Gag Rule And Adams example essay topic

The struggle against human slavery was destined to be a long and difficult one. A tradition that started long before America was first colonized and ended long after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, the institution of slavery eventually split the country into two factions who would eventually go to battle in civil war. Countless Americans fought, wrote, and spoke against slavery, all taking their own unique approach to the issue. From Harriet Beecher Stowe to Abraham Lincoln, numerous northerners and southerners, blacks and whites, rich and poor people helped lead the fight for the ultimate abolition of slavery. One of these individuals, the son of a U.S. President and descendent of King Edward, a man who would one day be president himself, played an important role in this cause. This man was John Quincy Adams.

Named after his great-grandfather Colonel John Quincy, Adams was born on July 11, 1767, in Braintree (now known as Quincy), Massachusetts. Perhaps the greatest diplomatist ever, Adams had an upbringing to be jealous of; his education both foreign and local led him to begin his political and diplomatic career at the young age of 13. A brilliant polyglot and deeply reflective scholar, Adams was also quick to admitting to his own weaknesses. Adams named himself a "cold, austere and forbidding" man, and his political adversaries did little to disagree with him. (Degregario, 89) His diary contained many of these pensive judgments-it seems that the best description of John Quincy Adams' character was made by him. Despite his extraordinary intellect, Adams had plenty of other characteristics far from impressive.

He often dressed plainly, without heed, and was dubbed an "unsocial savage" by personal enemies. Adams was very aware of his deficiency in character, yet lacked the "pliability to reform it". The shortcoming of his personality is well described in his diary, expressing himself as "being as little qualified by nature, education, or habit for the arts of a courtier as I am desirous to be courted by others", and further stating, "I am certainly not intentionally repulsive in my manners and deportment, and in my public station I never made myself inaccessible to any human being". Adams did not consider himself a popular man, for he lacked "the honey which the profligate proverb says is the true fly-catcher". (Degregario, 89) Besides his many contributions to the fight against slavery, Adams accomplished many other extraordinary feats during his life. Adams graduated from Harvard in 1787, and after studying law for three years, was admitted to the bar in July 1790.

Having begun his diplomatic career at the at the age of 13 as the secretary to America's minister in Russia, Adams would later go on to become minister of the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain. Despite Adams' many diplomatic duties, his foremost accomplishments were succeeded from other positions. From his position in the U.S. Senate in 1803, Adams helped win the rejection of the King-Hawkesbury convention, preserving what is now the northern half of Washington state, the northern tip of Idaho, the northern third of Montana, the northern half of North Dakota, and the northwest corner of Minnesota for the union. Once again aiding in the expansion of the United States in 1819, as Secretary of State Adams completed the Adams-Ones treaty. This act acquired Spanish Florida for the United States, set the southwestern boundary of the U.S. at the Sabine River, and removed all Spanish claims to Oregon. In 1814, Adams headed a five-man delegation and was the chief negotiator in the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war of 1812.

Adams was also a main supporter in the construction of the Monroe Doctrine, urging President Monroe not to let America be a "cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war" by constructing a joint resolution. Later in his career, amongst his many struggles during his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Adams was forefront in the fight involving the bequest of James Smithson that lead to the chartering of "an institution of disseminate knowledge" in 1846. This donation would charter what is now known as the Smithsonian Institution. (Degregario, 100) As we see, throughout his life, John Quincy Adams accomplished many things; he acquired land, upheld peace, and negotiated treaties, all for the interests of the union. Adams was the son of one of the founders of this great country as well as a protector of the surviving ideals of that man and his generation. One of those ideals, overtly his fathers, was the insecurity in the institution of slavery.

John Quincy was the first president not to be a slaveholder since his father, and did a great deal to indicate just why that was so. In a time when there were few people both supportive of the abolitionist cause and high in stature, any step made towards emancipation was seen as an act of zealotry. When set against the massive populations, there were few citizens making a big change in equality in the north, less in Washington, and virtually none in the south. Any difference in the situation of slavery was essentially a big difference, and any action made on the wrong side on an issue as serious as slavery could endanger one's heath considerably. Violence was not uncommon amongst the abolitionists; indeed the closer one was to the issue, the more susceptible one was to violent outbursts made on them. An actual slave protesting the institution could easily lose his life doing so, and a free Negro was not above such a menace either.

Many whites, on the other hand, would often preach how much they detest slavery, while at the same time practice prejudice towards blacks, free and slave alike. If the supporters for the abolitionist cause were few, and the amount of people actually advancing the issue were less, then the amount of people who despised both slavery and inequality that also made steps towards expunging the problem were nil. The abolitionist cause needed a man of great stature who ostracized the institution of slavery and had the power and prestige to attack the issue head-on. They needed a man like John Quincy Adams. Adams was never considered, and also did not consider himself, an outright abolitionist.

Instead of actually attacking the issue head-on, like most abolitionists preferred him to, Adams took a more practical approach to the problem. He battled the pilfering of human rights and the expansion of slavery, rather than the institution itself. Certainly a man who had been President of the United States would know the limit of his power, the limit of our government's power, and the limit of the power of a nation divided. Adams had a keen intellect and knew that diving into things headfirst was not the wisest way to advance an issue as radical as the abolition of slavery, and stressed "perpetual control over passion" (Brookhiser, 105). The steps Adams made for the abolitionist cause may seem small to someone that lives in our day and age. However, its well known that the progress Adams made was unthinkable for it's time, and showed the work of a cunning political mind that was sensible enough not to drive his country into violence, and radical enough to facilitate the growth and advancement of antislavery ideas, press, and organizations.

Adams wished to avoid secession and / or civil war at all costs. He wanted slavery abolished and equality amongst all -- liberties Adams attested were provided for in our great Constitution -- without having to pay with human pain and suffering. A goal the country would one day find unattainable. Adams was not often always overtly successful in his efforts against the expansion of slavery. It took him some time to develop an appropriate approach to the subject, and a similar amount of time to develop an actual position on abolition altogether.

It is well known that Adams detested slavery-he called it "the great and foul stain upon the North American Union"-but his position on its abolition was not so clear-cut. (Miller, 187) Some of his feelings towards slavery were clearly derived from his mother, Abigail Adams. In letters to her husband, John, Abigail showed her pounding odium for slavery and her genuine yearning for its demise. "I wish most sincerely that there was not a slave in the province.

It always seemed a most iniquitous scheme to me - to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have" (Miller, 162). Although his hatred for the institution was strong, Adams feared the consequences of emancipation, even gradual. Few politicians wanted civil war, and most knew it could easily be provoked. The issue of slavery was therefore avoided at all costs in politics, as not to aggravate northern abolitionists or southern slaveholders. To their dismay, the Missouri question changed all that.

Missouri was the first state entirely west of the Mississippi river to apply to join the union, and they were asking to come in as a slave state. This unavoidably brought the question of slavery into politics. Was there to be slavery in Missouri, or the rest of the Louisiana territory? Adams thought not. Unfortunately, he made little action to block the expansion of slavery at the time, although his journal deeply expresses his desire for someone to do so. Adams deeply admired Rufus King, a senator from New York, who had spoken on the issue of slavery in Missouri in February 1820.

King had explained the absolute incompatibility of slavery with the natural liberties of man. Adams said that after hearing King speak, slaveholders were instantly seized with cramps. While Adams had a great support for King, he also thought his efforts too timid. Adams's opinion was that all of the most eloquent and passionate speakers were on the side of proslavery while all of the cool and reserved members belonged to the abolitionist cause. This made his situation all the more the unfortunate because Adams believed this was precisely the time to stand and "perform the duties of an angel upon earth!" In a conversation between Adams and his future vice president John Calhoun, Adams declared that the power to prevent the expansion of slavery in the new states was provided for in the preamble, "which listed 'establish [ing] justice' as one of the ends of government". Adams noted, "What can be more needful for the establishment of justice than the interdiction of slavery where it does not exist?" (Brookhiser, 85) Adams made few attempts to defend the right of Congress to exclude slavery from new territories when the Missouri question was prominent, and unfortunately, confined most of his arguments to the pages of his journal.

"This objective (emancipation) is vast in its compass, awful in its prospects, sublime and beautiful in its issue" (Miller, 188). In 1820 Henry Clay of Kentucky offered a proposal that would be later known as the Missouri Compromise, which quickly won congressional approval. Missouri was to enter the union as a slave state and Maine as a free one. Additionally, slavery was forever prohibited north of the southern boundary of Missouri.

Adams supported the Missouri compromise, reluctantly; he believed it was the best that could be done without risking war or secession. Much like Adams opinion on the Missouri question was his stance on the annexation of Texas. In the past, Adams had always been a proponent of the acquisition of land, despite the slavery in it or the possibility of war. He supported the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, and Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida, as well as many other attempts to expand America's borders. From the very start he was overwhelmingly encouraging to attempts made at acquiring Texas from Mexico, but his opinion would soon change. In 1821, Mexico allowed a collection of Americans to settle in Texas.

By the mid '30's, the white population was ten times that of the Mexican population, and soon conflict broke out between America and Mexico. In May of 1836, after an American loss at the Alamo, Texas was won from Mexico in the battle of San Jacinto. Texas would make numerous attempts at joining the union over the next few years. What Adams did not realize, or underestimated, was the unbounded will of the Texas settlers to spread the institution of slavery. While slavery was becoming progressively more pervasive in the territory, annexation was the only way for it to truly thrive, for Mexico abolished slavery in 1829.

Besides the basic human rights and liberties that slavery sucked out of the union, the expansion of this slavery was Adam's main struggle within the House -- the struggle he told thousands of petitioners to focus on. The acquisition of Texas from Mexico could not have come at a worse time for Adams. The Pinckney Committee report had just been passed by the House of Representatives, making any petitions or resolutions about the annexation of Texas incredibly difficult to gain attention. Part of the report provided that any petition that had anything to do with slavery would be tabled, or as Adams would put it "gagged", without any consideration. Although numerous petitions supporting or at variance with the annexation of Texas did not mention slavery, any debate on the petition would surely lead to that topic. So, like the countless petitions asking for the abolition of slavery, Adams watched as the innumerable petitions he presented were tabled or not received at all.

The House tabled nearly every petition, and even the resolutions sent by state legislature's fell victim to the gag rule, banned from seeing the light of day. Fortunately, the effect wasn't completely permanent. Eventually, some of the resolutions sent by various state legislatures were voted open for debate. Adams was thrilled; certainly if the Texas issue was open for discussion the gag on slavery petitions would become harder to maintain. So Adams proceeded to present countless petitions on Texas as well as slavery, and after the House had received innumerable petitions, resolutions, and memorials on the annexation of Texas, it seemed as if the issue was finally going to be properly addressed.

The House voted to send the multitude of petitions to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for consideration. Finally, Adams thought, a small victory after endless debate. Unfortunately, this would not be much of a victory for Adams, or anyone else. The committee returned promptly with the resolution of no resolution. They recommended no action on the subject of Texas. Adams was furious.

He accused the committee of dismissing the petitions without any consideration whatsoever, and even went as far as to say that none of them had even read the resolutions. This made the committee noticeably bothered. Adams continued to accuse the committee of declining to thoroughly consider the petitions, and asked members of the committee how much actual time they spent reading them. After a considerable amount of debate, Adams found his accusations to be more accurate than he thought. One member of the committee, Hugh Legare of Charleston, reluctantly admit to not reading any of the petitions, resolutions, and memorials on the subject of the annexation of Texas. "Not one of them".

Adams made note to state out loud the 76th standing rule of the House of Representatives, which essentially stated that all papers presented to the committee must be taken into consideration, and once they have been taken into consideration, then the committee must report their opinion on the subject. Adams and the rest of the House perceived that this particular committee proceeded to report their opinion of the matter after disregarding the entire sum of papers. (Arguing About Slavery, 291) Adams finally did win a small victory in his fight against the annexation of Texas, immediately after this event. After one member of the House moved to send back the whole matter of the petitions on Texas to the committee for thorough reconsideration, and an amendment was offered to that motion, Adams moved to make an amendment to that amendment that Congress or any other part of the government had not the power to annex any independent foreign state. Adams then had the floor, and kept it for a month. Adams' was an amendment to an amendment, which gave him the liberty to speak freely on Texas, the gag rule, and slavery, and other issues as long as he desired, and he did just that.

He even made the clerk read to the House the aforementioned petitions that had been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Adams continued to hold the floor from June 6 till July 7 1838, when the House adjourned and the session ended. He would have no doubt continued to hold the floor when Congress reconvened in December, but there was no need. Apparently his actions had halted any efforts made by Texas or Washington towards annexation. The people of Texas withdrew their proposal to Washington and Washington didn't continue with any plans to annex Texas. Although Texas would finally be annexed six years later as a slave state, and Adams would ultimately lose the fight, the actions Adams took towards stalling this event were nevertheless, noteworthy and inspiring.

After Texas was annexed in 1845, Adams saw it as a disaster. He called it the "first step" of a "maritime, colonizing, slave-tainted monarchy" en route for the conquest of Mexico (Brookhiser, 103). Amid the many defeats and disasters Adams failed to prevent while he was a member of the House of Representatives, there are two triumphs that he has become well known for. One of these triumphs was his success in the case of the schooner La Amistad. In 1839 the Spanish schooner La Amistad was sailing between Cuban ports when the enslaved Africans aboard rebelled and killed all but two members of the ship's crew and then ordered the remaining two to take them home to Africa. These Africans, who did not speak a word of Spanish, were tricked and captured in Long Island waters and then transported to a New Haven prison.

Spain demanded custody of them as murderers and escaped slaves. The case was taken by an abolitionist named Lewis Tappan and a number of different defense lawyers, including Stephen Baldwin, the son of a well-known jurist and governor of Connecticut. As it turns out, these Africans were not slaves at all but had been marauded in their homes in Africa and stolen into the slave trade. They were taken on a boat, the Te kora, to Cuba, and then purchased illegally.

Stephen Baldwin, amongst a number of other lawyers, was successful when the case appeared before the circuit court in Hartford. The obvious youth and ignorance of Spanish proved to the judge that these men could not be slaves. The slave trade was prohibited in 1808, and it was clear that these African's were to young to have entered the slave trade before 1808 and too foreign to have been born into slavery. The Africans won an impressive victory in the circuit court and were deemed free men, but fearing the impact of the case on southern slave-owners, the Van Buren administration appealed the decision, and the Africans case was recommended to the Supreme Court.

By now most of the defense lawyers had quit the case; the panic of 1837 still had an overwhelming presence in New Haven, and Tappan was erratically hard-struck for money. He couldn't afford to pay the lawyers previously working on the case, and was rejected when he approached others. Fortunately, Baldwin remained, and had the aspiration to appear before the Supreme Court all by himself. John Quincy Adams had followed the case of the Amistad Africans closely in the abolitionist paper The Emancipator.

Adams wrote a letter the paper later published parts of stating his explicit agreement of opinions with a letter previously published in The Emancipator. In his diary Adams wrote, "That which now absorbs a great part of my time and all my good feelings is the case of 53 African negroes taken at sea... ". (Cable, 18) Tappan, through a mutual friend, would eventually call on Adams to argue the case before the Supreme Court. Initially, Adams refused Tappan's pleas. "I am too old, too oppressed to my duties in the House of Representatives, too inexperienced after a lapse of thirty years in the forms and technicalities of arguments before the Supreme Court".

Nonetheless, Adams attested to his agreement to "cheerfully do what I have hitherto offered, that is, to give my assistance with counsel and advice to Mr. Baldwin" (Cable, 79). After considerable reconsideration, Adams agreed to appear before the Supreme Court on the behalf of the Africans. On February 22, 1841, the case at the Supreme Court began, and Stephen Baldwin renewed all of his old arguments before the nine justices. The success of the defense at both courts was largely due to Mr. Baldwin's arguments, yet Mr. Adams stated many powerful words that no doubt helped rid the African's of their plight. Indeed, he spoke for four hours the day after Baldwin outlined the basic defense. Adams spoke about aspects of the case; he outlined general ideas of justice of liberty, attributed error to the prosecutions measures, explained the fallacy in the claims made by Spain, and showed the un feasibility that these Africans, as described by Spain, could be both human beings and property at the same time.

Spain had demanded the negroes, as pirates and murderers, to be delivered to Spain as criminals. They additionally demanded them as personal property of their owners, citizens of Spain, to be delivered to Spain immediately. After court reconvened on March 1 (a court justice died the night of February 24, and court was adjourned for a week), Adams spoke another three hours. After the prosecution was finished arguing their claims, the judges retired and took several days to consider the verdict. Upon returning, the justices stated their belief that the Africans had never been the property of Spain, or slaves at all, and therefore are not pirates or robbers but kidnapped men, who have the right to rebellion when their freedom is forcibly taken from them. They African's were immediately discharged, and allowed to return home if that was their will.

The case of the Africans onboard the schooner La Amistad was a significant success for abolitionism. Although these men were not slaves or Americans, the effect they had on slavery in America was vast. A boat full of African's killed citizens of Spain, America's ally, and were allowed more freedom than free American negroes. In addition, a venerable ex-president who now, if not seen before as a friend to abolition, would certainly seem so now, defended the case. This may not have been a big step for Adams personally, but it was for the anti-slavery cause. During his work on the case of the African's mutiny on the Amistad, Adams was also working on an issue he had been already fighting for a long time.

Perhaps not as directly related to the freedom of black people as the case of the Amistad, but ultimately much more important to the rights of every American man and woman was this struggle within the House of Representatives. What is probably Adams most significant accomplishment for both the abolitionist and American cause is his overturning of the notorious gag rule. In 1835, a South Carolina congressman named Henry Laurens Pinckney asked the House to " 'put a more decided seal of reprobation' on antislavery petitions by refusing even to receive them" (Brookhiser, 104). Henry Pinckney, the son of Charles Pinckney, a man highly responsible for the Constitution's compromises on the institution of slavery, was the head of the committee responsible for the introduction of the gag rule. The gag rule was the third claim made in a three-part report put together by Pinckney's committee. The first part of the report claimed that Congress did not have any power to interfere with slavery in the individual states.

The second part stated that any interference with slavery in the District of Columbia made by Congress would be "unwise and impolitic". The third part of the Pinckney Committee Report specifically stated that "All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery of the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be ham thereon". (Miller, 144) Adams opposed all three parts of the report, and chiefly the gag rule. In his well-known discussion with the House concerning the third part of the report, after being cut off by a procedural motion, Adams asked the Speaker whether he was "gagged or not" (Miller, 149). The Speaker ruled that he was, basically, and Adams was silenced. Or so they thought.

Once it came around to voting for these three resolutions to pass, Adams was anything but silent. When Adams was asked for his vote on the first piece of the report, Adams asked the House for five minutes of it's time to prove that the resolution was false, and was immediately called to order. When approached on his choice on the second, Adams asked to be excused from the vote. Finally, when the House read the third part, the gag rule, and Adams was called on to vote, he rose and strongly said, "I hold the resolution to be a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, the rules of this House, and the rights of my constituents". All three parts of the Pinckney Committee Report passed by a considerable margin, even after a great amount of debate and disagreement over the second part, which stated it "unwise" but not outside the government's power, to tamper with slavery in the District of Columbia. The day the gag rule was enacted, Adams launched a passionate mission to reclaim American's right to petition, no matter what issue the petitions addressed.

Adams knew the resolution was in violation with the Constitution, which explicitly issues every American citizen "the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (qty. in Brookhiser, 103). His feelings towards the rule are probably best described by a statement he made not on the Pinckney resolutions but on petitions Adams had presented to the house in 1831. Petitions, Adams said, that were presented "in homage to the sacred right of petition, a right which in whatever manner it might be treated by others, should never be treated by him with anything but respect" (Miller, 197). Immediately, Adams started presenting countless petitions begging for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia as well as petitions addressing other slavery-related grievances.

Adams watched time and time again as the gag rule forced his and other's petitions upon the table and the members of the House called him to order for even presenting the House such petitions. Although the rule made the discussion of slavery more circumvented than it already was, there were ways around this dreaded rule. Pinckney's gag rule along with all resolutions of the previous session of the House of Representatives expired with the session itself. This gave Adams precious time to introduce hundreds of petitions in the time it took to adopt a new rule, and speak on the forbidden subjects that the members so ardently despised. Adams and a few other members of Congress proceeded to introduce countless petitions and explicitly attest to their Constitutional right and responsibility to both America's citizens and themselves to do so. Unfortunately, Adams did not make much headway in the early years of his struggle with the gag rule.

Indeed it would take around a decade of Adams life to return the right of petition back to America. The rule was reenacted year after year; Pinckney's rule was reenacted by Hawes in January of 1837, which in turn was reenacted by Patton in December of the same year, which was then reenacted by Atherton in December of 1838. It seemed that the majority of the house was against Adams. Nonetheless, Adams chipped away at the gag, with at least one notable event showing progress early in his struggle.

Not long after the enactment of the Hawes gag, Adams brought to the Speaker's attention a petition signed by twenty-two persons who proclaimed themselves to be slaves. The House was outraged, to say the least. Many suggested the petition should be rejected immediately. Still others thought the petition should in fact be burned, and more thought that Adams himself should be punished for introducing such a petition. The House had been bothered by the gentleman from Massachusetts's steps towards rescinding the gag rule for the umpteenth time, and their situation did not improve. The members of the House of Representatives became redder by the minute, once again seized with cramps, this time by Adams words.

Proposals were made to censure Adams, for "committing an outrage on the rights and feelings of a large portion of the people of this Union, a flagrant contempt on the dignity of this House; and by extending to slaves a privilege only belonging to freemen" (Miller, 232,233). It would not be the last time this was motioned. The members of the house drafted this proposal of censure and accused Adams of presenting a petition, from slaves, begging for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. After letting the House further infuriate themselves, Adams finally spoke to defend himself.

The charge was not accurate, Adams said. For one thing, Adams had not attempted to present the petition, but simply asked the speaker what the status of such a petition was under the Hawes resolution. More importantly, the House was mistaken in the content of the petition. It said nothing supporting abolition in the District of Columbia. This petition, expressed that these twenty-two Negroes felt "they were better off under slavery" and offered that "Adams be expelled from the House if he persisted" (Brookhiser, 105) Here was the very opinion of countless members of the House, allegedly written in this petition by slaves. Adams not only let many members of the House make fools of themselves, but also showed the extent of their hypocritical ideals and opinions to the remaining members of the House.

Their desire to punish Adam's was now incredibly swollen, wanting Adams to be "called to the bar of the House, and censured by the Speaker", for trifling with the House. This would not be the only attempt to censure Adams made during his time in the House of Representatives, and he would further madden the members to incredible levels in the future. (Miller, 233) This was not be the last time Adams would "give color to the idea" of slaves having the right to petition. His colleagues believed that Adams might as well be presenting a petition "from a cow or horse-for he might as well be the organ of one species of property as another" (Brookhiser, 106) Nor would it be the last time he touched on ideas that showed the ignorance in many slaveholders of the south and the outrage in many abolitionists of the north. In 1842, Adams offered a petition from Haverhill, Massachusetts that claimed, "one section of the union was being 'drained to sustain the views and course of another' and also asked, "that the union be peaceably dissolved" (Brookhiser, 107).

Adams was now deliberately acting as a voice for citizens' threats of secession. Another attempt to censure Adams followed the debate of this petition, nearly succeeding in a vote of 106 to 93. This petition showed Adams changing opinion towards civil war: once he was wound up, he virtually urged it on. It's fairly obvious why Adam's opinion became more radical over the years. The gag rule kept being reinstated, and in 1840, William Cost Johnson of Maryland moved to instate what became rule 21.

Rule 21 wasn't just a gag resolution, but a House rule. Although it won by only a 6-vote margin, this rule changed everything. The gag rule was now permanent; it did not expire with the previous session like the old resolutions had, and rescinding the rule become even more of a challenge to Adams. Adams would continue the fight to rid the House of this now permanent gag rule over the years, and his supreme oratorical skill would earn him the moniker "old man eloquent", derived from Isocrates in one of John Milton's sonnets. Adams' dexterity would help him win the eradication of the gag rule a number of times, though not permanently until 1845. In 1841, the House would vote against the gag rule three consecutive times before rescinding Adams' proposal to adopt the previous session's rules, minus rule 21, and then again vote to adopt the rules with 21.

After no doubt instilling a fake sense of accomplishment, you'd think Adams would soon give up his struggle and accept the rule. Adams was threatened with lynching at times, but he kept at his struggle, despite his repeated failures, odds against him, and opinions and insults of his contemporaries. In respect to Adams efforts against the gag rule, Isaac Milne of Ohio wrote Adams in 1842, "You are perfectly insane and should apply for admission to the Lunatic Asylum. You have cost the Government more than half your state is worth. You are a curse to the Whig Party and to the nation" (Degregorio, 102). It is a wonder that the gag rule did not drive Mr. Adams into lunacy, considering the lengths he went to rescind it.

It would take him three more years, but Adams would eventually triumph over this evil. It had been obvious that Adams' fight against the gag rule provoked the sending of more and more petitions on slavery-the exact thing that the rule was intended to prevent. After a decade of putting up with petitions that would sometimes reach amounts ten-fold that of the amount of petitions introduced before the gag rule the House, for whatever reason, voted the rule down. When Congress reassembled in December of 1844, Adams gave notice to the House on the first day of the new session that he would move to rescind the gag rule, now the 25th rule of the House. The next day, after a vote of 81 to 104 to lay his resolution on the table, Adam's resolution was passed by a margin of 28. The gag rule was finally rescinded, and this time it stuck.

"Old man eloquent" had finally prevailed. There were no more votes, no amendments, and no appeals. Rule 25 was rescinded, and Adams had won. The right to petition was given back to all citizens of the United States, on topics of slavery or any other.

An admirer gave Adams an ivory cane, inscribed with the words "Right of Petition Triumphant". Adams added the date of his victory to that inscription, and made good use of the cane throughout years to come. On February 21, 1848, after having already suffered a stroke two years prior, John Quincy Adams collapsed after calling out and very loud "No" to a vote to decorate certain generals whom had served in the Mexican War and attempting to stand up to speak against it. Adams shortly slipped into a coma and died two days later. Theodore Parker, a Massachusetts clergyman and reformer would later state, "The slave has lost a champion who gained new ardor and new strength the longer he fought; America has lost a man who loved her with his heart; religion has lost a supporter; Freedom an unfailing friend, and mankind a noble vindicator of our inalienable rights" (Degregorio, 101). A man who called the destruction of the institution of slavery "the duties of an angel upon earth" is hard to see as anything but an ardent abolitionist.

"Old Man Eloquent", John Quincy Adams did not consider himself this. A man of practicality and rationale, Adams generally set his goals realistically. While he did take his fair share of risks, and in doing so acquired the hatred and odium of many bitter Americans, Adams always considered the consequences of his actions. He did not want to risk violence, chaos, secession, or war over any issue, big or small. Adams made great leaps of freedom for slaves and freemen, rich and poor, blacks and whites. He protected and reclaimed the rights that all men are granted in our Constitution and lived a life devoted to his country and his people.

Adams, who never considered himself "what is commonly termed a popular man", earned significant celebrity from countless northerners as well as many southerners. A man who never considered himself an abolitionist was and is a hero to Americans for assisting a cause as important as the freedom of human beings. John Quincy Adams will always be remembered for his wise words, important achievements, and romantic inspiration he has given our great country that continues to have great effect on the lives we live today.

Bibliography

Brookhiser, Richard. America's First Dynasty. New York: The Free Press, 2002.
Cable, Mary. Black Odyssey: The Case of the Slave Ship Amistad. New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1971.
Davidson, James W., et al. Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the American Republic. 4th. Ed. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2001.
Degregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. 4th. Ed. New Jersey: Wings Books, 1993.
Miller, William L. Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress. New York: Random House, Inc., 1995.