Adams Family Correspondence, volume 15
ry10th 1804
I am indebted to You for two Letters Since I Wrote to you. Your
Letter of december 22d I thank You for, as well as the
other;1 to me your conduct wanted not
any justification or explanation. I am fully Satisfied that You have Weighed every
measure, looking much further into concequences than those who censure and condemn.
Yet I like to have some reasons to give to those who feel anxious upon the Subject. no
Man in congress is So delicately Situated, when we take into View Your Connections.
You must expect that a jealousy will be ever awake, and upon the watch upon both
Sides: I wish not to see you a cypher, nor is it [po]ssible you can be one. You have
indeed embarkd upon a tempestous [se]a, and must prepare for Storms: I shall rejoice
if the constitution does not suffer Ship wreck in the Voyage: You must not however
permit yourself to be so anxiously engaged as to injure your Health.—
Your Brother will keep you informd of the politicks here. our Newspapers are not worth a rush I think you must not omit Writing either to him or some friend in Town when you have a leisure moment. the Bostonians want to be roused and awakened from their lethargy. they act as if all was safe and no other pursuit necessary but getting money and laying up goods for many years.
I thank you for mr Tracys Speech I have read it with much interest, and trust it will have due weight with our Legislature who are now about to convene. it now remains with the States to determine Whether they will give their Throats to the knife of the assassins, or push back the dagger.—
Whether they will be self immolated, or whether they will make a bold and noble stand, and save themselves and posterity.
The points of Etiquette between the Ladies you mention ought long
ago to have been regularly Setled, but a Nation which does not respect itself, cannot
expect to receive it from others. tho this point upon which mrs Merry raises a
difficulty has not been decided in the court callender. usage has establishd it, at
least whilst I bore any part. neither Mrs Lyston or Madam deFreire took umbrage at
it.2 the Lady of the Secretary of
State had always the precedence at the table of the President, and at the drawing
Room— Mrs Merry can only do as the Dutchess Le Vauguyon did at the Hague. She refused
to make the first visit to the Princess of orange, the Princess, the 322 Daughter & Sister of a King and the consort
of a Prince, thought it descending from her Rank and dignity to yeald— the concequence
was Madam never went to Court, nor into any other Society.3 this is rather unpleasent for one who is fond
of sociability, but may be in the end no disadvantage; Some Characters shew best at a
distance— I am wholy unacquainted with all the Secretarys Ladies, the Secretary of the
Treasurys excepted with whom I have exchanged visits.4 Mrs Merry is undoubtedly a well bred Lady.
they say I Should regreet that any real umbrage
Should be given because the concequences may be unpleasent—
alass I mournd with you the death of the early Friend of your
Youth. I know it must wound your Heart he was also a Friend of many years Ripening. he
possessd a refined taste & a cultivated mind, tho to me he always appeard, upon
the wing with health, that trembled & shook at every blast— it has been the System
of those now in power to burry every federal Man by silence and neglect, however
important his Services, or faithfully he has executed them— but the Spirit of party is the spirit of Satan: if this was not sufficient to crush him, then
to load him with calumny and reproach.
We are very anxious to learn how Mrs Cranch is, yet dread to hear.5 I hope the Children are well. We Shall be very glad to See you let congress rise when it will— I do not believe it will be before March.
We are in tolerable Health. Mrs C Adams with her children, have been with us all winter. Thomas too is a pleasent addition to us— I shall write to mrs Adams—
I am my Dear son / affectionatly / Your Mother
my Respects to mr Tracy tell him I thank him for the good he intended, and trust he has done. if he does not meet with Success, he has deserved it—
RC (Adams
Papers); addressed by TBA: “John Q Adams Esqr: / Senator of the US. / City of Washington”; endorsed: “My
Mother 10. Jany: 1804. / 24. Jany: recd: / 26. Do::
Ansd:.” Some loss of text due to the placement of the
seal.
In addition to JQA’s letter of 22 Dec. 1803, AA was probably referring to his of 9 Dec., which arrived after she sent hers of 11 Dec., all above.
That is, Henrietta Marchant Liston and Agnes Frances Lockyer Freire, the wives of British minister Robert Liston and Portuguese minister Ciprão Ribeiro, Chevalier de Freire, respectively (vols. 10:319; 13:220).
AA was describing a disagreement over Dutch
diplomatic protocols between Marie Antoinette Rosalie de Pons de Roquefort, Duchesse
de La Vauguyon (1751–1824), who was the wife of Paul François de Quélen de Stuer de
Caussade, Duc de La Vauguyon, and Wilhelmina, Princess of Orange, who was a niece of
Frederick II, a sister of King Frederick William II of Prussia, and the wife of
William V, Prince of Orange and Stadholder of the Netherlands. The disagreement arose
because the duchess believed she deserved social precedence due to her 323 connection to the French royal family. The Duc de
La Vauguyon was French minister to the Netherlands from 1776 to 1784, and
JA socialized with the couple during his diplomatic tenure at The Hague
(vols. 7:325, 8:188; Jean Baptiste Pierre
Courcelles, Histoire généalogique et héraldique des pairs de
France, 12 vols., Paris, 1822–1833, 4:60; Hoefer, Nouv. biog. générale
;
JA, Papers
, 6:50;
Henriette Louise von Waldner, Baronne d’Oberkirch, Memoirs of
the Baroness d’Oberkirch, ed. Léonce, Comte de Montbrison, 3 vols., London,
1852, 2:117).
In addition to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (1766–1849), who was
married to treasury secretary Albert Gallatin, the wives of the cabinet members were
Dorcas Osgood Marble Dearborn (1752–1810), wife of Secretary of War Henry Dearborn;
Martha Waldo Lincoln (1761–1828), wife of U.S. attorney general Levi Lincoln; Dolley
Payne Todd Madison; and Margaret Smith Smith, wife of Secretary of the Navy Robert
Smith (William H. Smith, “Gen. Henry Dearborn: A Genealogical Sketch,” Maine Historical and Genealogical Recorder, 3:5 [1886];
Waldo Lincoln, “Four Generations of the Waldo Family in America,”
NEHGR
,
52:226 [April 1898]; Leo Schelbert, Historical Dictionary of
Switzerland, 2d edn., N.Y., 2014).
For the health of Nancy Greenleaf Cranch, see LCA to AA, 11 Feb. 1804, and note 2, below.
The Louisiana revenue bill (of which I sent you some time since a copy) has this day pass’d the third reading in the Senate— But with various amendments so that it must go back to the House of Representatives, where it will probably pass on Monday— The first section has been altered in point of form, and made as I conceive more vague and uncertain than it was at first— In thirty-five days from this, it will go into operation as the law of Louisiana.— I have opposed it at every stage to the utmost of my power as an outrageous violation
1. Of the natural rights of the People
of Louisiana by taxing them to pay our debts, and without their consent.
2. Of the Treaty, by which we
stipulated to protect them in the enjoyment of their liberty and property.
3. Of the Constitution of the United States, which neither contains nor could possibly contain any authority to Congress to tax the people of Louisiana without their consent.
4. Of the fundamental principle of our own Revolution, and of our national Independence.
5. Of Common Sense and common prudence, which forbid the
introduction of Laws in the Mass, in a language which the
people over whom they are to operate cannot understand, for the purpose of imposing upon
them a heavy burthen of taxation, when we know almost as little of them as they know of
us.1
The only answer given to all these objections, that had a colour of
plausibility was comprized in one word—Revenue—Money— And so 324 powerful has been
this single answer that when the yeas and nays have been taken on any question,
involving either of the principles to which I appealed, there has never been more than
three votes with me besides my own— The Stamp Act itself did not pass more triumphantly
through the British Parliament, when first introduced, than this bill will pass through
Congress.2
As the mere giving a negative vote on this bill could not have
shewn on any future occasion, the principles upon which it rested, I introduced some
days since three Resolutions, the two first of which contained fully the question as to
the rightful power of Congress to pass this Law— They were
rejected after very little discussion, without being suffered to lay one day upon the
table— The reason given for this rejection was that their tendency was dangerous, and
might rouse the Louisianians to a sense of their rights, which they are now too ignorant
to comprehend— All this goes on swimmingly; but if the principles which I advocated are
not formed of sturdier stuff than to be put down by votes of a Senate, or even Acts of a
Congress, it is time to know that they must be abandoned as solemn impostures—the mere
cant of political hypocrisy.— On finding myself almost alone in my adherence to them, I
have been diffident of my own Judgment, and fearful of some fallacy, in my own
reasoning— This I have diligently but fruitlessly sought after— Nor has any one of the
majority so strong to outvote me, attempted to point it out— Their answer is what would become of the Revenue?
My reply was—Obtain by an Amendment of the Constitution, as you can
with perfect ease between this and the next Session, explicit powers to Congress, to do,
what is stipulated in the third Article of the Treaty—3 That will comprize authority to legislate for
and tax the Louisianians with their consent, untill they
can be admitted as equal partners into the Union— Obtain also between this and the next
Session, the consent of the Louisianians, of which you are equally sure to obey your
laws for the sake of your protection—that is, an acknowledgment of allegiance— The
manner of obtaining this consent, of the Louisianians which
I proposed was, by giving them an option, similar to that stipulated in Mr: Jay’s treaty of 1794, for the settlers at the British
Posts, and requiring them within a given time to declare whether they would or would not
be subject to the authority, of the United States; and if not, permission for a limited
time to sell their property and remove.4
This would have sufficed to shew respect for the principle,
and might have been effected with perfect ease.— They would all or next to all have
staid And then a 325 revenue system may be introduced— Untill then,
govern them by their antient laws, without attempting any
alteration whatsoever— Receive the revenue collected under them, which will probably be
as much as you will eventually get by thus abruptly crowding upon them a complicated
revenue-system of your own, the work of fifteen years legislation, and in a tongue
unknown to them— If money alone were to be the object, this plan would be unwise— But
when for the sake of one year’s revenue from the single port of New-Orleans we must
trample upon the most sacred laws human and divine—I cannot do it.— Here then the matter
rests untill we see what effect the system adopted will produce— If the people there are
satisfied with it; my principles will not be disproved; but they will be held in
contempt still more than they are at present— Of this I am not unaware— But the [. . .
.] of this must be one of the things for which I ought to be prepared—
As soon as the sheet of our Journals, shall be printed, containing
my resolutions, I will send it to you;5
and with these explanations you will be on your guard against such misrepresentations,
as my conduct in this case may be exposed to with you, as they have it has been in former instances.— Meantime I am faithfully yours.
RC (MHi:Photostat Coll.); internal address: “T. B. Adams Esqr.” Some loss of text where the seal was removed.
On 30 Nov. 1803 a bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives authorizing the collection of duties on goods transported into the new
Louisiana territory. It passed the House on 19 Dec. and was introduced in the Senate
on 5 Jan. 1804. JQA opposed the bill, arguing that imposing duties on
Louisiana residents without their approval was akin to the British system of taxation
that Americans had so recently thrown off. In three resolutions offered on 10 Jan.,
JQA urged the Senate to acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution did not
confer upon the Senate the right to tax Louisiana, that imposing such taxes was
“dangerous to the liberties of the people of the United States,” and that such action
by the Senate infringed upon the House’s power to raise revenue. The Senate defeated
each resolution, the first and second by votes of 22 to 4 and the third by a unanimous
vote after JQA joined in an acknowledgment of defeat. The Senate passed
the revenue bill on 14 Jan., and Thomas Jefferson signed it into law on 26 March (
Annals of
Congress
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 226–227, 228–229, 232, 638, 781–782;
U.S. Statutes at
Large
, 2:283–289).
Although a few members of the British House of Commons attempted
to delay consideration of the proposed Stamp Act in Feb. 1765, the motion to postpone
failed by a vote of 245 to 49. The act passed with little further dissent, receiving
unanimous support without debate in the House of Lords (A
Companion to the American Revolution, ed. Jack P. Greene and J. R. Pole,
Malden, Mass., 2000, p. 121;
Parliamentary Hist.
, 16:40).
Art. 3 of the treaty between France and the United States ceding
Louisiana stated: “The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the
Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the
principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages
and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be
maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the
Religion which they profess.” JQA’s 326 transcription of
Art. 3 in French dated [1803–1804] is in the Adams Papers (Miller, Treaties
, 2:501).
JQA was referring to the treatment of occupants of
former British posts in Art. 2 of the Jay Treaty, which decreed: “All Settlers and
Traders, within the Precincts or Jurisdiction of the said Posts, … shall not be
compelled to become Citizens of the United States, or to take any Oath of allegiance
to the Government thereof, but they shall be at full liberty so to do, if they think
proper, and they shall make and declare their Election within one year after the
Evacuation aforesaid. And all persons who shall continue there after the expiration of
the said year, without having declared their intention of remaining Subjects of His
Britannick Majesty, shall be considered as having elected to become Citizens of the
United States” (Miller, Treaties
, 2:246).
William Duane & Son published the original edition of U.S. Senate, Jour.
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., and Samuel Harrison Smith likewise
published U.S. House, Jour.
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., in Washington in 1803
and 1804. On 27 Dec. 1803 (Adams Papers),
JQA also wrote TBA of his intention to send “the Journals
of the two houses sheet by sheet, as they are published.”