Adams Family Correspondence, volume 15
I inclose you together with the last sheet of the Journals of the
House of Representatives, a Report from the Secretary of the Treasury, shewing the
receipts and expenditures, upon the Seamen’s fund— You will see from this how much is
collected in New-England, and how much expended elsewhere— Look particularly at the port of
Norfolk.1
The Louisiana Government bill goes on prospering and to
prosper—2 The project is first to tax
them, then make a government for them, and at last admit them as
a State or States, by Acts of Congress, without consulting at all the People of
the United States, or the State Legislatures— And when I attempt to nip this project in
the bud, the federalists charge me with wanting to admit
the people of Louisiana, immediately to the participation
of all our rights.— As to the Constitution, it has become ridiculous to appeal to it in
these cases, for the majority have voted it out of doors.
I have at length succeeded in obtaining a final settlement of my accounts while abroad as Minister— But it has taken me three months continual harrassing at the public Offices before I could get through— After all the sifting they could make, they found the balance due to me amounted to about sixty dollars more than my own statement demanded, and they have paid me accordingly.3
Your’s.
RC (Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History,
New York); addressed: “Thomas B. Adams Esqr / Quincy /
Massachusetts.”; internal address: “T. B. Adams Esqr.”;
endorsed: “J Q Adams Esqr: / 17th: Jany 1804 / 5th:
Do: Recd: / Do: answd:”; notation by
JQA: “Free / John Quincy Adams. / S. U.
S.”
Enclosures not found. Albert Gallatin issued an 11 Jan. report on
U.S. revenue collected through customs duties and a tax on sailors’ pay to fund care
for sick and disabled seamen. The report noted the collection of $64,887 in 31 New
England ports from Sept. 1798 through June 1802, approximately 38 percent of the
$172,190 collected nationwide. Spending in the port of Norfolk, Va., was $25,613, or
about 23 percent of the $113,137 spent nationwide during the same period, an outlay
attributed in part to the purchase of a building for use as a hospital (
Amer. State Papers,
Commerce and Navigation
, 7:538–541).
For the Louisiana government bill, see JQA to TBA, 18 Feb. 1804, and note 1, below.
For JQA’s accounts with the United States, see his letter to AA of 1 Nov. 1801, and note 1, above.
I do not take the Washington Federalist; and it is now in general
so poorly conducted as hardly to be worth sending you if I did— But I sent you some time
since one of its numbers, and will send you others if they should contain any thing
interesting to the fire-side.
1
I can also inclose to you the Intelligencer which contains a pretty good report of the debates in the House— Those in the Senate are not reported at-all, unless upon some favourite topic— And as hearers are now shut out from our floor, we are as undisturbed as if the galleries were always closed— I am not sorry for this—for if our debates were reported I am afraid the fire-side itself would think me too loquacious.
Louisiana Revenue, Louisiana Government, and AMERICAN (say read FOREIGN) Seamen, are now the important topics
of controversy— You will mark in the Journals and papers I send you the progress of the
two first—the third is meant to drive us into a War with England, and I fear will answer
its purpose— Yet as the TITLE of the bills is for
the protection of American Seamen, and Seamen of the United States, when I attacked its frantic provisions,
at the second reading, I wish you had seen the hornet’s nest that burst down upon my
head on the first day’s debate— Not a soul supported me in my principle, and half the
federalists declared against me— However they at last thought it was worth thinking a
little more about, and at the second day’s debate the federalists rallied a little, and
the others began to stagger— Tuesday it is to come on again— My amendment will be
rejected, I suppose unanimously—or at least next to it— Some modification however will
take place, but not enough to make the Law consistent with the Laws of Nations.—2 The project is a deep-laid one, and they
thought, by the colour of protecting American Seamen to
scare all opposition out of doors— The fraud however is 328 detected and I hope will be exposed. There is not one single word for the protection
of American Seamen in either of the bills— It is to protect British Seamen, deserting
from the British service, and contriving to get on board an American Merchant vessel,
even within the British Jurisdiction— To protect a sailor, who may desert from a Man of
War in the river Thames, against impressment by his lawful Commander.— Judge of the
principle and its inevitable consequences.
Adieu.
RC (Adams
Papers); endorsed: “John Q Adams Esqr: / 22d: Jany 1804 / 3d: Feby Recd: / 5th: Answd:.”
No letter from JQA to TBA enclosing a
copy of the Washington Federalist, has been found; he may
have been referring to the enclosure mentioned in his letter to AA of 22 Dec. 1803, and
note 3, above. Former Richmond, Va., printer William Alexander Rind was editor of the
newspaper from its founding in 1800 until 1807 (Douglas C. McMurtrie, A History of Printing in the United States, 2 vols., N.Y.,
1936, 2:265).
The renewal of war between Great Britain and France in May 1803
dramatically increased the British Navy’s need for crewmen. The result was an
intensified campaign of British impressment of sailors from American vessels. Only
British seamen were ostensibly subject to impressment, but Americans who could not
prove their citizenship or who were recently naturalized were often taken. The problem
was exacerbated by impressed British subjects who sought refuge under the American
flag. A series of actions by Congress sought to address impressment. On 10 Jan. 1804
Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland introduced an anti-impressment bill in the House
of Representatives, while on 14 Jan. Samuel Smith, also of Maryland, introduced a
companion bill in the Senate that authorized the president to bar from U.S. ports any
vessels involved with impressment of foreign sailors. The Senate debated the bill on
18 and 19 Jan., during which time the amendment JQA mentioned failed. The
bill was tabled until 27 Feb. and then postponed until December. Facing opposition
from both sides of the aisle, the bill never became law. A 20 Jan. letter from
JQA to William Smith Shaw (DLC:John Quincy Adams Papers), making similar arguments as those advanced in
this letter, was extracted in the Philadelphia Gazette of the
United States, 18 Feb. (Madison, Papers, Secretary of State Series
, 6:215–216; U.S. House, Jour.
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 524; A Bill to
Provide for the Further Protection of American Seamen, Washington, D.C., 1804,
Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 7485; U.S. Senate, Jour.
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 338, 341, 342, 366; A Bill Further to Protect the Seamen of the United States,
Washington, D.C., 1804, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 7442; Plumer,
Memorandum of Proceedings
, p. 109–110, 146–147;
Paul A. Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights in the War of
1812, N.Y., 2013, p. 174–176).