John Quincy Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 22 January 1804
John Quincy Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams
22. January 1804.
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
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:.”
1. 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).
2. 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. (, 6:215–216; , 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 524; A Bill to Provide for the Further Protection of American Seamen, Washington, D.C., 1804, , No. 7485; , 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 338, 341, 342, 366; A Bill Further to Protect the Seamen of the United States, Washington, D.C., 1804, , No. 7442; , p. 109–110, 146–147; Paul A. Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights in the War of 1812, N.Y., 2013, p. 174–176).