Customer Reviews

Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book deals with events from 1835 to 1845 and is principally concerned with John Quincy Adams' fight over the House rule which forbad the reception of petitions about slavery. This may seem like a narrow issue to be the subject of a 556 page book, but this book is flawlessly written, and has great humor--exposing the idiocy of the slavery upholders--and at times brought tears to my eyes. A dropback to the stirring events of 1775 and 1776, found on pages 155 to 157, is as good a writing as I have ever seen evoking the sheer drama of those days. This is a nigh flawless book for one as interested as I am in congressional history and the years before the Civil War.

Miller presents a detailed history of a remarkable period in U.S. Congressional history leading up to the Civil War. Miller describes the battle waged in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by John Quincy Adams, to preserve the right of citizens to petition their government, and his efforts to keep the issue of slavery before the House. I finally saw one of the important effects of the infamous 3/5's rule, which was to create a power imbalance in Congress in which slave holding states dominated the House due to the additional Congressional Reps. they gained by virtue of their large slave populations. It was this imbalance that hindered Congress from a full debate regarding the abolition of slavery. Extremely informative, very well researched and documented, and Miller weaves a witty commentary throughout that is most enjoyable. This is a book that should be read in every high school American History class. It is at times dry (big surprise as Miller details Congressional proceedings) but nonetheless fascinating. I have a new appreciation of the contribution of Adams to the battle against slavery.

Try discussing the relative role of slavery in the American Civil War, and the discussion will likely turn on its ear quickly, with little generated other than heated words. So often, it seems, we cannot discuss this subject except with anesthetic prose, or highly spirited points of view. Not so with William Lee Miller's Arguing About Slavery. The author, Thomas C. Sorensen Professor Political and Social Thought at the University of Virginia, has crafted a wonderfully expressed story of the battle over slavery in the 1830s and 1840s on the floor of Congress.

To those of us in the late twentieth century, the idea of petitioning to consider a prayer for action, the Constitutional sanctity of the act, and the relative abuse of the privilege by Congressmen both North and South seems the actions of an almost foreign government. The nearly maniacal desire of Congress to avoid any discussion of slavery in toto also seems incredible in light of government today. Using Congressional records to retell the story in the words of the participants, Miller weaves a fascinating tale as forces in the North try to ensure the rights of their petitioners, as well as deal with continued efforts to stop them dead in their tracks.

There are three major areas to the book: the opening of the slavery issues in Congress, with the presentation and fights by Southern radicals to keep any admittance of them from even appearing in Congress, the development and passage of the "gag rule," in which any attempt to place a petition in front of Congress regarding slavery was "gagged," and finally, the story of former President John Quincy Adams in these fights, and his efforts to support the rights of American constituents in these battles.

The story of Adams is the centerpiece of the book. In laying out the man who would not back down to both Southern and Northern Democratic interests, Miller brings back to life an American figure who is likely lost to many of our generation. Adams, already in his sixties as the slavery battles began, was an unlikely hero. Having served in nearly every capacity he could prior to agreeing to run for Congress after his presidential term, he brought a dogged determination to duty that is hardly recognizable in today's terms. Adams was not an abolitionist, but he was determined that the voices of his constituents, should they be of an abolition ideal, should be heard in the halls of Congress. To that end, he battled for a decade to make those voices heard.

Making use of Adams's massive personal diary, historical context, as well as the Congressional Globe coverage of the proceedings of Congress, Miller delivers the story of these battles in the words of those who were there. Thus, we can see the fanatical words of South Carolinian planter James Henry Hammond: "And I warn the abolitionists, ignorant, infatuated, barbarians that they are, that if chance shall throw any of them into our hands he may expect a felon's death," and Waddy Thompson, Jr.: "In my opinion nothing will satisfy the excited, the almost frenzied South, but an indignant rejection of these petitions [calling for the end of slavery in the District of Columbia]; such a rejection as will at the same time that it respects the right of petitioning, express the predetermination, the foregone conclusion of the House on the subject -- a rejection, sir, that will satisfy the South, and serve as an indignant rebuke to the fanatics of the North." And finally, we see and hear in our minds eye the torture of Adams as he struggles to balance his personal devotion to his country (he was a strong Unionist) with his obligations and duties to his office. Looking at war as a possibility between the two sides of the Union, he concludes in his diary: "It seems to me that its result [that of war] might be the extirpation of slavery from this whole continent; and, calamitous and desolating as this course of events in its progress must be, so glorious would be its final issue, that, as God shall judge me, I dare not say that it is not to be desired."

Much more than just a chronological narration of events, Miller weaves in background of the events and personalities in order to make his subject come alive. Arguing About Slavery is a book outside the mainstream of standard Civil War book fare, but a must if you have any desire to understand the people, events, and stories that led to the great conflict beginning in 1861.

Discussions of the American conflict over slavery often focus heavily on the 1850s and 1860s. Yet many fascinating events occurred in the decades before 1850, events which caused the various American positions on slavery to develop and solidify. In "Arguing About Slavery", Miller does an excellent job of telling the story of one particular set of conflicts over slavery that occurred (primarily) on the floor of the US Congress in the 1830s and 1840s.

I have never almost never seen a historian bring such a diverse cast of characters to life in such a fascinating way. Miller tells the story of the ordinary men and women who were moved to sign their names on thousands and thousands of anti-slavery petitions, of the abolitionist organizers who delivered these petitions to Congress, and of the politicians who rhetorically (and later, physically) brawled over the question of whether or not to allow the issue of slavery to be discussed.

At times, the chronology becomes a bit hard to follow -- Miller has a confusing habit of jumping backwards or forwards, referring to speeches or events that occurred years earlier or later -- but his narrative is dramatic and it'll keep you interested right through to the end. I really had difficulty putting this book down, and in fact I keep going back to it. I wholeheartily recommend this book!

Anybody who ascribes to the idiotic notion that Southern secession was all about states' rights and really had nothing to do with slavery needs to be reminded of two antebellum events: the Fugitive Slave Act, which was legislation that solely benefitted slaveowners while being a complete affront to the notion of states' rights; and the gag rule in Congress from 1836-1844, which essentially stripped citizens & Congressmen of their 1st amendment rights.

The gag rule was focused on the 1st Amendment right of petition, which was frequently utilized by US citizens in the early 19th century. The cause of the furor was a dramatic increase of abolitionist petitions that proposed the abolition of the slave trade within the District of Columbia, which was under the direct jurisdiction of the US Congress (DC was chosen because most people believed that the Constitution did not give the Congress jurisdiction in the individual states --- DC was another matter).

The Congress of that period was dominated by pro-slavery Southerners and sympathetic Northerners who would rather not stir up too much trouble. However, a small group of Congressmen, led by John Quincy Adams, waged an 8-year against the gag rule. Along the way, Adams & his cohorts, along with an increasingly organized & vocal abolitionist movement, undermined the neutral attitude most Americans had towards the issue of slavery.

Former president John Quincy Adams is clearly the central figure of the story, and it is pretty obvious that Miller likes the crochety old statesman. One cannot read this book and not come away with an increased respect for Adams, who has unfairly been relegated to historical obscurity. It is remarkable to think that through most of the gag rule battle, Adams was in his mid to late 70's, and almost never missed a day in Congress. The story also displays abundantly Adams' formidable intellect and parliamentary skills.

On the other side of the aisle were the Southern fire-eaters, who were capable of great oratorical flourishes but who possessed precious little strategic skill. Miller recounts how, time again, the pro-slavery forces miscalculated with their tactics. Instead of squelching debate about slavery, hotheads like Henry Wise & Waddy Thompson Jr succeeded only in inflaming the controversy. After 8 years, the leaders of the pro-gag forces were realizing that they might have unleashed forces beyond their control, and abandoned the fight to maintain the gag.

The story is presented in an entertainingly narrative style which I found to be quite enjoyable. Some reviewers have found the author's asides to be a distraction, but I found that they contributed well to the story for the most part. Indeed, some sections of the book (such as when Adams is facing down his opponents who are attempting to censure him) are real page-turners.

While the book was very entertaining, it is also quite sobering. One becomes aware of the appalling nature of the slave-owning bloc. So dedicated were they to preserving their own interests that they repeatedly violated the 1st Amendment & trampled on civil rights of WHITE citizens in general, through the censoring of private mail, violating the writ of habeas corpus (South Carolina had a law on the books for almost 40 years, allowing free black sailors to arrested & imprisoned for duration of their ship's stay in port, simply because they were free blacks and MIGHT incite the local slave population to rebel) and (ironically) violating the doctrine of states' rights --- as the right to due process was systematically denied to the citizens of other states (a free enfranchised citizen of Massachusetts, for example, was not due any rights at all under the constitution of Missouri if he happened not to be white). Eventually, the encroachment by the South on the civil rights of the rest of the nation's citizens became ominous enough for the average citizen in the North to become aware of the genuine threat that the expansion of slavery posed. Almost all of this starts with the fight over the gag rule in Congress.

Miller also examines how Southern politicians tried, with increasing difficulty, to reconcile their claims to being good republicans with their obvious anti-republican actions. Miller argues that the politicians of the South fought to prevent the mere discussion of slavery because they knew better than anyone that the institution & way of life they were defending could not be defended in the playing field was level. If violating the principles of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence is what it took to defend the peculiar institution, then they would do it, but not without a great deal of moral & intellectual discomfort. It is amazing to read some of the tortured rationalizations of Southern statesmen during this period.

This should be required reading for the student of this period. It is not a dry subject, and fortunately the author writes with plenty of flair. If some devotee of the Lost Cause mythos starts blathering on about how the Confederacy was only about the defense of states' rights & tries to use the Constitution as a rationalization for secession, this book should provide you with plenty of ammunition for your debate.

John Quincy Adams is not on Mount Rushmore; he is not trumpeted in high school history textbooks as a messianic figure, a beacon of freedom and liberty.

Quite rightly so; he would probably have found that amusing.

Adams is subject to an almost criminal lack of coverage in history courses--he does not fit the traditional model of the good American politician, and teachers often don't like to introduce amniguity into their courses by suggesting that an 'elitist' can be a great public figure, and that greatness is distinct from political success. Washington was great because he "created the country." Lincoln was great because he "ended slavery." Adams was simply an extremely good Secretary of State, brilliant Represenative in the House, and--god forbid--knew what he was doing while he was President.

The problem really is that Adams, with all his abilities, was not a politician in the American sense: he was educated, cultured, and actually knew what he was doing. His successor, Andrew Jackson--a boorish man who disobeyed the law, helped wipe out a race of people, and pandered to the whims of "the masses"--is often hailed as a great figure in American politics, apparently because of said boorishness, refusal to obey the Constitution, and genocidal tendencies.

In Adams is a figure that really ought to be respected and aimed for in American politics: a man with a strongly defined sense of morality, well-developed mind and good education, vast experience, and ability to govern. The traits that made Adams such a great man--his refusal to do anything simply because "the people" wanted it, coupled with his disturbing tendency to pursue policies that were intelligent, necessary, beneficial, and incredibly foresighted--seem to doom him to obscurity.

Miller takes on the unenviable task of arguing in favor of Adams as a great man, although he limits himself to his time in the House; in doing so, he provides an accesible and much-needed glimpse into the life of a man by far one of the greatest public figures America has seen.

Long before Sen. Charles Sumner spoke about Bleeding Kansas and was soon thereafter caned on the floor of the Senate by Congressman Preston Brooks, the Congressional waters had ben moving to an ever-higher boil on the slavery issue.

One of the leaders in the battle against slavery was Massachusetts Congressman and former President John Quincy Adams. Earning the sobriquet "Old Man Eloquent" on this issue, in this ever-heating contest, Adams finally got a House gag rule overturned that had prohibited antislavery petitions from the general public from even being discussed.

Adams had been a free-soiler, opposed to the expansion of slavery for many years. But his well-known legal defense of the Amistad defendants moved him beyond free-soiler to abolitionist.

Miller makes Adams fire on the floor Congress come alive, and puts into context.

Much of that context carries through to the 1860s and beyond.

For example, Miller points out that two decades before Lincoln thought of it, Adams opined that Presidentail war powers might be used to abolish slavery during a civil war.

At the same time, Miller reaches further back into history, to point out the early history of slavery in the North. (In the middle 1700s, New York's population may have been as high as 14 percent slave.) That's important to show how Southern arguments and fears that they A. could not do without slavery and B. would not know how to let such a large population go free, were groundless.

Here's a few more fascinating and important historical tidbits from the book.

Page 17 - Jefferson, while a member of the Confederation Congress in 1784, authored a provision to exclude slavery not just from the Old Northwest, but ALL Western territory on the far side of the Appalachians. It failed by one state's vote, which he claimed in turn was lost due to the illness of one delegate.

Page 349 - Showing a fine-tuned sense of satire, even sarcasm, during gag rule debate in the 25th Congress, Adams proposed Congress form a "Committee of Color," specifically designed to investigate Congressional bloodlines, with the "impure" to be summarily expelled.

Page 478 - A fine illustration of the morals of the white knights of the patrician South: Henry Hammond, southern ultra already at this time, in the House, and as Senator, deliverer of the "Cotton is King" speech, was a rou? first class. He took an 18-year-old slave with 1-year-old child as a mistress, then when the child turned 12 took her as mistress too. He also had some degree of attachment to the four teenage daughters of Wade Hampton II, father of the Civil War general.

Read this book, and find out just how entrenched Southern recalcitrance was 20, 30, 40 years before the shots at Fort Sumter.

The other reviewers have it right. I first read this superb book when it was first published in 1995. I picked it up thinking the subject seemed a little dry, but found I couldn't put it down. Now, eight years later, I have reread it. Again I couldn't put it down.

An absolutely brilliant book. Incredibly moving: the only book I've ever read that literally brought me to tears while reading it. But at the same time, wonderfully informative and evocative of the amazing historical events of the day. If you liked the movie "Amistad," you will love this second look at John Quincy Adams' incredibly brave stand during what William Freehling has called the "Pearl Harbor of the Civil War." I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

U.S. history during the early 19th century never interested me at all, but personal interest reading about U.S. slavery led me to this exciting book. The writing conveys an understanding and, more than that, an enthusiasm of the topics and personalities covered. I developed an admiration for and fascination with John Quincy Adams (and Mr. Miller). I remain astounded at how this book captured my interest in an era for which I've had almost an aversion. To have learned so much and to have enjoyed it so much is wonderful.