmosphere. Wheninvective fell around him in showers, he screamed back his retaliationwith untiring rapidity and marvellous dexterity of aim. No odds couldappall him. With his back set firm against a solid moral principle, itwas his joy to strike out at a multitude of foes. They lost their headsas well as their tempers, but in the extremest moments of excitementand anger Mr. Adams's brain seemed to work with machine-like coolnessand accuracy. With flushed face, streaming eyes, animated gesticulation, and cracking voice, he always retained perfect mastery of all hisintellectual faculties. He thus became a terrible antagonist, whom allfeared, yet fearing could not refrain from attacking, so bitterly andincessantly did he choose to exert his wonderful power ofexasperation. Few men could throw an opponent into wild blind furywith such speed and certainty as he could; and he does not conceal themalicious gratification which such feats brought to him. A leader ofsuch fighting capacity, so courageous, with such a magazine ofexperience and information, and with a character so irreproachable, could have won brilliant victories in public life at the head of (p. 231)even a small band of devoted followers. But Mr. Adams never had andapparently never wanted followers. Other prominent public men werebrought not only into collision but into comparison with theircontemporaries. But Mr. Adams's individuality was so strong that hecan be compared with no one. It was not an individuality of genius norto any remarkable extent of mental qualities; but rather anindividuality of character. To this fact is probably to be attributedhis peculiar solitariness. Men touch each other for purposes ofattachment through their characters much more than through theirminds. But few men, even in agreeing with Mr. Adams, felt themselvesin sympathy with him. Occasionally conscience, or invincible logic, oreven policy and self-interest, might compel one or another politicianto stand beside him in debate or in voting; but no current of fellowfeeling ever passed between such temporary comrades and him. It wasthe cold connection of duty or of business. The first instinct ofnearly every one was opposition towards him; coalition might be forcedby circumstances but never came by volition. For the purpose ofwinning immediate successes this was of course a most unfortunatecondition of relationships. Yet it had some compensations: it leftsuch influence as Mr. Adams could exert by steadfastness and (p. 232)argument entirely unweakened by suspicion of hidden motives orpersonal ends. He had the weight and enjoyed the respect which asincerity beyond distrust must always command in the long run. Of thiswe shall see some striking instances. 

One important limitation, however, belongs to this statement ofsolitariness. It was confined to his position in Congress. Outside ofthe city of Washington great numbers of the people, especially in NewEngland, lent him a hearty support and regarded him with friendshipand admiration. These men had strong convictions and deep feelings, and their adherence counted for much. Moreover, their numbers steadilyincreased, and Mr. Adams saw that he was the leader in a cause whichengaged the sound sense and the best feeling of the intelligent peopleof the country, and which was steadily gaining ground. Without suchencouragement it is doubtful whether even his persistence would haveheld out through so long and extreme a trial. The sense of humanfellowship was needful to him; he could go without it in Congress, buthe could not have gone without it altogether. 

Mr. Adams took his seat in the House as a member of the twenty-secondCongress in December, 1831. He had been elected by the NationalRepublican, afterward better known as the Whig party, but one of (p. 233)his first acts was to declare that he would be bound by no partisanconnection, but would in every matter act independently. This coursehe regarded as a "duty imposed upon him by his peculiar position, " inthat he "had spent the greatest portion of his life in the service ofthe whole nation and had been honored with their highest trust. " Manypersons had predicted that he would find himself subjected toembarrassments and perhaps to humiliations by reason of his apparentdescent in the scale of political dignities. He notes, however, thathe encountered no annoyance on this score, but on the contrary he wasrather treated with an especial respect. He was made chairman of theCommittee on Manufactures, a laborious as well as an important andhonorable position at all times, and especially so at this juncturewhen the rebellious mutterings of South Carolina against theprotective tariff were already to be heard rolling and swelling likeportentous thunder from the fiery Southern regions. He would havepreferred to exchange this post for a place upon the Committee onForeign Affairs, for whose business he felt more fitted. But he wastold that in the impending crisis his ability, authority, and prestigewere all likely to be needed in the place allotted to him to aid inthe salvation of the country. 

The nullification chapter of our history cannot here be entered (p. 234)upon at length, and Mr. Adams's connection with it must be veryshortly stated. At the first meeting of his committee he remarks: "Areduction of the duties upon many of the articles in the tariff wasunderstood by all to be the object to be effected;" and a little laterhe said that he should be disposed to give such aid as he could to anyplan for this reduction which the Treasury Department should devise. "He should certainly not consent to sacrifice the manufacturinginterest, " he said, "but something of concession would be due fromthat interest to appease the discontents of the South. " He was in areasonable frame of mind; but unfortunately other people were rapidlyceasing to be reasonable. When Jackson's message of December 4, 1832, was promulgated, showing a disposition to do for South Carolina prettymuch all that she demanded, Mr. Adams was bitterly indignant. Themessage, he said, "recommends a total change in the policy of theUnion with reference to the Bank, manufactures, internal improvement, and the public lands. It goes to dissolve the Union into its originalelements, and is in substance a complete surrender to the nullifiersof South Carolina. " When, somewhat later on, the President lost histemper and flamed out in his famous proclamation to meet the (p. 235)nullification ordinance, he spoke in tones more pleasing to Mr. Adams. But the ultimate compromise which disposed of the temporary dissensionwithout permanently settling the fundamental question of theconstitutional right of nullification was extremely distasteful tohim. He was utterly opposed to the concessions which were made whileSouth Carolina still remained contumacious. He was for compelling herto retire altogether from her rebellious position and to repeal herunconstitutional enactments wholly and unconditionally, before one jotshould be abated from the obnoxious duties. When the bill for themodification of the tariff was under debate, he moved to strike outall but the enacting clause, and supported his motion in a longspeech, insisting that no tariff ought to pass until it was known"whether there was any measure by which a State could defeat the lawsof the Union. " In a minority report from his own committee he stronglycensured the policy of the Administration. He was for meeting, fighting out, and determining at this crisis the whole doctrine ofstate rights and secession. "One particle of compromise, " he said, with what truth events have since shown clearly enough, would"directly lead to the final and irretrievable dissolution of theUnion. " In his usual strong and thorough-going fashion he was for (p. 236)persisting in the vigorous and spirited measures, the mere briefdeclaration of which, though so quickly receded from, won for Jacksona measure of credit greater than he deserved. Jackson was thrown intoa great rage by the threats of South Carolina, and replied to themwith the same prompt wrath with which he had sometimes resentedinsults from individuals. But in his cool inner mind he was insympathy with the demands which that State preferred, and thoughundoubtedly he would have fought her, had the dispute been forced tothat pass, yet he was quite willing to make concessions, which were infact in consonance with his own views as well as with hers, in orderto avoid that sad conclusion. He was satisfied to have the instantemergency pass over in a manner rendered superficially creditable tohimself by his outburst of temper, under cover of which he sacrificedthe substantial matter of principle without a qualm. He shook his fistand shouted defiance in the face of the nullifiers, while Mr. Claysmuggled a comfortable concession into their pockets. Jackson, notwithstanding his belligerent attitude, did all he could to helpClay and was well pleased with the result. Mr. Adams was not. Hewatched the disingenuous game with disgust. It is certain that if hehad still been in the White House, the matter would have had a (p. 237)very different ending, bloodier, it may be, and more painful, butmuch more conclusive. 

For the most part Mr. Adams found himself in opposition to PresidentJackson's Administration. This was not attributable to any sense ofpersonal hostility towards a successful rival, but to an inevitableantipathy towards the measures, methods, and ways adopted by theGeneral so unfortunately transferred to civil life. Few intelligentpersons, and none having the statesman habit of mind, befriended thereckless, violent, eminently unstatesmanlike President. His ultimateweakness in the nullification matter, his opposition to internalimprovements, his policy of sacrificing the public lands to individualspeculators, his warfare against the Bank of the United Statesconducted by methods the most unjustifiable, the transaction of theremoval of the deposits so disreputable and injurious in all itsdetails, the importation of Mrs. Eaton's visiting-list into thepolitics and government of the country, the dismissal of the oldestand best public servants as a part of the nefarious system of usingpublic offices as rewards for political aid and personal adherence, the formation from base ingredients of the ignoble "KitchenCabinet, "--all these doings, together with much more of the like (p. 238)sort, constituted a career which could only seem blundering, undignified, and dishonorable in the eyes of a man like Mr. Adams, whoregarded statesmanship with the reverence due to the noblest of humancallings. 

Right as Mr. Adams was generally in his opposition to Jackson, yetonce he deserves credit for the contrary course. This was in thematter of our relations with France. The treaty of 1831 secured tothis country an indemnity of $5, 000, 000, which, however, it had neverbeen possible to collect. This procrastination raised Jackson's everready ire, and casting to the winds any further dunning, he resolvedeither to have the money or to fight for it. He sent a message toCongress, recommending that if France should not promptly settle theaccount, letters of marque and reprisal against her commerce should beissued. He ordered Edward Livingston, minister at Paris, to demand hispassports and cross over to London. These eminently proper andultimately effectual measures alarmed the large party of the timid;and the General found himself in danger of extensive desertions evenon the part of his usual supporters. But as once before in a season ofhis dire extremity his courage and vigor had brought the potent aid ofMr. Adams to his side, so now again he came under a heavy debt of (p. 239)gratitude to the same champion. Mr. Adams stood by him with generousgallantry, and by a telling speech in the House probably saved himfrom serious humiliation and even disaster. The President's style ofdealing had roused Mr. Adams's spirit, and he spoke with a fire andvehemence which accomplished the unusual feat of changing thepredisposed minds of men too familiar with speech-making to be oftenmuch influenced by it in the practical matter of voting. He thought atthe time that the success of this speech, brilliant as it appeared, was not unlikely to result in his political ruin. Jackson wouldbefriend and reward his thorough-going partisans at any cost to hisown conscience or the public welfare; but the exceptional aid, tendered not from a sense of personal fealty to himself, but simplyfrom the motive of aiding the right cause happening in the especialinstance to have been espoused by him, never won from him any token ofregard. In November, 1837, Mr. Adams, speaking of his personalrelations with the President, said:--

 "Though I had served him more than any other living man ever did, and though I supported his Administration at the hazard of my own political destruction, and effected for him at a moment when his own friends were deserting him what no other member of Congress ever accomplished for him--an unanimous vote of the House of (p. 240) Representatives to support him in his quarrel with France; though I supported him in other very critical periods of his Administration, my return from him was insult, indignity, and slander. "

Antipathy had at last become the definitive condition of these twomen--antipathy both political and personal. At one time a singulareffort to reconcile them--probably though not certainly undertakenwith the knowledge of Jackson--was made by Richard M. Johnson. Thisoccurred shortly before the inauguration of the war conducted by thePresident against the Bank of the United States; and judging by therest of Jackson's behavior at this period, there was probably at leastas much of calculation in his motives, if in fact he was cognizant ofJohnson's approaches, as there was of any real desire to reëstablishthe bygone relation of honorable friendship. To the advances thus madeMr. Adams replied a little coldly, not quite repellently, that Jackson, having been responsible for the suspension of personal intercourse, must now be undisguisedly the active party in renewing it. At the sametime he professed himself "willing to receive in a spirit ofconciliation any advance which in that spirit General Jackson mightmake. " But nothing came of this intrinsically hopeless attempt. Onthe contrary the two drew rapidly and more widely apart, and (p. 241)entertained concerning each other opinions which grew steadily moreunfavorable, and upon Adams's part more contemptuous, as time went on. 

Fifteen months later General Jackson made his visit to Boston, and itwas proposed that Harvard College should confer upon him the degree ofDoctor of Laws. The absurdity of the act, considered simply in itself, was admitted by all. But the argument in its favor was based upon theestablished usage of the College as towards all other Presidents, sothat its omission in this case might seem a personal slight. Mr. Adams, being at the time a member of the Board of Overseers, strongly opposedthe proposition, but of course in vain. All that he could do was, forhis own individual part, to refuse to be present at the conferring ofthe degree, giving as the minor reason for his absence, that he couldhold no friendly intercourse with the President, but for the majorreason that "independent of that, as myself an affectionate child ofour Alma Mater, I would not be present to witness her disgrace inconferring her highest literary honors upon a barbarian who could notwrite a sentence of grammar and hardly could spell his own name. " "ADoctorate of Laws, " he said, "for which an apology was necessary, wasa cheap honor and . . . A sycophantic compliment. " After the deed (p. 242)was done, he used to amuse himself by speaking of "Doctor AndrewJackson. " This same eastern tour of Jackson's called forth many otherexpressions of bitter sarcasm from Adams. The President was ill andunable to carry out the programme of entertainment and exhibitionprepared for him: whereupon Mr. Adams remarks:--

 "I believe much of his debility is politic. . . . He is one of our tribe of great men who turn disease to commodity, like John Randolph, who for forty years was always dying. Jackson, ever since he became a mark of public attention, has been doing the same thing. . . . He is now alternately giving out his chronic diarrhoea and making Warren bleed him for a pleurisy, and posting to Cambridge for a doctorate of laws; mounting the monument of Bunker's Hill to hear a fulsome address and receive two cannon balls from Edward Everett, " etc. "Four fifths of his sickness is trickery, and the other fifth mere fatigue. "

This sounds, it must be confessed, a trifle rancorous; but Adams hadgreat excuse for nourishing rancor towards Jackson. 

It is time, however, to return to the House of Representatives. It wasnot by bearing his share in the ordinary work of that body, importantor exciting as that might at one time or another happen to be, thatMr. Adams was to win in Congress that reputation which has been (p. 243)already described as far overshadowing all his previous career. Aspecial task and a peculiar mission were before him. It was a part ofhis destiny to become the champion of the anti-slavery cause in thenational legislature. Almost the first thing which he did after he hadtaken his seat in Congress was to present "fifteen petitions signednumerously by citizens of Pennsylvania, praying for the abolition ofslavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. " He simplymoved their reference to the Committee on the District of Columbia, declaring that he should not support that part of the petition whichprayed for abolition in the District. The time had not yet come whenthe South felt much anxiety at such manifestations, and these firststones were dropped into the pool without stirring a ripple on thesurface. For about four years more we hear little in the Diaryconcerning slavery. It was not until 1835, when the annexation ofTexas began to be mooted, that the North fairly took the alarm, andthe irrepressible conflict began to develop. Then at once we find Mr. Adams at the front. That he had always cherished an abhorrence ofslavery and a bitter antipathy to slave-holders as a class issufficiently indicated by many chance remarks scattered through hisDiary from early years. Now that a great question, vitally (p. 244)affecting the slave power, divided the country into parties andinaugurated the struggle which never again slept until it was settledforever by the result of the civil war, Mr. Adams at once assumed thefunction of leader. His position should be clearly understood; for inthe vast labor which lay before the abolition party different tasksfell to different men. Mr. Adams assumed to be neither an agitator nora reformer; by necessity of character, training, fitness, and officialposition, he was a legislator and statesman. The task which accidentor destiny allotted to him was neither to preach among the people acrusade against slavery, nor to devise and keep in action the thousandresources which busy men throughout the country were constantlymultiplying for the purpose of spreading and increasing a popularhostility towards the great "institution. " Every great cause has needof its fanatics, its vanguard to keep far in advance of what is forthe time reasonable and possible; it has not less need of the wiserand cooler heads to discipline and control the great mass which is setin motion by the reckless forerunners, to see to the accomplishment ofthat which the present circumstances and development of the movementallow to be accomplished. It fell to Mr. Adams to direct the (p. 245)assault against the outworks which were then vulnerable, and to seethat the force then possessed by the movement was put to such uses aswould insure definite results instead of being wasted in endeavorswhich as yet were impossible of achievement. Drawing his duty from hissituation and surroundings, he left to others, to younger men and morerhetorical natures, outside the walls of Congress, the business offiring the people and stirring popular opinion and sympathy. He wasset to do that portion of the work of abolition which was to be donein Congress, to encounter the mighty efforts which were made to stiflethe great humanitarian cry in the halls of the national legislature. This was quite as much as one man was equal to; in fact, it is certainthat no one then in public life except Mr. Adams could have done iteffectually. So obvious is this that one cannot help wondering whatwould have befallen the cause, had he not been just where he was toforward it in just the way that he did. It is only another among themany instances of the need surely finding the man. His qualificationswere unique; his ability, his knowledge, his prestige and authority, his high personal character, his persistence and courage, hiscombativeness stimulated by an acrimonious temper but checked by asound judgment, his merciless power of invective, his independence (p. 246)and carelessness of applause or vilification, friendship or enmity, constituted him an opponent fully equal to the enormous odds which theslave-holding interest arrayed against him. A like moral and mentalfitness was to be found in no one else. Numbers could not overawe him, nor loneliness dispirit him. He was probably the most formidablefighter in debate of whom parliamentary records preserve the memory. The hostility which he encountered beggars description; the Englishlanguage was deficient in adequate words of virulence and contempt toexpress the feelings which were entertained towards him. At home hehad not the countenance of that class in society to which he naturallybelonged. A second time he found the chief part of the gentlemen ofBoston and its vicinity, the leading lawyers, the rich merchants, thesuccessful manufacturers, not only opposed to him, but entertainingtowards him sentiments of personal dislike and even vindictiveness. This stratum of the community, having a natural distaste for disquietingagitation and influenced by class feeling, --the gentlemen of the Northsympathizing with the "aristocracy" of the South, --could not makecommon cause with anti-slavery people. Fortunately, however, Mr. Adamswas returned by a country district where the old Puritan instincts (p. 247)were still strong. The intelligence and free spirit of New Englandwere at his back, and were fairly represented by him; in spite ofhigh-bred disfavor they carried him gallantly through the longstruggle. The people of the Plymouth district sent him back to theHouse every two years from the time of his first election to the yearof his death, and the disgust of the gentlemen of Boston was after allof trifling consequence to him and of no serious influence upon thecourse of history. The old New England instinct was in him as it wasin the mass of the people; that instinct made him the real exponent ofNew England thought, belief, and feeling, and that same instinct madethe great body of voters stand by him with unswerving constancy. Whenhis fellow Representatives, almost to a man, deserted him, he wassustained by many a token of sympathy and admiration coming from amongthe people at large. Time and the history of the United States havebeen his potent vindicators. The conservative, consciencelessrespectability of wealth was, as is usually the case with it in theannals of the Anglo-Saxon race, quite in the wrong and predestined towell-merited defeat. It adds to the honor due to Mr. Adams that hissense of right was true enough, and that his vision was clear enough, to lead him out of that strong thraldom which class feelings, (p. 248)traditions, and comradeship are wont to exercise. 

But it is time to resume the narrative and to let Mr. Adams's acts--ofwhich after all it is possible to give only the briefest sketch, selecting a few of the more striking incidents--tell the tale of hisCongressional life. 

On February 14, 1835, Mr. Adams again presented two petitions for theabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but without givingrise to much excitement. The fusillade was, however, getting too thickand fast to be endured longer with indifference by the impatientSoutherners. At the next session of Congress they concluded to try tostop it, and their ingenious scheme was to make Congress shot-proof, so to speak, against such missiles. On January 4, 1836, Mr. Adamspresented an abolition petition couched in the usual form, and movedthat it be laid on the table, as others like it had lately been. Butin a moment Mr. Glascock, of Georgia, moved that the petition be notreceived. Debate sprang up on a point of order, and two days later, before the question of reception was determined, a resolution wasoffered by Mr. Jarvis, of Maine, declaring that the House would notentertain any petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Districtof Columbia. This resolution was supported on the ground that (p. 249)Congress had no constitutional power in the premises. Some dayslater, January 18, 1836, before any final action had been reached uponthis proposition, Mr. Adams presented some more abolition petitions, one of them signed by "one hundred and forty-eight ladies, citizens ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts; for, I said, I had not yet broughtmyself to doubt whether females were citizens. " The usual motion notto receive was made, and then a new device was resorted to in theshape of a motion that the motion not to receive be laid on the table. 

On February 8, 1836, this novel scheme for shutting off petitionsagainst slavery immediately upon their presentation was referred to aselect committee of which Mr. Pinckney was chairman. On May 18 thiscommittee reported in substance: 1. That Congress had no power tointerfere with slavery in any State; 2. That Congress ought not tointerfere with slavery in the District of Columbia; 3. That whereasthe agitation of the subject was disquieting and objectionable, "allpetitions, memorials, resolutions or papers, relating in any way or toany extent whatsoever to the subject of slavery or the abolition ofslavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid uponthe table, and that no further action whatever shall be had (p. 250)thereon. " When it came to taking a vote upon this report a division ofthe question was called for, and the yeas and nays were ordered. Thefirst resolution was then read, whereupon Mr. Adams at once rose andpledged himself, if the House would allow him five minutes' time, toprove it to be false. But cries of "order" resounded; he was compelledto take his seat and the resolution was adopted by 182 to 9. Upon thesecond resolution he asked to be excused from voting, and his name waspassed in the call. The third resolution with its preamble was thenread, and Mr. Adams, so soon as his name was called, rose and said: "Ihold the resolution to be a direct violation of the Constitution ofthe United States, the rules of this House, and the rights of myconstituents. " He was interrupted by shrieks of "order" resounding onevery side; but he only spoke the louder and obstinately finished hissentence before resuming his seat. The resolution was of course agreedto, the vote standing 117 to 68. Such was the beginning of the famous"gag" which became and long remained--afterward in a worse shape--astanding rule of the House. Regularly in each new Congress when theadoption of rules came up, Mr. Adams moved to rescind the "gag;" butfor many years his motions continued to be voted down, as a (p. 251)matter of course. Its imposition was clearly a mistake on the part ofthe slave-holding party; free debate would almost surely have hurtthem less than this interference with the freedom of petition. Theyhad assumed an untenable position. Henceforth, as the persistentadvocate of the right of petition, Mr. Adams had a support among thepeople at large vastly greater than he could have enjoyed as theopponent of slavery. As his adversaries had shaped the issue he waspredestined to victory in a free country. 

A similar scene was enacted on December 21 and 22, 1837. A "gag" or"speech-smothering" resolution being then again before the House, Mr. Adams, when his name was called in the taking of the vote, cried out"amidst a perfect war-whoop of 'order:' 'I hold the resolution to be aviolation of the Constitution, of the right of petition of myconstituents and of the people of the United States, and of my rightto freedom of speech as a member of this House. '" Afterward, inreading over the names of members who had voted, the clerk omittedthat of Mr. Adams, this utterance of his not having constituted avote. Mr. Adams called attention to the omission. The clerk, bydirection of the Speaker, thereupon called his name. His only replywas by a motion that his answer as already made should be entered (p. 252)on the Journal. The Speaker said that this motion was not in order. Mr. Adams, resolute to get upon the record, requested that his motionwith the Speaker's decision that it was not in order might be enteredon the Journal. The next day, finding that this entry had not beenmade in proper shape, he brought up the matter again. One of hisopponents made a false step, and Mr. Adams "bantered him" upon ituntil the other was provoked into saying that, "if the question evercame to the issue of war, the Southern people would march into NewEngland and conquer it. " Mr. Adams replied that no doubt they would ifthey could; that he entered his resolution upon the Journal because hewas resolved that his opponent's "name should go down to posteritydamned to everlasting fame. " No one ever gained much in a war of wordswith this ever-ready and merciless tongue. 

Mr. Adams, having soon become known to all the nation as theindomitable presenter of anti-slavery petitions, quickly found thatgreat numbers of people were ready to keep him busy in this tryingtask. For a long while it was almost as much as he could accomplish toreceive, sort, schedule, and present the infinite number of petitionsand memorials which came to him praying for the abolition of slaveryand of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and opposing (p. 253)the annexation of Texas. It was an occupation not altogether devoideven of physical danger, and calling for an amount of moral couragegreater than it is now easy to appreciate. It is the incipient stageof such a conflict that tests the mettle of the little band ofinnovators. When it grows into a great party question much lesscourage is demanded. The mere presentation of an odious petition mayseem in itself to be a simple task; but to find himself in a constantstate of antagonism to a powerful, active, and vindictive majority ina debating body, constituted of such material as then made up theHouse of Representatives, wore hardly even upon the iron temper andinflexible disposition of Mr. Adams. "The most insignificant error ofconduct in me at this time, " he writes in April, 1837, "would be myirredeemable ruin in this world; and both the ruling political partiesare watching with intense anxiety for some overt act by me to set thewhole pack of their hireling presses upon me. " But amid the host offoes, and aware that he could count upon the aid of scarcely a singlehearty and daring friend, he labored only the more earnestly. Thesevere pressure against him begat only the more severe counterpressure upon his part. 

Besides these natural and legitimate difficulties, Mr. Adams was (p. 254)further in the embarrassing position of one who has to fear as muchfrom the imprudence of allies as from open hostility of antagonists, and he was often compelled to guard against a peculiar risk comingfrom his very coadjutors in the great cause. The extremists who hadcast aside all regard for what was practicable, and who utterlyscorned to consider the feasibility or the consequences of measureswhich seemed to them to be correct as abstract propositions ofmorality, were constantly urging him to action which would only havedestroyed him forever in political life, would have stripped him ofhis influence, exiled him from that position in Congress where hecould render the most efficient service that was in him, and left himnaked of all usefulness and utterly helpless to continue thatessential portion of the labor which could be conducted by no oneelse. "The abolitionists generally, " he said, "are constantly urgingme to indiscreet movements, which would ruin me, and weaken and notstrengthen their cause. " His family, on the other hand, sought torestrain him from all connection with these dangerous partisans. "Between these adverse impulses, " he writes, "my mind is agitatedalmost to distraction. . . . I walk on the edge of a precipice almostevery step that I take. " In the midst of all this anxiety, (p. 255)however, he was fortunately supported by the strong commendation ofhis constituents which they once loyally declared by formal andunanimous votes in a convention summoned for the express purpose ofmanifesting their support. His feelings appear by an entry in hisDiary in October, 1837:--

 "I have gone [he said] as far upon this article, the abolition of slavery, as the public opinion of the free portion of the Union will bear, and so far that scarcely a slave-holding member of the House dares to vote with me upon any question. I have as yet been thoroughly sustained by my own State, but one step further and I hazard my own standing and influence there, my own final overthrow, and the cause of liberty itself for an indefinite time, certainly for more than my remnant of life. Were there in the House one member capable of taking the lead in this cause of universal emancipation, which is moving onward in the world and in this country, I would withdraw from the contest which will rage with increasing fury as it draws to its crisis, but for the management of which my age, infirmities, and approaching end totally disqualify me. There is no such man in the House. "

September 15, 1837, he says: "I have been for some time occupied dayand night, when at home, in assorting and recording the petitions andremonstrances against the annexation of Texas, and other (p. 256)anti-slavery petitions, which flow upon me in torrents. " The next dayhe presented the singular petition of one Sherlock S. Gregory, who hadconceived the eccentric notion of asking Congress to declare him "analien or stranger in the land so long as slavery exists and the wrongsof the Indians are unrequited and unrepented of. " September 28 hepresented a batch of his usual petitions, and also asked leave tooffer a resolution calling for a report concerning the coasting tradein slaves. "There was what Napoleon would have called a superb NO!returned to my request from the servile side of the House. " The nextday he presented fifty-one more like documents, and notes havingpreviously presented one hundred and fifty more. 

In December, 1837, still at this same work, he made a hard butfruitless effort to have the Texan remonstrances and petitions sent toa select committee instead of to that on foreign affairs which wasconstituted in the Southern interest. On December 29 he "presentedseveral bundles of abolition and anti-slavery petitions, " and saidthat, having declared his opinion that the gag-rule was unconstitutional, null, and void, he should "submit to it only as to physical force. "January 3, 1838, he presented "about a hundred petitions, (p. 257)memorials, and remonstrances, --all laid on the table. " January 15 hepresented fifty more. January 28 he received thirty-one petitions, andspent that day and the next in assorting and filing these and otherswhich he previously had, amounting in all to one hundred and twenty. February 14, in the same year, was a field-day in the petition campaign:he presented then no less than three hundred and fifty petitions, allbut three or four of which bore more or less directly upon the slaveryquestion. Among these petitions was one

 "praying that Congress would take measures to protect citizens from the North going to the South from danger to their lives. When the motion to lay that on the table was made, I said that, 'In another part of the Capitol it had been threatened that if a Northern abolitionist should go to North Carolina, and utter a principle of the Declaration of Independence'--Here a loud cry of 'order! order!' burst forth, in which the Speaker yelled the loudest. I waited till it subsided, and then resumed, 'that if they could catch him they would hang him!' I said this so as to be distinctly heard throughout the hall, the renewed deafening shout of 'order! order!' notwithstanding. The Speaker then said, 'The gentleman from Massachusetts will take his seat;' which I did and immediately rose again and presented another petition. He did not dare tell me that I could not proceed without (p. 258) permission of the House, and I proceeded. The threat to hang Northern abolitionists was uttered by Preston of the Senate within the last fortnight. "

On March 12, of the same year, he presented ninety-six petitions, nearly all of an anti-slavery character, one of them for "expungingthe Declaration of Independence from the Journals. "

On December 14, 1838, Mr. Wise, of Virginia, objected to the receptionof certain anti-slavery petitions. The Speaker ruled his objection outof order, and from this ruling Wise appealed. The question on theappeal was taken by yeas and nays. When Mr. Adams's name was called, he relates:--

 "I rose and said, 'Mr. Speaker, considering all the resolutions introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire as'--The Speaker roared out, 'The gentleman from Massachusetts must answer Aye or No, and nothing else. Order!' With a reinforced voice--'I refuse to answer, because I consider all the proceedings of the House as unconstitutional'--While in a firm and swelling voice I pronounced distinctly these words, the Speaker and about two thirds of the House cried, 'order! order! order!' till it became a perfect yell. I paused a moment for it to cease and then said, 'a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. ' While speaking these words with loud, distinct, and slow (p. 259) articulation, the bawl of 'order! order!' resounded again from two thirds of the House. The Speaker, with agonizing lungs, screamed, 'I call upon the House to support me in the execution of my duty!' I then coolly resumed my seat. Waddy Thompson, of South Carolina, advancing into one of the aisles with a sarcastic smile and silvery tone of voice, said, 'What aid from the House would the Speaker desire?' The Speaker snarled back, 'The gentleman from South Carolina is out of order!' and a peal of laughter burst forth from all sides of the House. "

So that little skirmish ended, much more cheerfully than was often thecase. 

December 20, 1838, he presented fifty anti-slavery petitions, amongwhich were three praying for the recognition of the Republic of Hayti. Petitions of this latter kind he strenuously insisted should bereferred to a select committee, or else to the Committee on ForeignAffairs, accompanied in the latter case with explicit instructionsthat a report thereon should be brought in. He audaciously stated thathe asked for these instructions because so many petitions of a liketenor had been sent to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and had found ita limbo from which they never again emerged, and the chairman had saidthat this would continue to be the case. The chairman, sitting tworows behind Mr. Adams, said, "that insinuation should not be (p. 260)made against a gentleman!" "I shall make, " retorted Mr. Adams, "whatinsinuation I please. This is not an insinuation, but a direct, positive assertion. "

January 7, 1839, he cheerfully records that he presented ninety-fivepetitions, bearing "directly or indirectly upon the slavery topics, "and some of them very exasperating in their language. March 30, 1840, he handed in no less than five hundred and eleven petitions, many ofwhich were not receivable under the "gag" rule adopted on January 28of that year, which had actually gone the length of refusing so muchas a reception to abolition petitions. April 13, 1840, he presented apetition for the repeal of the laws in the District of Columbia, whichauthorized the whipping of women. Besides this he had a multitude ofothers, and he only got through the presentation of them "just as themorning hour expired. " On January 21, 1841, he found much amusement inpuzzling his Southern adversaries by presenting some petitions inwhich, besides the usual anti-slavery prayers, there was a prayer torefuse to admit to the Union any new State whose constitution shouldtolerate slavery. The Speaker said that only the latter prayer couldbe _received_ under the "gag" rule. Connor, of North Carolina, (p. 261)moved to lay on the table so much of the petition as could bereceived. Mr. Adams tauntingly suggested that in order to do this itwould be necessary to mutilate the document by cutting it into twopieces; whereat there was great wrath and confusion, "the House gotinto a snarl, the Speaker knew not what to do. " The Southerners ravedand fumed for a while, and finally resorted to their usual expedient, and dropped altogether a matter which so sorely burned their fingers. 

A fact, very striking in view of the subsequent course of events, concerning Mr. Adams's relation with the slavery question, seemshitherto to have escaped the attention of those who have dealt withhis career. It may as well find a place here as elsewhere in anarrative which it is difficult to make strictly chronological. Apparently he was the first to declare the doctrine, that theabolition of slavery could be lawfully accomplished by the exercise ofthe war powers of the Government. The earliest expression of thisprinciple is found in a speech made by him in May, 1836, concerningthe distribution of rations to fugitives from Indian hostilities inAlabama and Georgia. He then said:--

 "From the instant that your slave-holding States become the theatre of war, civil, servile, or foreign, from that instant (p. 262) the war powers of the Constitution extend to interference with the institution of slavery in every way in which it can be interfered with, from a claim of indemnity for slaves taken or destroyed, to a cession of the State burdened with slavery to a foreign power. "

In June, 1841, he made a speech of which no report exists, but thecontents of which may be in part learned from the replies andreferences to it which are on record. Therein he appears to havedeclared that slavery could be abolished in the exercise of thetreaty-making power, having reference doubtless to a treaty concludinga war. 

These views were of course mere abstract expressions of opinion as tothe constitutionality of measures the real occurrence of which wasanticipated by nobody. But, as the first suggestions of a doctrine initself most obnoxious to the Southern theory and fundamentallydestructive of the great Southern "institution" under perfectlypossible circumstances, this enunciation by Mr. Adams gave rise tomuch indignation. Instead of allowing the imperfectly formulatedprinciple to lose its danger in oblivion, the Southerners assailed itwith vehemence. They taunted Mr. Adams with the opinion, as if merelyto say that he held it was to damn him to everlasting infamy. The onlyresult was that they induced him to consider the matter more (p. 263)fully, and to express his belief more deliberately. In January, 1842, Mr. Wise attacked him upon this ground, and a month later Marshallfollowed in the same strain. These assaults were perhaps the directincentive to what was said soon after by Mr. Adams, on April 14, 1842, in a speech concerning war with England and with Mexico, of whichthere was then some talk. Giddings, among other resolutions, hadintroduced one to the effect that the slave States had the exclusiveright to be consulted on the subject of slavery. Mr. Adams said thathe could not give his assent to this. One of the laws of war, he said, is

 "that when a country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial array, the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate all the slaves in the invaded territory. "

He cited some precedents from South American history, and continued:--

 "Whether the war be servile, civil, or foreign, I lay this down as the law of nations. I say that the military authority takes for the time the place of all municipal institutions, slavery among the rest. Under that state of things, so far from its being true that the States where slavery exists have the exclusive management of the subject, not only the President of the United States but the commander of the army has power to order (p. 264) the universal emancipation of the slaves. "

This declaration of constitutional doctrine was made with muchpositiveness and emphasis. There for many years the matter rested. Theprinciple had been clearly asserted by Mr. Adams, angrily repudiatedby the South, and in the absence of the occasion of war there wasnothing more to be done in the matter. But when the exigency at lastcame, and the government of the United States was brought face to facewith by far the gravest constitutional problem presented by the greatrebellion, then no other solution presented itself save that which hadbeen suggested twenty years earlier in the days of peace by Mr. Adams. It was in pursuance of the doctrine to which he thus gave the firstutterance that slavery was forever abolished in the United States. Extracts from the last-quoted speech long stood as the motto of the"Liberator;" and at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation Mr. Adams was regarded as the chief and sufficient authority for an act somomentous in its effect, so infinitely useful in a matter of nationalextremity. But it was evidently a theory which had taken strong holdupon him. Besides the foregoing speeches there is an explicitstatement of it in a letter which he wrote from Washington April 4, 1836, to Hon. Solomon Lincoln, of Hingham, a friend and (p. 265)constituent. After touching upon other topics he says:--

 "The new pretensions of the slave representation in Congress of a right to refuse to receive petitions, and that Congress have no constitutional power to abolish slavery or the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, forced upon me so much of the discussion as I did take upon me, but in which you are well aware I did not and could not speak a tenth part of my mind. I did not, for example, start the question whether by the law of God and of nature man can hold _property_, HEREDITARY property, in man. I did not start the question whether in the event of a servile insurrection and war, Congress would not have complete unlimited control over the whole subject of slavery, even to the emancipation of all the slaves in the State where such insurrection should break out, and for the suppression of which the freemen of Plymouth and Norfolk counties, Massachusetts, should be called by Acts of Congress to pour out their treasures and to shed their blood. Had I spoken my mind on these two points, the sturdiest of the abolitionists would have disavowed the sentiments of their champion. "

The projected annexation of Texas, which became a battle-groundwhereon the tide of conflict swayed so long and so fiercely to andfro, profoundly stirred Mr. Adams's indignation. It is, he said, "aquestion of far deeper root and more overshadowing branches than (p. 266)any or all others that now agitate this country. . . . I had opened it bymy speech . . . On the 25th May, 1836--by far the most noted speech thatI ever made. " He based his opposition to the annexation uponconstitutional objections, and on September 18, 1837, offered aresolution that "the power of annexing the people of any independentState to this Union is a power not delegated by the Constitution ofthe United States to their Congress or to any department of theirgovernment, but reserved to the people. " The Speaker refused toreceive the motion, or even allow it to be read, on the ground that itwas not in order. Mr. Adams repeated substantially the same motion inJune, 1838, then adding "that any attempt by act of Congress or bytreaty to annex the Republic of Texas to this Union would be anusurpation of power which it would be the right and the duty of thefree people of the Union to resist and annul. " The story of hisopposition to this measure is, however, so interwoven with his generalantagonism to slavery, that there is little occasion for treating themseparately. [9]

 [Footnote 9: In an address to his constituents in September, 1842, Mr. Adams spoke of his course concerning Texas. Having mentioned Mr. Van Buren's reply, declining the formal proposition made in 1837 by the Republic of Texas for annexation to the United States, he continued: "But the slave-breeding passion for the annexation was not to be so disconcerted. At the ensuing session of Congress numerous petitions and memorials for and against the annexation were presented to the House, . . . And were referred to the Committee of Foreign Affairs, who, without ever taking them into consideration, towards the close of the session asked to be discharged from the consideration of them all. It was on this report that the debate arose, in which I disclosed the whole system of duplicity and perfidy towards Mexico, which had marked the Jackson Administration from its commencement to its close. It silenced the clamors for the annexation of Texas to this Union for three years till the catastrophe of the Van Buren Administration. The people of the free States were lulled into the belief that the whole project was abandoned, and that they should hear no more of slave-trade cravings for the annexation of Texas. Had Harrison lived they would have heard no more of them to this day, but no sooner was John Tyler installed in the President's House than nullification and Texas and war with Mexico rose again upon the surface, with eye steadily fixed upon the Polar Star of Southern slave-dealing supremacy in the government of the Union. "]

People sometimes took advantage of his avowed principles (p. 267)concerning freedom of petition to put him in positions which theythought would embarrass him or render him ridiculous. Not muchsuccess, however, attended these foolish efforts of shallow wits. Itwas not easy to disconcert him or to take him at disadvantage. July28, 1841, he presented a paper of this character coming from sundryVirginians and praying that all the free colored population should besold or expelled from the country. He simply stated as he handed inthe sheet that nothing could be more abhorrent to him than this (p. 268)prayer, and that his respect for the right of petition was hisonly motive for presenting this. It was suspended under the "gag"rule, and its promoters, unless very easily amused, must have beensadly disappointed with the fate and effect of their joke. On March 5, 1838, he received from Rocky Mount in Virginia a letter and petitionpraying that the House would arraign at its bar and forever expel JohnQuincy Adams. He presented both documents, with a resolution askingthat they be referred to a committee for investigation and report. Hisenemies in the House saw that he was sure to have the best of thesport if the matter should be pursued, and succeeded in laying it onthe table. Waddy Thompson thoughtfully improved the opportunity tomention to Mr. Adams that he also had received a petition, "numerouslysigned, " praying for Mr. Adams's expulsion, but had never presentedit. In the following May Mr. Adams presented another petition of liketenor. Dromgoole said that he supposed it was a "quiz, " and that hewould move to lay it on the table, "unless the gentleman fromMassachusetts wished to give it another direction. " Mr. Adams saidthat "the gentleman from Massachusetts cared very little about it, "and it found the limbo of the "table. "

To this same period belongs the memorable tale of Mr. Adams's (p. 269)attempt to present a petition from slaves. On February 6, 1837, hebrought in some two hundred abolition petitions. He closed with oneagainst the slave-trade in the District of Columbia purporting to besigned by "nine ladies of Fredericksburg, Virginia, " whom he declinedto name because, as he said, in the present disposition of thecountry, "he did not know what might happen to them if he did namethem. " Indeed, he added, he was not sure that the petition wasgenuine; he had said, when he began to present his petitions, thatsome among them were so peculiar that he was in doubt as to theirgenuineness, and this fell within the description. Apparently he hadconcluded and was about to take his seat, when he quickly caught upanother sheet, and said that he held in his hand a paper concerningwhich he should wish to have the decision of the Speaker beforepresenting it. It purported to be a petition from twenty-two slaves, and he would like to know whether it came within the rule of the Houseconcerning petitions relating to slavery. The Speaker, in manifestconfusion, said that he could not answer the question until he knewthe contents of the document. Mr. Adams, remarking that "it was one ofthose petitions which had occurred to his mind as not being what (p. 270)it purported to be, " proposed to send it up to the Chair forinspection. Objection was made to this, and the Speaker said that thecircumstances were so extraordinary that he would take the sense ofthe House. That body, at first inattentive, now became interested, andno sooner did a knowledge of what was going on spread among thosepresent than great excitement prevailed. Members were hastily broughtin from the lobbies; many tried to speak, and from parts of the hallcries of "Expel him! Expel him!" were heard. For a brief interval noone of the enraged Southerners was equal to the unforeseen emergency. Mr. Haynes moved the rejection of the petition. Mr. Lewis deprecatedthis motion, being of opinion that the House must inflict punishmenton the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Haynes thereupon withdrew amotion which was so obviously inadequate to the vindictive gravity ofthe occasion. Mr. Grantland stood ready to second a motion to punishMr. Adams, and Mr. Lewis said that if punishment should not be metedout it would "be better for the representatives from the slave-holdingStates to go home at once. " Mr. Alford said that so soon as thepetition should be presented he would move that it should "be takenfrom the House and burned. " At last Mr. Thompson got a resolution (p. 271)into shape as follows:--

 "That the Hon. John Quincy Adams, by the attempt just made by him to introduce a petition purporting on its face to be from slaves, has been guilty of a gross disrespect to this House, and that he be instantly brought to the bar to receive the severe censure of the Speaker. "

In supporting this resolution he said that Mr. Adams's action was ingross and wilful violation of the rules of the House and an insult toits members. He even threatened criminal proceedings before the grandjury of the District of Columbia, saying that if that body had the"proper intelligence and spirit" people might "yet see an incendiarybrought to condign punishment. " Mr. Haynes, not satisfied with Mr. Thompson's resolution, proposed a substitute to the effect that Mr. Adams had "rendered himself justly liable to the severest censure ofthis House and is censured accordingly. " Then there ensued a littlemore excited speech-making and another resolution, that Mr. Adams, "by his attempt to introduce into this House a petition from slaves for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, has committed an outrage on the feelings of the people of a large portion of this Union; a flagrant contempt on the dignity (p. 272) of this House; and, by extending to slaves a privilege only belonging to freemen, directly incites the slave population to insurrection; and that the said member be forthwith called to the bar of the House and be censured by the Speaker. "

Mr. Lewis remained of opinion that it might be best for the Southernmembers to go home, --a proposition which afterwards drew forth aflaming speech from Mr. Alford, who, far from inclining to go home, was ready to stay "until this fair city is a field of Waterloo andthis beautiful Potomac a river of blood. " Mr. Patton, of Virginia, wasthe first to speak a few words to bring members to their senses, pertinently asking whether Mr. Adams had "attempted to offer" thispetition, and whether it did indeed pray for the abolition of slavery. It might be well, he suggested, for his friends to be sure of theirfacts before going further. Then at last Mr. Adams, who had not at alllost his head in the general hurly-burly, rose and said, that amidthese numerous resolutions charging him with "high crimes andmisdemeanors" and calling him to the bar of the House to answer forthe same, he had thought it proper to remain silent until the Houseshould take some action; that he did not suppose that, if he should bebrought to the bar of the House, he should be "struck mute by the (p. 273)previous question" before he should have been given an opportunity to"say a word or two" in his own defence. As to the facts: "I did notpresent the petition, " he said, "and I appeal to the Speaker to saythat I did not. . . . I intended to take the decision of the Speakerbefore I went one step towards presenting or offering to present thatpetition. " The contents of the petition, should the House ever chooseto read it, he continued, would render necessary some amendments atleast in the last resolution, since the prayer was that slavery should_not_ be abolished!" The gentleman from Alabama may perchance find, that the object of this petition is precisely what he desires toaccomplish; and that these slaves who have sent this paper to me arehis auxiliaries instead of being his opponents. "

These remarks caused some discomfiture among the Southern members, whowere glad to have time for deliberation given them by a maunderingspeech from Mr. Mann, of New York, who talked about "the deplorablespectacle shown off every petition day by the honorable member fromMassachusetts in presenting the abolition petitions of his infatuatedfriends and constituents, " charged Mr. Adams with running counter tothe sense of the whole country with a "violence paralleled only (p. 274)by the revolutionary madness of desperation, " and twitted him with hispolitical friendlessness, with his age, and with the insinuation ofwaning faculties and judgment. This little phial having been emptied, Mr. Thompson arose and angrily assailed Mr. Adams for contemptuouslytrifling with the House, which charge he based upon the entirelyunproved assumption that the petition was not a genuine document. Heconcluded by presenting new resolutions better adapted to the recentdevelopment of the case:--

 "1. That the Hon. John Quincy Adams, by an effort to present a petition from slaves, has committed a gross contempt of this House. 

 "2. That the member from Massachusetts above-named, by creating the impression and leaving the House under such impression, that the said petition was for the abolition of slavery, when he knew that it was not, has trifled with the House. 

 "3. That the Hon. John Quincy Adams receive the censure of the House for his conduct referred to in the preceding resolutions. "

Mr. Pinckney said that the avowal by Mr. Adams that he had in hispossession the petition of slaves was an admission of communicationwith slaves, and so was evidence of collusion with them; and that Mr. Adams had thus rendered himself indictable for aiding and abetting (p. 275)insurrection. A _fortiori_, then, was he not amenable to the censureof the House? Mr. Haynes, of Georgia, forgetting that the petition hadnot been presented, announced his intention of moving that it shouldbe rejected subject only to a permission for its withdrawal; anothermember suggested that, if the petition should be disposed of byburning, it would be well to commit to the same combustion thegentleman who presented it. 

On the next day some more resolutions were ready, prepared byDromgoole, who in his sober hours was regarded as the bestparliamentarian in the Southern party. These were, that Mr. Adams

 "by stating in his place that he had in his possession a paper purporting to be a petition from slaves, and inquiring if it came within the meaning of a resolution heretofore adopted (as preliminary to its presentation), has given color to the idea that slaves have the right of petition and of his readiness to be their organ; and that for the same he deserves the censure of the House. 

 "That the aforesaid John Quincy Adams receive a censure from the Speaker in the presence of the House of Representatives. "

Mr. Alford, in advocating these resolutions, talked about "this awfulcrisis of our beloved country. " Mr. Robertson, though opposing (p. 276)the resolutions, took pains "strongly to condemn . . . The conduct ofthe gentleman from Massachusetts. " Mr. Adams's colleague, Mr. Lincoln, spoke in his behalf, so also did Mr. Evans, of Maine; and CalebCushing made a powerful speech upon his side. Otherwise than this Mr. Adams was left to carry on the contest single-handed against thenumerous array of assailants, all incensed and many fairly savage. Yetit is a striking proof of the dread in which even the united body ofhot-blooded Southerners stood of this hard fighter from the North, that as the debate was drawing to a close, after they had all saidtheir say and just before his opportunity came for making hiselaborate speech of defence, they suddenly and opportunely becameready to content themselves with a mild resolution, which condemnedgenerally the presentation of petitions from slaves, and, for thedisposal of this particular case, recited that Mr. Adams had "solemnlydisclaimed all design of doing anything disrespectful to the House, "and had "avowed his intention not to offer to present" to the Housethe petition of this kind held by him; that "therefore all furtherproceedings in regard to his conduct do now cease. " A sneaking effortby Mr. Vanderpoel to close Mr. Adams's mouth by moving the (p. 277)previous question involved too much cowardice to be carried; and so onFebruary 9 the sorely bated man was at last able to begin his finalspeech. He conducted his defence with singular spirit and ability, butat too great length to admit of even a sketch of what he said. Heclaimed the right of petition for slaves, and established it so far asargument can establish anything. He alleged that all he had done wasto ask a question of the Speaker, and if he was to be censured for sodoing, then how much more, he asked, was the Speaker deserving ofcensure who had even put the same question to the House, and given ashis reason for so doing that it was not only of novel but of difficultimport! He repudiated the idea that any member of the House could beheld by a grand jury to respond for words spoken in debate, andrecommended the gentlemen who had indulged in such preposterousthreats "to study a little the first principles of civil liberty, "excoriating them until they actually arose and tried to explain awaytheir own language. He cast infinite ridicule upon the unhappyexpression of Dromgoole, "giving color to an idea. " Referring to thedifficulty which he encountered by reason of the variety and disorderof the resolutions and charges against him with which "gentlemen fromthe South had pounced down upon him like so many eagles upon a (p. 278)dove, "--there was an exquisite sarcasm in the simile!--he said:"When I take up one idea, before I can give color to the idea, it hasalready changed its form and presents itself for consideration underother colors. . . . What defence can be made against this new crime ofgiving color to ideas?" As for trifling with the House by presenting apetition which in the course of debate had become pretty well knownand acknowledged to be a hoax designed to lead Mr. Adams into aposition of embarrassment and danger, he disclaimed any such motive, reminding members that he had given warning, when beginning to presenthis petitions, that he was suspicious that some among them might notbe genuine. [10] But while denying all intention of trifling with theHouse, he rejected the mercy extended to him in the last of the (p. 279)long series of resolutions before that body. "I disclaim not, " hesaid, "any particle of what I have done, not a single word of what Ihave said do I unsay; nay, I am ready to do and to say the sameto-morrow. " He had no notion of aiding in making a loophole throughwhich his blundering enemies might escape, even though he himselfshould be accorded the privilege of crawling through it with them. Attimes during his speech "there was great agitation in the House, " butwhen he closed no one seemed ambitious to reply. His enemies hadlearned anew a lesson, often taught to them before and often to beimpressed upon them again, that it was perilous to come to closequarters with Mr. Adams. They gave up all idea of censuring him, andwere content to apply a very mild emollient to their own smartingwounds in the shape of a resolution, to the effect that slaves did notpossess the right of petition secured by the Constitution to thepeople of the United States. 

 [Footnote 10: Mr. Adams afterward said: "I believed the petition signed by female names to be genuine. . . . I had suspicions that the other, purporting to be from slaves, came really from the hand of a master who had prevailed on his slaves to sign it, that they might have the appearance of imploring the members from the North to cease offering petitions for their emancipation, which could have no other tendency than to aggravate their servitude, and of being so impatient under the operation of petitions in their favor as to pray that the Northern members who should persist in presenting them should be expelled. " It was a part of the prayer of the petition that Mr. Adams should be expelled if he should continue to present abolition petitions. ]

In the winter of 1842-43 the questions arising out of the affair ofthe Creole rendered the position then held by Mr. Adams at the head ofthe House Committee on Foreign Affairs exceedingly distasteful to theslave-holders. On January 21, 1842, a somewhat singular (p. 280)manifestation of this feeling was made when Mr. Adams himselfpresented a petition from Georgia praying for his removal from thisChairmanship. Upon this he requested to be heard in his own behalf. The Southern party, not sanguine of any advantage from debating thematter, tried to lay it on the table. The petition was alleged byHabersham, of Georgia, to be undoubtedly another hoax. But Mr. Adams, loath to lose a good opportunity, still claimed to be heard on thecharges made against him by the "infamous slave-holders. " Mr. Smith, of Virginia, said that the House had lately given Mr. Adams leave todefend himself against the charge of monomania, and asked whether hewas doing so. Some members cried "Yes! Yes!"; others shouted "No! heis establishing the fact. " The wrangling was at last brought to an endby the Speaker's declaration, that the petition must lie over for thepresent. But the scene had been only the prelude to one much longer, fiercer, and more exciting. No sooner was the document thustemporarily disposed of than Mr. Adams rose and presented the petitionof forty-five citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, praying the House"immediately to adopt measures peaceably to dissolve the union ofthese States, " for the alleged cause of the incompatibility (p. 281)between free and slave-holding communities. He moved "its reference toa select committee, with instructions to report an answer to thepetitioners showing the reasons why the prayer of it ought not to begranted. "

In a moment the House was aflame with excitement. The numerous memberswho hated Mr. Adams thought that at last he was experiencing thedivinely sent madness which foreruns destruction. Those who sought hispolitical annihilation felt that the appointed and glorious hour ofextinction had come; those who had writhed beneath the castigation ofhis invective exulted in the near revenge. While one said that thepetition should never have been brought within the walls of the House, and another wished to burn it in the presence of the members, Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, offered a resolution, that in presenting thepetition Mr. Adams "had justly incurred the censure of the House. "Some objection was made to this resolution as not being in order; butMr. Adams said that he hoped that it would be received and debated andthat an opportunity would be given him to speak in his own defence;"especially as the gentleman from Virginia had thought proper to playsecond fiddle to his colleague[11] from Accomac. " Mr. Gilmer retortedthat he "played second fiddle to no man. He was no fiddler, but (p. 282)was endeavoring to prevent the music of him who, 'In the space of one revolving moon, Was statesman, poet, fiddler, and buffoon. '"

The resolution was then laid on the table. The House rose, and Mr. Adams went home and noted in his Diary, "evening in meditation, " forwhich indeed he had abundant cause. On the following day Thomas F. Marshall, of Kentucky, offered a substitute for Gilmer's resolution. This new fulmination had been prepared in a caucus of forty members ofthe slave-holding party, and was long and carefully framed. Itspreamble recited, in substance, that a petition to dissolve the Union, proposing to Congress to destroy that which the several members hadsolemnly and officially sworn to support, was a "high breach ofprivilege, a contempt offered to this House, a direct proposition tothe Legislature and each member of it to commit perjury, and involvingnecessarily in its execution and its consequences the destruction ofour country and the crime of high treason:" wherefore it was to beresolved that Mr. Adams, in presenting a petition for dissolution, had"offered the deepest indignity to the House" and "an insult to thepeople;" that if "this outrage" should be "permitted to pass unrebukedand unpunished" he would have "disgraced his country . . . In the (p. 283)eyes of the whole world;" that for this insult and this "wound atthe Constitution and existence of his country, the peace, the securityand liberty of the people of these States" he "might well be held tomerit expulsion from the national councils;" and that "the House deemit an act of grace and mercy when they only inflict upon him theirseverest censure;" that so much they must do "for the maintenance oftheir own purity and dignity; for the rest they turned him over to hisown conscience and the indignation of all true American citizens. "

 [Footnote 11: Henry A. Wise. ]

These resolutions were then advocated by Mr. Marshall at great lengthand with extreme bitterness. Mr. Adams replied shortly, stating thathe should wish to make his full defence at a later stage of thedebate. Mr. Wise followed in a personal and acrimonious harangue; Mr. Everett[12] gave some little assistance to Mr. Adams, and the Houseagain adjourned. The following day Wise continued his speech, veryelaborately. When he closed, Mr. Adams, who had "determined not tointerrupt him till he had discharged his full cargo of filthy invective, "rose to "make a preliminary point. " He questioned the right of theHouse to entertain Marshall's resolutions since the preamble assumedhim to be guilty of the crimes of subornation of perjury and (p. 284)treason, and the resolutions themselves censured him as if he had beenfound guilty; whereas in fact he had not been tried upon these chargesand of course had not been convicted. If he was to be brought to trialupon them he asserted his right to have the proceedings conductedbefore a jury of his peers, and that the House was not a tribunalhaving this authority. But if he was to be tried for contempt, forwhich alone he could lawfully be tried by the House, still there werean hundred members sitting on its benches who were morallydisqualified to judge him, who could not give him an impartial trial, because they were prejudiced and the question was one "on which theirpersonal, pecuniary, and most sordid interests were at stake. " Suchconsiderations, he said, ought to prevent many gentlemen from voting, as Mr. Wise had avowed that they would prevent him. Here Wiseinterrupted to disavow that he was influenced by any such reasons, butrather, he said, by the "personal loathing, dread, and contempt I feelfor the man. " Mr. Adams, continuing after this pleasant interjection, admitted that he was in the power of the majority, who might try himagainst law and condemn him against right if they would. 

 [Footnote 12: Horace Everett, of Vermont. ]

 "If they say they will try me, they must try me. If they (p. 285) say they will punish me, they must punish me. But if they say that in peace and mercy they will spare me expulsion, I disdain and cast away their mercy; and I ask them if they will come to such a trial and expel me. I defy them. I have constituents to go to who will have something to say if this House expels me. Nor will it be long before the gentlemen will see me here again. "

Such was the fierce temper and indomitable courage of this inflexibleold man! He flung contempt in the face of those who had him wholly intheir power, and in the same breath in which he acknowledged thatpower he dared them to use it. He charged Wise with the guilt ofinnocent blood, in connection with certain transactions in a duel, andexasperated that gentleman into crying out that the "charge made bythe gentleman from Massachusetts was as base and black a lie as thetraitor was base and black who uttered it. " When he was asked by theSpeaker to put his point of order in writing, --his own request to thelike effect in another case having been refused shortly before, --hetauntingly congratulated that gentleman "upon his discovery of theexpediency of having points of order reduced to writing--a favor whichhe had repeatedly denied to me. " When Mr. Wise was speaking, "Iinterrupted him occasionally, " says Mr. Adams, "sometimes to (p. 286)provoke him into absurdity. " As usual he was left to fight out hisdesperate battle substantially single-handed. Only Mr. Everettoccasionally helped him a very little; while one or two others whospoke against the resolutions were careful to explain that they feltno personal good will towards Mr. Adams. But he faced the oddscourageously. It was no new thing for him to be pitted alone against a"solid South. " Outside the walls of the House he had some sympathy andsome assistance tendered him by individuals, among others by RufusChoate then in the Senate, and by his own colleagues fromMassachusetts. This support aided and cheered him somewhat, but couldnot prevent substantially the whole burden of the labor and brunt ofthe contest from bearing upon him alone. Among the externalmanifestations of feeling, those of hostility were naturally largelyin the ascendant. The newspapers of Washington--the "Globe" and the"National Intelligencer"--which reported the debates, daily filledtheir columns with all the abuse and invective which was poured forthagainst him, while they gave the most meagre statements, or none atall, of what he said in his own defence. Among other amenities hereceived from North Carolina an anonymous letter threatening him withassassination, having also an engraved portrait of him with the (p. 287)mark of a rifle-ball in the forehead, and the motto "to stop themusic of John Quincy Adams, " etc. , etc. This missive he read anddisplayed in the House, but it was received with profound indifferenceby men who would not have greatly objected to the execution of thebarbarous threat. 

The prolonged struggle cost him deep anxiety and sleepless nights, which in the declining years of a laborious life told hardly upon hisaged frame. But against all odds of numbers and under alldisadvantages of circumstances the past repeated itself, and Mr. Adamsalone won a victory over all the cohorts of the South. Severalattempts had been made during the debate to lay the whole subject onthe table. Mr. Adams said that he would consent to this simply becausehis defence would be a very long affair, and he did not wish to havethe time of the House consumed and the business of the nation broughtto a stand solely for the consideration of his personal affairs. Thesepropositions failing, he began his speech and soon was making suchheadway that even his adversaries were constrained to see that theopportunity which they had conceived to be within their grasp waseluding them, as had so often happened before. Accordingly on February7 the motion to "lay the whole subject on the table forever" was (p. 288)renewed and carried by one hundred and six votes to ninety-three. The House then took up the original petition and refused to receive itby one hundred and sixty-six to forty. No sooner was this consummationreached than the irrepressible champion rose to his feet and proceededwith his budget of anti-slavery petitions, of which he "presentednearly two hundred, till the House adjourned. "

Within a very short time there came further and convincing proof thatMr. Adams was victor. On February 26 he writes: "D. D. Barnard told mehe had received a petition from his District, signed by a small numberof very respectable persons, praying for a dissolution of the Union. He said he did not know what to do with it. I dined with him. " ByMarch 14 this dinner bore fruit. Mr. Barnard had made up his mind"what to do with it. " He presented it, with a motion that it bereferred to a select committee with instructions to report adverselyto its prayer. The well-schooled House now took the presentationwithout a ripple of excitement, and was content with simply voting notto receive the petition. 

In the midst of the toil and anxiety imposed upon Mr. Adams by thiseffort to censure and disgrace him, the scheme, already referred to, for displacing him from the chairmanship of the Committee on (p. 289)Foreign Affairs had been actively prosecuted. He was notified that theSouthern members had formed a cabal for removing him and putting CalebCushing in his place. The plan was, however, temporarily checked, andso soon as Mr. Adams had triumphed in the House the four Southernmembers of the committee sent to the House a paper begging to beexcused from further services on the committee, "because from recentoccurrences it was doubtful whether the House would remove thechairman, and they were unwilling to serve with one in whom they hadno confidence. " The fugitives were granted, "by a shout ofacclamation, " the excuse which they sought for so welcome a reason, and the same was also done for a fifth member. Three more of the sameparty, nominated to fill these vacancies, likewise asked to beexcused, and were so. Their letters preferring this request were "soinsulting personally" to Mr. Adams as to constitute "gross breaches ofprivilege. " "The Speaker would have refused to receive or present themhad they referred to any other man in the House. " They were published, but Mr. Adams, after some hesitation, determined not to give them theimportance which would result from any public notice in the House uponhis part. He could afford to keep silence, and judged wisely in doingso. 

Amid all the animosity and rancor entertained towards Mr. Adams, (p. 290)there yet lurked a degree of respect for his courage, honesty, andability which showed itself upon occasion, doubtless not a little tothe surprise of the members themselves who were hardly conscious thatthey entertained such sentiments until startled into a manifestationof them. An eminent instance of this is to be found in the story ofthe troubled days preceding the organization of the twenty-sixthCongress. On December 2, 1839, the members elect of that body cametogether in Washington, with the knowledge that the seats of fivegentlemen from New Jersey, who brought with them the regulargubernatorial certificate of their election, would be contested byfive other claimants. According to custom Garland, clerk of the lastHouse, called the assemblage to order and began the roll-call. When hecame to New Jersey he called the name of one member from that State, and then said that there were five other seats which were contested, and that not feeling authorized to decide the dispute he would passover the names of the New Jersey members and proceed with the rolltill the House should be formed, when the question could be decided. Plausible as appeared this abstention from an exercise of authority inso grave a dispute, it was nevertheless really an assumption and (p. 291)not a deprecation of power, and as such was altogether unjustifiable. The clerk's sole business was to call the names of those persons whopresented the usual formal credentials; he had no right to takecognizance that the seats of any such persons might be the subject ofa contest, which could properly be instituted, conducted, anddetermined only before and by the House itself when organized. But hiscourse was not innocent of a purpose. So evenly was the House dividedthat the admission or exclusion of these five members in the firstinstance would determine the political complexion of the body. Themembers holding the certificates were Whigs; if the clerk could keepthem out until the organization of the House should be completed, thenthe Democrats would control that organization, would elect theirSpeaker, and through him would make up the committees. 

[Illustration: Henry A. Wise]

Naturally enough this arrogation of power by the clerk, the motivesand consequences of which were abundantly obvious, raised a terriblestorm. The debate continued till four o'clock in the afternoon, when amotion was made to adjourn. The clerk said that he could put noquestion, not even of adjournment, till the House should be formed. But there was a general cry to adjourn, and the clerk declared theHouse adjourned. Mr. Adams went home and wrote in his Diary that (p. 292)the clerk's "two decisions form together an insurmountable objectionto the transaction of any business, and an impossibility of organizingthe House. . . . The most curious part of the case is, that his ownelection as clerk depends upon the exclusion of the New Jerseymembers. " The next day was consumed in a fierce debate as to whetherthe clerk should be allowed to read an explanatory statement. Againthe clerk refused to put the question of adjournment, but, "uponinspection, " declared an adjournment. Some called out "a count! acount!" while most rushed out of the hall, and Wise cried loudly, "Nowwe are a mob!" The next day there was more violent debating, but noprogress towards a decision. Various party leaders offeredresolutions, none of which accomplished anything. The condition wasridiculous, disgraceful, and not without serious possibilities ofdanger. Neither did any light of encouragement break in any quarter. In the crisis there seemed, by sudden consent of all, to be a turningtowards Mr. Adams. Prominent men of both parties came to him andbegged him to interfere. He was reluctant to plunge into theembroilment; but the great urgency and the abundant assurances ofsupport placed little less than actual compulsion upon him. Accordingly on December 5 he rose to address the House. He was (p. 293)greeted as a _Deus ex machina_. Not speaking to the clerk, but turningdirectly to the assembled members, he began: "Fellow citizens! Memberselect of the twenty-sixth Congress!" He could not resist the temptationof administering a brief but severe and righteous castigation toGarland; and then, ignoring that functionary altogether, proceeded tobeg the House to _organize itself_. To this end he said that he wouldoffer a resolution "ordering the clerk to call the members from NewJersey possessing the credentials from the Governor of that State. "There had been already no lack of resolutions, but the difficulty layin the clerk's obstinate refusal to put the question upon them. So nowthe puzzled cry went up: "How shall the question be put?" "I intend toput the question myself, " said the dauntless old man, wholly equal tothe emergency. A tumult of applause resounded upon all sides. Rhett, of South Carolina, sprang up and offered a resolution, that Williams, of North Carolina, the oldest member of the House, be appointedchairman of the meeting; but upon objection by Williams, hesubstituted the name of Mr. Adams, and put the question. He was"answered by an almost universal shout in the affirmative. " WhereuponRhett and Williams conducted the old man to the chair. It was a (p. 294)proud moment. Wise, of Virginia, afterward said, addressing acomplimentary speech to Mr. Adams, "and if, when you shall be gatheredto your fathers, I were asked to select the words which in my judgmentare calculated to give at once the best character of the man, I wouldinscribe upon your tomb this sentence, 'I will put the questionmyself!'" Doubtless Wise and a good many more would have been gladenough to put almost any epitaph on a tombstone for Mr. Adams. [13] Itmust, however, be acknowledged that the impetuous Southerners behavedvery handsomely by their arch foe on this occasion, and were for onceas chivalrous in fact as they always were in profession. 

 [Footnote 13: Not quite two years later, pending a motion to reprimand Mr. Wise for fighting with a member on the floor of the House, that gentleman took pains insultingly to say, "that there was but one man in the House whose judgment he was unwilling to abide by, " and that man was Mr. Adams. ]

Smooth water had by no means been reached when Mr. Adams was placed atthe helm; on the contrary, the buffeting became only the more severewhen the members were no longer restrained by a lurking dread of gravedisaster if not of utter shipwreck. Between two bitterly incensed andevenly divided parties engaged in a struggle for an important prize, Mr. Adams, having no strictly lawful authority pertaining to (p. 295)his singular and anomalous position, was hard taxed to perform hisfunctions. It is impossible to follow the intricate and acrimoniousquarrels of the eleven days which succeeded until on December 16, uponthe eleventh ballot, R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, was elected Speaker, and Mr. Adams was relieved from the most arduous duty imposed upon himduring his life. In the course of the debates there had been "muchvituperation and much equally unacceptable compliment" lavished uponhim. After the organization of the House, there was some talk ofmoving a vote of thanks, but he entreated that it should not be done. "In the rancorous and bitter temper of the Administration party, exasperated by their disappointment in losing their Speaker, theresolution of thanks, " he said, "would have been lost if it had beenoffered. " However this might have been, history has determined thisoccurrence to have been one of the most brilliant episodes in a lifewhich had many distinctions. 

A few incidents indicative of respect must have been welcome enough inthe solitary fight-laden career of Mr. Adams. He needed someoccasional encouragement to keep him from sinking into despondency;for though he was of so unyielding and belligerent a disposition, ofsuch ungracious demeanor, so uncompromising with friend and foe, (p. 296)yet he was a man of deep and strong feelings, and in a way evenvery sensitive though a proud reserve kept the secret of this qualityso close that few suspected it. His Diary during his Congressionallife shows a man doing his duty sternly rather than cheerfully, treading resolutely a painful path, having the reward which attendsupon a clear conscience, but neither light-hearted nor often evenhappy. Especially he was frequently disappointed at the returns whichhe received from others, and considered himself "ill-treated by everypublic man whom circumstances had brought into competition with him;"they had returned his "acts of kindness and services" with "grossinjustice. " The reflection did not induce him to deflect his course inthe least, but it was made with much bitterness of spirit. Toward theclose of 1835 he writes:--

 "Among the dark spots in human nature which in the course of my life I have observed, the devices of rivals to ruin me have been sorry pictures of the heart of man. . . . H. G. Otis, Theophilus Parsons, Timothy Pickering, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, William H. Crawford, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and John Davis, W. B. Giles, and John Randolph, have used up their faculties in base and dirty tricks to thwart my progress in life and destroy my character. "

Truly a long and exhaustive list of enmities! One can but suspect (p. 297)that a man of so many quarrels must have been quarrelsome. Certain itis, however, that in nearly every difference which Mr. Adams had inhis life a question of right and wrong, of moral or politicalprinciple, had presented itself to him. His intention was always good, though his manner was so habitually irritating. He himself says thatto nearly all these men--Russell alone specifically excepted--he had"returned good for evil, " that he had "never wronged any one of them, "and had even "neglected too much his self-defence against them. " InOctober, 1833, he said: "I subject myself to so much toil and so muchenmity, with so very little apparent fruit, that I sometimes askmyself whether I do not mistake my own motives. The best actions of mylife make me nothing but enemies. " In February, 1841, he made apowerful speech in castigation of Henry A. Wise, who had beenupholding in Southern fashion slavery, duelling, and nullification. Hereceived afterward some messages of praise and sympathy, but notedwith pain that his colleagues thought it one of his "eccentric, wild, extravagant freaks of passion;" and with a pathetic sense ofloneliness he adds: "All around me is cold and discouraging and my ownfeelings are wound up to a pitch that my reason can scarcely (p. 298)endure. " A few days later he had the pleasure of hearing one of themembers say, in a speech, that there was an opinion among many thatMr. Adams was insane and did not know what he said. While a fight wasgoing on such incidents only fired his blood, but afterwards thereminiscence affected his spirits cruelly. 

In August, 1840, he writes that he has been twelve years submitting insilence to the "foulest and basest aspersions, " to which it would havebeen waste of time to make reply, since the public ear had not beenopen to him. "Is the time arriving, " he asks, "for me to speak? ormust I go down to the grave and leave posterity to do justice to myfather and to me?"

He has had at least the advantage of saying his say to posterity in avery effective and convincing shape in that Diary, which so discomfitedand enraged General Jackson. There is plain enough speaking in itspages, which were a safety valve whereby much wrath escaped. Mr. Adamshad the faculty of forcible expression when he chose to employ it, asmay be seen from a few specimen sentences. On March 28, 1840, heremarks that Atherton "this day emitted half an hour of his rottenbreath against" a pending bill. Atherton was infamous as the mover ofthe "gag" resolution, and Mr. Adams abhorred him accordingly. (p. 299)Duncan, of Cincinnati, mentioned as "delivering a dose of balderdash, "is described as "the prime bully of the Kinderhook Democracy, " without"perception of any moral distinction between truth and falsehood, . . . A thorough-going hack-demagogue, coarse, vulgar, and impudent, with avein of low humor exactly suited to the rabble of a popular city andequally so to the taste of the present House of Representatives. "Other similar bits of that pessimism and belief in the deteriorationof the times, so common in old men, occasionally appear. In August, 1835, he thinks that "the signs of the times are portentous. All thetendencies of legislation are to the removal of restrictions from thevicious and the guilty, and to the exercise of all the powers ofgovernment, legislative, judicial, and executive, by lawlessassemblages of individuals. " December 27, 1838, he looks upon theSenate and the House, "the cream of the land, the culled darlings offifteen millions, " and observes that "the remarkable phenomenon thatthey present is the level of intellect and of morals upon which theystand; and this universal mediocrity is the basis upon which theliberties of this nation repose. " In July, 1840, he thinks that

 "parties are falling into profligate factions. I have seen this before; but the worst symptom now is the change in the (p. 300) manners of the people. The continuance of the present Administration . . . Will open wide all the flood-gates of corruption. Will a change produce reform? Pause and ponder! Slavery, the Indians, the public lands, the collection and disbursement of public money, the tariff, and foreign affairs:--what is to become of them?"

On January 29, 1841, Henry A. Wise uttered "a motley compound ofeloquence and folly, of braggart impudence and childish vanity, ofself-laudation and Virginian narrow-mindedness. " After him Hubbard, ofAlabama, "began grunting against the tariff. " Three days later Black, of Georgia, "poured forth his black bile" for an hour and a half. Thenext week we find Clifford, of Maine, "muddily bothering his tricksterinvention" to get over a rule of the House, and "snapping like amackerel at a red rag" at the suggestion of a way to do so. In July, 1841, we again hear of Atherton as a "cross-grained numskull . . . Snarling against the loan bill. " With such peppery passages in greatabundance the Diary is thickly and piquantly besprinkled. They are notalways pleasant, perhaps not even always amusing, but they display themarked element of censoriousness in Mr. Adams's character, which it isnecessary to appreciate in order to understand some parts of hiscareer. 

If Mr. Adams never had the cheerful support of popularity, so (p. 301)neither did he often have the encouragement of success. He said thathe was paying in his declining years for the good luck which hadattended the earlier portion of his life. On December 14, 1833, hecalculates that he has three fourths of the people of Massachusettsagainst him, and by estranging the anti-Masons he is about to becomeobnoxious to the whole. "My public life will terminate by thealienation from me of all mankind. . . . It is the experience of all agesthat the people grow weary of old men. I cannot flatter myself that Ishall escape the common law of our nature. " Yet he acknowledges thathe is unable to "abstract himself from the great questions whichagitate the country. " Soon after he again writes in the same vein: "Tobe forsaken by all mankind seems to be the destiny that awaits my lastdays. " August 6, 1835, he gives as his reason for not accepting aninvitation to deliver a discourse, that "instead of having anybeneficial influence upon the public mind, it would be turned as aninstrument of obloquy against myself. " So it had been, as he enumerates, with his exertions against Freemasonry, his labors for internalimprovement, for the manufacturing interest, for domestic industry, for free labor, for the disinterested aid then lately brought (p. 302)by him to Jackson in the dispute with France; "so it will be to theend of my political life. "

When to unpopularity and reiterated disappointment we add the physicalills of old age, it no longer surprises us to find Mr. Adams at timesharsh and bitter beyond the excuse of the occasion. That he was a manof strong physique and of extraordinary powers of endurance, oftensurpassing those of young and vigorous men, is evident. For example, one day in March, 1840, he notes incidentally: "I walked home andfound my family at dinner. From my breakfast yesterday morning untilone this afternoon, twenty-eight hours, I had fasted. " Many a time heshowed like, if not quite equal vigor. But he had been a hard workerall his life, and testing the powers of one's constitution does nottend to their preservation; he was by no means free from the woes ofthe flesh or from the depression which comes with years and the dreadof decrepitude. Already as early as October 7, 1833, he fears that hishealth is "irretrievable;" he gets but five hours a night of"disturbed unquiet sleep--full of tossings. " February 17, 1834, his"voice was so hoarse and feeble that it broke repeatedly, and he couldscarcely articulate. It is gone forever, " he very mistakenly butdespondingly adds, "and it is in vain for me to contend against (p. 303)the decay of time and nature. " His enemies found little truth in thisforeboding for many sessions thereafter. Only a year after he hadperformed his feat of fasting for twenty-eight hours of business, hereceived a letter from a stranger advising him to retire. He admitsthat perhaps he ought to do so, but says that more than sixty years ofpublic life have made activity necessary to him; it is the "weaknessof his nature" which he has "intellect enough left to perceive but notenergy to control, " so that "the world will retire from me before Ishall retire from the world. "

The brief sketch which can be given in a volume of this size of solong and so busy a life does not suffice even to indicate all its manyindustries. The anti-slavery labors of Mr. Adams during his Congressionalcareer were alone an abundant occupation for a man in the prime oflife; but to these he added a wonderful list of other toils andinterests. He was not only an incessant student in history, politics, and literature, but he also constantly invaded the domain of science. He was Chairman of the Congressional Committee on the Smithsonianbequest, and for several years he gave much time and attention to it, striving to give the fund a direction in favor of science; he (p. 304)hoped to make it subservient to a plan which he had long cherished forthe building of a noble national observatory. He had much committeework; he received many visitors; he secured hours of leisure for hisfavorite pursuit of composing poetry; he delivered an enormous numberof addresses and speeches upon all sorts of occasions; he conducted anextensive correspondence; he was a very devout man, regularly going tochurch and reading three chapters in his Bible every day; and he keptup faithfully his colossal Diary. For several months in the midst ofCongressional duties he devoted great labor, thought, and anxiety tothe famous cause of the slaves of the Amistad, in which he was inducedto act as counsel before the Supreme Court. Such were the labors ofhis declining age. To men of ordinary calibre the multiplicity of hisacquirements and achievements is confounding and incredible. He workedhis brain and his body as unsparingly as if they had been machinesinsensible to the pleasure or necessity of rest. Surprisingly did theysubmit to his exacting treatment, lasting in good order and conditionfar beyond what was then the average of life and vigorous facultiesamong his contemporaries engaged in public affairs. 

In August, 1842, while he was still tarrying in the unwholesome (p. 305)heats of Washington, he had some symptoms which he thought premonitory, and he speaks of the next session of Congress as probably the lastwhich he should ever attend. March 25, 1844, he gives a painful sketchof himself. Physical disability, he says, must soon put a stop to hisDiary. That morning he had risen "at four, and with smarting, bloodshot eyes and shivering hand, still sat down and wrote to fill upthe chasm of the closing days of last week. " If his remaining dayswere to be few he was at least resolved to make them long for purposesof unremitted labor. 

But he had one great joy and distinguished triumph still in store forhim. From the time when the "gag" rule had been first established, Mr. Adams had kept up an unbroken series of attacks upon it at all timesand by all means. At the beginning of the several sessions, when therules were established by the House, he always moved to strike outthis one. Year after year his motion was voted down, but year afteryear he renewed it with invincible perseverance. The majoritiesagainst him began to dwindle till they became almost imperceptible; in1842 it was a majority of four; in 1843, of three; in 1844 thestruggle was protracted for weeks, and Mr. Adams all but carried theday. It was evident that victory was not far off, and a kind fate (p. 306)had destined him to live not only to see but himself to win it. On December 3, 1844, he made his usual motion and called for the yeasand nays; a motion was made to lay his motion on the table, and uponthat also the question was taken by yeas and nays--eighty-one yeas, one hundred and four nays, and his motion was _not_ laid on the table. The question was then put upon it, and it was carried by the handsomevote of one hundred and eight to eighty. In that moment the "gag" rulebecame a thing of the past, and Mr. Adams had conquered in his lastfight. "Blessed, forever blessed, be the name of God!" he writes inrecording the event. A week afterwards some anti-slavery petitionswere received and actually referred to the Committee on the Districtof Columbia. This glorious consummation having been achieved, thisadvanced stage in the long conflict having been reached, Mr. Adamscould not hope for life to see another goal passed. His work wasnearly done; he had grown aged, and had worn himself out faithfullytoiling in the struggle which must hereafter be fought through itscoming phases and to its final success by others, younger men than he, though none of them certainly having over him any other militantadvantage save only the accident of youth. 

His mental powers were not less than at any time in the past when, (p. 307)on November 19, 1846, he was struck by paralysis in the streetin Boston. He recovered from the attack, however, sufficiently toresume his duties in Washington some three months later. Hisreappearance in the House was marked by a pleasing incident: all themembers rose together; business was for the moment suspended; his oldaccustomed seat was at once surrendered to him by the gentleman towhom it had fallen in the allotment, and he was formally conducted toit by two members. After this, though punctual in attendance, he onlyonce took part in debate. On February 21, 1848, he appeared in hisseat as usual. At half past one in the afternoon the Speaker wasrising to put a question, when he was suddenly interrupted by cries of"Stop! Stop!--Mr. Adams!" Some gentlemen near Mr. Adams had thoughtthat he was striving to rise to address the Speaker, when in aninstant he fell over insensible. The members thronged around him ingreat confusion. The House hastily adjourned. He was placed on a sofaand removed first to the hall of the rotunda and then to the Speaker'sroom. Medical men were in attendance but could be of no service in thepresence of death. The stern old fighter lay dying almost on the veryfield of so many battles and in the very tracks in which he had (p. 308)so often stood erect and unconquerable, taking and dealing so manymighty blows. Late in the afternoon some inarticulate mutterings wereconstrued into the words, "Thank the officers of the House. " Soonagain he said intelligibly, "This is the last of earth! I am content!"It was his extreme utterance. He lay thereafter unconscious till theevening of the 23d, when he passed quietly away. 

He lies buried "under the portal of the church at Quincy" beside hiswife, who survived him four years, his father and his mother. Thememorial tablet inside the church bears upon it the words "AlteriSæculo, "--surely never more justly or appropriately applied to any manthan to John Quincy Adams, hardly abused and cruelly misappreciated inhis own day but whom subsequent generations already begin to honor asone of the greatest of American statesmen, not only preëminent inability and acquirements, but even more to be honored for profound, immutable honesty of purpose and broad, noble humanity of aims. 

INDEX (p. 311)

ABOLITIONISTS, their part in anti-slavery movement, 244, 245; urge Adams to extreme actions, 254. 

Adams, Abigail, shows battle of Bunker Hill to her son, 2; life near Boston during siege, 2, 3; letter of J. Q. Adams to, on keeping journal, 5; warns him against asking office from his father as President, 23; his spirited reply, 23. 

Adams, C. F. , on beginning of Adams's diary, 6; on Adams's statement of Monroe doctrine, 131. 

Adams, John, influence of his career in Revolution upon his son, 2; leaves family near Boston while attending Continental Congress, 2, 3; letter of his son to, on reading, 3; first mission to France, 4; second one, 4; advises his son to keep a diary and copies of letters, 5; makes treaty of peace, 13; appointed Minister to England, 14; elected President, 23; at Washington's suggestion, appoints J. Q. Adams Minister to Prussia, 24; recalls him, 25; his rage at defeat by Jefferson, 25, 26; disrupts Federalist party by French mission, 26; his rivalry with and hatred for Hamilton, 26, 27; charges defeat to Hamilton, 27; qualified sympathy of J. Q. Adams with, 27, 28; his enemies and adherents in Massachusetts, 28; his unpopularity hampers J. Q. Adams in Senate, 31, 34. 

Adams, John Quincy, birth, 1; ancestry, 1; named for his great-grandfather, 1; describes incident connected with his naming, 1, 2; early involved in outbreak of Revolution, 2; life near Boston during the siege, 2, 3; scanty schooling, 3; describes his reading in letter to John Adams, 3, 4; accompanies his father to France in 1778, 4; and again to Spain, 4, 5; tells his mother of intention to keep diary while abroad, 5, 6; begins it in 1779, its subsequent success, 6; its revelation of his character, 7, 10; unchangeableness of his traits, 7, 8; describes contemporaries bitterly in diary, 9, 10; shows his own high character, 10; also his disagreeable traits, 11, 12; difficulty of condensing his career, 12; his schooling in Europe, 13; at fourteen acts as private secretary to Dana on mission to Russia, 13; assists father in peace negotiations, 13; his early gravity, maturity, and coolness, 14, 15; decides not to accompany father to England, but return home, 15; gives his reason for decision, 15, 16; studies at Harvard, 17; studies law with Parsons at Newburyport, 17; begins practice in Boston in 1790, 17; writes Publicola papers against Paine's "Rights of Man, " 18; writes in papers against Genet, 18; his restlessness and ambition, 19. 

 _Foreign Minister. _ Appointed Minister to the Hague, 19; his voyage, 19; in Holland at time of its capture by French, 20; cordially received by French, 20; his skill in avoiding entanglement, 20; persuaded by Washington to remain, although without occupation, 21; prevented from participating in Jay's negotiations over the treaty, 21; has dealings with Grenville, 22; marriage with Miss Johnson, 22, 23; transferred to Portugal, 23; question as to propriety of remaining minister after his father's election, 23; persuaded by Washington to remain, 23, 24; appointed minister to Prussia, 24; ratifies treaty of commerce, 24; travels in Europe, 24; recalled by his father, 25; resumes practice of law, 25; not involved in Federalist quarrels, 27, 28; removed by Jefferson from commissionership in bankruptcy, 28; elected to State Senate, 28; irritates Federalists by proposing to allow Democrats a place in council, 29; his entire independence, 29, 30; elected to United States Senate over Pickering, 30. 

 _United States Senator. _ His journey to Washington, 30, 31; unfriendly greeting from his father's enemies, 31; isolation in the Senate, 32, 33; unfriendly relations with Pickering, 32; refuses to yield to unpopularity, 33, 34; estranges Federalists by his absence of partisanship, 34, 35; votes in favor of Louisiana purchase, although calling it unconstitutional, 35, 36; condemned by New England, 36; votes for acquittal of Chase, 36; realizes that he is conquering respect, 36, 37; introduces resolutions condemning British seizures of neutrals, 38, 39; and requesting President to insist on reparation, 39; his measure carried by Democrats, 39; comments on Orders in Council and Napoleon's decrees, 42, 46; refuses to follow New England Federalists in advocating submission, 47, 48; disgusted at Jefferson's peace policy, 48; but supports Non-importation Act, 49; believes in hostile purpose of England, 49, 50; urges Boston Federalists to promise support to government during Chesapeake affair, 51; attends Democratic and Federalist meetings to this effect, 51, 52; read out of party by Federalists, 52; votes for and supports embargo, 53; execrated in New England, 53; his patriotic conduct, 53-55; his opinion of embargo, 55; regrets its too long continuance, 55, 56; advocates in vain military and naval preparations, 56; refused reëlection by Massachusetts legislature, 56, 57; resigns before expiration of term, 57; harshly criticised then and since for leaving Federalists, 57, 58; propriety and justice of his action, 58, 59; led to do so by his American feeling, 61, 62; absurdity of charge of office-seeking, 63; disproved by his whole character and career, 63, 64; his courage tested by necessity of abandoning friends, 64; repels advances from Giles, 65; statement of his feelings in his diary, 65, 66; refuses election to Congress from Democrats, 66; sums up barrenness of his career in Senate, 66-68; approached by Madison in 1805 with suggestion of foreign mission, 68; his cool reply, 69; nominated Minister to Russia by Madison, 69; appointment refused, then confirmed, 69, 70. 

 _Minister to Russia. _ Peace of Ghent. His voyage, 70; his life at St. Petersburg, 70, 71; his success as foreign representative, 71, 72; disgusted by snobbery of American travelers, 72; declines to take part in squabbles for precedence, 72, 73; hampered by meagre salary, 73; describes Russia during Napoleonic wars, 74; nominated to act as peace commissioner with England, 75, 76; describes negotiations in his diary, 77; suggests refusing to meet British commissioners at their lodgings, 77; remarks on arrogance of British, 81; vents irritation upon colleagues, 82, 83; begins drafting communications, but abandons duty to Gallatin, 82; nettled at criticisms of colleagues on his drafts, 82, 83; quarrels with all but Gallatin, 84; incompatible with Clay, 84; urges strong counter-claims, 85; thinks negotiations certain to fail, 86; obliged to work for peace as defeated party, 86, 87; willing to return to status quo, 87; disagrees with Clay over fisheries and Mississippi navigation, 88; determined to insist on fisheries, 89, 90, 92; suspects British intend to prevent peace, 90; controverts Goulburn, 91; signs treaty, 93; at Paris during Napoleon's "hundred days, " 98; appointed Minister to England, 98; with Clay and Gallatin, makes treaty of commerce with England, 98; his slight duties as minister, 98, 99; bored by English dinners, 99, 100; sensitive to small income, 100. 

 _Secretary of State. _ Appointed, 100; describes dullness of Washington in diary, 102; as host, 103; his habits of life, 104; prominent candidate for succession to Monroe, 105; intrigued against by Crawford, 106; and by Clay and Calhoun, 106, 107; expects Spanish colonies to gain independence, 109; but maintains cautious public attitude, 109; describes Spanish ambassador, 111; negotiates concerning boundaries of Louisiana, 111, 112; his position, 112; fears opposition from Clay and Crawford, 112; urged by Monroe not to claim too much, 113; rejects English mediation, 114; uses French Minister as go-between, 114; succeeds in reaching a conclusion, 114, 115; a triumph for his diplomacy, 115; chagrined at discovery of Spanish land grants, 116, 117; and at refusal of Spanish government to ratify treaty, 118; urges the seizure of disputed territory, 118; at first indifferent to Missouri question, 119; soon appreciates the slavery issue, 119; predicts an attempt to dissolve the Union, 119, 120; sharp comments on slavery, slaveholders, and Northern weakness, 120; notes Calhoun's threat of alliance of slave States with England, 121; thinks abolition impossible without disunion, 121, 122; maintains power of Congress over slavery in Territories, 122; realizes that failure of treaty damages his chance for presidency, 123; refuses to reopen question with new Spanish envoy, 123; forces ratification of treaty with annulment of land grants, 124; his satisfaction with outcome of negotiations, 125, 126; prepares report on weights and measures, 126; its thoroughness, 127; his pride of country without boastfulness in negotiations, 127, 128; declines to consider what European courts may think, 128, 129; considers it destiny of United States to occupy North America, 129; considers annexation of Cuba probable, 130; always willing to encroach within America, 130, 131; tells Russia American continents are no longer open for colonies, 131; fears possibility of European attack on Spain's colonies, 132; willing to go to war against such an attack, 133; but, in default of any, advocates non-interference, 133, 134; refuses to interfere in European politics, 134; unwilling to enter league to suppress slave trade, 135; the real author of Monroe doctrine, 136; dealings with Stratford Canning, 136; his reasons for refusing to join international league to put down slave trade, 138, 139; discusses with him the Astoria question, 140-148; insists on Canning's making communications on question in writing, 141; stormy interviews with him, 142-147; refuses to discuss remarks uttered in debate in Congress, 142, 145; angry breach of Canning with, 147, 148; success of his treatment of Canning, 148; description in his diary of presidential intrigues, 150 ff. ; his censorious frankness, 150; his judgments of men not to be followed too closely, 151; accuses Clay of selfishness in opposition to Florida treaty, and in urging recognition of Spanish colonies, 151, 152; compares him to John Randolph, 153; later becomes on better terms, 154; his deep contempt for Crawford, 154; gradually suspects him of malicious practices, 154, 155; and of sacrificing everything to his ambition, 155, 156; sustained by Calhoun in this estimate, 157; supports Jackson in Cabinet, 158, 160; strains his conscience to uphold Jackson's actions, 160, 161; defends him against Canning, 162; gives a ball in his honor, 162; wishes to offer him position of Minister to Mexico, 163; favors Jackson for Vice-President, 163; determines to do nothing in his own behalf as candidate, 164; no trace of any self-seeking in his diary, 164, 165; holds aloof at all stages, 165; manages to be polite to all, 166; yet prepares to be keenly hurt at failure, 166; considers election a test of his career, 167; and of his personal character in the eyes of the people, 167; picture of his anxiety in his diary, 168; receives second largest number of electoral votes, 169; preferred by Clay to Jackson, 171; elected by the House of Representatives, 173; dissatisfied with the result, 174; would have preferred a new election if possible, 174; congratulated by Jackson at his inauguration, 175; wishes office as a token of popular approval, 175; realizes that this election does not signify that, 176. 

 _President. _ Freedom from political indebtedness, 177; his cabinet, 177; asks Rufus King to accept English mission, 177, 178; renominates officials, 178; refuses to consider any rotation in office, 179; refuses to punish officials for opposing his election, 179, 180; charged with bargaining for Clay's support, 181-183; unable to disprove it, 183; story spread by Jackson, 184; after disproof of story, continues to be accused by Jackson, 187; meets strong opposition in Congress, 188; notes combination of Southern members against him, 189; sends message concerning Panama Congress, 189; accused in Senate and House of having transcended his powers, 160; aided by Webster, 190; reasons for Southern opposition to, 191; confronted by a hostile majority in both Houses, 192; lack of events in his administration, 193; advocates internal improvements, 194; declines to make a show before people, 194; his digging at opening of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 194, 195; formation of personal opposition to his reëlection by Jackson, 195, 196; his only chance of success to secure a personal following, 197; refuses to remove officials for political reasons, 198; fails to induce any one except independent men to desire his reëlection, 199; his position as representative of good government not understood, 200; refuses to modify utterances on internal improvements, to appease Virginia, 201; refuses to "soothe" South Carolina, 201; alienates people by personal stiffness and Puritanism, 202, 203; fails to secure personal friends, 203; friendly relations with Cabinet, 204, 205; nominates Barbour Minister to England, 205; fills vacancy with P. B. Porter at Cabinet's suggestion, 205; refuses to remove McLean for double-dealing, 206; his laboriousness, 206; daily exercise, 206, 207; threatened with assassination, 207, 208; stoicism under slanders, 208; refuses to deny accusation of being a Mason, 209; accused of trying to buy support of Webster, 209; other slanders, 209; shows his wrath in his diary, 210; hatred of Randolph, 210, 211; of Giles, 211; defeated in election of 1828, 212; feels disgraced, 213, 214; significance of his retirement, 213; the last statesman in presidency, 213; his depression, 214, 215; looks forward gloomily to retirement, 215. 

 _In Retirement. _ Returns to Quincy, 216; followed by slanders of Giles, 216; declines to enter into controversy with Federalists over disunion movement of 1808, 216, 217; attacked by the Federalists for his refusal, 217, 218; prepares a crushing reply which he does not publish, 218; dreads idleness, 220; unable to resume law practice, 220; his slight property, 221; reads Latin classics, 221; plans biographical and historical work, 221; writes in diary concerning his reading, 222; does not appreciate humor, 222; has difficulty in reading Paradise Lost, 223; learns to like Milton and tobacco, 223; asked if willing to be elected to Congress, 225; replies that he is ready to accept the office, 225; elected in 1830, 225; as candidate for governor, withdraws name in case of choice by legislature, 226. 

 _Member of House of Representatives. _ His principal task the struggle with Southern slaveholders, 226; gains greater honor in this way than hitherto, 226, 227; his diligence and independent action in the House, 227; called "old man eloquent, " 227; not in reality a pleasing or impressive speaker, 227, 228; but effective and well-informed, 228; his excessive pugnacity, 229; his enemies, 229, 230; success as debater, 230; absence of friends or followers, 231; supported by people in New England, 232; declares intention to be independent, 233; greeted with respect, 233; on Committee on Manufactures, 233; willing to reduce duties to please South, 234; condemns apparent surrender of Jackson to South Carolina, 234; pleased with Jackson's nullification proclamation, 235; wishes to coerce South Carolina before making concessions, 235; insists on a decision of question of nullification, 235; dissatisfied with Jackson's failure to push matters, 236; in opposition to Jackson, 237, 238; supports proposal of Jackson to take determined attitude toward France, 239; wins no gratitude from Jackson, 240; receives attempt at reconciliation coolly, 240; opposes granting of Doctorate of Laws to Jackson by Harvard, 241, 242; considers Jackson's illness a sham, 242; presents abolition petitions from beginning of term, 243; does not favor abolition in District of Columbia, 243; always disliked slavery and slaveholders, 243; not an agitator or reformer, 244; his qualifications to oppose slave power in Congress, 245, 246; hostility in Congress and coldness in Boston, 246; his support in his district, 247; and among people of North, 247; continues to present petitions, 248; presents one signed by women, 249; opposes assertion that Congress has no power to interfere with slavery in a State, 250; opposes gag rule, 250; advocates right of petition, 251; tries to get his protest entered on journal, 251, 252; savage reply to an assailant, 252; receives and presents floods of petitions, 252, 253; single-handed in task, 253; urged to rash movements by abolitionists, 254; his conduct approved by constituents, 255; resolves to continue, although alone, 255; description in his diary of presentation of petitions, 255-261; continues to protest against "gag" rule as unconstitutional, 256; scores Preston for threatening to hang abolitionists, 257, 258; defies the House and says his say, 258, 259; wishes petitions referred to a select committee, 259; passage at arms with chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, 259, 260; taunts Connor with folly of "gag" rule, 261; holds that Congress, under war power, may abolish slavery, 261-263; attacked by Southerners, 262, 263; cites precedents, 263; his theory followed by Lincoln, 264; refers to the theory in letter, 265; opposes annexation of Texas, 265, 266; his reasons, 266 n. ; presents absurd petitions, 266; presents petitions asking for his own expulsion, 268; allows matter to drop, 268; presents petition from slaves and asks opinion of speaker, 269; fury of slaveholders against, 270; resolutions of censure against, 271; disconcerts opponents by his cool reply, 272, 273; but receives new attacks and resolutions of censure, 274, 275; defended by a few New Englanders, 276; reluctance of Southerners to allow him to reply, 276; his speech, 277-279; sarcasms upon his enemies, 277, 278; presents petition asking for his own removal from chairmanship of Committee on Foreign Affairs, 280; prevented from defending himself, 280; presents petition for dissolution of Union while disapproving it, 280, 281; resolutions of censure against, 281, 282; attacked by Marshall and Wise, 283; objects to injustice of preamble, 284; defies his enemies and scorns mercy, 285; bitter remarks on his opponents, 285; helped by Everett, 286; slight outside sympathy for, 286; abused in newspapers, 286; threatened with assassination, 286, 287; willing to have matter laid on table, 287; his triumph in the affair, 288; attempt to drive him from Foreign Affairs Committee, 289; refusal of Southerners to serve with, 289; refuses to notice them, 289; retains respect of House for his honesty, 290; appealed to, to help organize House in 1839, 292; his bold and successful action, 293-295; praised by Wise, 294; succeeds in presiding eleven days until organization, 294, 295; deprecates a resolution of thanks, 295; his occasional despondency and loneliness, 295, 296; describes his enemies, 296; tries to act justly to all of them, 297; castigates Wise for dueling, 297; called insane, 297, 298; his bitter language on opponents in the Diary, 298-300; low opinion of Congress, 299; on partisanship, 299, 300; describes his unpopularity, 301; describes all his acts as turned to his discredit, 301; his ill-health, 302, 303, 305; chairman of committee on Smithsonian bequest, 303; his religious and social activity, 304; in Amistad case, 304; continues attack upon gag rule, 305; his final victory and exultation, 306; struck by paralysis, 307; greeted on return to House, 307; his death in Capitol, 307, 308; estimate of character and services, 308. 

 _Characteristics. _ General view, 10-12, 308; ambition, 16, 19, 25, 164-167; censoriousness, 9, 12, 112, 150, 242; conscientiousness, 66, 200, 277, 296; coldness, 11, 34, 37, 165, 230, 240; courage, 10, 15, 33, 54, 58, 64, 113, 208, 252, 253, 293; dignity, 71, 99, 127, 213, 216; diplomatic ability, 20, 22, 72, 114, 123, 137-148; exercise, love of, 206, 207; honor, 10, 22, 58, 63, 166; ill-health, 302, 305; independence, 10, 16, 29, 30, 48, 59, 127, 133, 246; industry, 8, 11, 126, 206, 227; invective, 12, 229, 230, 246, 252, 277-279, 281, 283-285, 298-300; irritability, 83, 154, 210, 211, 302; knowledge of politics, 11, 91, 228, 245; legal ability, 18; literary interests, 221-223; melancholy, 214; observation, power of, 74, 77, 111; oratorical ability, 227, 228; patriotism, 62, 127, 148; persistence, 11, 25, 34, 114, 123, 143, 245; personal appearance, 228; pessimism, 19, 33, 67, 153, 272, 296, 299; precocity, 17; pride, 166, 167, 201; prolixity, 82, 277; pugnacity, 49, 50, 52, 81, 133, 141, 160, 228-236, 245, 246, 285; Puritanism, 7, 30, 66, 150, 164, 202; religious views, 30, 207, 304; sensitiveness, 33, 83, 208, 298; sobriety, 8, 14, 118; social habits, 103, 202, 203; suspiciousness, 82, 112, 138, 151, 296; unpopularity, 195, 202-204, 231, 246, 253, 295, 301, 307. 

 _Political Opinions. _ Appointments to office, 178-180, 197-200, 206; cabinet relations with, 204, 205; candidate, attitude of, 164-167, 197-206; Chase, impeachment of, 36; Chesapeake affair, 51; Congress, powers over slavery, 122, 250, 261-265; court etiquette, 73; Cuba, annexation of, 130; disunion, 119, 122, 281; election of 1824, 174-176; emancipation, 121; embargo, 53, 56; England, 47, 50, 51, 90, 145, 148; English society, 100; Federalist party, 28, 48, 50, 57, 61; fisheries, 88, 90; Florida, 115, 118, 123, 130; France, policy towards, 239; "gag" rule, 250, 251, 256, 257, 305, 306; Genet, 118; gunboat scheme, 48; internal improvements, 194, 201; Jackson's administration, 237; Jackson's Florida career, 160, 163; Louisiana, 35, 130; Louisiana boundary, 112, 115; manifest destiny, 130, 160; Mississippi navigation, 88, 89; Missouri Compromise, 121; Monroe doctrine, 130, 131, 134-136; non-importation, 40, 49, 55; nullification, 234, 235; Oregon, 140-143; Panama Congress, 189; party fidelity, 29, 30, 54, 59, 62, 233; Republican party, 36, 65; right of search, 38, 139; slaveholders, 243, 257, 260; slavery, 120, 121, 243, 255, 304; slave trade, 135, 138; Smithsonian bequest, 303; Spanish-American republics, 109, 131-133; Texas, annexation of, 265, 266; treaty of Ghent, 77-98; weights and measures, 126, 127. 

Adams, Dr. William, on English peace commission, 76; suggests abandonment by United States of its citizens in proposed Indian Territory, 79; irritated at proposal that English restore possession of Moose Island pending arbitration, 91; negotiates treaty of commerce, 98. 

Alexander, Emperor of Russia, desires to exchange ministers with United States, 69; his courtesy to Adams, 70, 71; anecdote of Adams's conversation with, 73; attempts to mediate between England and United States, 74, 75; discussions with Castlereagh, 93; slander concerning relations with Adams, 209, 210. 

Alford, Julius C. , wishes to burn Adams's petition from slaves, 270; threatens war, 272, 275. 

Ambrister. See Arbuthnot. 

Amistad case, share of Adams in, 304. 

Anti-Mason movement, used by Jacksonians against Adams, 208, 209; connection of Adams within Massachusetts, 226, 301. 

Arbuthnot and Ambrister, hanged by Jackson, 160; execution of, defended by Adams, 162. 

Atherton, Charles G. , bitter remarks of Adams on, 298, 300. 

Austria, rejects England's plan for suppression of slave trade, 138. 

Bagot, Sir Charles, question of his opinion on Oregon question, discussed by Canning and Adams, 142, 143. 

Bank, Jackson's attack on, 240. 

Barbour, James, appointed Secretary of War, 177; desires mission to England, 205. 

Barings, give Adams his commission, 98. 

Barnard, D. D. , by Adams's advice, presents petition for dissolution of Union, 288. 

Barrou, James, commands Chesapeake when attacked by Leopard, 45. 

Bayard, James A. , appointed peace commissioner, 75, 76; resents proposal to meet at lodgings of English commissioners, 77; criticises Adams's drafts of documents, 83; enrages Goulburn, 91; accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296. 

Benton, T. H. , on unfavorable beginning to Adams's administration, 188. 

Berkeley, Admiral G. C. , commands Leopard, and is promoted for attacking Chesapeake, 46. 

Berlin decree, 41. 

Beverly, Carter, reports that Jackson has proof of Clay and Adams bargain, 184; upheld by Jackson, 185; apologizes to Clay, 187. 

Black, Edward J. , of Georgia, comment of Adams on, 300. 

Bonaparte, Napoleon, issues Berlin and Milan decrees, 41, 42; seen during "hundred days" by Adams, 98. 

Brown, James, votes against Spanish treaty through Clay's influence, 124. 

Buchanan, James, refuses to substantiate Jackson's story of corrupt offer from Clay in election of 1824, 186, 187. 

Burr, Aaron, compared by Adams to Van Buren, 193. 

Cabinet, relations of Adams to, 204, 205; treachery of McLean, 205, 206. 

Calhoun, J. C. , candidate for succession to Monroe, 106; on Southern alliance with England in case of dissolution of Union, 121; candidacy damaged by Southern origin, 149; his opinion of Crawford, 156; displeased at Jackson's disregard of instructions, 160; elected Vice-President, 169; irritation of Adams at his failure to suppress Randolph, 211; reëlected Vice-President, 212; accused by Adams of plotting to injure him, 296. 

Canada, desire of Adams for annexation of, 85, 130. 

Canning, George, seeks acquaintance with Adams, 99. 

Canning, Stratford, urges American submission to mixed tribunals to suppress slave trade, 135; his arrogance met by Adams, 136, 137; discusses with Adams the suppression of slave trade, 137-139; on Adams's superior years, 139; high words with Adams over question of an American settlement at mouth of Columbia, 140-147; loses temper at request to put objections in writing, 141; and at persistence of Adams in repeating words of previous English minister, 142, 143; his offer to forget subject declined by Adams, 144; complains of Adams's language, 145, 146; resents reference to Jackson's recall, 146, 147; his anger shown later, 147; this does not affect relations between countries, 148. 

Castlereagh, Lord, unwilling at first to conclude peace, 93; influenced by attitude of Prussia and Russia, advises concessions, 94; dealings with Adams, 99; described by Adams, 99. 

Cavalla, ----, imprisoned by Jackson, 159, 160; seizure defended by Adams, 162. 

Chase, Judge Samuel, his acquittal voted for by J. Q. Adams, 36. 

Chesapeake attacked by Leopard, 45; effect upon Adams and Federalists, 50, 51. 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, incident of Adams's opening of, 195. 

Choate, Rufus, sympathizes with Adams when attacked by resolutions of censure, 286. 

Civil service, appointments to, under Adams, 178-180, 196, 198, 199, 206, 209; under Jackson, 198. 

Clay, Henry, on peace commission, 76; his irascibility, 82, 84; criticises Adams's figurative style in documents, 82; irritates Adams, 84; his conviviality, 84; thinks English will recede, 85; then thinks English will refuse to accept _status ante bellum_, 87; willing to sacrifice fisheries to prevent English Mississippi navigation, 88, 89; thinks fisheries of little value, 89; willing to meet English with defiance, 90; threatens not to sign treaty, 90, 92; abandoned by colleagues on point of impressment, 92; negotiates treaty of commerce, 98; his gambling habits, 103; jealous of Adams's appointment as Secretary of State, 106; leads opposition to administration, 108; wishes to recognize independence of Spanish colonies, 109; threatens to oppose treaty accepting Sabine as Louisiana boundary, 112; opposes treaty with Spain, 116; fails to prevent ratification, 124; ambitious for presidency, 149; low motives for opposition to administration as signed by Adams, 151; his honesty in advocating recognition of South American republics, 152; compared by Adams to Randolph, 153; becomes reconciled with Adams before election, 154; denounces Jackson, 160; vote for, in 1824, 169; able to decide choice of President by influence in Congress, 169; at first prefers Crawford, 169, 170; charged with having offered to support either Jackson or Adams, 170; his preference for Adams over Jackson, 171; appointed Secretary of State, 177; urges removal of Sterret for proposing an insult to Adams, 179; calls author of bargain slander a liar, 181; charge against, repeated by Tennessee legislature, 183; duel with Randolph, 183; challenges Jackson to produce evidence, 185; exonerated by Buchanan, 187; and by Kremer and Beverly, 187; actually receives advances from Jackson's friends, 187, 188; opposition to his nomination as Secretary of State, 188; abused by Randolph, 211; engineers compromise with South Carolina, 236; accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296. 

Clifford, Nathan, of Maine, contemptuously described by Adams, 300. 

Clinton, De Witt, his candidacy for President in 1824, 149. 

Congress, in election of 1824, 165, 169-172; influence of Clay in, 169; elects Adams President, 172, 173; investigates bargain story, 181; opposition in, to Adams, from the beginning, 188; attacks Adams's intention to send delegates to Panama Congress, 190; opposes Adams throughout administration, 192; resolutions denying its power to interfere with slavery debated in House, 249, 250; position of Adams with regard to its power to abolish slavery in the States, 250, 261-265; its degeneracy lamented by Adams, 299. 

Connor, John C. , taunted by Adams in Congress, 261. 

Constitution of United States, in relation to Louisiana purchase, 35; prohibits submission of United States to mixed foreign tribunals for suppressing slave trade, 138; in connection with election of 1824, 172; held by Adams to forbid "gag" rule, 250, 256, 258; held by Adams to justify abolition of slavery under war power, 261-265; in relation to Texas annexation, 266. 

Crawford, W. H. , his ambitions for the presidency, 105, 106, 148; intrigues against Adams, 106, 154; his action described by Adams, 112, 113; advises moderate policy to remove foreign prejudices against United States, 128; contempt of Adams for, 154; accused by Adams of all kinds of falsity and ambition, 155, 156, 296; his real character, 156, 157; Calhoun's opinion of, 156; described by Mills, 157; a party politician, 158; eager to ruin Jackson, 160; vote for, in 1824, 169; his illness causes abandonment by Clay. 170; receives four votes in House of Representatives, 173; fills custom-houses with supporters, 180. 

Creeks, treaty with, discussed in Senate, 33. 

Creole affair, 279. 

Cuba, its annexation expected by Adams, 130. 

Cushing, Caleb, defends Adams against resolutions of censure, 276; movement to put him in Adams's place on Committee on Foreign Affairs, 289. 

Dana, Francis, takes Adams as private secretary to Russia, 13. 

Davis, John, accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296. 

Deas, Mr. , exchanges ratifications of Jay treaty, 21; disliked by English cabinet, 22. 

Democratic party, organized as opposition to Adams, 192; managed by Van Buren, 192, 193, 195; not based on principle, but on personal feeling, 196; its attacks upon Adams, 208-210; its methods condemned by Adams, 237. 

Diary, suggested by John Adams, 5; begun, 6; its nature and content, 7, 8; its bitterness, 9, 10; picture of the author, 10, 11; quotations from, in Boston, 19; during career in Senate, 32, 34; on damaging party, 66; during peace negotiations, 77, 82, 83, 89, 90; during election of 1824, 150, 151, 164, 168; in election of 1828, 201, 210, 211; during anti-slavery career, 255, 292, 296, 298-300; in last years, 301-303, 305, 306. 

Diplomatic history, mission of Dana to Russia, 13; mission of Adams to Holland, 19-21; to Prussia, 24; Rose's mission to United States, 45, 46; mission of Adams to Russia, 70-74; offer of Russia to mediate in war of 1812, 74, 75; refusal by England, 75; peace negotiations, 76-98 (see treaty of Ghent); commercial negotiations with England, 98; mission of Adams to England, 98-100; negotiations of Adams with Spain, 110-118, 123-125; question of Sabine River boundary, 112, 116; final agreement, details of treaty, acquisition of Florida, 115; and Western outlet to Pacific, 115; dispute over Spanish land grants, 116, 117; rejection of treaty by Spain, 117; renewed mission of Vivês, 123; ratification of treaty, 124; independent attitude of United States under Adams, 127, 128; Monroe doctrine, 129-136; dealings with Russia over Alaska, 130, 131; proposal of Portugal for an alliance, 133; dealings of Adams with Greek revolt, 134; dealings of Adams with Stratford Canning over slave trade, 135, 137; high words over Columbia River settlement, 140-147; refusal of Adams to explain words uttered in Congress, 142, 145-147; commercial treaties in Adams's administration, 194. 

"Doughfaces, " attacks of Adams upon, 120, 229. 

Dromgoole, George C. , remark on petition to expel Adams, 268; introduces resolutions of censure on Adams, 275; ridiculed by Adams, 277, 278. 

Duncan, Alexander, bitterly described by Adams, 299. 

Eaton, Senator J. H. , leads Canning to suspect American plan to colonize Oregon, 140. 

Eaton, Mrs. , her influence in Jackson's administration, 237. 

Election of 1824, candidates, 148, 149; Adams's opinion of them, 151-163; choice simply between persons, not principles, 163; Adams refuses to canvass for himself, 164, 165; electoral college votes for four candidates, 168, 169; influence of Clay in House proves decisive factor, 169, 170; Crawford discarded, 170; the Clay-Adams bargain story started, 170; claims of Jackson men, 171; difficulty of discovering popular vote, 172, 173; choice of Adams, 173, 174; subsequent history of bargain story, 180-188. 

Election of 1828, question of principle veiled by personality of candidates, 196, 197, 200; choice of Jackson, 212; its significance, 213, 214. 

Embargo, proposed by Jefferson, 52; supported by Adams, 53; opposed by Federalists, 53; preferred by Adams to submission, 54, 55; its effects, 55; its repeal urged by Adams, 55, 56. 

England, ratifies Jay treaty, 21; tries to induce Adams to negotiate instead of Deas, 22; its commercial policy toward United States, 37, 38; its right of search protested against by Adams, 39; Non-importation Act adopted against, 40; proclaims blockade, 41; issues Orders in Council, 41, 42; its policy of impressment, 43, 44; refuses compensation for Chesapeake affair and promotes Berkeley, 45; its policy understood by Adams, 49, 50; embargo against, 51-55; refuses Russia's offer to mediate in war of 1812, 75; wins victories, 76; willing to treat directly, 76; appoints commissioners, 76; demands great concessions, 78, 79; ready, if necessary, to continue war, 86; alters policy and concludes treaty, 93, 94; dissatisfied with treaty, 97; commercial treaty with, 98; mission of Adams to, 98-100; social life of Adams in, 99, 100; its offer to mediate between United States and Spain rejected, 114; hopes no violent action will be taken against Spain, 118; endeavors to induce United States to join in suppressing slave trade, 135, 137; its sincerity suspected by Adams, 138; its claim to right of search causes refusal of request, 138, 139; its claims to Oregon discussed by Canning and Adams, 140, 142, 143, 145; Adams's opinion of its territorial claims, 145. 

Era of good feeling, 104; characterized by personal rivalries, 105; question of presidential succession, 105, 106; intrigues, 106, 107, 148. 

Evans, George, defends Adams from resolutions of censure, 270. 

Everett, Edward, his address to Jackson condemned as fulsome by Adams, 242. 

Everett, Horace, defends Adams against resolutions of censure, 283, 286. 

Everett, Mr. , told by Adams of determination to do nothing to secure election, 164. 

Federalist party, defeated by Jefferson, 25, 26; dissensions in, between John Adams and Hamilton, 26, 27; J. Q. Adams a member of, 28; elects Adams to State Senate, 28; irritated by his independence, 29; elects him United States senator, 30; antipathy of, in Senate, toward son of John Adams, 31; opposes Louisiana purchase, 35; condemns Adams for favoring Louisiana, 36; supports English policy, 38; angered against Jefferson for not submitting to English aggression, 39, 40, 53; opposes Non-importation Act, 40; urged by Adams to resent Chesapeake affair, 51; does so, but condemns Adams for participating in Republican meeting, 52; its outburst of fury at Adams for supporting embargo, 53, 54; refuses to reëlect him, 57; discussion of its part in United States history, 59-62; its success in organization, 59, 60; supported by Adams as long as it remains sound, 61; takes false position after 1807, 62; disappears, 104, 105; thirteen members demand evidence of Adams's statement concerning plans for disunion, 216; their rejoinder to his reply, 217, 218; proved to have planned disunion by Adams's unpublished pamphlet, 218, 219. 

Fisheries, intention of English to ignore, in treaty of Ghent, 80, 88; disputes over, between Adams and Clay, 88-90; finally omitted from treaty, 92, 94; later negotiations over, 99. 

Florida, question of its acquisition, 110, 111; acquired by treaty, 115; its seizure advocated by Adams against Monroe, 118, 123; treaty concerning, opposed by Clay, 151; illegal actions of Jackson in, 159. 

Foreign Affairs, Committee on, petition for Adams's removal from, 280; refusal of Southern members to serve on, with Adams, 289. 

France, conquers Holland, 20; attitude of John Adams toward, 26; replies to English blockade by Berlin and Milan decrees, 41, 42; unable to damage American shipping as much as England, 46, 47; war with Russia, 74; hopes no violent action will be taken against Spain, 118; rejects England's plan for suppression of slave trade, 138; its slowness in paying debt causes Jackson to break off diplomatic relations, 238. 

Franklin, Benjamin, negotiates treaty of peace, 13. 

"Gag" rule, adopted over Adams's protest, 250, 251; effort of Adams to get his protest on journal, 251, 252; further protests of Adams against, 256, 258, 305; difficulties in enforcing, 260; dwindling majorities for, 305; repealed on Adams's motion, 306. 

Gallatin, Albert, appointed peace commissioner, 75; his appointment rejected by Senate, 75; reappointed, 76; moderates resentment of colleagues at English pretensions, 77, 82; acts as peacemaker in conference, 82; supplants Adams in drafting documents, 82; on good terms with Adams, 84; negotiates treaty of commerce, 98. 

Gambier, Lord, on English peace commission, 76; laments Adams's intention to return to St. Petersburg, 86; interposes to calm a quarrel, 91; negotiates treaty of commerce, 98. 

Garland, Hugh A. , attempts to secure organization of House of Representatives without taking in contested seats, 290; intends to give House to Democrats, 291; refuses to put any question until House is organized, 291, 292; prevents organization, 292; pushed aside by Adams, 293. 

Garrison, William Lloyd, adopts Adams's theory of power of Congress over slavery, 264. 

Genet, E. C. , his course attacked by Adams in papers, 18. 

Gerry, Elbridge, notifies John Adams of appointment as Minister to England, 14. 

Giddings, Joshua R. , his position on power of Congress over slavery not indorsed by Adams, 263. 

Giles, W. B. , attempts to win Adams to support Jefferson, 65; abuses Adams, 211, 296; his memory preserved solely by his slanders, 212; circulates slanders in New England against Adams, 216. 

Gilmer, Thomas W. , offers resolution of censure on Adams for presenting petition to dissolve the Union, 281; denies Adams's charge of imitating Wise, 281, 282. 

Glascock, Thomas, moves that anti-slavery petition be not received, 248. 

Goulburn, Henry, on English peace commission, 76; thinks war must continue, 86; loses temper with Bayard and Adams, 91; negotiates treaty of commerce, 98. 

Grantland, Seaton, wishes to punish Adams for presenting petition from slaves, 270. 

Greece, revolt of, refusal of Adams to commit United States to interference, 134. 

Gregory, Sherlock S. , his eccentric anti-slavery petition, 256. 

Grenville, Lord, dealings of Adams with, in 1795, 22. 

Gunboat scheme, despised by Adams, 48. 

Habersham, Richard W. , alleges petition for removal of Adams to be a hoax, 280. 

Hamilton, Alexander, real leader of Federalist party during John Adams's administration, 27; his feud with Adams, 27; his influence in Massachusetts, 28, 30. 

Harvard College, studies of John Quincy Adams in, 17; its proposal to confer degree upon Jackson opposed by Adams, 241; confers the degree, 241, 242. 

Haynes, Charles E. , moves rejection of Adams's petition from slaves, 270, 275; moves to make censure of Adams severe, 271. 

Hayti, its possible representation at Panama Congress causes South to advocate refusal to send delegates, 191; petitions for recognition of, 259. 

Holland, mission of Adams to, 20; conquered by France, 20; made into "Batavian Republic, " 20; agrees to suppress slave trade, 138. 

Holy Alliance, fear of its attempting to reconquer Spanish colonies, 132, 134, 136. 

House of Representatives, Adams's career in, 225-308; election of Adams to, 225; his labors in committee and other work of, 227; solitariness of Adams in, 231; his position in, with regard to tariff of 1833, 235; debate in, over Jackson's policy to France, 239; anti-slavery petitions presented in, at first without remark, 243, 248; debates plans to prevent their reception, 248-250; adopts "gag" rule against Adams's protest, 251; attempts of Adams to infringe its rule, 257, 258; debates power to abolish slavery, 262; debates proposed censure of Adams for presenting a petition from slaves, 269-279; resolves that slaves do not possess right of petition, 279; Adams's speech in reply, 277-279; attempts to censure Adams for presenting petition for dissolution of Union, 280-288; lays subject on table, 288; does not resent a second disunion petition, 288; refusal of Garland to organize according to custom, in 1839, 290-292; appeals to Adams, 292; organized by his leadership, 293-295; pays compliment to Adams on his return after illness, 307; death of Adams in, 307, 308. 

Hubbard, David, comment of Adams on, 300. 

Hunter, R. M. T. , elected Speaker of House, 295. 

Impressment, description of its exercise by England and effects upon United States, 43-45; difficulty of reclaiming impressed Americans, 44, 45; the Chesapeake affair, 45, 46; not mentioned in treaty of Ghent, 92, 95; later negotiations over, 99. 

Indians, propositions concerning, in peace negotiations, 78; dissensions over, between American commissioners, 90; article concerning, 94. 

Internal improvements, Adams's advocacy of, 194, 201. 

Jackson, Andrew, his view of Adams's office-seeking, 63; wins battle of New Orleans, 96, 97; his outrages in Spanish territory, 110; enrages Spain, 111; approves Adams's Spanish treaty, later condemns it, 125; becomes candidate for presidency in 1824, 149; his Indian wars in Florida, 158, 159; hangs Arbuthnot and Ambrister, 159; captures Pensacola, 159; difficulty of praising or blaming him, 159, 160; condemned by President and Cabinet, 160; and by Clay, 160; defended by Adams, 160-162; ball in his honor given by Adams, 162; supported for Minister to Mexico and for Vice-President by Adams. 163; on good terms with Adams up to election, 163; receives largest electoral vote in 1824, 169; said to have refused offer of Clay to bargain for support, 170; impossibility of Clay's supporting him, 171; popular argument for his choice, 171, 172; absurdity of claim of popular will in favor of, 172, 173; vote for, in House of Representatives, 174; enraged at defeat, 174; yet greets Adams at inauguration, 175; nominated for President by Tennessee legislature, 181; spreads tale of Clay and Adams's bargain, 184; declares he has proof, 184, 185; tells story of offer from Clay, 185; calls upon Buchanan for testimony, 186; his statements disavowed by Buchanan, 186, 187; continues to repeat story, 187; his candidacy for 1828 purely on personal grounds, 195-197, 200; advantages all on his side, 197; originator of spoils system, 198; his position as advocate of unsound government not understood in 1828, 200; secretly aided by McLean, 205, 206; rewards him by a judgeship, 206; elected President in 1828, 212; begins a new era, 213, 214; his message of 1832 condemned by Adams, 234; his proclamation against nullification upheld by Adams, 235; ultimately yields to South Carolina, 236; his administration condemned by Adams, 237; its character, 237; recommends vigorous action against France, 238; supported by Adams in House, 239; continues to hate Adams, 239, 240; futile attempt of Johnson to reconcile him with Adams, 240, 241; granted degree of Doctor of Laws by Harvard, 241, 242; suspected by Adams of feigning illness for effect, 242. 

Jackson, F. J. , his recall referred to in conversation between Canning and Adams, 146. 

Jarvis, Leonard, introduces resolution that House will not entertain abolition petitions, 248. 

Jay treaty, ratified, 21. 

Jefferson, Thomas, negotiates treaties of commerce, 13; republishes Paine's "Rights of Man, " 18; his inauguration avoided by John Adams, 26; removes J. Q. Adams from position of commissioner in bankruptcy, 28; attempts to explain apparent malice, 28; Adams's view of his attacks on Pickering and Chase, 36; approves Non-importation Act, 40; inefficient in war-time, 48, 54; advocates embargo, 54; not reconciled with J. Q. Adams in spite of latter's support, 65; unconciliatory reply of Adams to, when offered a mission, 69; his desire to make Louisiana a State opposed by Adams, 130; begins political use of offices to secure reëlection, 198; said to have been warned by Adams of Federalist disunion plots, 216. 

Johnson, Joshua, father-in-law of Adams, 22. 

Johnson, Louisa Catherine, marries Adams, 22, 23; in Washington society, 103. 

Johnson, Richard M. , led by Clay to oppose Spanish treaty, 124; endeavors to reconcile Adams and Jackson, 240; his probable motives, 240. 

Johnson, Thomas, Governor, connected by marriage with Adams, 22. 

King, Rufus, description of Adams's offer of English mission to, 177, 178. 

Kremer, George, originates bargain slander against Clay and Adams, 171, 180; refuses to testify before House Committee, 181; writes a retraction and apology, 187. 

Leopard. See Chesapeake. 

Lewis, Dixon H. , urges punishing Adams for offering petition from slaves, 270; wishes Southern members to go home, 272. 

Lincoln, Solomon, letter of Adams to, on power of Congress over slavery, 265. 

Lincoln, Levi, defends Adams against resolution of censure, 276. 

Liverpool, Lord, his anxiety to conclude peace, 93. 

Livingston, Edward, ordered by Jackson to demand passports from France, 238. 

Lloyd, James, Jr. , chosen Senator in Adams's place, 57. 

Louisiana, acquisition opposed by Federalist party, 35; supported by Adams, although, in his eyes, unconstitutional, 35; negotiations with Spain concerning its boundary, 110, 112, 114-116; proposed boundary at Sabine opposed by Clay, 112, 116; boundaries agreed upon in treaty, 115; dispute over Spanish land grants in, 116, 117, 124; the boundary later attacked, but, at the time of treaty, approved, 125. 

Lowell, John, justifies action of Leopard in attacking Chesapeake, 50. 

McLean, J. T. , professes devotion to Adams and aids Jackson, 205, 206; rewarded by Jackson with a judgeship, 206. 

Madison, James, as Secretary of State, favors giving Adams a foreign mission, 68; as President, appoints him Minister to Russia, 69, 70. 

Manifest destiny, upheld by Adams, 130. 

Mann, Abijah, Jr. , of New York, attacks Adams in Congress, 273, 274. 

"Marcellus" papers, 18. 

Manufactures, Committee on, Adams a member of, 233. 

Marshall, Thomas F. , attacks Adams for advocating power of Congress over slavery, 263; offers resolution of censure on Adams for presenting disunion petition, 282, 283. 

Markley, Philip S. , mentioned by Buchanan in Clay-Adams bargain story, 186. 

Mason, S. T. , killed in a duel, 103, 104. 

Massachusetts, upper classes in, belong to Federalist party, 28; legislature of, sends Adams to United States Senate, 30; refuses to reëlect him, 56, 57; condemns embargo, 57; lasting bitterness in, against Adams, for his change of party, 58, 216-218; anti-Mason movement in, 226, 301; educated society in, disapproves of Adams's anti-slavery position, 246; farmers support him, 247, 255. 

Milan decree issued, 42. 

Mills, E. H. , describes Washington city, 101; describes Mr. And Mrs. Adams, 103; describes Crawford, 157; describes Adams's ball in honor of Jackson, 162; on reasons for Adams's personal unpopularity, 203 n. 

Milton, Adams's opinion of, 223. 

Mississippi navigation, demand of English for, in treaty of Ghent, 80, 88; disputes over, between Clay and Adams, 88; finally omitted from treaty, 92, 94. 

Missouri, admission of, 119. 

Monroe, James, appoints Adams Secretary of State, 100; social life of, 102; character of his administration, 104, 133; enmity of Clay toward, 106; anxious for treaty with Spain, dreads Adams's obstinacy, 113; refuses to seize Florida, 118; his connection with "Monroe doctrine, " 129, 131; anticipated by Adams, 131; not the originator of modern idea of non-interference, 136; alarmed at Jackson's conduct in Florida, 160. 

Monroe doctrine, enlarged by modern interpretation, 129; outlined by Adams in reply to Russia, 131; stated by Monroe, 131; its principles followed out by Adams, 132-148. 

Morgan, William, his alleged assassination by Masons, 208. 

Neutrality Act, passed to prevent privateering against Spain, 108. 

Neuville, Hyde de, social doings of, in Washington, 102, 103; aids Adams in Spanish treaty, 114; remark of Adams to, on Onis's policy, 117. 

New England, policy of merchants of, in advocating submission to England, 47, 48; condemns embargo, 52; supports Adams for President in 1824, 169; applauds his anti-slavery course, 232. 

New Jersey, disputed election in, prevents organization of House of Representatives, 290-292. 

New Orleans, battle of, 96; celebrations over, 96, 97. 

New York, supports Adams in 1824, 169; chooses electors by legislature, 173. 

Niles's "Weekly Register, " celebrates battle of New Orleans, 96, 97. 

Non-importation, act for, passed, 40; opposed by Federalists, supported by Adams, 40, 49; its substitution for embargo urged by Adams, 56. 

Nullification, opinion of Adams on, 235, 236. 

Observatory, National, desire of Adams to found, 304. 

Onis, Don, Spanish Minister, his character described by Adams, 111; complains to Adams of folly of home government, 111, 112; expostulations of De Neuville with, 114; forced to yield to Adams's terms, 114, 115; tries to evade explanation of royal land grants, 116, 117; angered at Jackson's doings, 161. 

Orders in Council, 41, 42. 

Oregon question, debated between Adams and Canning, 140-145. 

Otis, Harrison Gray, accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296. 

Paine, Thomas, his "Rights of Man" attacked by Adams, 18. 

Panama Congress, recommendation of Adams to send commissioners to, 189; question debated in Congress, 189, 190; reasons why South objected, 191. 

Parsons, Theophilus, studies of J. Q. Adams in his law office, 17; accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296. 

Patton, John Mercer, urges Southern members to be cautious in matter of censuring Adams, 272. 

Petitions, anti-slavery, presented in House by Adams, 243, 248, 249, 252, 256-258, 260, 288; others presented, 267, 269; for dissolution of Union, 281, 288 (see "Gag" rule). 

Pichegru, Charles, French General, conquers Netherlands, 20. 

Pickering, Timothy, defeated by J. Q. Adams for Senator, 30; his relations with Adams in Senate, 32; votes against Adams's appointment as Minister to Russia, 69, 70; accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296. 

Pickering, John, Adams's view of his impeachment, 36. 

Pinckney, Thomas, Minister to England, 22. 

Pinckney, Henry Laurens, reports on powers of Congress with regard to slavery, 249; attacks Adams for presenting petition from slaves, 274. 

Plumer, William, supports Adams in Senate, 68. 

Porter, Peter B. , appointed Secretary of War at desire of Cabinet, 205. 

Portugal, proposed mission of Adams to, 23, 24; proposes an alliance with United States, 133, 134; agrees to suppress slave trade, 138. 

Preston, William C. , threatens to hang abolitionists, 258. 

Privateers in Monroe's administration, 108. 

Prussia, mission of Adams to, 24; treaty of commerce with, 24; rejects English plan for suppression of slave trade, 138. 

"Publicola" papers, 18. 

Puritan traits in Adams, 7, 30; in Adams's constituents, 247. 

Quincy, John, great-grandfather of Adams, anecdote as to how Adams was named after him, 1, 2. 

Quincy, Josiah, refusal of Adams to run against for Congress, 66. 

Randolph, John, his enmity compared by Adams to that of Clay, 153; teller in election of 1824, 173; on "Blifil and Black George, " 183; duel with Clay, 183; hatred of Adams for, 210, 211; his abuse of Adams, 211, 296. 

Republican party, elects Jefferson, 25; fair-minded proposal of Adams concerning its representation on council in Massachusetts, 29; thought by Adams to be planning attack on judiciary, 36; favors France, 38; anticipates Federalists of Boston in condemning Chesapeake affair, 51; endeavors to win over Adams, 65, 68; wishes to send him to Congress, 66. 

Rhett, Robert Barnwell, offers resolution that Williams be chairman, substitutes name of Adams, 293; conducts him to chair, 293. 

Robertson, John, opposes resolutions of censure, but condemns Adams, 276. 

Romanzoff, Count, his friendliness with Adams, 71; suggests Russian mediation in war of 1812, 74. 

Rose, G. H. , his fruitless mission to America after Chesapeake affair, 45. 

Rush, Dr. Benjamin, approaches Adams on subject of foreign mission, 68. 

Rush, Richard, appointed Secretary of Treasury, 177; wishes appointment as minister to England, 205. 

Russell, Jonathan, on peace commission, 76; criticises Adams's drafts of documents, 82; accused by Adams of trying to injure him, 296; attitude of Adams toward, 297. 

Russia, mission of Dana to, 13; mission of Adams to, 70-74; life in, 71, 73, 74; its friendship for United States, 72; war with France, 74; offers to mediate between England and United States, 74; its offer declined, 75; dispute with, over Alaska, 130; statement of Adams to, on Monroe doctrine, 131; rejects English plan for suppression of slave trade, 138. 

Sectionalism, in Louisiana purchase, 35; in connection with embargo, 52, 53; in connection with Missouri question, 122, 123; appears in parties during Adams's administration, 188, 189; growth of, during debate over Texas annexation, 243. 

Senate of the United States, election of Adams to, 30; unpopularity of Adams in, 31-33; rejects all his proposals, 31, 32; debates acquisition of Louisiana, 35; impeaches Chase, 36; increased influence of Adams in, 36, 37; adopts Adams's resolutions demanding indemnity for British seizures, 39; his career in, reviewed by Adams, 66-68; refuses, then accepts, Adams's nomination as Minister to Russia, 69, 70; rejects Gallatin's nomination as peace commissioner, 75. 

Seward, W. H. , on John Adams's recall of J. Q. Adams before end of term, 25; on Adams's dissatisfaction with election of 1824, 174. 

Shakespeare, Adams's opinion of, 222. 

Slaveholders in Congress, their hatred of Adams, 229, 246; attacked by Adams, 258, 259; outwitted by Adams, 261, 273; condemn Adams for arguing possibility of abolition under war power, 262, 264; enraged at Adams's having a petition from slaves, 269, 270; move to censure him, 271; discomfited by discovery of nature of petition, 273; renew attempt to censure, 274, 275; abandon it, 276, 279; bitterly attacked by Adams in his defense, 277-279; try to censure Adams for presenting disunion petition, 281-283; defied by Adams, 283-285; threaten Adams with assassination, 286, 287; abandon attempt, 287, 288; refuse to serve on committee with Adams, 289; respect his courage, 290; applaud his energy in carrying out organization of House, 293, 294. 

Slavery, strengthened by Louisiana purchase, 35; made a political issue by Missouri question, 119; opinions of Adams concerning, 119-121; extension of, opposed by Adams, 121; formation of a party devoted to, 188-192; attack upon, hastened by Texas question, 243; Adams's part in war against, 244-248; right of Congress to abolish, under war power, 250, 261-265. 

Slaves, English seizures of, during war of 1812, negotiations concerning, 99. 

Slave trade, refusal of Adams to submit United States to mixed tribunals for its repression, 135-137; English proposal for combined effort, 137, 138. 

Smith, William, accuses Adams of monomania, 280. 

Smithsonian bequest, connection of Adams with, 303. 

South, the, Calhoun its leader in 1824, 149; does not support Adams for President, 169, 188; begins to form a new slavery party in Adams's administration, 188, 189; opposes Panama Congress because of Hayti's share in it, 191. 

Southard, Samuel L. , reappointed Secretary of Navy, 177. 

South Carolina, refusal of Adams to placate, in 1828, 201; protests against tariff, 233; its punishment for nullification desired by Adams, 234-237; Jackson's vacillation toward, condemned by Adams, 234-236; gains its point from Clay, 236. 

Spain, danger of war with, in Monroe's administration, 108; question of revolted colonies, 108, 109; disputes over Louisiana boundary and Florida, 109, 110; sends Onis to negotiate, 111; its policy hampers Onis, 111, 112; negotiations, 113-116; repudiates Onis's treaty, 117; accepts original treaty, 124; agrees to suppress slave trade, 138; angered at Jackson's excesses in Florida, 161. 

Spanish-American republics, wish aid from United States, 108; frowned down by European countries, 108; sympathy for, in United States, 108, 109; recognition urged by Clay, 109, 152; recognized gradually, 132; danger of attempt to reconquer by Holy Alliance, 132, 133; protected by Monroe doctrine, 131-134. 

Sterret, ----, his removal urged by Clay for planning an insult to Adams, 179; not removed by Adams, 180. 

Tariff, Adams's views upon, 234; compromise tariff of 1833, considered by Adams a surrender, 235. 

Tennessee, renominates Jackson for President, 181; repeats bargain story, 183. 

Texas, proposal to annex, arouses Northern opposition to slavery, 243; indignation of Adams at, 265, 266; held by Adams to be unconstitutional, 266. 

Thaxter, ----, teacher of Adams, 3. 

Thompson, Waddy, sarcastic remark of, 259; neglects to present petition for Adams's expulsion, 268; introduces resolution of censure upon Adams, 271; threatens Adams with criminal proceedings, 271; presents new resolutions, 274; scored by Adams, 277. 

Tompkins, Daniel D. , candidate for President in 1824, 149. 

Times, London, condemns treaty of Ghent, 97. 

Tracy, Uriah, supports Adams in Senate, 68. 

Treaty of Ghent, meeting of commissioners, 76; irritation during negotiations, 77; preliminary conflict as to place of meeting, 77, 78; large demands of England for cession of territory and other advantages, 78, 79; discussion over proposed belt of neutral Indian territory, 79; and of demand for Mississippi navigation, 80; complaints by Americans of manners of English, 80-82; bickerings among Americans, 81-84; difficulties in drafting documents, 82, 83; social intercourse between commissioners, 85, 92; expected failure of negotiations, 86; _status ante bellum_ proposed by Adams, 87; sanctioned by United States, 87; dissensions among commissioners over Mississippi navigation and fisheries, 88-90; over Moose Island, 91; English offer to omit fisheries and Mississippi, 92; abandonment of impressment article by Americans, 92; peculiarities of negotiation, 93; alteration of English policy, 93; terms of treaty, 94; a success for Americans, 95, 96; rejoicings over, in America, 96; condemned in England, 97. 

Trimble, Cary A. , of Ohio, opposes Spanish treaty, 124. 

Tuyl, Baron, discussion of Adams with, concerning Alaska, 131. 

Van Buren, Martin, becomes manager of Jackson's followers, 192; compared by Adams to Burr, 193. 

Vanderpoel, Aaron, tries to prevent Adams from replying to resolutions of censure by previous question, 270. 

Virginia, refusal of Adams to placate, in election of 1828, 201. 

Vivês, General, supplants Onis, 123; Adams's stubborn attitude toward, 123, 124; forced to yield, 124. 

Von Holst, H. C. , calls Adams last of the statesmen to be President, 213. 

War of 1812, a defeat for United States, 76, 86. 

War power of Congress, held by Adams to justify emancipation of slaves, 261-265. 

Washington, George, appoints Adams Minister to Holland, 19; urges him to remain in diplomacy, 21; transfers him to Portugal, 23; urges John Adams not to hesitate to promote him, 23, 24. 

Washington city, absence of church in, 30; described in 1815, 101, 102; society in, 102, 103. 

Webster, Daniel, describes intriguing in presidential election of 1824, 165; teller in election of 1824, 173; supports Adams in matter of Panama Congress, 190; desires appointment as Minister to England, 205; Adams said to have bargained for his support, 209; accused by Adams of plotting to injure him, 296. 

Webster, Ezekiel, ascribes Adams's defeat to unpopularity of his manners, 204. 

Weights and measures, report of Adams upon, 126, 127; its character and ability, 126, 127. 

Wellesley, Marquis of, on superiority of American diplomacy in treaty of Ghent, 96, 98. 

Whig party, begins in defense of Adams's administration, 193; lacks personal interest in him, 199; chilled by Adams's manner, 202-204; Adams a member of, 232, 233. 

Williams, Joseph L. , of Tennessee, opposes Spanish treaty, 124. 

Williams, Lewis, proposes Adams for chairman of House, 293. 

Wise, Henry A. , objects to reception of anti-slavery petitions, 258; attacks Adams for holding that Congress may interfere with slavery in the States, 263; again attacks him, 283; expresses his loathing, 284; taunted with murder by Adams, his bitter reply, 285; compliments Adams on organizing House, 294; later, when reprimanded for fighting, insults Adams, 294; castigated by Adams for dueling and Southern views, 297, 300. 

Wirt, William, reappointed Attorney-General, 177. 

The Riverside Press

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U. S. A. ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED BYH. O. HOUGHTON AND CO.