To the Inhabitants of the 12th Congressional District of Massachusetts - American History 1493-1945 - Adam Matthew Digital

Keyboard Shortcuts

The full content of this document is only available to subscribing institutions. More information can be found via www.amdigital.co.uk

Field name	Value
Collection Reference Number	GLC00639.05
From Archive Folder	Documents Relating to 1837
Title	To the Inhabitants of the 12th Congressional District of Massachusetts
Date	3 March 1837
Author	Adams, John Quincy (1767-1848)
Document Type	Correspondence
Content Description	Discusses the attempts to censure Adams' conduct through the "Gag Rule," the machinations of House Speaker Polk ,and attempts to expel Adams.
Subjects	Slavery President Congress African American History Law Government and Civics Abolition US Constitution Civil Rights
People	Adams, John Quincy (1767-1848)
Place written	Washington, D.C.
Theme	Slavery & Abolition; The Presidency; African Americans; Law; Government & Politics
Sub-collection	The Gilder Lehrman Collection, 1493-1859
Additional Information	In the mid-1830s, northern mobs attacked abolitionists and disrupted their meetings. Over the next decade, however, growing numbers of northerners grew increasingly sympathetic toward the antislavery cause. One key episode contributing to a shift in public opinion was a fight over the receipt of abolitionist petitions in Congress between 1835 and 1844. Popular petitioning played a crucial role in pressuring Parliament to emancipate British slaves in 1833. American abolitionists initially assumed that "moral suasion" could shame Southerners into freeing their slaves. The failure of moral suasion lent a growing importance to antislavery political action, especially in petitioning Congress to restrict the interstate slave trade and the admission of new states. During the early 1830s, the American Anti-Slavery Society began to distribute petitions calling upon Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Upon submission to the House of Representatives, the petitions were referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. In the Spring of 1836, however, the House (with the support of northern Democrats) adopted the notorious "Gag Rule," which required that all petitions dealing with slavery "be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be laid thereon." Former President John Quincy Adams, who had been elected to the House of Representatives in 1836, led opposition to the gag rule. He denied that he was an abolitionist; rather, he argued that the gag rule violated the constitutional right to petition--a right which extended even to slaves. In February 1837, Adams caused a near riot in the House when he submitted a petition purportedly from 22 slaves. Adams's opponents unsuccessfully attempted to strip him of his chairmanship of a Congressional committee and twice unsuccessfully tried to censure him. Such efforts had the effect of convincing growing numbers of Northerners that the southern "slave power" threatened civil liberties. Thanks to Adams's efforts, the gag rule was finally suspended in 1844.
Copyright	The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Module	Settlement, Commerce, Revolution and Reform: 1493-1859
Transcript	Show/hide To the Inhabitants of the 12th. Congressional District of Massachusetts, House of Representatives of the United States Washington 3d. March 1837 Fellow Citizens The proceedings of the House of Representatives on the presentation of abolition and anti-Slavery Petitions on the 23d. of January were so incorrectly reported in the National Intelligencer of the 25th. that I addressed a Letter to the Editors of that Paper, pointing out some of its errors and omissions, which was published in their paper of the 30th. On that day I presented twenty-one Petitions, all of which were laid on the table without being read, though in every instance I moved for the reading, which the Speaker refused to permit - from his decision I took in every case an Appeal, and the Appeal was in every case laid on the Table, by a vote of the House, at the motion of a member from New-Hampshire, Mr Cushman - This gentleman [struck: had] [inserted: having] been reported in the Globe, as having voted against receiving the abolition Petitions, addressed to the Editors of that Paper a Letter correcting that error and stating that he had voted for receiving them, and then for laying them on the table, where they might be taken up and acted upon, whenever the House should think fit. - Here, you will observe was the line of separation between the Northern Anti-abolitionists and the Southern Slave-holders in the House - The practical result to the Petitioner was the same - His right of Petition was in both cases suppressed. The freedom of speech in the House was equally denied to the Member presenting the Petitions to support, by argument, its prayer - But the slave-holder denied the right of Congress to receive the Petition. This Northern auxiliary receives the petition, and lays it on the table, to be taken up when times shall serve; but in the meantime refuses to hear it read - The slave holder would strip Congress of the Power- The Northerner holds it in reserve - This distinction may hereafter prove to be a difference - Its present issue is the same. I considered as I stated in my Address of the 31.st of January, the system of action of the House upon the abolition Petitions as settled for the remainder of the session - But between that and the next day for receiving Petitions, Monday the 6th. of February, [2] I received thirty Petitions, among which were two, which came to me by the mail, Postmarked Fredericksburg, Virginia - One of them signed by nine names of women, in various hand-writing some of the good - none of illiterate appearance - It prayed not for the abolition of Slavery, but that Congress would put a stop to the Slave-trade, in the District of Columbia - It was accompanied by a Letter signed by one of the names subscribed to the Petition, requesting me to present it - The other purported to be from twenty-two Slaves, subscribed so as to have every appearance of being genuine; the first name being in a hand writing not absolutely bad, and subscribed also alone to a Letter requesting me to present the Petition - I believed the Petition signed by female names to be genuine, and did not believe them to be names of free negroes or mulattoes - but had I known them to be such that would not have deterred me from presenting it - The object of it being not only proper in itself, but laudable, and eminently fit for subscription by virtuous women of any colour or complexion - I had suspicions that the other, purporting to be from Slaves, came really from the hand of a master, who had prevailed upon his slaves to sign it - That they might have the appearance of imploring the members from the North to cease offering Petitions for their emancipation which could have no other tendency, than to aggravate the burden of their servitude - and of being so impatient under the operation of the Petitions in their favour, as to pray that the Northern Members who should persist in presenting them should be expelled - Intimations of the same desire had already been manifested in quarters very remote from Servitude, and not even professors of servility - They had been seen in a Newspaper of this City professedly devoted to the pure courage of democracy from the mint of Van Buren and Rives, against the counterfeit currency of Benton and Amos Kendall - The Albany Argus itself, a Paper known to be under the same influences had lamented that the Massachusetts Madmans should be permitted weak after weak to do what? To persist in presenting abolition Petitions! - This was the head and front of my offending; and for this alone, the Petition from Slaves, for my expulsion from the House, was but the echo of the distinct and explicit Call from the Albany Angus and the Van Buren and Rivess Washingtonian - But the Petition, avowedly coming from Slaves, though praying for my expulsion from the House if I should persevere in presenting abolition Petitions, opened to my [3] examination and enquiry a new question - Or at least a question which had never occurred to me before, and which I never should have thought of starting upon speculation namely Whether the right to Petition Congress could in any case be exercised by Slaves? - And after giving to the subject all the reflection of which I was capable, I came to the conclusion that however doubtful it might be whether Slaves could petition Congress for any thing incompatible with their condition as Slaves, and with their subjection to Servitude; yet that for all other wants, distresses and grievances incident to their nature as men, and to their relations as members, degraded members as they may be of this community, they do enjoy the right of Petition - And that if they enjoyed the right in any case whatever, there could be none in which they were more certainly entitled to it, than that of deprecating the attempts of deluded friends to release them from bondage; a case in which they alone could in the nature of things speak for themselves, and their masters could not possibly speak for them - The next question which I considered was, whether this paper, was embraced by the resolution of the 18th. of January; and of that no man understanding The English language could entertain a moment's doubt: But after getting these two questions to the satisfaction of my own mind; there remained another - With what temper they would be received in an house; The large majority of which consisted of Slaveholders, and of their political Northern Associates, whose mouthpieces had already put forth their feelers to familiarize the freemen of the North with the sight of a representative expelled from his Seat for the single offence of persisting to present abolition Petitions - I foresaw that this very conception of a Petition from Slaves, would dismount all the Slave-holding philosophy of the House, and expected it would produce an explosion, which would spend itself in wind - Without therefore presenting, or offering to present the Petition, I stated to the Speaker that I had such a Paper in my possession, which I had been requested to present, and enquired whether it came within the Resolution of the 18th. of January - Now the Speaker had decided that under that order, no such Paper should be read - Yet his first impulse was to get possession of the Paper, but I declined presenting it, till it should be decided whether it was embraced by the Resolution [4] of the 18th of January or not - The Speaker, conscious as he was, that it came so clearly within the Letter of that Resolution, that it was impossible for him to decide that it did not; yet horrified at the idea of receiving and laying on the table a Petition from Slaves, said that in a case so novel and extraordinary he felt himself incompetent to decide, and must take the advice and direction of the House - One of the gross absurdities of that Resolution as administered by the Speaker was that every paper relating to Slavery or the abolition of Slavery should, without being read, be laid on the table - I had repeatedly remonstrated, both against the Resolution and against his construct[struck: ite] of it - in vain -And one of my purposes in putting this question to him was to expose that absurdity, in its uncoverable nakedness - The Resolution of the 18th. of January, presupposed by its own terms that every paper, relating to Slavery or the abolition of Slavery, should be received, without examination or enquiry whence it came, or what were its contents - There was neither exception nor qualification in the Resolution and the Speaker had decided that no such Paper should be read - If I had stated that I had a Petition from sundry persons in Fredericksburg, relating to Slavery, without saying that The Petitioners were, by their own avowal Slaves, the paper must have gone upon the table, but the discovery would soon have been made, that it came from Slaves, and there, the tempest of indignation would have burst upon me, with tenfold fury, and I should have been charged with having fraudulently introduced a Petition from Slaves, without letting the House know the condition of the Petitioners. To avoid the possibility of such a charge, I put the question to the Speaker, giving him notice that the Petition purported to come from Slaves and that I had suspicions that it came from another, and a very different source. The Speaker after failing in the attempt to obtain possession of the paper, referred my question to the House for decision, and then ensued a Scene of which I propose to give you an account; in a subsequent address - intreating you only to remember, if what I have said, or may say to you here after on this subject should tax your Patience, that the stake, in question is your right of Petition, your freedom of thought and of action, and The Freedom of Speech in Congress of your Representative John Quincy Adams.

Previous Item Next Item