The Fight Against Slavery in the U.S. House of Representatives

[Time for change]

Many Americans today, including many or most DUers, believe that our current government is taking us down the road to tyranny. As Plaid Adder recently said: “If the Bush administration did start interning his political opposition, what would happen? Would the courts stop it? Would Congress? Would the people? How? I don't see it.” I share these concerns and the sense of oppression that they engender, and I have posted about them on the DU at least three times.

Sometimes it helps one’s morale, when faced with dark situations, to consider how similar problems have been overcome in the past. The institution of slavery, which shamed our country from its inception until the Civil War that eradicated slavery almost a century later, was every bit as evil as the torture policies of today’s Bush administration, and it reminds me of them in many ways: They both have deep roots in racism; they were/are both aggressively defended by a powerful, wealthy and ruthless group of individuals; they were/are both a great threat to our democracy; and they both disgrace(d) our nation in the eyes of the civilized world.

The fight against slavery in our country was fought on many different fronts, both within and outside of our government. Within our government, the earliest and most effective and vigorous opponent of slavery was a Congressman from Massachusetts, and ex-President of the United States.

Why John Quincy Adams did not address the slavery issue while he was President is not clear to me. Copious entries in his diaries have made it clear that all his adult life his heart was not only passionately anti-slavery, but well beyond that, as exemplified by an entry which noted the “false and heartless doctrine which makes the first and holiest rights of humanity depend on the color of the skin”. Perhaps he believed that had he addressed the issue as President it would have aroused so much hostility that he would not only have failed to affect the slavery issue, but he would not have been able to accomplish anything else during his Presidency either.

Adams was elected to a Massachusetts seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1830, two years after he was soundly defeated in his bid for a second term as President. He served in the House for the remainder of his life, beginning his long fight against slavery shortly after being elected to his first term, and against our Mexican War several years later, before dying in 1848 at the age of 80. The story of his courageous fight against slavery is told by William Lee Miller in his wonderful book “Arguing About Slavery – John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress”. Miller’s story centers around Adams’ opposition to the notorious “gag rule”.


The effort by southern Congressmen to silence opposition to slavery in the U.S. House of Representatives

In those days speaking against slavery by government officials was about as taboo as anything could be. We have our own taboos today, including the suggestion that a Presidential election was stolen, that our corporate media is heavily right wing and operates against our interests, or that a Presidential administration might have been complicit in an attack against our country. In the 1830s, speaking against slavery was every bit as taboo as those things.

Why was speaking against slavery taboo? For similar reasons as why those other things are taboo today: Slavery was then, and had always been, completely inconsistent with the principles upon which our country was founded. Both our Declaration of Independence and the first ten amendments to our Constitution (The Bill of Rights) speak of sacred principles which are the antithesis of slavery (notwithstanding the fact that our Constitution allowed its existence). Though southern slave-holding politicians would for several decades make every attempt to put slavery in the best light possible, they certainly must have known deep down that it was not consistent with the principles that they were elected to serve, and therefore they must have realized that the more slavery was talked about the more the contradictions between the ideals and the reality of their country would become evident, as would their own great hypocrisy.

As early as 1828, anti-slavery petitions from the constituents of various northern Congressmen had been trickling into Congress, presented by those Congressmen, including Adams, but never with the avowed approval of those petitions by the Congressmen presenting them. And they were easily disposed of without much discussion or notice.

But by late 1835 petitions from constituents “praying for” (i.e., requesting) the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia (for which “states’ rights” could not be an issue) were flowing into Congress. And then, in December of 1835, Congressman William Slade of Vermont presented an anti-slavery petition and had the temerity not only to agree with the petitioners but to add some rousing anti-slavery speeches of his own.

All of this put the southern members of Congress in a very difficult position. They not only vehemently disagreed with the petitioners, but they were tremendously insulted by them, as indicated by their reference to the petitioners as “fanatics”, “murderers” and “fiends of hell”. The main question was how vigorously and disrespectfully to reject the petitions. On the one hand, the most radical southerners wanted to reject them with a forceful disrespect that would be proportionate to the great insult to their honor that the petitions had engendered. But on the other hand, being too disrespectful towards the petitions might be seen not just as rejecting the anti-slavery movement, but as holding in contempt the sacred First Amendment rights of Americans to petition their government.

The issue was eventually resolved with the infamous “gag rule”, introduced in May of 1936 by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. The gag rule stipulated that “Petitions involving slavery would be automatically tabled, without any reference to committee, without any printing, without any member’s having to make a tabling motion, and without any response”.


The opposition to the gag rule by Adams and others

The gag rule was voted on and easily passed, but not without the opposition of many northerners, including Adams, who stated among other things, “I hold the resolution to be a direct violation of the constitution of the United States, the rules of this House, and the rights of my constituents.”

The gag rule then became, in the U.S. House of Representatives, the focus of the anti-slavery movement for almost the next nine years, until it was finally repealed in December 1844.

Adams was the most prominent figure in that fight. When presenting anti-slavery petitions he would generally maintain that his main purpose was not that he agreed with the petitions (and he often said that he didn’t agree with them), but rather that he was fighting for the sacred First Amendment rights of Americans to petition their government. This was a tactical decision, based on the consideration that speaking for the First Amendment was much more acceptable than speaking against slavery. But in so doing, over the course of those nine years he would introduce abolitionist petitions by the thousands, from his own constituents as well as from those of other states.

His attacks against the gag rule involved repeated motions to repeal it, as well as attempts to get around it by finding any number of ingenious ways to draw the slaveholders into discussions on slavery. For example, one time he requested that he introduce 350 petitions simultaneously, and that he be allowed to make a brief summary speech about them – which would have violated the gag rule. And then he warned that if he was not allowed to make the speech he would be forced to introduce each petition individually, which would take two days of his colleagues’ time.

Another way to get around the gag rule was to introduce petitions that did not mention slavery per se, but which bore on related subjects that would be sure to draw slavery into the conversation once the discussion started. For example, Adams introduced numerous petitions praying that Texas not be annexed to the Union – which would increase the power of the slaveholders substantially by adding another large slave state to the Union. In doing this, Adams not only created a good deal of debate on slavery but was probably instrumental in causing the Van Buren administration to call off plans for the annexation of Texas (though Texas was annexed a few years later).

And on another occasion he introduced a motion to repeal any law that was not consistent with the Declaration of Independence. Of course the slaveholders had to defeat this motion of Adams – which they did – because passing it would mean the end of slavery.

One of Adams’ favorite ploys was to make statements which so inflamed slaveholders that they could not be silent, so that their counter-attacks on Adams would begin long discussions of slavery-related issues – as when he offered the opinion that the President had the right, during time of war, to emancipate slaves in areas where the fighting is occurring. Or as when he introduced petitions that questioned the consistency between the institution of slavery and the U.S. Constitution. And if that ploy didn’t work, he would sometimes taunt the slave-holders by pointing out that the more they tried to
repress discussion on slavery the more visible it would become, as in this speech:

Gentlemen of the South… Why will you not discuss this question?... If you are so firm, so confident, so immovably resolute, why will you not speak?... Show us the blessings of this institution. Give us your reasons…. Perhaps we shall come round.

Attacks on Adams

Needless to say, these tactics resulted in frequent malicious attacks against Adams. He was warned by one Congressman that he could be prosecuted for his speeches on the House floor on the charge of attempting to incite a slave insurrection. And as time went on he started receiving immense outpourings of abusive mail, including death threats. And on three separate occasions the House attempted to censure him.

The first occasion of an attempt to censure Adams arose when he actually requested permission to present a petition from slaves! The slaveholders became apoplectic at this suggestion, and some even wanted to expel Adams from the House for this great insult to their honor. In response, Adams eloquently defended the right of slaves to petition the government:

If this House decides that it will not receive petitions from slaves, under any circumstances, it will cause the name of this country to be enrolled among the first of the barbarous nations… When you establish the doctrine that a slave shall not petition because he is a slave, that he shall not be permitted to raise the cry for mercy, you let in a principle subversive of every foundation of liberty, and you cannot tell where it will stop.

Adams not only did not mind the attempts to censure him, he positively encouraged them, knowing that once a motion against him arose, he would have the opportunity to speak as long as he wanted in defense of himself, and that in so doing he could raise any issue that he desired. So it came to be that, as a motion to remove Adams from his position as Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee was being considered for presentation, Adams actually presented it himself. The motion said that Adams was “possessed of a species of monomania on all subjects connected with people as dark as a Mexican, and therefore could not be trusted to deal with important policy issues touching on Mexico”. After presenting this motion, Adams used it as an excuse to initiate a discussion against slavery.

And the slave-holders tried to censure him one last time following Adams’ attempt to present a petition from his constituents that prayed for the dissolution of the Union, so that they would no longer have to be associated with slavery. On this occasion Adams’ friends and allies tried to table the motion, but Adams would have none of that, and he voted against the motion to table, saying, “Let’s have it out. Let’s see if you can censure me”. When the motion to table failed, Adams then used the opportunity to pound away at his favorite subject for a week, with abolitionist material given to him by his abolitionist friends. And then petitions flowed in against the censuring of Adams, so many that the effort to censure him was called off. And the next day Adams presented 200 more petitions.


Adams on the role of women in politics

Another thing that infuriated many of the slave-holders was that a good majority of the petitioners and signatories were women. This touched off a debate in the House as to the proper role of women in politics, including their right to petition. Adams’ response to this was:

Why does it follow that women are fitted for nothing but the cares of domestic life?... But I say that the correct principle is, that women are not only justified, but exhibit the most exalted virtue when they do depart from the domestic circle, and enter on the concerns of their country, of humanity, and their God.

And when someone pointed out that it made little sense to allow women the right to petition, since they had no right to vote, Adams responded:

Is it so clear that they have no such right… And if not, who shall say that this argument of the gentleman’s is not adding one injustice to another?

The final years of Adams and the gag rule

By 1841 Adams was tiring out (but with no intention of quitting). He was 74 years old then, which was a ripe old age for that era. Here is an entry from Adams’ diary that shows how exhausted he was getting from his fight:

All the devils in hell are arrayed against any man who now in this North American Union shall dare to join the standard of Almighty God to put down the African slave-trade; and what can I, upon the verge of my 74th birthday, with a shaking hand, a darkening eye, a drowsy brain, and with all my faculties dropping from me one by one, as the teeth are dropping from my head – what can I do for the cause of God and man, for the progress of human emancipation, for the suppression of the African slave-trade? Yet my conscience presses me on…

And as he aged he tended to lose his former restraint, as shown in this reply from Adams on the House floor, in response to a man who suggested that his actions could result in a civil war:

Though it cost the blood of millions of white men, let it come. Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

And then, in December of 1844, Adams finally won his fight against the gag rule. It was voted down, never to return, largely due to the defection of Northerners from the opposing party (the Democratic Party), who could no longer stomach their southern slave-holding fellow party members.

Adams continued in the House for three more years. He slumped over his desk in the House on February 21, 1848, when he was 80 years old, and died in a committee room of the House two days later. Ironically, a first term Congressman from Illinois – whose thinking on slavery was very similar to that of Adams, and who would continue Adams’ fight and cause many of his goals and prophecies to come to fruition, though not without paying an enormous price – was sitting two rows behind him at the time.


The gag rule fight in the U.S. House in perspective

As we all know, slavery was ended in the United States a little more than 18 years following the death of the gag rule, and there were many causes that came together to produce this monumental achievement. What role in this achievement was played by the fight in the U.S. House of Representatives to end the gag rule? Here is Miller’s take on that question:

The slave-holders saw all that petitioning and arguing as a potentially dangerous enemy, and they … over-responded, and by that revealing over-response, they inadvertently strengthened the position they opposed. They gave Adams and others the evidence and the occasion to dramatize the conflict between slavery and the core American ideals of civil liberty; they provided Adams the opportunity to show both the intransigence and the imperialism – that is, the willingness to reach an imperious hand into…. what a public would begin to see and fear as the slave power.

What is the potential of today’s Democratic leaders to reverse the course of our country?

Given that current polls indicate a great opportunity for Democrats to wrest control of Congress from the Party of tyranny, what is the potential of our Democratic leaders to change the course of our country? Do any of them have the potential for the type of leadership exhibited by John Quincy Adams in his fight against slavery? I see a great deal of potential on that score. Just to name a few high profile Democrats who I believe have exhibited that kind of potential:

Al Gore has led the effort to bring the dangers of global warming to the attention of the American public and has been a leading critic of the Bush administration.

Wesley Clark has been an outspoken critic of the ill advised military adventures, as well as the torture policies of the Bush administration, and he has been a leading advocate of acting to stop the genocide in Darfur.

John Kerry led the effort in the U.S. Senate to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal, along with its role in perpetuating the drug trade.

John Conyers has been the leading voice in Congress for election reform and for exposing the many crimes against our Constitution perpetuated by the Bush administration.

Barbara Boxer became the first Senator in over a century to officially protest the results of a presidential election.

Howard Dean was the most outspoken and earliest critic of the Bush administration and its war of all the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004.

John Edwards has long been one of our most outspoken advocates of the need to address poverty in our country.

Russ Feingold was the only U.S. Senator to initially vote against the U.S. PATRIOT Act, and also introduced a censure motion against Bush in the U.S. Senate for violating our Fourth amendment with his domestic warrantless spying program.

Richard Durbin made a great speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate to bring the attention of the world to our disgraceful abuse of prisoners.

Dennis Kucinich has long been one of the leading opponents of the Iraq War, one of the leading advocates of election reform, and one of the greatest proponents of a large range of liberal causes in our Congress.

And Cynthia McKinney was the only one of our elected representatives to publicly question the role of the Bush administration in the 9-11 attacks on our country.

I think that any one of these people would turn our country around if they were in charge, and I would be thrilled to have any one of them as our next President.

[DaveJ]

1. Kicked and Recommended!

Although it's a lengthy read it's worthwhile to consider the history of slavery in America and it's implications on current culture. Although "inconsistent with the principles upon which our country was founded," slavery is in fact a problem in the U.S. Maybe "slavery" is not the exactly right word to use, but there is some manifestation of slavery that exists today, a sort of economic cannibalism, a compulsion to use productive citizens to profit the rich while leaving them in a submissive role in life. Republicans embrace the idea of economic cannibalism. Democrats, as I see it, thrive to create a world where everyone's potential is treated with the respect it deserves. Republican support of corporations that tell people what they can't achieve is the best example of this. People are expected to keep their bosses interests a top priority, keep their credit score high, and keep their mouths shut until it's time for them to die. Republicans do not support progress but this sort of slavery, economic cannibalism with no signs of respect for humanity.

[Karenina]

2. Slavery is the right word.

K&R.

[Time for change]

7. That's why Republicans promote economic policies that keep unemployment

relatively high. With high unemployment people have to be extremely careful to please their bosses because losing their job would be a catastrophe. And of course it also helps when our laws make it extremely difficult for unions to exist and prevail.

[Time for change]

3. Economic cannibalism

You won't find any argument from me there. People want a fighting chance to have a decent life.

Corporations in our country today have all the advantages. They're given a charter to operate by the government, and then they use their abundance of money to gain all sorts of favors from the government. Since the Reagan era, our government has pretty much turned a blind eye to the violation of anti-trust laws, they have deregulated industry to the great detriment of the good majority of people in our country, and they're even given corporate welfare because that keeps the campaign donations coming in. And on top of that, they're considered "persons" with respect to Constitutional rights, though they have few of the responsibilities of real persons. Enron was just the tip of the iceburg. And then our Republican ideologues call that an "unfettered free market".

Here's something I wrote about that recently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2130163

[AspenRose]

4. K&R: I gave you vote #5

Kudos also to Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Corrine Brown, who actually referred to the election of 2000 as a 'coup.'

[Time for change]

6. Thank you Rose - The more we find out about that election the more obvious

that it was a coup. They did so many things to steal that election, but probably the worst was the deliberate disenfranchisement of several thousand "close computer matches" of ex-felons -- the good preponderence who were African-American.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. IMO, one unspoken "gag rule" we have right now is the role of "energy

security" in our foreign policy.

Why did Dubya invade Iraq? Every reason he's given has proven to be a deliberate lie.

But reading Jim Baker and others who pinpointed Saddam's potiential for disrupting oil flows in 2001 and before provides a more logical explanation than the WH has supplied. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2327059&mesg_id=2327059 .

IMO, the Democratic politician who first raises American dependence on imported oil in the context of disengaging from Iraq could be greeted as a truth-teller just as historically bold as John Quincy Adams.

IMO, an article of impeachment against Dubya should be devoted to the secret "Energy Task Force" Cheney was tasked to head, and the domestic corruption and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraw casualties that may have flowed from it.

[Time for change]

8. You're right about that

One thing that the right wing/Republicans can't stand is for anyone to talk publicly about anything which attacks the "honor" of our country. What those idiots don't understand, because they're morally bankrupt, is that our "honor" is disgraced not by the messengers but by those who commit the evil actions. Therefore, when Richard Durbin talks on the Senate floor about our disgraceful prisoner abuse or Cynthia McKinney questions the role of the Bush administration in the attacks on our country, or when John Kerry protested the Vietnam war, or when Barbara Boxer questioned the integrity of the Ohio election, these people were castigated by Republican assholes for staining the "honor" of the United States.

Here is some important words from Dennis Kucinich about the need to resist war with Iran, which the Bush administration is intent upon, for the reasons you mention.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14293

[tblue37]

9. You wrote:

Why John Quincy Adams did not address the slavery issue while he was President is not clear to me.

Don't forget that the Founders deliberately created a powerful legislature and a weak executive. He might well have figured he would have more impact as a repesentative than as a president.

[Time for change]

10. But as a Congressman he was only one out of 435

It's hard for me to believe that he thought he would have more power as a Congressman as President.

Rather, I think that he may have been overwhelmed with his responsibilities as President, as many Presidents are (but certainly NOT Reagan or W), and tackling the issue of slavery was such a monumental task that be believed (probably correctly) that it would destroy his presidency if he tried.

By the time he became a Congressman he had probably matured some, and he probably told himself that he may as well spend the rest of his life fighting for what he felt was right, and throw caution to the wind. He had done just about everything by that time, and probably figured that there was nothing left to lose.

At least, that's the way I see it.

And even though he didn't address the issue as President, I still greatly admire him.

And also, he may have deeply regretted the fact that he didn't address the issue as President.

[Bucky]

13. Actually one of about 210 Congressmen

In the 1830s the House was much smaller than it is now

[RoyGBiv]

18. I'm sorry it's hard to believe...

It happens to be at least partly true.

The Presidency as we know it did not exist when JQ occupied the office. The modern Presidency, in the largest sense, was made by Jackson, Lincoln, and both the Roosevelts. But, it was not until the Cold War that the President was systematically handed the kind of power that he wields today.

As a related aside, this is one of the reasons that secessionist claims about the effects of Lincoln's election were so absurd. He had absolutely zero power to affect the institution of slavery. The bizarre irony is that the act of, not just secession, but armed rebellion is what gave Lincoln the power to do anything at all, and even then, he waited 2 years before doing so.

In any case, the reasons JQ didn't address the issue of slavery as President on the level he somewhat accidentally did as a Congressman later are complex to explain because Adams was a very complex man, but none of it is entirely secret. Miller's book about the so-called "gag rule" is an excellent story and told with a high level of skill, but it is short in many areas on the actual history, particularly on the level of providing a clear context.

If you're interested, I'd personally suggest the most recent work by Paul Nagel to answer some of your questions about Adams and slavery that I even think you couple apply to the thesis. But, to do so truly requires a realization and full reckoning of the fact that the structure of our government in the early 19th century only vaguely resembles what exists today.

P.S. K&R, btw. FWIW, I don't entirely agree with this thesis, but your entire piece is a valuable read.

[Time for change]

20. Thank you Roy - That's a good point about the changing nature of the

Presidency. Yet, I still find it hard to explain why he was apparently so silent about the issue of slavery during his Presidency, considering how deeply he felt about the issue.

Anyhow, thanks for the recommendation of Nagel's book. I'll try to take a look at that.

What part of Miller's thesis do you disagree with.

[RoyGBiv]

23. Miller's thesis ...

I don't disagree with Miller's thesis, as such. I have an issue with the way he framed the subject, and your reaction to it is part of why. He leaves you with a lack of understanding of why Adams could seemingly all of a sudden stand up before Congress and proclaim that justice should bring down the walls of Congress before allowing that Congress to substitute morality for bureaucratic expediency. Well, Adams didn't "all of a sudden" do that after being an inept President that never addressed the issue at all. He *did* address slavery, to the degree he saw himself as able according to confines of his office.

The fight against the gag rule was a dramatic, defining moment, one of many "first salvos" in the impending civil war, and in that context it was very much about slavery. So, the title of the book is accurate on that level as an argument about slavery. But, to Adams, it was also about the right of the people to offer dissent and about the role of Congress in hearing it and acting upon it if so moved. Adams was his father's son, every bit as much a brooding, high strung intellectual who tried to dissect every argument, every issue into its most fundamental elements. He was also somewhat in awe of his father, one of the architects of the Republic, and in that context Adams saw himself as the heir to that tradition via a new role as protector of the Founders' vision. Fundamentally, the Revolution germinated on the idea of representation in government, the philosophical notion of the social contract in other words. Adams saw the gag rule as breaking the contract and thus breaking the foundation of the Republic, and in *that* context, it was about something far more reaching than the issue of slavery itself..

Miller addresses this to some extent, but he downplays it, in part, I believe, because he himself doesn't truly understand it. I've exchanged some correspondence with Miller about his work, and I learned that he approaches all his subjects in this manner. He sees the historical "event" or series of events in a certain context, and that's what he seeks to explore, often ignoring in his own research information and lines of inquiry that do not directly address the thesis he is wanting to make. (He did much the same with Lincoln and with less insightful results, imo.) He sees the gag rule in the context of the fight over slavery, which is valid, but not complete.

[Time for change]

26. .

Actually, I don't believe that my impression that Adams didn't address slavery came from Miller's book (though it's possible that might have been part of it). I don't recall Miller addressing that issue, and I don't have my books with me now (because a fire in my house has temporarily required me to move out of my house) so I can't check on it. But I do remember that, in reading another biography of JQA I was surprised to note that it said virtually nothing about his thoughts on the issue of slavery during his presidency. Perhaps that biography was incomplete, and perhaps you are right in saying that Adams addressed it "to the degree he saw himself as able according to confines of his office." But I'm pretty sure that my impression that he didn't address it came from reading at least one other book (a biography on JQA) that was completely silent on the subject.

With regard to the issue of Adams' concern with the gag rule because of his concern with slavery vs. his concern with the gag rule as an important instrinsic issue (i.e. relating to our first ammendment rights), I did get the impression from Miller's book that Adams was very concerned with both issues. He did have to tone down his concern with slavery for political/tactical reasons, of course. But I didn't get the sense that Miller was down playing Adams' concern with the first ammendment issue, in that my impression from reading his book was that that issue was very important to Adams (though in this post I focused on the slavery issue).

[Time for change]

11. JQA reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter

Both were one term Presidents who were much maligned during their Presidency and afterwards. Both were deeply committed to human rights in an era when human rights was not a popular issue in our country; and after what many considered to be relatively unsuccessful Presidencies they both committed the remainder of their lives to continue their pursuit of expanding human rights.

[Time for change]

12. A striking parallel to the situation we find ourselves in today

Slavery violated the principles on which our country was founded (notwithstanding the fact that our Constitution allowed it). Despite the fact that it was accepted by most white people in the 19th century, it was inconsistent with our stated basic principles, both from the Declaration of Independence and from the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

Similarly, our current administration plans to strip us of all the rights given to us in our Constitution. Bush and his accomplices are above the law, and they get away with it largely because our news media make every effort to hush it up, and most people in this country have been too apethetic to object strongly.

The treatment of so-called "terrorists" held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere differs little from that dealt out to the slaves of the 18th and 19th century.

But unlike the situation in the 18th and 19th century, we have a Constitution to protect us. But it won't protect us unless we insist on it. And up until now, too few people in this country have insisted on it.

[Somawas]

14. My guess would be that Adams

felt that preservation of the Union was more important than abolition. Until 1863 and the Emancipation proclamation, abolition was not a war issue in the Civil War. It started out being about preserving the Union.

[Time for change]

16. I don't understand why you say that

Preservation of the Union was not an issue that Adams dealt with. His efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives were directed towards talking about slavery and repealing the gag rule, not saving the Union. The Civil War didn't start until twelve years after he died, so I don't see what that has to do with it. And many of his statements indicated that he considered the abolition of slavery of tremendous importance.

[Somawas]

22. The gag rule

among other things would indicate more than a little concern that the slave states would have considered secession long before 1860. The secession debates make it pretty clear that they had entertained the idea earlier. But why have a gag rule if there isn't something to lose?

[Time for change]

29. Ok, I see your point

But still, I believe that Adams was more concerned about slavery.

See RoyBGiv's comments on this in post number 24.

[RoyGBiv]

24. It has a lot to do with it ...

The idea of a civil war had been bandied about very recently. The first steps toward a secessionist ideology had already been taken. Adams was well aware of the interconnectedness of it all.

However, you're right for the wrong reason. Adams thought he was "saving the Union" by railing against slavery as an issue and the gag rule as a part of a larger debate over founding principles. That said he was also not beyond suggesting that the Union should, on a moral basis, fail if slavery were allowed to continue into perpetuity. His "though the Heavens fall" comment on justice was very much a warning that slavery was a cancer in the Republic's heart and would tear it apart. He made a lot of statements on that score that a man of lesser stature could not have made.

[Time for change]

28. Yes, I remember that now

I guess I spoke too fast in response to somawas' comment. I was thinking about what I had read about JQA -- and all the other stuff about southern succession threats had escaped me. But in my reading about JQA, from Miller and elsewhere, I don't remember that being a big issue with him.

I think you capture the whole thing in a nutshell with this:

"... he was also not beyond suggesting that the Union should, on a moral basis, fail if slavery were allowed to continue into perpetuity. His "though the Heavens fall" comment on justice was very much a warning that slavery was a cancer in the Republic's heart and would tear it apart. He made a lot of statements on that score that a man of lesser stature could not have made."

I think that says it all, and that's what I take away from reading Miller's book. If you believe that slavery was a cancer on the heart of our country, which Adams did, then you would put your efforts into getting rid of it, and your concern about saving the country might not be as evident.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. Feingold or Durbin

Both are passionate and sincere men. They are not pandering types but, fight for what they truly believe in and are both passionate about human rights and helping people. Justice.

[Time for change]

17. Yes, I agree

Either one would make a very good, possibly a great President.

[nealmhughes]

19. This is an excellent essay. However, I would like to differ a bit on your

interpretation of slavery vis a vis racism. The two fueled one another, I have determined through 3 years of graduate school under Geroge Rabel and Kari Frederickson at U. Alabama. From primary source material, it seems that the historic English image of the "black" was that of primitive, uncultured and in need of supervision -- precisely the same thing the English said of the Irish.

Once Spain's model of chattel slavery was in place in the Americas, British America still was pretty much a blank slate, it had no real experience in chattel slavery in recent times, and the common law held that a person's claim upon the labor and person of the other had to be the claimant's burden of proof in court, that is to say, that all were presumed to be free under the common law.

Of course England and America knew about indentures and leases, and when the first shipload of blacks were landed in Virginia in 1619 and their persons and labor bought on the block, they still didn't know what to make of the institution. Life was very short in Old Virginia, and many did not wish to make the trip when disease, famine and massacre might await, therefore, it became economically advantageous to my noble ancestors in the Tidewater to buy men...and then women...and to create a permanent stock of permanent labor that was outside the realm of the common law.
As lifespans grew, and tobacco became even more profitable, then rice and indigo as the Carolinas were settled, the institution grew. In early colonial Maryland, many thought that 7 years would be the term of indentureship, which was max and custom in the Old World. Others thought disagreed, and thought that it could be permanent, but only for those who had converted to Xity and served seven years... It was all up in flux for a while, but eventually made statute.

Preachers, gentlemen historians and the talking heads of their day got together and nixed all the arguments: Black = Slave.

At the same time, it seems that when confronted with the reality of enslaved children growing and maturing at exactly the same rate as their caucasian cohorts, they were staring the fallacy of the "inferiority" argument in their faces. So upon what to turn? Why the mark of Ham and false logic such as "Ham's sons were marked, and Africa has no 'great civilizations' (yeah, right...) therefore they are naturally inferior and deserve to be our poor charges...

I honestly believe that whites "chose" blacks for slavery since they were strangers stranded in a foreign continent after the trauma of kidnap and transport and were obviously marked by their skin tone and hair as being "different" therefore they had little chance to escape, although many did, and many tribes accepted them into membership, while others bought and sold slaves as well as whites...

Once blacks were equated with chattel, all the repugnance of the common law, plain common sense as well as holy writ were not enough for them to overcome their selfishness.

The two books that influenced me the most were George M. Fredrickson's The Black Image in the White Mind and Charles Joyner's Down by the Riverside. And of course, Genovese's various Marxist interpretations of slavery. Everyone interested in them should read these three!

[Time for change]

21. Thank you neal - I've thought a lot and read a lot about this issue over

the years, but not the books that you mention. Thanks for the references, I would do the same for you, but I don't have my books with me (because we recently had a fire in my house, so I'm living in a hotel until it's repaired), and I can't remember the names or authors of the ones I've considered the best

Anyhow, it's not clear to me where you disagree with me. You talk about a lot of information that I didn't deal with, but I don't understand what it is you feel we disagree about.

[nealmhughes]

25. It was just a nuance. That slavery, per se, preceded racism and vice

a... Just a nuance. Slavery in British America could only have been done in modern times by a colonial society and a "foreign" one at that. The only society which met those criteria was that of Colonial Virginia (slavery did spread even all the way to New England eventually) and Barbados. The British had their own notions of the inferiority of several people, the Irish included, and "black" was one of the negative terms they applied to them.

Slavery and racism are so nuanced in their ties that it is hard to forget that many in England considered the Irish to be subhuman. So it is not "color" per se that fueled the desire to enslave. The fact that Africans were available as "differentiated others" on social, religious and "racial" levels only made them prime targets for enslavement once the English literally learned how to do it! They only had the Spanish and the Turks in Modern Times and the Bible as models.

I studied this for three years, and I still don't know nearly as much as others do. It can drive you crazy, there are self-contradictions, but that is one of the risks of trying to talk about groups when one only has individuals to use as reference. But that is the historians task, to try to make sense of all of the individuals and write an overarching narrative. Frederickson is fantastic at it, starting with the Irish and going thru the various images. I have applied his study to my analyses of Jewish southerners in my own writing.

Frederickson shows how a person can claim "blacks are vicious" and then "blacks are docile" in the next sentence. B.S. Blacks were just people, some in slave times were "vicious", I am sure, and some "docile."

Joyner shows how the South was formed by a combination of cultures in the Low Country and that both white and black cotributed to our common American culture. While his is an area study, he tends towards broader interpretation as does Frederickson.

Genovese is basicly doing a standard economic argument and shows how the southern white culture was trying to become "paternalistic" towards the slaves towards its demise, as the tragedy seemed to be unreconcilable in their minds, so they opted for kinder treatment...while preserving their economic interests.

I loved all the part on JQA! It is odd, for I have thought of him and Dennis Kucinich, Conyers and Clark in regards to the "moral voice" as well...

These are all specialized historians and it is no doubt that you have not read them. Only grad students do! I don't think very many undergrads would read them, even in southern history or African-American studies classes except for a chapter or two in 400 level classes.

Maybe I was just taking one sentence of an over-arching argument's beginning and getting a bit pedantic. Sorry. I'm still trying to get used to being out of the seminar room...and not in front of my own students!

[Time for change]

27. Yes, slavery and racism are very complicated issues

Reading about your thoughts on this makes me feel even moreso that making a profession out of history may have been a great choice. As it is, I just have to squeeze as much of it as I can in on the side, in my spare time. I wish I had more time for it.