JOHN QUINCY ADAMS was not just another congressman. He had
been, among many other distinctions, president of the United States, the
sixth president, and the second of his family to serve in that office.
But beyond that he was a living link to the nation's founders.
Washington had no children; Jefferson had no sons who survived;
Madison had no children of his own, although by marrying Dolley he
acquired stepchildren. Hamilton was survived by seven children, none
of whom reflected the brilliance of their father; Franklin's only son
went over to the other side in the Revolution. Were there no
politically active, able, republican direct male descendants of the
great founders of the late eighteenth century? There was John Quincy
Adams.
Very few human beings can have had an upbringing in a nation's
ideal comparable to his. He had spent his boyhood imbibing the meaning
of the American Revolution from his extraordinary parents, at the
center of the action. He had spent his adult career defining the role
of the new American republic on the world scene.
He had been born in July of 1767, not too long after the repeal
of the Stamp Act Surely in his parents' homes in Boston and in
Braintree he heard from his first breath discussions about the contest
with Great Britain, and about the republican ideals of the United
States, even before there was a United States.
His father had set out for Philadelphia in September of 1774, in
John Hancock's coach, with the others in the Massachusetts delegation,
to attend what would come to be called the First Continental Congress
-- the older Adams's first trip outside New England. Johnny, the
oldest son, who stayed home with his mama, was then seven years old.
For the remainder of his youth he would rarely be with both parents at
the same time, because they were kept apart by the events of the
nation's founding. Much of John Quincy's childhood was spent with his
mother, often in some danger, in Boston and Braintree, surrounded by
key events of the American Revolution. Much of his later youth he
would spend with his father, who was representing the fledgling
republic in the capitals of Europe. Always he would be the object of
the intense desire of both his energetic, intelligent, virtuous,
republican parents that he be educated to the full extent of his
considerable talents to carry on what they had begun.
In one of the first of her famous letters to her husband in
Philadelphia, Abigail Adams wrote: "I have taken a very great
fondness to reading Rollin's ancient History since you left me ... and
I have persuaded Johnny to read me a page or two every day, and hope
he will from his desire to oblige me entertain a fondness for it."
(Her spelling, like everything else about her, had a vigorous
individuality.) So there was the mother and her seven-year-old son,
with Papa out of town, during the British threat to Boston, curled up
on the eighteenth-century equivalent of a sofa, reading about the
heroes of the Roman Republic to whom they would all soon be endlessly
comparing themselves.
John Quincy's father was a major figure at that Continental
Congress for two months in the fall of 1774, and at the Second
Congress that began the following May -- one "theater of action,"
as Abigail, writing to her husband, said. But she and her children
were meanwhile living in another theater of action. Massachusetts was
the most radical of colonies; Boston was the most radical part of
Massachusetts. The "Intolerable Acts," as the American
patriots called them, enacted in angry response to the episode of the
tea, had been directed primarily at Boston: the Boston Port Bill had
closed the port, and two other acts had effectively taken government
and the administration of justice out of local hands. British power
occupied the city. "Suffering Boston" was the focus of
patriots' anger in all of the colonies, and the primary occasion for
the coming together of the Congress. As John Quincy's father traveled
by coach to Philadelphia in the fall of 1774 he reported by letter to
John Quincy's mother the heartwarming support for beleaguered
Massachusetts that he encountered along his route.
In the spring of 1775, at just the moment when John Adams was to
return for what came to be called the Second Continental Congress
there occurred in the family's own neighborhood events that would
electrify the colonies and serve forever after as national myths. A
lifetime later, John Quincy would write a letter; or a draft of a
letter, according to a footnote in The Adams Family Correspondence,
"in a faltering hand to an English Quaker" that told from
the perspective of many years about the happenings back in the famous
month of April 1775.
The year 1775 was the eighth year of my age. Among
the first fruits of the War, was the expulsion of my father's family
from their peaceful abode in Boston, to take refuge in his and my
native town of Braintree. ...For the space of twelve months my mother
with her infant children dwelt, liable every hour of the day and of
the night to be butchered in cold blood, or taken and carried into
Boston as hostages, by any foraging or marauding detachment of men,
like that actually sent forth on the 19th. of April to capture John
Hancock and Samuel Adams on their way to attend the continental
Congress at Philadelphia.
This marauding detachment of British power had been sent forth
by the usually somewhat lethargic but now exasperated general
commanding the forces around Boston, Thomas Gage, under pressure from
London, to try, as John Quincy in his old age recalled and as every
American used to know, to snatch two of the ringleaders of the
seditionists, Sam Adams and John Hancock, and while they were at it to
destroy rebel military supplies they thought were stored in Concord.
Gage was rewarded for his pains by "a hurry of hoofs in a village
street, a shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark"; by a
sleepy gathering of local militia lined up on Lexington Green in the
early morning, into which, after a confused beginning, the British
regulars fired their muskets, killing eight; by an aroused collection
of "embattled farmers" who then after Gage's troops had made
a futile visit to Concord met them at the "rude bridge that
arched the flood" and fired "the shot heard 'round the world";
by Middlesex farmers who "gave them ball for ball, from behind
each fence and farmyard wall, chasing the redcoats down the lane, then
crossing the fields to emerge again, under the trees at the turn of
the road, and only pausing to fire and load"; by a disorder in
the ranks of his own frustrated troops, as they pillaged and looted
and attacked civilians on their way back to Cambridge and Charleston;
by a disproportionate loss in this curious battle or sequence of
battles of 273 casualties to only 95 for the Americans; and,
eventually, by not one but two of the best-known poems in the American
language, one by Ralph Waldo Emerson and one by Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow. All in all, it was not one of the better days for General
Gage, or for the glory of Britain.
*******
JOHN QUINCY had not one but two extraordinary parents, and the
relationship between the two of was extraordinary as well, as the
world has learned from their John Adams and the others among the
greatest American founders -- Jefferson, Madison, Washington,
Hamilton, Franklin -- would each reveal on paper a mind of
distinction, and a worthy devotion to the republican cause, as the
lengthening shelves of the volumes of the papers of each of them
attest. But Adams, uniquely, had a moral companion and intellectual
equal at home, a dearest friend who shared to the full those
characteristics -- intellectual distinction and moral commitment to
republicanism -- with some added sparks of her own. There is no
equivalent to Abigail Adams in the households of the other great
American founders. And fortunately for the country and the world, she
revealed her distinction and her devotion to republican government,
all unself-consciously, in "papers" of her own. ...
In response to requests from several states, John Adams wrote
an influential document (a letter originally, which when published
came to be titled "Thoughts on Government") that anticipated
much of the form of the state and federal governments of the United
States. His wife, John Quincy's mother, wrote her famous plea on
behalf of "the ladies," at this time when her husband was
discussing the "new modelling" of the states. "I desire
you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to
them than your ancestors," she wrote in March of 1776, in a
letter that would be widely circulated two hundred years later in the
time of a renewed feminist movement. She was thinking about the
enormous but particular matter of the treatment of women as a part of
a still larger matter: the overall shape of new governments -- the new
societies -- that would be brought into being in this new world, and
the principles upon which they would rest.
Her husband would write, in words that would acquire their own
modest fame, in his letter ("Thoughts on Government") to a
fellow scate maker: "You and I my dear friend, have been sent
into life at a time when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would
have wished to live. How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an
opportunity of making an election of government for themselves or
their children! When ... had three millions of people full power and a
fair opportunity to form and establish the wisest and happiest
government that human wisdom can contrive?"
The world would forget, but the Adamses would not, that John
Adams then played an important role in the making of the document
that, as fortune would have it, came to be more famous than any of
his, or her, own words or deed. As he had nominated George Washington,
so as a member of the five-man committee to write a Declaration of
Independence he nominated another Virginian, his new young friend
Thomas Jefferson, to draft that document, admitting, among the reasons
Jefferson should do it, that Jefferson wrote better than he did;
another reason was that Jefferson had not been a part of the fights
over independence in the Continental Congress and so had not made the
enemies that Adams had made.
When the draft produced by Jefferson (and amended by the
committee, including Adams) was presented to the Congress on July 2-4,
1776, it was John Quincy's father who defended it on the floor of
Congress for two and a half days. Jefferson was generally disinclined
to speak in such meetings, and would write many years later that as
the principal drafter he "thought it his duty to be a passive
auditor of the opinions of other," some of which opinions, he
said, "made him writhe a little." Congress went through the
document line by line, and Adams, as Jefferson later gratefully wrote,
defended it line by line, "fighting fearlessly for every word of
it."
When Adams sent a copy of the new Declaradon to Abigail,
probably copied in his own hand, she may have mistakenly thought for a
time that he was the drafter. In any case, when interpreting John
Quincy Adams one should remind oneself that when he was nine years old
his mother had, there on the table in their rooms, one of the original
copies of the Declaration of Independence, handwritten by his father,
who had fought for it on the floor of Congress.
It is significant to note, for the purposes of the story to be
told in these pages, that opposition to slavery was one of the larger
topics that John Quincy's mother brought up in her letters, including
her response to the Declaration. On July 14 she wrote that she
regretted that "some of the most Manly Sentiments in the
Declaration are expunged from the printed copy." It may surely be
inferred that among these "Manly Sentiments" the expunging
of which she regretted, the most important was the biggest cut that
the Congress made, the long passage attacking slavery ("cruel war
against human nature"), and blaming it, of course, on King
George, that Jefferson had drafted, and that the committee including
John Adams had retained, and that Adams presumably had defended in the
Continental Congress.
That was not Abigail Adams's first reference to race and
slavery. Very early, in one of her first letters to her husband after
he had gone to Philadelphia, writing from "Boston Garrison"
(as she herself signed her dateline), she reported a rumor that a "conspiracy
of the negroes" had been quietly suppressed -- we know nothing
about this event if it was one, except her report -- and then added
the remark: "I wish most sincerely that there was not a slave in
the province. It always seemed a most iniquitous scheme to me -- to
fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from
those who have as good a right to freedom as we have. You know my mind
on this subject."
Later, in 1776, raising questions about the effect of tile
social system of Virginia on the mind of Massachusetts's Virginia
allies, she linked her apprehensions to the slave system, and her
rejection of that system to elementary Christian ethics:
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for
liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been
accustomed to deprive their fellow-creatures of theirs. Of this I am
certain, that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian
principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto
us."
********
THE ADAMS FAMILY was intimately linked not only to the making
of the constitutional forms of the new nation and to the expression of
its ideals, but also to the grim realities of the actual fighting in
the Revolution itself. If the American Revolution is a pageant to us,
centuries later, it was not a pageant but a genuine war to many then,
much including the Adamses. As we have seen, they lost already in
1775, at Bunker Hill, their doctor, Joseph Warren, and John Quincy and
his mother had seen Charleston in ashes (Abigail's father came from
Charleston). They lost Abigail's mother and John's brother to the
debilitating diseases caused in part by the British occupation, and
they suffered in other ways.
But in addition, in June of 1776 John Adams was appointed the
head of another committee -- more important in his mind probably than
the committee to produce the Declaration -- on the conduct of the war.
This committee was given the formidable name Board of War and
Ordnance, and Adams was called its "president." He was thus
the equivalent, while continuing to serve as delegate to Congress, of
what later generations would call secretary of war, and still later;
secretary of defense.
Adams served as "president" of this board, an enormous
chore, from its inception on June 12, 1776, until he left Congress
late in 1777, throughout the early stages of the Revolutionary War.
Its work included all that a war department would do: raising,
fitting, dispatching, and keeping track of the troops and their
officers and all weaponry, and the Care of all prisoners of war, and
the carrying on of all official correspondence about the war. So John
Quincy's father had knowledge not only of his own war experiences in a
Congress being chased about the countryside by British forces
(Philadelphia to Baltimore to Philadelphia to Yorktown and back once
again to Philadelphia) and the experiences of his wife and children in
the hotbed of eastern Massachusetts, and the experiences of friends
and of the common knowledge in those two centers, but also the special
knowledge that came to him in this official post.
He served in that role, agonizing about the miseries of war, and
excoriating the British, through the defeat of Washington's new troops
on the fine battles on Long Island; the retreat of the Americans
across the Delaware River; Washington's famous crossing and the
victories at Princeton and Trenton; General Burgoyne's incursion from
Canada through the Hudson Valley, which might have cut off New England
from the rest of the colonies and therefore divided Abigail and the
children from John; General Howe's baffling strategy of heading not up
from New York to meet Burgoyne but out across the farms of
Pennsylvania (making patriots along the way, Adams would say, out of
Germans and Quakers through whose property his troops passed) to march
triumphantly into Philadelphia, and to cause the Congress (including
Adams, of course) to, scurry to Yorktown. All of those events and more
can be followed in the letters of John Quincy's parents, and as a
modern reader follows them that reader might picture the intelligent
boy of eight, nine, ten years old who surely is living through all
those events as intensely as his parents. Abigail -- generally
speaking, a fiercer partisan than her husband -- contributed her own
reports of events and her own condemnations of the British and the
Tories.
The formal surrender of Burgoyne on October 17, 1777, celebrated
fiercely in Abigail's letters, satisfied European powers, particularly
France, that the American cause had the possibility of victory, and
brought a new chapter in the lives of the Adams family. John Adams was
chosen by Congress to be one of the three American ministers to cross
the water and negotiate with the French. He came home to Braintree in
late December of 1777 to get ready to sail to France, and to provide
yet another phase in the education of John Quincy.
********
HIS PARENTS DECIDED THAT, dangerous though it was, nevertheless
Johnny, now eleven years of age, could accompany his father on the
latter's very first trip abroad to perform this diplomatic service for
the embattled, newly independent country -- independent, that is, if
it won. John Adams wrote to his wife as they set out, by sail, on the
hazardous wartime voyage "Johnny sends his duty to his mama and
his love to his sister and brothers. He behaves like a man."
Johnny had further occasion to "behave like a man"
when their ship, six days out to sea, was chased by a British
man-of-war. John Adams recounted this event, and the storm that
followed, twice: once in the journal he kept, or tried to keep, at the
time ("I was constantly so wett, and every Place and thing was so
wett, and every Table and Chair so wrecked, that it was impossible to
touch a Pen or Paper") and then twenty-eight years later; when he
was presumably dry, in an effort to write his autobiography. For this
part of it he consulted his journal taking over much of it word for
word, so the two accounts are very much alike. And yet the old man's
memory expands on the journal entry and adds some touches. He left his
native shore in a sailing ship (the Boston) and went out onto the
dangerous Atlantic, and his son went with him. It was dangerous not
only because of storms and the frailty of the craft but also because
the nation or colonies that Adams was commissioned to represent were
at war with the mightiest naval power in the world. John Adams and his
papers would have been a considerable prize for the British.
On February 19, 1778, the Boston sighted three large ships, At
first the crew wanted to sail toward them, thinking they might be
British merchant vessels that could be captured for profit. But the
captain was fairly sure that they were frigates, and he proved
correct: "We were near enough to see they were Frigates and count
their Guns, to the Full Satisfaction of every man on Board. No man had
an Appetite for fighting three Frigates at once in our feeble state"
So they sailed away as fast as the wind allowed, losing two of the
British men-of-war, but not the third, which gave chase throughout
that day and the next.
"When night approached" -- this is from John Adams's
autobiography -- "The Wind died away and We were left rolling and
pitching in a Calm, with our Guns all out ... all drawn up and every
Way prepared for battle." Adams, the primary passenger, offered
his opinion about what they should do. "I said and did all in my
power to encourage the Officers and men to fight them to the last
Extremity. My motives were more urgent than theirs, for it will easily
be believed that it would have been more eligible for me to be killed
on board the Boston or sunk to the bottom in her, than to be taken
prisoner." And if he had been killed on board or sunk to the
bottom or taken prisoner, something like these fates would,
presumably, have been shared by his young son.
*******
Safely landed on the opposite shore, John Quincy was placed by
his father in one of the best Parisian schools, took French lessons,
met diplomats; he returned to Europe with his father again in 1779,
this time with his younger brother, and attended good schools again,
both in Paris and in Amsterdam and Leyden. He became proficient in
French and knowledgeable in other languages, and was a good student. A
Massachusetts friend of the Adamses, Francis Dana, chosen by Congress
as the new republic's minister to Russia, then invited young John
Quincy to accompany him to St Petersburg as his secretary.
What was John Quincy Adams doing when he was fifteen years old?
He was not practicing his jump shot every afternoon in the junior high
school gym, or hanging around the drive-in hamburger joint every
evening; he was not going out to the barn every morning to milk the
cows and do the chores; he was not practicing the hup-hup drill with
the militia on the village common; he was not covering himself with
ink as an apprentice in a print shop; he was not reading college
catalogs, wondering which he wanted to attend, or which he could get
into; he was not attending his first proms. Lives differ. What John
Quincy Adams was doing at age fifteen, in the prime of his
adolescence, was translating diplomatic conversations between the
American minister to Russia, who had no French, and the French
minister to Russia, who had no English, in service of their joint
endeavor (not successful) to obtain support from Empress Catherine for
the newly independent United States.
While he was a teenager in Europe, John Quincy started his
journal. He was an Adams, so he kept a journal. He really kept a
journal. At the end of his life he observed that had he been a great
writer or thinker it would have been a great work. As it stands it is
not insignificant. He kept it up for well over half a century. By the
end of his life it would fill a long, long shelf of volumes.
The conscientious John Quincy was given an angle of vision on
the United States that no one else has ever had. He spent his
childhood imbibing the ideals of the American Revolution -- not
secondhand, superficially, and afterward, but from principal
participants, directly, and at the time those ideals were being shaped
and tested. Then he was taken to the Old World, and had an education
in European politics and diplomacy at the highest level, in Paris,
Amsterdam, Leyden, St Petersburg, The Hague, London, and other places
before he was twenty-one, that very few Americans have had in a
lifetime.
DUTY. DUTY? DUTY.
John QUINCY ADAMS'S long life story, after that beginning, was a
story of Duty, multiplied. Again and again, Duty called. Duty was
always calling, and if Duty didn't call, Adams called her, and
reversed the charges. It was a quite specific duty, a duty to
republicanism and to this republic. When after many years he died, in
the Capitol itself, Senator Thomas Hart Benton, for most of their
careers an adversary, said in his eulogy: "Death found him at the
post of duty; and where else could it have found him?"
Because of his father's appointments abroad, John Quincy spent
most of his teen years in Europe, but he returned to the United
Shates, by himself, and by his own decision, in 1785, to attend
Harvard, and was graduated from Harvard in the important Summer of
1787. He received his degree on July 16, which happened to be quite a
memorable day at the Federal Convention down in Philadelphia -- the
day the Convention almost fell apart in the dispute between the small
and the large states.
John Quincy had come home from Europe in part for this revealing
reason: to avoid becoming too completely European. To recover his New
England self toward serving his New England destiny. While on July 16
James Madison in Philadelphia was almost despairing of forming a
lasting union, the twenty-year-old John Quincy was delivering the
senior oration in Cambridge on the subject "The Importance and
Necessity of Public Faith to the Well being of a Nation."
At the time when the conventions in the states were considering
the ratification of the proposed Constitution, in the following
winter, 1787-88, John Quincy Adams was studying law in Newburyport,
Massachusetts, in the law offices of a family friend and distinguished
lawyer, Theophilus Parsons. But no one with the load of Duty that John
Quincy was carrying would be content being just another lawyer. He
started out in American politics the way his father had done, by
writing political pamphlets; among these was one defending President
George Washington's neutral foreign policy with respect to France and
England. A grateful President Washington thereupon gave him his first
appointment, as minister to the Netherlands. Later he was to be sent
to Portugal but when his father succeeded Washington as president, the
father shifted the son's appointment from Portugal to Berlin. Both
Adams men, father and son, of course were careful to justify these
appointments on merit, not connections. When Jefferson defeated Adams
in the presidential election of 1800, Adams, before leaving office,
recalled his son, and in the tense atmosphere between the Adams family
and Jefferson following that election, John Quincy declined the
appointment the family's former friend Jefferson would have offered
him.
Before too long the Massachusetts Federalists chose him to serve
in the Massachusetts Senate, although they knew that like his father
he marched to the sound of Duty's different drummer, which meant he
was very far from being a party man. Within forty-eight hours of his
taking his seat he justified their fears, outraging his own party
leaders by proposing that the Jeffersonian minority be given seats in
proportional representation in the council or upper house. It was not
long thereafter that those same party leaders chose him for the United
States Senate -- in part just to get him out of the state and out of
their hair.
During his term in the United States Senate, his most important
service to Public Faith rather than party or home constituency was the
support he offered to President Jefferson's side in the matter of the
Louisiana Purchase As a Massachusetts Federalist he was supposed to
oppose the infidel Jefferson and all his works, and specifically to
oppose this New England-diluting addition of an unimaginably huge new
continent of land. But despite his own personal and family
disillusionment with Jefferson, and despite the strong objection by
his party and his region, he supported it. When many years and many
changes later another young U.S. senator from Massachusetts would
write a book called Profiles in Courage, featuring independent "courageous"
decisions by U.S. senators, the very first chapter would be on John
Quincy Adams in the Senate defying Massachusetts Federalists and
supporting President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.
Senator Adams further offended his fellow Federalists toward the
end of his term by supporting a vigorous response to the aggressive
acts on the seas by the belligerents in the Napoleonic Wars --
particularly the British. The British stopped and searched American
ships at sea, and even "impressed" -- forced into service on
their ships -- American sailors. After a particularly outrageous
example of this British conduct, the Chesapeake affair, President
Jefferson proposed an embargo that prohibited American ships from
sailing to foreign ports and foreign ships from taking on cargo in
American ports, an action that essentially shut down foreign trade.
The Federalists of New England were outraged, because they had
commercial interests that would suffer, because they were pro-British
(and anti-French and because they were opposed to Jefferson. And what
did their man the Massachusetts senator do? He stood by the president
both in committee and on the floor.
With Adams's support of Jefferson and of aggressive measures
against the British, the Massachusetts Federalist leaders in 1808-09
had had about all the service to Higher Duty from their senator that
they could take. The Massachusetts legislature, dominated by
Federalists, took the extraordinary step of electing a successor to
Adams nine months before his term was up. Adams thereupon dutifully,
and perhaps haughtily as well, resigned his Senate seat.
Jefferson's successor as president, James Madison, appointed
John Quincy Adams minister to Russia, lifting him out of range of the
revenge of the New England Federalists and setting in motion again his
diplomatic career, which would take him to a string of major European
capitals. He subsequently supported president Madison, even though
Madison came from that other party -- the Adamses never believed much
in parties, and this was a period when the nation's first set of
parties were fading -- and he supported president Monroe, whom he
served as secretary of state. Later, nearer the time of our story he
would on some matters even support President Jackson, who had defeated
him in a bitter contest for reelection and whom by that time he did
not like and who certainly came from what would prove in the new
dispensation to be another party from that of the Adamses. And he
supported subsequent presidents, none of whom he respected, on
union-preserving issues, as well. He did so in part because he was an
early believer that politics stops at the water's edge and partly
because he was an experienced and well-read diplomat with a knowledge
of European politics vastly superior to that of his colleagues. And,
of course, from Duty. He would be a main figure in the early
development of America's understanding of her place in the world; some
would say even yet that he is the nation's greatest diplomatist.
After he had served, with great distinction, for eight years as
secretary of state under President Monroe, there lay before him the
prospect of the great office his father once had held, and that his
parents had trained him from his earliest years to expect that he
would one day hold. He was by far the most qualified aspirant; no one
could match the positions he had held or the training in world
politics he had undergone. Virginia had held the presidency year after
year after year -- all of the years since the beginning except for his
father's four; surely it was time for Massachusetts (and the North)
again. Nevertheless, unfortunately, the office did not come begging to
his door, eagerly seeking him. There was a spate of candidates. So he
had to make some choices. What was Duty's message now?
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 was unique in our history. In
the aftermath of president Monroe's "Era of Good Feeling,"
there were, effectively, no political parties; the contest for the
presidency was highly personal and somewhat sectional, with no sharply
defined issues. When the states had finished selecting their
presidential electors late in 1824, the electoral votes were spread
across several candidates, with none having a majority. Secretary of
State John Quincy Adams was not first but second. He got all of the
electoral votes of New England and a large majority of those from New
York, which were split, but in the South, the border states, and the
West, he received only a very light sprinkling (one of three from
Delaware, two of five from Louisiana, three of eleven from Maryland,
one of three from Illinois, none from any other state).
General Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans,
by contrast, did well in all the states to the West and South, and in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well, and had the largest number of
electoral votes. But not a majority, as the Constitution requires. The
candidate of much of the deep South was a man named William Crawford,
the secretary of the treasury, whose constant maneuvering for
advantage in the coming presidential contest had provoked Adams to
many disgusted outbursts in his journal. Three of the original
candidates sat together in President Monroe's cabinet: Crawford;
Adams; and John C. Calhoun, the secretary of war, who settled in the
end for the vice-presidency, in the separated balloting for that
office. In addition, "Prince Hal" the able and popular rogue
Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House, made one of his many attempts
at the presidency.
When the tallies had rolled in from all the states the electoral
vote was Jackson 99, Adams 84, Crawford 41, Clay 37. Because no one
had a majority, the election was, as the Constitution provides, "thrown
into the House," where the vote is to be taken among the top
three candidates. Clay, who finished fourth, was thus eliminated, and
the votes that would have gone to him were available for
redistribution. The Constitution also specifies -- a very important
provision, cleverly inserted in 1787 by the small states led by Roger
Sherman of Connecticut -- that the voting in the House shall be by
states; thus Delaware and the new states of Mississippi, Missouri, and
Illinois, with only one congressman apiece, had a vote equal to that
of New York, with its thirty-four, and Pennsylvania with its
********
John Quincy's destiny was fulfilled. Or was it? Life, or
history, or duty, or perhaps human ambition, always adds to any
accomplishment something more, not yet achieved. One would want not
only to be president, but also a president who served the "Well
being of a Nation" with outstanding accomplishment. Did Adams do
that?
He presented in his messages to Congress, particularly tile
first one, which became a rather notable state paper, an unusually
ambitious "National" program (he capitalized the N in that
way) for which a reader 170 years later might be surprised to have,
except for the endorsement of the protective tariff, a certain amount
of belated enthusiasm. Adams recommended a National program of "internal
improvement" (a key term, and a better one than "infrastructure"),
which meant roads and canals and bridges, but more than that; a
National university; government support for science and for learning
as well as for commerce and industry (Adams would later be the key
figure in realizing the possibilities of the bequest that became the
Smithsonian Institution); a particular personal goal of Adams, a
national observatory; federally supported exploration of the West; a
uniform standard of weights and measures (Adams as secretary of state
had written an important paper on this matter); a patent law to
encourage invention; a naval academy; and the use of the great bounty
of the public lands to help, along with the tariff, to support these
undertakings. In sum, Adams had a vision of a qualitatively "improved"
nation -- "improvement" was a theme -- using the federal
government as the "National" instrument.
The attack on this ambitious program was severe, and often had a
Southern accent. The "strict construction" of the
Constitution was the argument: Adams was said to have proposed a raft
of federal actions for which the Constitution provided no authority.
He got very little passed. The midterm congressional elections of 1826
returned a heavy majority of Adams's opponents, creating American
politics' first experience of "gridlock." The deep South
strict constructionists who had supported Crawford were joining the
Jackson forces in opposing Adams, and the construction of a new
political party was under way.
Adams did not do much to help his program along. That was a
different time, with different expectations. It was not yet expected
that the president would be a legislative leader, sending up to "the
hill" truckloads of "administration" proposals which he
would then twist congressional arms to get passed. Adams, in
particular, with his antiparty outlook, was not going to do that. He
refused, as president, to remove from office officials who had opposed
his candidacy for president, or to appoint those who had supported him
-- admirable, perhaps, by some antique standard, but the despair of
real politicians like his chief cabinet member Secretary of State
Henry Clay. And made anachronistic on his defeat by the Jacksonian
spoils system.
Hanging over Adams's other limitations and difficulties as
president there was the charge that he and Clay had entered into a "corrupt
bargain." That charge did not die down or fade away. Supporters
of Jackson had said there would be a fierce opposition, especially in
the West and South, if Adams inveigled the presidency away from their
hero, and they proved to be right. In the presidential election of
1828 they had their revenge. Two Southern slaveholders -- Jackson and,
again, Calhoun -- defeated the two nonslaveholding Northerners --
Adams and his Pennsylvania friend Richard Rush -- by 178 electoral
votes to 83. As Adams had followed his father into the presidential
office, so he followed him also in staying there only one term.
Three points about the Adams presidency bear on the story in
these pages. First, the latent issue of slavery ran silently --
usually silently -- underneath almost everything about it. It is very
important that Adams himself was, from a slaveholder's perspective,
not sound on that question; he was only the second president in
American history not to be personally a slaveholder, the other one
being his father. The "National" program that he proposed
would have enlarged federal power in a way that might one day threaten
slavery. The "strict construction" of the Constitution and
states' rights that his opponents insisted upon were, in addition to
what ever other foundations in sentiment and philosophy they had,
barriers of protection against interference with slavery. Both sides
felt that his energetic program of federally aided "improvement,"
commercial, intellectual industrial, scientific, moral, implied a
culture at odds with the culture of a slave society (which Adams and
his supporters did not believe to be "the highest toned, the
purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face
of the earth"). President Adams's policy toward the Creek nation
in Georgia, and other Indians, more nearly just than that of his
successor (which was brutal in the extreme), implied a dangerous touch
of humanity that might apply to blacks as well. And when, early in his
presidential term, he proposed sending U.S. delegates to a Panama
conference of newly independent Latin American republics, a conference
that might very well discuss such forbidden topics as slavery and the
slave trade, and -- worst -- relations with the newly independent
black nation of "Hayti," Southern leaders exploded.
His defeat in 1828 had a sharp regional cast.
... Richards wrote in summary: "... the election returns
clearly indicated that Jackson was far more popular in 'aristocratic'
Virginia than he was in 'democratic' Vermont and that he ran much
better in the slave states of the South than the free states of the
North."
Which leads to the second point: the historical placement of his
presidency accidentally cast Adams as an opponent of "democracy"
in a way that is overdone. The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 by
new men from the West and South, and by a new alliance of Southern
planters with Northern common folk, is a convenient point to make one
of the pivots of American history, and "Jacksonian" is a
convenient modifier for the broader, more popular democracy developing
in the period. Adams was twice the opponent of Andrew Jackson, so
Adams must be placed on the other side as the symbol of an opposition
that, of course, is supposed to be defeated, ...
But isn't this contrast much too sharply drawn! Is there not
some element of historical accident, not only on Adams's side but
Jackson's as well! Some new developments -- the ending of property
requirements for voting and the broadening of the suffrage -- took
place to an extent before, and independent of, Jackson's
administration, and others -- the "reform," including the
public school movement -- came at least as much from Adams's
constituency as from Jackson's. Adams, like his father, did have a
complex view of the ingredients of republican government that did not
reduce it simply to popular majorities. But was he therefore so much
less in tune with the norms for American democracy, which is
institutionally complex, after all, than Jackson? At least the
contrast between them should not be made as sweeping as has been done.
.... WHEN ADAMS LEFT THE President's House in 1829 he had
already served in about as many high public offices as any other
person before or since. He had a resume that no American has ever been
able to match. He had not only been president of the United States; he
had also been secretary of state, a Massachusetts senator, a United
States senator, ambassador to Great Britain, and minister to the
courts of Russia, Prussia, Holland, Sweden, Portugal and France, and
he had negotiated the Treaty of Ghent after the War of 1812. He was
named (by President Madison), and confirmed, as a justice of the
United States Supreme Court, but he declined the position. He had been
appointed to high office by every one of the presidents, starting with
George Washington, until he himself was elected president -- every
one, that is, except one, and Jefferson would have appointed him if
the Adamses had been in a mood to accept. He served in more of his
nation's highest positions than any other American has ever done, more
even than Jefferson if you count it right, and more than any other
American is ever likely to do. He had also been the first Boylston
Professor of Rhetoric at Harvard, and the author of important
pamphlets on public issues in the earliest days of the republic. He
was the architect, as secretary of state, of the Monroe Doctrine, and
a major shaper of the world role of the new United States.
After he had served in all of those positions, and done all
those deeds, and been president of the United States, he might have
been expected to subside into retirement All of his predecessors --
four Virginians and his own father -- on leaving the president's
office had retired to their big (or medium-sized) houses to be sages
and exemplars outside and above the battle, with at most occasional
forays into current affairs. But John Quincy Adams, at age sixty-three
(much older then than now), battered by the fierce attacks of his
presidential years apparently swept aside by the currents of the new
politics represented by Andrew Jackson. apparently a rejected relic of
a departed past, on being offered a chance to go back into current
politics at a lowly level -- accepted!
********
In a postpresidential role unique in American history,
ex-president John Quincy Adams ran for and was elected to Congress, in
fitting symbolism, from the Plymouth district in Massachusetts. He
proceeded to serve in the House of Representatives, arguing
energetically all the while, for seventeen years. ...