Robert J. Evans Questions the Fathers on Slavery

In his essay "The Missouri Compromise and Sectionalism", found in Congress and the Emergence of Sectionalism, Robert Pierce Forbes discusses this remarkable June 15, 1819 letter from former president James Madison to Robert J. Evans. I will quote the letter in full and without interruption, but in a nutshell the Sage of Montpelier advocates that the federal government spend $600,000,000 to purchase all (or substantially all) slaves from their masters and to finance their voluntary transportation to Africa. The funds would be obtained from land sales. An amendment to the Constitution would be necessary:

Sir,

I have recd. your letter of the 3d instant, requesting such hints as may have occurred to me on the subject of an eventual extinguishment of slavery in the U. S.

Not doubting the purity of your views, and relying on the discretion by which they will be regulated, I cannot refuse such a compliance as will at least manifest my respect for the object of your undertaking.

A general emancipation of slaves ought to be 1. gradual. 2. equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned. 3. consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation.

That it ought, like remedies for other deeprooted and wide-spread evils, to be gradual, is so obvious that there seems to be no difference of opinion on that point.

To be equitable & satisfactory, the consent of both the Master & the slave should be obtained. That of the Master will require a provision in the plan for compensating a loss of what he held as property guarantied by the laws, and recognised by the Constitution. That of the slave, requires that his condition in a state of freedom, be preferable in his own estimation, to his actual one in a state of bondage.

To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U. S. the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two people are, with most of the Whites insuperable; and are admitted by all of them to be very powerful. If the blacks, strongly marked as they are by Physical & lasting peculiarities, be retained amid the Whites, under the degrading privation of equal rights political or social, they must be always dissatisfied with their condition as a change only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederated agst. the ruling & privileged class; and always uncon-troulled by some of the most cogent motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks, even where their legal condition is least affected by their colour, seems to put these truths beyond question. It is material also that the removal of the blacks be to a distance precluding the jealousies & hostilities to be apprehended from a neighboring people stimulated by the contempt known to be entertained for their peculiar features; to say nothing of their vindictive recollections, or the predatory propensities which their State of Society might foster. Nor is it fair, in estimating the danger of Collisions with the Whites, to charge it wholly on the side of the Blacks. There would be reciprocal antipathies doubling the danger.

The colonizing plan on foot, has as far as it extends, a due regard to these requisites; with the additional object of bestowing new blessings civil & religious on the quarter of the Globe most in need of them. The Society proposes to transport to the African Coast all free & freed blacks who may be willing to remove thither; to provide by fair means, &, it is understood with a prospect of success, a suitable territory for their reception; and to initiate them into such an establishment as may gradually and indefinitely expand itself.

The experiment, under this view of it, merits encouragement from all who regard slavery as an evil, who wish to see it diminished and abolished by peaceable & just means; and who have themselves no better mode to propose. Those who have most doubted the success of the experiment must at least have wished to find themselves in an error.

But the views of the Society are limited to the case of blacks already free, or who may be gratuitously emancipated. To provide a commensurate remedy for the evil, the plan must be extended to the great Mass of blacks, and must embrace a fund sufficient to induce the Master as well as the slave to concur in it. Without the concurrence of the Master, the benefit will be very limited as it relates to the Negroes; and essentially defective, as it relates to the U. States; and the concurrence of Masters, must, for the most part, be obtained by purchase.

Can it be hoped that voluntary contributions, however adequate to an auspicious commencement, will supply the sums necessary to such an enlargement of the remedy? May not another question be asked? Would it be reasonable to throw so great a burden on the individuals distinguished by their philanthropy and patriotism?

The object to be obtained, as an object of humanity, appeals alike to all; as a National object, it claims the interposition of the nation. It is the nation which is to reap the benefit. The nation therefore ought to bear the burden.

Must then the enormous sums required to pay for, to transport, and to establish in a foreign land all the slaves in the U. S. as their Masters may be willg. to part with them, be taxed on the good people of the U. S. or be obtained by loans swelling the public debt to a size pregnant with evils next in degree to those of slavery itself?

Happily it is not necessary to answer this question by remarking that if slavery as a national evil is to be abolished, and it be just that it be done at the national expence, the amount of the expence is not a paramount consideration. It is the peculiar fortune, or, rather a providential blessing of the U. S. to possess a resource commensurate to this great object, without taxes on the people, or even an increase of the public debt.

I allude to the vacant territory the extent of which is so vast, and the vendible value of which is so well ascertained.

Supposing the number of slaves to be 1,500,000, and their price to average 400 drs, the cost of the whole would be 600 millions of dollrs. These estimates are probably beyond the fact; and from the no. of slaves should be deducted 1. those whom their Masters would not part with. 2. those who may be gratuitously set free by their Masters. 3. those acquiring freedom under emancipating regulations of the States. 4. those preferring slavery where they are, to freedom in an African settlement. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the expence of removal & settlement is not included in the estimated sum; and that an increase of the slaves will be going on during the period required for the execution of the plan.

On the whole the aggregate sum needed may be stated at about 600 Mils, of dollars.

This will require 200 mils, of Acres at 3 dolrs. per Acre; or 300 mils, at 2 dollrs. per Acre a quantity which tho' great in itself, is perhaps not a third part of the disposable territory belonging to the U. S. And to what object so good so great & so glorious, could that peculiar fund of wealth be appropriated? Whilst the sale of territory would, on one hand be planting one desert with a free & civilized people, it would on the other, be giving freedom to another people, and filling with them another desert. And if in any instances, wrong has been done by our forefathers to people of one colour, by dispossessing them of their soil, what better atonement is now in our power than that of making what is rightfully acquired a source of justice & of blessings to a people of another colour?

As the revolution to be produced in the condition of the negroes must be gradual, it will suffice if the sale of territory keep pace with its progress. For a time at least the proceeds wd. be in advance. In this case it might be best, after deducting the expence incident to the surveys & sales, to place the surplus in a situation where its increase might correspond with the natural increase of the unpurchased slaves. Should the proceeds at any time fall short of the calls for their application, anticipations might be made by temporary loans to be discharged as the land should find a Market.

But it is probable that for a considerable period, the sales would exceed the calls. Masters would not be willing to strip their plantations & farms of their laborers too rapidly. The slaves themselves, connected as they generally are by tender ties with others under other Masters, would be kept from the list of emigrants by the want of the multiplied consents to be obtained. It is probable indeed that for a long time a certain portion of the proceeds might safely continue applicable to the discharge of the debts or to other purposes of the Nation. Or it might be most convenient, in the outset, to appropriate a certain proportion only of the income from sales, to the object in view, leaving the residue otherwise applicable.

Should any plan similar to that I have sketched, be deemed eligible in itself no particular difficulty is foreseen from that portion of the nation which with a common interest in the vacant territory has no interest in slave property. They are too just to wish that a partial sacrifice shd. be made for the general good; and too well aware that whatever may be the intrinsic character of that description of property, it is one known to the constitution, and, as such could not be constitutionally taken away without just compensation. That part of the Nation has indeed shewn a meritorious alacrity in promoting, by pecuniary contributions, the limited scheme for colonizing the Blacks, & freeing the nation from the unfortunate stain on it, which justifies the belief that any enlargement of the scheme, if founded on just principles would find among them its earliest & warmest patrons. It ought to have great weight that the vacant lands in question have for the most part been derived from grants of the States holding the slaves to be redeemed & removed by the sale of them.

It is evident however that in effectuating a general emancipation of slaves, in the mode which has been hinted, difficulties of other sorts would be encountered. The provision for ascertaining the joint consent of the masters & slaves; for guarding agst. unreasonable valuations of the latter; and for the discrimination of those not proper to be conveyed to a foreign residence, or who ought to remain a charge on Masters in whose service they had been disabled or worn out and for the annual transportation of such numbers, would Require the mature deliberations of the National Councils. The measure implies also the practicability of procuring in Africa, an enlargement of the district or districts, for receiving the exiles, sufficient for so great an augmentation of their numbers.

Perhaps the Legislative provision best adapted to the case would be an incorporation of the Colonizing Society or the establishment of a similar one, with proper powers, under the appointment & superintendence of the National Executive.

In estimating the difficulties however incident to any plan of general emancipation, they ought to be brought into comparison with those inseparable from other plans, and be yielded to or not according to the result of the comparison.

One difficulty presents itself which will probably attend every plan which is to go into effect under the Legislative provisions of the National Govt. But whatever may be the defect of existing powers of Congress, the Constitution has pointed out the way in which it can be supplied. And it can hardly be doubted that the requisite powers might readily be procured for attaining the great object in question, in any mode whatever approved by the Nation.

If these thoughts can be of any aid in your search of a remedy for the great evil under which the nation labors, you are very welcome to them. You will allow me however to add that it will be most agreeable to me, not to be publickly referred to in any use you may make of them.

So who was Robert J. Evans? Prof. Forbes refers to him an a "Pennsylvania antislavery author." Looking around for more information about him, I discovered that he apparently sent an anti-slavery letter to John Adams at about the same time, occasioning an oft-cited response from the former second president:

Quincy, 8 June, 1819.

I respect the sentiments and motives, which have prompted you to engage in your present occupation, so much, that I feel an esteem and affection for your person, as I do a veneration for your assumed signature of Benjamin Rush. The turpitude, the inhumanity, the cruelty, and the infamy of the African commerce in slaves, have been so impressively represented to the public by the highest powers of eloquence, that nothing that I can say would increase the just odium in which it is and ought to be held. Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. If, however, humanity dictates the duty of adopting the most prudent measures for accomplishing so excellent a purpose, the same humanity requires, that we should not inflict severer calamities on the objects of our commiseration than those which they at present endure, by reducing them to despair, or the necessity of robbery, plunder, assassination, and massacre, to preserve their lives, some provision for furnishing them employment, or some means of supplying them with the necessary comforts of life. The same humanity requires that we should not by any rash or violent measures expose the lives and property of those of our fellow-citizens, who are so unfortunate as to be surrounded with these fellow-creatures, by hereditary descent, or by any other means without their own fault. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave, though I have lived for many years in times, when the practice was not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character, and when it has cost me thousands of dollars for the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap.

If any thing should occur to me, which I think may assist you, I will endeavor to communicate it to you; but at an age, when

* “From Marlborough’s eyes the streams of dotage flow,
* And Swift expires a driveller and a show,”

very little can be expected from, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant.

Evans seems to have been a persistent and determined activist. He also wrote Thomas Jefferson twice from Philadelphia in 1819, on June 3 and October 2.

Jefferson did not respond until November 7, 1819, when he sent this non-substantive reply. I'm not familiar with the timeline of Jefferson's health. Were his protestations about his infirmities excuses to avoid having to discuss an awkward subject?

Monticello Nov.7.[18]19

Dear Sir,

I am just now recovering from the third long & dangerous illness which I have had within the last 12 months. While I was able I answered all letters punctually. But age, it's [sic] ordinary infirmities, & extraordinary visitations of sickness have so broke me down that I am not longer able to maintain any correspondence by letters but such as my own affairs render indispensable. I hope you will receive this as an apology for my not having answered your first letter with the assurance my respect.

"Children Writhing on a Pike"

I still think the J.Q. Adams-Andy Jackson contest of 1828 should get the nod for the nastiest presidential election, but Reason makes the case for the 1800 race between TJ and Quinzy's dad.

"It is not a vote!"

As you know, the nomination by the President of the United States of executive officers is subject to confirmation by the Senate. Article II, Section 2 provides in relevant part:

He [the president] . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The converse, however, is not the case. Presidents routinely terminate executive officers (or pressure them into resigning) on their own authority. They do not seek or obtain the consent of the Senate to do so, and no one expects them to.

It is one of the strange facts of American constitutional history that the constitutionality of this practice is entirely unclear. In fact, the Constitution does not address whether executive removals require Senate consent or not. It might certainly be logical to suppose that the opposite result is correct: if Senate confirmation is required for appointment, then Senate confirmation for removal is likewise required. Ironically, this was precisely the position taken by that champion of executive power, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 77:

IT HAS been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the co-operation of the Senate, in the business of appointments, that it would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. A change of the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might be expected, if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that a discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some degree of discredit upon himself. Those who can best estimate the value of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation or disapprobation of that body which, from the greater permanency of its own composition, will in all probability be less subject to inconstancy than any other member of the government.

Current practice is sanctioned by historical precedent. The very first Congress faced and debated the question. Standard histories note with a good deal of irony that, in the House, it was Representative James Madison who spearheaded the forces that successfully argued that removal did not require Senate consent.

What I had not focused on, however, was the Senate itself, and how close the result was there. In Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, Gordon S. Wood, citing the Journal of Senator William Maclay, points out that the vote was razor thin. Maclay reports that the Senate vote, held July 16, 1789, was a tie; Vice President John Adams then cast the deciding vote in favor of removal without Senate consent:

After all the arguments were ended and the question taken the Senate was ten to ten, and the Vice-President with joy cried out, “It is not a vote!” without giving himself time to declare the division of the House and give his vote in order.

Prof. Wood comments:

The consequences of such a close vote were immense: on it turned the future nature of the presidency. Indeed, as Madison noted in the House, the Congress's decisions on this issue of removal “will become the permanent exposition of the Constitution; and on a permanent exposition of the Constitution will depend the genius will depend the genius and character of the whole government.” If the Senate had been able to claim the right of approving the removal of presidential appointees, executive officials would have become dependent on the will of the Senate, and the United States would have created something similar to the English system of cabinet responsibility to Parliament.

For an article arguing that Hamilton's reference to "displace[ment]" was not intended to encompass mere "removal", see here. A response has recently appeared, which I have not yet read:: Jeremy D. Bailey, The Traditional View of Hamilton's Federalist No. 77 and an Unexpected Challenge: A Response to Seth Barrett Tillman.

Thomas Jefferson "was a very silly man"

In the London Telegraph, a Member of Parliament and admirer of Thomas Jefferson (Daniel Hannan, whose speech went viral a few months ago) reproduces an email he received "explaining that it was Jefferson’s predecessor, John Adams, who was, perversely, the true Jeffersonian." Here's a taste:

“On thinking in the U. S. about the division and dispersal of power, it was not Jefferson but John Adams who was the major figure. Indeed, Jefferson was on the other side, although his rhetoric was designed to mislead. Jefferson may have said that that government is best which governs least, but he never had a useful thought about how to keep limits on government except to recommend revolution in every generation. Which is of course disastrous. But he was a very silly man - a true, because superficial and calculating, product of the Enlightenment. While Adams was horrified by the French Revolution as soon as Burke was, Jefferson was still enthusiastic even after the terror had begun. Jefferson was the inventor of faux egalitarianism, which was a way of keeping the enlightened patrician (and slave-owning) class in power based on the rationale that they were protecting the interests of common folk. FDR and Teddy Kennedy are the direct descendants, and indeed Jefferson was FDR’s hero and model of a patrician who protected the interests of his class by “representing” and looking out for the working man. Jefferson founded the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was founded on the ruins of the Whig Party which was founded on the ruins of the Federalist Party. Unlike Jefferson, Adams was obsessed with how to keep elites in check by dividing power and balancing power against power. In this he is in the tradition of Harrington and Montesquieu and Hume rather than of Locke (Jefferson on the other hand admired Rousseau). He was the deepest thinker of the Revolution and also the most important political figure (as distinguished from leader) - he made the strategy that led to independence, he led the public campaign for independence, and was the leading proponent for independence in the Continental Congress both rhetorically and behind the scenes. He chose Jefferson to write the Declaration, chose Washington to lead the army, and was appointed by the Continental Congress to be supply master of the army before he was sent to Paris to gain French support (which won the war), which Franklin might have accomplished, but seemed in no hurry to do."

Via Iain Murray at The Corner.

The cartoon is from the very odd Married to the Sea Blog.

The May 15, 1776 Declaration of Independence

I missed a couple of related historical anniversaries recently.

On Friday May 10, 1776, the Continental Congress agreed to a resolution recommending that the colonies form new governments:

Resolved, That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.

The Congress also appointed "a committee of three . . . to prepare a preamble to the foregoing resolution." John Adams, Edward Rutledge and Richard Henry Lee were selected as the members.

On Wednesday May 15, 1776, the Continental Congress ordered the publication of the resolution passed on May 10, together with the following preamble:

Whereas his Britannic Majesty, in conjunction with the lords and commons of Great Britain, has, by a late act of Parliament, excluded the inhabitants of these United Colonies from the protection of his crown; And whereas, no answer, whatever, to the humble petitions of the colonies for redress of grievances and reconciliation with Great Britain, has been or is likely to be given; but, the whole force of that kingdom, aided by foreign mercenaries, is to be exerted for the destruction of the good people of these colonies; And whereas, it appears absolutely irreconcileable to reason and good Conscience, for the people of these colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations necessary for the support of any government under the crown of Great Britain, and it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of the government exerted, under the authority of the people of the colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as for the defence of their lives, liberties, and properties, against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations of their enemies; therefore, resolved, etc.

Poor John Adams believed, and would always believe, that the resolution, which he had presented with Richard Henry Lee on May 10, together with the May 15 preamble, which he had authored, constituted the document that marked the independence of the colonies. It was for this reason that he was happy to delegate to his young associate, Thomas Jefferson, the task of preparing a draft of the document that became known as the Declaration of Independence.

Senate Chamber 1848

You can access a larger image of the above illustration, showing the Senate Chamber in 1848, by going here.

On the wall at the center top, above what I assume is the President's chair, there is a picture. Any idea who it is? It looks like John Adams to me, which would make sense, since he was the first President of the Senate.

Jefferson on the Nature of the Vice Presidency

Joe Biden's recent bizarre comments on the nature of the Vice Presidency bring the following to mind.

On January 22, 1797, Thomas Jefferson, at Monticello, wrote a letter to his friend and political ally and confidante James Madison that discussed the nature of the office of Vice President, which Jefferson was about to assume. I have added paragraph breaks and emphasis:

DEAR SIR,

Yours of the 8th came to hand yesterday. I was not aware of any necessity of going on to Philadelphia immediately, yet I had determined to do it, as a mark of respect to the public, and to do away the doubts which have spread, that I should consider the second office as beneath my acceptance. The journey, indeed, for the month of February, is a tremendous undertaking for me, who have not been seven miles from home since my re-settlement. I will see you about the rising of Congress; and presume I need not stay there a week. Your letters written before the 7th of February will still find me here.

My letters inform me that Mr. Adams speaks of me with great friendship, and with satisfaction in the prospect of administering the government in concurrence with me. I am glad of the first information, because though I saw that our antient friendship was affected by a little leaven, produced partly by his constitution, partly by the contrivance of others, yet I never felt a diminution of confidence in his integrity, and retained a solid affection for him. His principles of government I knew to be changed, but conscientiously changed.

As to my participating in the administration, if by that he meant the executive cabinet, both duty and inclination will shut that door to me. I cannot have a wish to see the scenes of 1793 revived as to myself, and to descend daily into the arena like a gladiator, to suffer martyrdom in every conflict. As to duty, the constitution will know me only as the member of a legislative body: and its principle is, that of a separation of legislative, executive and judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, yet it is clearly the spirit of the constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend to free government.

For an earlier post that touches on the nature of the Vice Presidency, see John Adams's Salary as Vice President.

John Adams's Salary as Vice President

As I noted in the last post, the Constitution specifically referred to the president's receipt of a salary. But it said nothing about whether Congress should grant a salary to the Vice President. In some ways, the discussion in the House about the Vice President's salary was even more interesting than the discussion about the President's.

The committee report proposed an annual salary for the Vice President of $5,000. Alexander White of Virginia immediately attacked it. Some of his arguments implicated the very nature of the office -- was it an executive position or a legislative one? -- and resonate to this very day (witness the recent controversy over whether Dick Cheney is a member of the Executive Branch):

I do not like the principle on which this provision is made for the Vice President; there is nothing, I believe, in the constitution which gives him a right to an annual sum; it fixes no duty upon his as Vice President, requiring a constant attendance. He may be called upon to act as President, and then I would give him the salary of the President; at other times, he is to preside as President of the Senate, then I would pay him for his services in that character [on a per diem basis].

Joshua Seney of Maryland later amplified on Rep. White's remarks, making clear that he regarded the Vice President as principally a "member[] of the legislature" (emphasis added):

No argument has been adduced to convince me that the Vice President ought to receive an allowance any more than the other members of the legislature. He cannot be compelled to perform any duty.

Even the representatives who argued for a fixed salary did not go so far as to say that the vice president would be performing executive functions. Instead, the core of their arguments was that the vice president was renouncing other potential opportunities because he had to stand ready to do so. Here is James Madison:

The nature of the office will require that the Vice President shall always be in readiness to render that service which contingencies may require . . .. If we consider that the Vice President may be taken from the extremity of the continent, and be from the nature of his office obliged to reside at or within the convenient reach of the seat of the Government, to take upon him the exercise of the President's functions, in case of any accident that may deprive the Union of the services of their first officer, we must see, I think, it will often happen that he will be obliged to be constantly at the seat of Government.

Fisher Ames of Massachusetts returned to the theme that democratic principles required adequate pay for government officers:

Every man is eligible, by the constitution, to be chosen to this office; but if a competent support is not allowed, the choice will be confined to opulent characters. This is an aristocratic idea, and contravenes the spirit of the constitution.

The best line of the debate, however, went to John Page of Virginia, for his backhanded slap at the uselessness of the office. I wonder what James Madison thought when he heard Page coyly observe:

As to the utility of the office, [Mr. Page] had nothing to say. He had no hand in forming the constitution; if he had, perhaps he should never have thought of such an officer; but as we have got him, we must maintain him . . ..

In the end, the House rejected both Rep. White's motion to pay the vice president on a per diem basis, as well as Rep. Page's motion to increase his annual salary to $8,000. The bill as enacted awarded the vice president an annual salary of $5,000, payable quarterly.

"Who Made Him His Brother's Keeper?"

John Randolph's March 30, 1826 Senate speech inveighing against John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, discussed in a post yesterday, is so bizarre that I thought I'd provide another excerpt.

Here Randolph displays his stream-of-consciousness/free association style, moving from Adams the Son to Adams the Father and then back to Son again, intermingled with references to a French revolutionary, British statesmen, Randolph's brother, and Randolph himself playing hooky as a boy, over thirty years earlier. Randolph's vicious wit is also in evidence. I have added paragraph breaks for readability:

Now, sir, John Quincy Adams coming into power under these inauspicious circumstances, and with these suspicious allies and connexions, has determined to become the apostle of liberty, as his father was, about the time of the formation of the Constitution, known to be the apostle of monarchy. It is no secret -- I was in New York when he first took his seat as Vice President. I recollect -- for I was a school boy at the time, attending the lobby of Congress, when I ought to have been at school -- I remember the manner in which my brother was spurned by the coachman of the then Vice President, for coming too near the arms blazoned on the scutcheon of the Vice-Regal carriage.

Perhaps I may have some of this old animosity rankling in my heart, and, coming from a race who are known never to forsake a friend or forgive an enemy -- I am taught to forgive my enemies, and I do from the bottom of my heart, most sincerely, as I hope to be forgiven; but it is my enemies -- not the enemies of my country; for, if they come here in the shape of the English, it is my duty to kill them; if they come here in a worse shape -- wolves in sheep's clothing -- it is my duty and my business to tear the sheep skins from their backs, and, as Windham said to Pitt, open the bosom and expose beneath the ruffled shirt the filthy dowlas.

. . . [John Quincy] Adams determined to take warning by his father's errors, but in attempting the perpendicular, he bent as much the other way. Who would believe that Adams, the son of the sedition-law President, who held office under his father -- who up to Dec. 6, 1807, was the undeviating, staunch adherent to the opposition to Jefferson's Administration, then almost gone -- who would believe he had selected for his pattern, the celebrated Anacharsis Cloots, "orator of the human race?"

As Anacharsis was the orator of the human race, so Adams was determined to be the President of the human race, when I am not willing that he should be President of my name and race; but he is, and must be, till the third day of March, eighteen hundred and -- I forget when. He has come out with a speech and a message, and with a doctrine that goes to take the whole human family under his special protection. Now, sir, who made him his brother's keeper? Who gave him, the President of the United States, the custody of the liberties, or the rights, or the interests of South America, or any other America, save only the United States of America, or any other country under the sun?