Diary of Charles Francis Adams, volume 1

Thursday. 15th. CFA

1824-01-15

Thursday. 15th. CFA
Thursday. 15th.

I resumed today the usual course of studies at least in part by reading two maps of America—and should have read Bacon, had I been able to find the book, but as I could not ’twas not possible. After this I went to the House and heard the last part of the speech of Mr. Wood of New York1 against the bill. Although it was decided pretty well yesterday it appears that it’s opponents are determined not to give up the ground without fighting. His arguments were close as far as I heard them and very argumentative but as his manner is unpleasant, I did not pay great attention to him. I have heard all the arguments which he used before, and it appears to me it can only be a quibble upon a word, for there are few who will not allow the expediency of the measures. He finished with a severe speech, saying that the gentleman from New Jersey, (Dr. Holcombe) the other day had spoken of a new Era. A new Era, if the gentleman meant that a new era was to rise on the ruins of the constitution; he must allow that he was very far from wishing any such thing.2 Mr. Mallary arose after him and commenced a long and dull speech against the bill. As he has the character here of being long and dull among the members I was not sorry that I was obliged to leave him. He was doing nothing but repeating the old strain.3 It appears to me hardly worthwhile to oppose this bill any longer for there is a decided majority in the House in it’s favour and now it will be hardly possible to put the bill to sleep by delay. So I left the House and walked home in order to dress time enough for the company to dinner.

Those consisted of Messrs. Brown of Ohio, De Wolfe of Rhode Island, Johnson of Kentucky and Thomas of Illinois, Members of the Senate. Messrs. Burleigh and Sibley of Maine, Call, delegate from 44Florida, Hamilton of South Carolina, Johnson of Kentucky, Lee of Maryland, Livingston of Louisiana, Martindale and Van Rensselaer of New York, Owen of Alabama, Rich of Vermont, and Rogers of Pennsylvania.4 I had the extreme honour of sitting at the corner with Mr. Jesse B. Thomas and Col. Richard M. Johnson. The former honours our house for the first time, as he has learned hypocrisy in addition to villainy which he knew long ago or if I may not call it so harsh a name, dishonourable and ungentlemanly conduct.5 Col. Richard M. is a really good natured sort of a rough Kentucky man, who got the reputation of having killed Tecumseh in the last War, without any foundation, it is said. He gave us an account of what he is more fond of probably than War, an electioneering campaign. He told us the number of years he had been in Congress, House and Senate, and how he managed to get in. How he used to play the stump orator to the admiration and with the applause of thousands, and moreover how he knocked out the heads of the whiskey barrels which was the strongest reason probably for his election. He supported this system against Mr. Rich and Mr. Van Rensselaer, opposite, who took it all coolly. This was all the diversion at dinner. John got into an awkward situation with Mr. Rich in drinking wine which made me laugh heartily. The party soon broke up and we retired.

I forgot entirely to mention here that we went to a party afterwards at Mrs. Ringgold’s,6 where we spent the evening very pleasantly. It was a singular oversight and caused by hurry, when I wrote the day. I went with the girls and John. I danced with Miss Clapham7 for the first time, a very voluptuous looking girl, with a lively black eye, and Miss Crowninshield. I also had some conversation with Dr. May, a graduate of Harvard.8 Principally concerning the Porcellian Club.9 The evening was soon over as we came late and we retired and arrived at home safe.

1.

For Silas Wood’s speech see Annals of Congress , 18 Cong., 1 sess., p. 1053–1057.

2.

The “new era,” Dr. George Holcombe announced, would be ushered in by millions of Western voters who were interested in internal improvements. Holcombe further argued that internal improvements were constitutionally warranted (same, p. 1013–1021).

3.

Rollin Carolas Mallary (1784–1831), of Vermont, maintained that Congress could build roads only under an original or exclusive grant of power by the Constitution (same, p. 1057–1063).

4.

JQA’s guests not previously identified were: Ethan Allen Brown (1776–1852); James De Wolf (1764–1837); Richard Mentor Johnson (1781–1850); Jesse Burgess Thomas (1777–1853); William Burleigh (1785–1827); Jonas Sibley (1762–1834); Richard Keith Call (1792–1862); either Francis Johnson (1776–1842) or John Telemachus Johnson (1788–1856), of Kentucky; John 45Lee (1788–1871); Edward Livingston (1764–1836); Henry Clinton Martindale (1780–1860); Stephen Van Rensselaer (1764–1839); George Washington Owen (1796–1837); Charles Rich (1771–1824); and Thomas Jones Rogers (1781–1851) ( Biog. Dir. Cong. ).

5.

Senator Thomas led an Illinois faction hostile to JQA. An ally of Crawford, he sought to embarrass and divide the Adams men by having the impending caucus offer JQA the vice-presidential nomination. That he could be linked with Crawford, chosen as second best, and, without consultation, made party to a deal infuriated the Secretary of State. See Pease, Frontier State , ch. 5, and JQA, Diary, 17, 20 Jan., 4 Feb. 1824.

6.

This paragraph was added at the end of D/CFA/3, where CFA noted that it was to be added to the present entry. Mrs. Tench Ringgold was the wife of the marshal of the District of Columbia (Cresson, Monroe , p. 472).

7.

Presumably the daughter of Josias Clapham, one of the directors of the Potomac Company.

8.

Dr. Frederick May, graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard, a businessman as well as an eminent Washington physician (Columbia Hist. Soc., Records , 31–32 [1930]:307–310).

9.

The “Porcellian” or “Pig Club” dated from 1791 and included the “bloods of Harvard,” the “most lively and convivial lads in the College.” By 1800 it had become the most aristocratic club on campus and membership in it was the capstone of undergraduate social ambition. The Porcellian motto, “Dum vivimus vivamus,” summed up the club’s purpose. See Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard , p. 181–182.

Friday. 16th. CFA

1824-01-16

Friday. 16th. CFA
Friday. 16th.

After reading my maps and having a pleasant morning conversation after breakfast on the state of parties I went to the Capitol and heard Mr. McDuffie of South Carolina deliver an argument in favour of his amendment to the Constitution respecting the election of President and Vice President of the United States.1 This man has been famous to this day only for possessing talents to be shown in future and for a most ridiculous affair of a duel with a man by the name of Cumming, in which they reviled each other for cowards for some time, met four times, twice without coming to any conclusion and twice seriously in which Mr. McDuffie was wounded both times.2 He is supposed to be an able man and is now coming out. His delivery is not popular however as I perceived the galleries thinning off as he proceeded until there was hardly a person left. I do not think him a catching orator by any means.

He commenced by telling them that he disclaimed any thing like personal or interested observations, and this might be known by the fact that this could not be passed time enough to bear upon the next election. He then tried to prove the necessity of the measure and traced to the time when complaints had first been made against this part of the constitution. He argued against the final decision in the House of Representatives as it is now laid down from three reasons. First that it was destroying the expression of the will of the majority as the smallest states had a voice equal to the largest, and by this 46means, a number of small states connected together might force a president upon far the greater number of the nation. Sectional feeling might influence these states to act together on any great interest, by which means the expression of the popular voice would be entirely disowned. Secondly, he argued that Members might be influenced by bribery which once getting a hold in this House would ruin the independence of the nation. He meant nothing disrespectful to the House, but he must describe nature not as we wish it to be, but as it is. Men would be influenced by prospects and while this was the case it could not but be an unfair mode of decision. Thirdly. If they were not bribed, almost every man was influenced in some degree, by feelings of friendship to individuals, the most just man on earth could not restrain them, his feelings would blind him to the faults of his candidate and the virtues of the opposing ones, so that he would not give a fair vote on the subject. He concluded by saying that whatever fame other men might wish, he would rest satisfied with the portion of fame allotted to him if this bill was sanctioned and became a law.

On the whole it was a sound speech but not a very interesting one, he used no figures or dashes but simply stated a course of argument which must convince every one of one point, that a change is necessary. But whether Mr. McDuffie’s amendment is the best, is a question which admits of much more doubt. It is to divide the population of the United States into a certain number of districts each of which is to choose an elector and a certain number of these will elect a president and vice president. He supported this not as perfect but as the best to be got. The former arguments though will apply with equal force against this, consequently, it would be better if any change be made to refer it without any mediation to the people directly, and in this way the people which is the important matter, will have the decision of the question in their own hands where it belongs. He sat down and the House adjourned immediately so I returned home very well satisfied with Mr. McDuffie although I do not think him the great genius he is said to be.

After dinner we went to Aunt Frye’s, that is to say four of us, John and Monsieur at home, and Miss Cranch gone yesterday which I forgot to mention in it’s proper place. Major General Brown and three daughters or two I forget which with Mrs. B.3 and Major Kirby4 were there, also Mrs. Thomson5 and her daughter Mrs. Hersant,6 who really is almost too far advanced in her pregnancy to go out at all but she buffets it through our most crowded parties. The younger part 47of us sat down and played loto, a most amazingly stupid game, so we got away as soon as possible. I could not have the conscience to speak to Mrs. Hersant consequently avoided the room. We went home early after having spent a very “mediocre” evening.

1.

On 5 December 1823 George McDuffie, a Calhounite, had asked for the appointment of a special committee to consider amending the Constitution. The plan, presented on 22 December, proposed that: (1) each state should be divided into as many districts as would equal the number of Representatives to which the state was entitled, and each district would choose one elector to vote for the President and the Vice President, and that the electors thus appointed in each state would choose the two additional electors to which the state was entitled; (2) if no candidate won a majority on the first ballot, the electors should meet immediately in their respective states and vote for one of the two persons having the highest number of votes; (3) only in the unusual event that no candidate was then able to obtain a majority of votes (McDuffie explained in a supporting speech) would Congress, voting as one body with one vote for each member, choose a President.

Calhoun’s political prospects inspired McDuffie’s amendments. Calhoun’s friends knew that he was not likely to receive the votes of the large states (committed that year to JQA or to Crawford) or of a caucus (dominated by Crawfordites that session), so they planned for the future. The votes of the people, unobstructed by political mechanisms, could elect Calhoun, they hoped. Although discussed in Congress until 1827, the proposed amendment was never approved. See Annals of Congress , 18 Cong., 1 sess., p. 801, 1067–1082; U.S., House of Representatives, Report [of the Select Committee on Amending the Constitution], 18 Cong., 1 sess., Vol. I, No. 8; Herbert V. Ames, The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (Amer. Hist. Assoc., Annual Report for 1896, Vol. II), p. 84, 89, 108, 338, 340, 342, which, however, does not accurately report McDuffie’s intentions as outlined in his speech of 16 Jan. 1824; and Bemis, JQA , 2:11–30.

2.

McDuffie’s duel with William Cumming, of Georgia, grew out of the rivalry between Calhoun and Crawford for the Presidency in 1821–1822. Injured in the spine, McDuffie was never again a well man ( DAB ).

3.

Jacob Jennings Brown (1775–1828) and his wife, the former Pamelia Williams ( DAB ).

4.

Major Edmund Kirby (Heitman, Register U.S. Army ).

5.

Possibly Mrs. Smith Thompson, whose husband was appointed a judge after his service in Monroe’s cabinet as Secretary of the Navy (JQA, Diary, 21 Jan. 1824; Bemis, JQA , 2:390).

6.

Mrs. Hersant’s husband was a member of the French legation in Washington (JQA, Diary, 11 Feb. 1820).