A Spectacular Letter of John Quincy Adams on His Hopes for American Democracy and the Legal Rationale Against Impressment, Which Dragged the US Into the War of 1812

This letter, written shortly before the seizure of the slave ship Amistad, is the most complete explanation of the US argument against Impressment, which led to tension with Britain and the War of 1812

 

On impressment: “It was brutal force from beginning to end.”

On August 8, 1814, talks began at Ghent, Belgium, that would ultimately result in a treaty ending the War of 1812. The head of the American negotiating team was John Quincy Adams, the U.S.’s most experienced diplomat. One of the issues that had led to conflict with the British was the seizing of purported British citizens from American ships, a practice referred to as impressment. At the start of negotiations, the U.S. negotiators had their instructions: “the impressment of seamen and illegal blockades were the principal cause of the war,” which would “cease as soon as these rights are respected.” British cruisers must not be allowed to stop and search U.S. vessels, which practice “withholds the respect due our flag…It is expected that all American seamen who have been impressed will be discharged.” Another major object of the negotiations was to end the British blockades. “We also need to be assured that no further interference with our commerce” will take place. Adams, a lawyer, was well suited to understand and articulate the nuances of the issues.

The issue was not a new one. In 1794, with war having broken out on the Continent, the U.S. dispatched John Jay to London to negotiate a treaty with the British. The Jay Treaty, signed in 1795, sought to settle issues unresolved after the Revolutionary War, among them rights of U.S. and other neutral vessels and impressment by the British.

Judge Joseph Hopkinson was the son of Signer of the Declaration of Independence Francis Hopkinson and a prominent Federal judge in Pennsylvania. He also had defended Samuel Chase at his impeachment trial.

In January 1839 Hopkinson wrote Adams, commending him on his defense of the abolition of slavery. He also asked him for the legal position behind the US’s argument against impressment. And he ended by expressing great concern for the future of the Republic. “Distressing events have occurred and are occurring, in our Republic which are alarming to those who feel a deep and true interest in the fate of our country and the permanence of our institutions – is the great experiment of a popular government… to fail and are the advocates of monarchy to have a triumph here, when their cause seems to be doing down everywhere else?” He goes on to ask Adams to speak to him on these subjects. “I am not disposed to despair of the Republic but I confess that at times I have my apprehensions for its safety.”

This is Adams response, a response to the history of US objection to impressment as only Adams could write, then giving his own hope for the country.

Autograph letter signed, Washington, April 19 1839, to Judge Joseph Hopkinson.

“I received your kind letter of the 25th January at a time when the business of the Session of Congress absorbed so completely my time, that I was unable to answer it, and since the close of the session, I have been scarcely less occupied, though with voluntary labors.

“The ground taken by our government with Great Britain upon the impressment question was that they had no right to take a man from our vessels on the high seas, whether British subjects or others. We did contend that British officers had no right to execute a British law on board an American vessel at sea. The right of the King of Great Britain to seize by force his subjects to serve him in war was not a right recognized by the Law of Nations. It was pretended prerogative of the British King, directly contrary to their own Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act, and Bill of Rights. But whether British law or not, they had no right to execute it out of their own jurisdiction upon the high seas.

“The question was an entirely different one from that whether free ships make free goods. The belligerent right of taking the goods of an enemy from the vessel of a friend is founded only on the customary Law of Nations. There is no such customary law authorizing the belligerent to take his own subject out of a neutral vessel.

“When the goods of an enemy are taken from the vessel of a friend, there is a judicial tribunal, with the belligerent jurisdiction where the right and fact of the capture are judiciously decided.

“In the case of imprisonment there is no tribunal, not judicial process. It is an arbitrary, irresponsible act, left to the caprice of every midshipman in the British Navy, and from which there was no appeal to any judicial tribunal. It was brutal force from beginning to end.

“I purpose to visit you at Philadelphia on Saturday tomorrow week, in the Evening, and shall be happy there to converse with you on our present and future prospects, propitious and adverse, there are many of both complexions.

“”Hope travels through nor quits us when we die.’ And upon subjects concerning the community, my maxim is that contrary to the course of nature in other respects, Hope should brighten as the sun goes down. This is my philosophy and my chief consolation.” By this Adams meant that when things are darkest, hope should be highest. This expresses his essentially optimistic nature, and belief that though the country may have hard times ahead, it is then that hope for the future should shine through.

A remarkable and powerful letter, one of Adams’ best.