John Quincy Adams to Abigail Adams, 27 January 1804
John Quincy Adams to Abigail Adams
Washington 27. January 1804.
My dear Mother.
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 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
John Q. Adams.
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “John Adams Esqr / Quincy. / Massachusetts.”; endorsed: “J Q Adams Ja’ry 27 / 1804”; notation by JQA: “For my mother.”
1. 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 (, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 233–234, 240–244; , 2:283–289; D/JQA/27, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31 Jan., 1 Feb., APM Reel 30; ; , 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,” , 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).
2. Enclosure not found.