To the Inhabitants of the 12th Congressional District of Massachusetts Washington 20. March 1837. Fellow Citizens. In my preceding addresses, I have spread before you the fifteen successive Resolutions the result of the whole combined Slave Statesmanship of the House of Representatives of the United States, all having one and the same purpose of passing a vote of censure upon me, for asking on the discharge of my duty as a member a question of the Speaker - The two Resolutions upon which they had finally forced a vote of the House by yeas and nays were rejected, but my question was not answered, and they were aware that it could not be answered negatively - It had not been, whether the House would receive a Petition from Slaves, but whether [strikeout] a Petition from Slaves came within the Resolution of the 18th. of January - When the Resolution declaring that I had trifled with the House was under consideration, one of the most prominent allegations laid to my charge was that by asking the question I had intended indirectly to cast ridicule upon that Resolution and upon the House for adopting it - nor was this entirely without foundation - I did not intend to cast ridicule upon the House, but to expose the absurdity of that Resolution against which I had protested as unconstitutional and unjust - But the characteristic peculiarity of this charge against me was that while some of the Gentlemen of the South were urging the House to pass a vote of censure upon me, for a distant and conjectural inference of my intention to deride that Resolution others of them in the same debate and on the same day were showering upon the same Resolution direct expressions of unqualified contempt, without even being called to order - Like the Saints in Hudibras - "For Saints may do the same thing by "The Spirit, in sincerity, "Which other men, are prompted to, "And at the Devil's instance do: "And yet, the actions be contrary, "Just as the Saints and wicked vary" [2] So it was with the Gentlemen of the South - While Mr Pickens could openly call the Resolution of the 18th. of January, a miserable and contemptible Resolution; while Mr Thompson could say it was fit only to be burnt by the hands of the hangman, without rebuke or reproof, I was to be censured by the House, for casting ridicule upon them, by asking the question whether the Resolution included Petitions from Slaves. They were dissatisfied with the result of their crusade against me; in the vindictive pursuit of which they had not only forgotten to answer my question, but even to obtain from the House a declaration denying the right of Slaves to Petition - On Friday morning several of them were absent from their Seats in the House, and mysterious givings out were circulated that a Caucus Meeting of the South had been held in which grave proposals had [inserted: been] made that they Should Secede in a body and go home - This was an old expedient tried before, Some years Since, and not without some effect upon the Simple good nature of the North - Whether it was really brought forward at this time, I cannot absolutely Say; but the rumours were that a first and second meeting were held, at which the opinions expressed were found so discordant, that it was finally concluded to be the wisest course to return to their seats in the House, and negotiate with the free Representation for a reconsideration of one of the rejected Resolutions - The interposition of the President elect of the United States, was also said to have been solicited, and obtained, and there is authority from his Southern adherents for the assurance that it was exercised in a manner altogether satisfactory to them - The sympathies of the Whig members from the free States were likewise invoked, by their opposition associates of the nullification creed, and the Pennsylvania delegation, who to a man had been found inaccessible to the censorial Resolutions were now many of them coaxed into a compromise with the dark Spirit of Slavery so indignantly and justly characterised by the Governor of that Commonwealth. The Gentlemen from the South had rung all the changes of their censorial Resolutions exclusively among themselves - The Peace offering to their wounded sensibilities was to come entirely from the Representatives of freemen - The motion [3] for Reconsideration of the first rejected Resolution of Mr Patton, was made on Friday Evening by Mr Lane of Indiana, and carried the next morning by the immediate application of the Previous Question - Even before this vote of reconsideration Mr Taylor of New-York and Mr Ingersoll of Philadelphia had asked leave of the House to offer Resolutions propitiatory to the anxieties and Resentments of the Gentlemen of the South - The Resolution presented by Mr Taylor deserves special attention, as it may be considered as indicative of the opinions and counsels of the present President of the United States - That of Mr Ingersoll as expressive of the anti-abolition sentiments prevailing at this time in the City of Philadelphia, and less intensely throughout the Northern part of the Union - The first of these Resolutions was offered by Mr Taylor, and the second by Mr Ingersoll, probably in concert with Mr Thompson of South Carolina, the mover of the first Resolution of censure upon me, and who finally accepted Mr Ingersoll's resolutions as a substitute for his own. Both the Resolutions underwent Sundry modifications before they were adopted by the House - That of Mr Ingersoll was in its last mutation reduced to this Shape "An inquiry having been made by an honorable gentleman from Massachusetts whether a paper which he held in his hand, purporting to be a petition from certain slaves, and declaring themselves to be Slaves, came within the order of the house of the 18th. of January, and the said paper not having been received by the Speaker, he stated that, in a case so extraordinary and novel, he would take the advice and counsel of the house Resolved that this house cannot receive said Petition without disregarding its own dignity the rights of a large class of the Citizens of the South and west, and the Constitution of the United States." You will remark that while the preamble recites my enquiry of the Speaker as the reason for the Resolution, yet the Resolution [inserted: itself] evades answering my enquiry. My question was whether the Petition came within the order of the 18th. of January. the answer is that the House cannot receive Said Petition &c - It is no answer at all - The Speaker had already decided that two Petitions presented by me, and not received, were included within the order of the 18th of January - and therefore [4] the fact that the Petition from Slaves had not been received, afforded no reason for excluding it from the operation of the order of the 18th. of January - I moved as an amendment to Mr Ingersoll's Resolution, that the order of the 18th. of January should be inserted in it word for word, followed by a Declaration that the Petition from slaves was not within the order of the House, and I asked him to accept this as a modification, of his Resolution, which he declined. He said he would give his reasons for declining, if I desired, but he gave none. His Resolution was carried by the Previous Question, but if you will read his resolution, as it would have read with the insertion of the order, you will not need to inquire what his reason was. The Resolution contains the averment of three distinct propositions declaring that the House could not receive the Petition, without disregarding 1. Its own dignity 2. The rights of a large Class of the Citizens of the South and West and 3. The Constitution of the United States How the House could disregard its dignity by receiving a Petition is beyond my comprehension. The only reason assigned for it is the condition of the Petitioners, because they are Slaves - The Sentiment, in the bosom of any free American that one sixth part of his countrymen, are by the accident of their birth deprived even of the natural right of prayer, is degrading enough to human nature; but that because in one portion of this Union the native American, becomes by descent from African ancestry an outcast of human nature, classed with the brute creation, within the boundaries of the State in which he was born, therefore, it is beneath the dignity of the general Legislative Assembly of a Nation - founding its existence upon the natural and inalienable rights of man to listen to his prayer or even to receive his petition, is an opinion to which I trust your judgments will never absent, and a Sentiment which your hearts will reject with disgust - "The rights of a large Class of the Citizens of the South and West" - It is impossible that the rights of one man should be disregarded by receiving the Petition of another - It is the right of the House of Representatives to receive the Petition of any human being, native or foreigner, bond or free; the receipt, of a Petition, is no earnest of the compliance with its prayer - In the present case [5] the allegation that the House could not receive the Petition without disregarding the rights of a large Class of the Citizens of the South and West, was in every possible sense of the words untrue for had the Petition been received, it would by the order of the 18th. of January have been laid on the table, without being read, printed or referred, and without any further action of the House upon it - How could that be construed into a disregard of the rights of the Citizens of the South and West? Yet more - had the Petition been not only received, but read, printed, referred, there could have been in all this no disregard of the rights of the Citizens of the South and West; for the prayer of the Petition was not for but against the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia - It was the voice of Slaves hugging their chains, and praying that they might not be broken - It was impossible that any action of the House upon that Petition, whether of compliance, or of refusal, could in any manner impair any right of any Citizen of the South or of the West. Nor was Mr Ingersoll more fortunate in his third averment that the House could not receive the Petition without disregarding the Constitution of the United States - The truth is directly the reverse - It was [struck: the] [inserted: his] Resolution that disregarded and trampled underfoot the Constitution of the United States, which expressly forbids Congress from abridging even by Law, the right of Petition, and which not by the remotest implication limits that right to freemen - This, fellow Citizens is a point upon which every one of you can judge for himself - Let him who is not particularly acquainted with that instrument read it - let him read and Search it, for the Article, Section or paragraph from which so much as a plausible inference can be drawn, forbidding either house of Congress from receiving a Petition[struck: s] from Slaves - He will find abundant evidence that the authors of the Constitution considered Slavery as one of those vessels of dishonour, which albeit impairing the [text loss] of our political institutions could not even be named with decency in a [text loss] formed for securing to the People of the Union, [strikeout] the blessings of [text loss] will find that in every instance where slaves are alluded to, it is always [text loss] not as property - That the words Slave or Slavery, are not found [text loss] document - That they are recognized as members of the community [text loss] even in the provisions depriving them of their exercise and [6] enjoyment. - That their right to be represented in Congress, is admitted, even in the provision which curtails it by two fifths and transfers the remainder to their masters - That their right to the protection of the Laws, and to the enjoyment of freedom in the free States is admitted even in the provision that when escaping from the States where they are held to service or labour, they shall be delivered up to their Masters. But you will not find one word, which expressly, no, not one word which by rational construction, liberal or strict, deprives them of the right of Petition. This Resolution therefore, [struck: is] far better suited to the meridian of Charleston, than to that of Philadelphia, is a worthy companion to the three reported by Mr H. L. Pinckney at the first Session of the Last Congress and the second of which was repeated by the order of the 18th. of January last - Of that order, many of you have manifested your high disapprobation, by petitioning the House to rescind it - But the Resolution of Mr Ingersoll bows the knee yet nearer to prostration before the Spirit of Slavery - It surrenders the post at which the tottering freedom of the North and centre had erected a breast work of defence to the right of Petition - The Gentlemen of the South had been desperately Struggling through two Sessions of Congress, for a positive refusal of the House to receive any Petition for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia; or in any manner relating to Slavery - This refusal to receive they had not been able to carry, till a Representative from the City of William Penn, came forward as their volunteer auxiliary - His Resolution has set the example of refusing to receive Petitions, on no better ground than the condition of the Petitioners - At the next step in the progress of Servility the Same argument will be applied, with more plausibility to the object of the Petition, and the House will be called to resolve a formal exclusion and refusal to receive any Petition relating to Slavery or the abolition of Slavery - And with the right of Petition on this subject, the Freedom of Speech in the House, will be in like manner abridged - That the freedom of the Press in this [text loss] share the same fate, you have the premonitory Symptoms in the pledge already [text loss] from the National Intelligencer immediately after the publication of Mr [text loss] containing the argument which he intended to address to the House [text loss] Slaves to Petition, but which was cut off by the Previous Question. If this refusal to receive Petitions, and to hear deliberative [text loss] question relating to Slavery, could be confined to that subject [text loss] spared myself the reluctant labour and you the weary perusal [text loss] [7] but if coming events cast their Shadows before them, we shall soon be hurried into the midst of a Resolution more formidable than any collision between the co-ordinate departments of the Government for patronage, any transitory tampering with the currency, any scramble between rival usurers and Stock-fobbers for deposits of the public money - any Swindling Indian Treaties, or more Swindling Indian Wars, or any deep dissension between the cotton gin of the Planter and the spinning Jenny of the factory All these may be compromised - All these may be occasionally used as ladders to power and ascended or overleaped according to the shrewdness or the impetuosity of the aspirants to reach the summit of Ambition. On all these lines of separation and opposition between the different portions of the Union, the counteracting impulses of popular leaders may balance each other, and result in nothing worse than fluctuations of public policy, and perhaps shortened Presidential terms - But the conflict of interests, and of principles involved in the jarring elements of Freedom and Slavery implanted in the physical, moral, intellectual nature of our institutions, must sooner or later come to an issue, and must control the destinies not merely of this Nation, but of this Hemisphere, and of Man upon this Planet. The abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia is but a drop of water to the Ocean but a mite in the Mountain labouring with the Freedom of Man - The convulsive spasm produced in the House of Representatives of the United States by the mere question whether they would in any case receive a Petition from Slaves, was not occasioned by any Galvanism in the question itself - it was the flash of light over the closed eyes of the Slave holder, exhibiting to him his Slave petitioning for his freedom - It is said that the turbulent Diets of Poland before her subjugation, every member of the body possessed the veto power over every act of their Legislation - The assemblies were held in open air - The nobles attended them, mounted on coursers fleet as the winds - The right to pronounce the veto was strictly constitutional; but woe to him who pronounced it; for from the moment that it issued from his lips, his only safety was [text loss] - His life was on the speed of his horse - If he did not start as he spoke, his noble [text loss] the Diet rushed upon him instantly and cut him to pieces. If he fled they galloped [text loss] whoever overtook him, by a stroke of his partizan severed his head from [text loss] flew - This was the remedy for the exercise of a constitutional right in [8] the Republican Monarchy of Poland - The tyger-turn of the Gentleman from the South, upon the member who asked the obnoxious question, was indicative of the Same Spirit habitually prevalent among the nobles of the Polish diet - Mr Ingersoll's Resolutions partook of the same infusion - no longer indictive, but still minatory. Mr Taylor's Resolution was in far more measured, and less questionable terms - It was in these words "Resolved - That Slaves do not possess the right of Petition, secured to the Citizens of the United States by the Constitution." This Resolution was probably prepared by or after consultation with the President elect of the United States - It was amply sufficient, so long as a majority of the House of Representatives Shall concur that opinion to exclude the reception of any Petition from Slaves - but it was not Satisfactory to the Gentlemen from the South - Their purpose was to stigmatize the presentation, or by one of Speaker Polks distinctions the offer to present such petitions - The Resolution of Mr Ingersoll gave colour to their idea; and furnished them with a precedent for the future refusal to receive any petition relating to the abolition of Slavery. Both the Resolutions are mere opinions of a majority of the House, reversible at any day when the majority of the House shall entertain a contrary opinion. It is not competent for the House of Representatives to adjudicate what are or are not the rights secured to the Citizens of the United States by the Constitution, but if Mr Taylor's Resolution is true, a Citizen of the United States, enslaved to Algiers, Tunis or Tripoli would possess no right to Petition Congress for his redemption; or for any measures to effect it. The question whether Slaves possess the right of Petition, is of no practical importance except as the denial of the right is an abridgement of the right itself - Their masters will take care to keep the redressing of all their grievances in their own hands, and will redress them in their own way - But the Resolution that the House cannot receive a Petition from them, is an abridgement not only of their right of Petition, but of the Constitutional power [text loss] the House, and the precedent of that abridgement of power in one case yields a prime [text loss] may be applied in numberless others, till the whole right of Petition shall, [strikeout] like t[text loss] office be numbered among the spoils of victory - the exclusive possession of [text loss] of the day. [9] Both the Resolutions were adopted by yeas and nays - that of Mr Ingersoll by a vote of 160 to 35 - That of Mr Taylor by 162 to 18 - The vote of the House on both the Resolutions, indicates, [struck: I believe] with much precision the temper of the House, upon the subject of the abolition of Slavery. I believe further that the comparative numbers on both sides fairly represented the numbers, as well as the opinions of the constituent body the People of the United States - I have no reason to think there was one member of the House who would have voted for the immediate abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia - The majority were very averse to receiving any Petitions for that object; nor was there an opportunity afforded me of presenting any more, of the multitudes which I received and was requested to present - On Monday the 13th. of February, the order of receiving Petitions was reversed; commencing with the Territories and proceeding from South to North; and upon the State of Massachusetts being called, the House adjourned at the motion of Mr Cave Johnson a Van Buren member from Tennessee - On the 20th. and 27th. of February, days when by the Rules of the House Petitions should have been received, the Rules were suspended to give preference to other business - In the meantime an average of eight or ten petitions every day, were coming to me [struck: every day] with requests that I would present them - On the last day of the Session, I had two hundred of them in my hands, from the States of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina - It had been customary to allow members having Petitions, which they had not had the opportunity to present, to leave them at the close of the Session, with the Clerk, and they were entered upon the Journals - This the Speaker now declined to allow, without a special order of the House - Mr Lawrence who had also a number of Petitions to present, moved for such an order, but objection was made to the reception of his Resolution, and the presentation of several hundreds of Petitions was suppressed, and among the rest [inserted: several] relating [inserted: to] subjects in no wise connected with Slavery or its abolition Sons of the Plymouth Pilgrims! I have given you a Statement, faithful and accurate of the condition of your right of Petition, in the House of Representatives of the United States at the close of the twenty fourth Congress - In the Senate, the same right was equally prostrated, though with less resistance, and by the means of other forms. [10] Since then, the inauguration of Mr Van Buren has placed a new chief Magistrate at the head of this Union - To those of you [inserted: who] have petitioned for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia, it cannot be indifferent to learn that the only specific points of policy upon which he has thought proper to pledge the conduct of his administration [inserted: in advance] is the denial of that very measure - He declares that even if a Bill for abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia, should obtain the sanction of a majority of both Houses of Congress, he would oppose to its enactment his constitutional negative - If this declaration means no more than it imports, there is little prospect that its sincerity or the firmness of his adhesion to its principle will ever be put to the test. There is not the remotest prospect that within the term of his administration, a majority of either, much less of both Houses of Congress will be found prepared to vote for that measure - and if so great a change in the public mind, should be effected, as would produce majorities of both houses in favour of abolition, it will not be within the efficacy of his veto to resist the course of the torment - But if, as there is reason to apprehend this promise is intended as a pledge, that the whole influence official [struck: of the] and personal of the President of the United States shall be applied to sustain and perpetuate the institution of domestic Slavery, it is a melancholy prognostic of a new system of administration, of which the dearest interests of New-England will be the first victims, and of which the ultimate result can be no other than the dissolution of the Union. Slavery has already had too deep and too baleful an influence upon the affairs and upon the History of this Union - It can never operate but as a Slow poison to the Morals of any community infected with it. Ours is infected with it to the vitals - We are told that the National Government has no right to interfere with the institution of domestic Slavery in [struck: any] [inserted: the] States, in any manner. What right then has domestic Slavery to interfere in any manner with the National Government? What right has Slavery to interfere in the free States, with the dearest institutions of their freedom? with the right [struck: to a] [inserted: of] Habeas Corpus? with the right of trial by jury? with the freedom of Speech? with the freedom of the Press? with the sacred privacy of correspondence by the mail? What right has Slavery to interfere with the Laws of other nations protective of Freedom? What right to interfere with the Laws of [11] Bermuda - of the Bahama Islands? of Great Britain? What right has she to cast her living chattels upon a soil which has banished her forever, and then come whining to the National Government that the touch of the Soil of Liberty has quickened her chattels into freemen; and require[inserted: ing] the National Government to claim indemnity for emancipated chattels - Nay more and worse - What right has Slavery to chide the National Government for not demanding her indemnity in a tone Sufficiently peremptory? for not threatening Great Britain with War if She lingers longer to pay the price of sinews bought and sold? If the National Government has no right to interfere with the institution of domestic Slavery in the States, in any manner, what right has domestic Slavery to issue from her consecrated boundaries, and call on the National Government, for protection for defence, for vindication of her pretended and polluted rights? What right has She to show her face upon the Ocean, where the Laws of the Nation have pronounced her detested traffick Piracy? The Independence of Sovereign States from all foreign interference with their municipal institutions is reciprocal or it is nothing - If you have no right to interfere with the Slavery of South Carolina, the Slavery of South Carolina has no right to interfere with your freedom! If the National Government has no right to interfere with the institution of domestic Slavery in any of the States, what right has that same government to hang on your necks the millstone of Texan Slavery? reinstituted Slavery, in a Land where once that curse of God had been extinguished? Slavery restored by fraud and treachery, and the imposture of a painted Harlot, usurping the name of Freedom? Is the annexation of Texas, with her execrable load of eternal Slavery, to this Union? is that one of the engagements implied in Mr Van Buren's pledge never to sign a Bill for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia? If the pledge of the inaugural address means anything more than soothing sound, it means that the maintenance and perpetuation of Slavery in this Union shall be the cardinal point, the Polar Star of Mr Van Buren's Administration - And with that pledge, can you doubt that the manacles of Texan Slavery will be fastened upon your hands and the fetters of Texan Slavery upon your feet - Children of Carver, and Bradford, and Nineslow, and Alden! The pen drops from my hand! John Quincy Adams.