Adams Family Correspondence, volume 15
Your kind favour of the 10th: instt: came to hand last evening— And I would take this
opportunity to request that all letters for me from Quincy, may be put in to the
post-office there; without waiting to send them to Boston— I shall thus get them sooner—
My own letters too I hope go directly to Quincy.— My brother I imagine will be satisfied
with the frequency of my writing or inclosing papers to him— I am often obliged merely
to send papers, but write as often and as much as I can with propriety.
We have been engaged for several days in debating upon a question
for prohibiting the slave-trade in our new of Louisiana (I leave the designation in
blank for want of a name to call it by)— We have just decided by a large majority, in
favour of the prohibition— I voted against this upon the principle that we have no right
to make any Laws for that Country at present.1
The etiquette question among the Ladies has subsided— But 331 much deeper questions between the same parties (not the Ladies though) are in agitation, for the issue of which I am not without concern.
My wife and children are well, and send their duty— The inclosed sheet of Journals is for my brother.2
Faithfully your’s
RC (Adams
Papers); addressed: “John Adams Esqr / Quincy. /
Massachusetts.”; endorsed: “J Q Adams Ja’ry 27 / 1804”;
notation by JQA: “For my mother.”
As part of its consideration over establishing a government for
Louisiana, for which see
JQA to TBA, 18 Feb., and note 1, and
JQA to JA, 20
March, and note 2, both below, the Senate debated from 24 Jan. to 1 Feb.
whether to permit slavery in the new territory. Over the course of the debate
JQA voted six times against limiting the institution. He reflected
little in his Diary on his reasons for doing so, but a running account of the debates
kept by William Plumer of New Hampshire records JQA’s belief that the
United States did not have a right to regulate Louisiana residents who had no state or
federal representation: “I am opposed to slavery; but I have in this bill voted
against the provisions introduced to prohibit & lessen it. I have done this upon
two principles, 1. That I am opposed to legislating at all for that country— 2. I
think we are proceeding with too much haste on such an important question.” Plumer
also recorded JQA’s acknowledgment of arguments by southern senators who
joined him in opposition: “Slavery in a moral sense is an evil; but as connected with
commerse it has important uses.” During the debate James Hillhouse of Connecticut
proposed a resolution directing that only enslaved people brought by settlers would be
permitted and that any others entering the territory would be immediately freed. While
that resolution was on the table, JQA was among those who on 31 Jan.
defeated an amendment proposed by John Breckinridge of Kentucky that would have
instead placed the status of such enslaved people before the courts. On 1 Feb.
JQA joined the opposition in an 18 to 11 vote approving the Hillhouse
resolution. The slavery provision remained in the final law signed by Thomas Jefferson
on 26 March; subsequent lobbying by Louisiana landowners prompted Congress to let the
legislation lapse, thereby allowing unrestricted slavery in the territory (
Annals of
Congress
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 233–234, 240–244;
U.S. Statutes at
Large
, 2:283–289; D/JQA/27, 24, 25, 26, 30,
31 Jan., 1 Feb., APM Reel 30;
Biog. Dir.
Cong.
; Plumer, Memorandum of Proceedings
, p. 114, 126; John Craig
Hammond, “‘They Are Very Much Interested in Obtaining an Unlimited Slavery’:
Rethinking the Expansion of Slavery in the Louisiana Purchase Territories, 1803–1805,”
JER
,
23:353–356 [Autumn 2003]; David Waldstreicher and Matthew Mason, eds., John Quincy Adams and the Politics of Slavery: Selections from
the Diary, N.Y., 2017, p. 15–16).
Enclosure not found.