John Quincy Adams Arranges for Publication of His View That the U.S. Constitution Broadly Authorizes the Federal Government to Legislate and Tax

In a letter twice mentioning Madison, he writes, “In the National Intelligence of yesterday you may have seen a letter from me, to the Speaker, Stevenson, upon the Constitutional power of Congress to protect domestic industry, by taxation upon foreign competition…It is in substance a reply to a letter from James Madison to the Speaker, which has lately published…”

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states that one of its purposes was to “promote the general welfare”. It again used this phrase in Article I, Section 8, which gives the federal government power to tax, providing “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”. This latter mention has come to be known as the General Welfare Clause. The phrase “general welfare” was high-sounding, but in practice what does it mean? The answer would go a long way in determining how much power the federal government would have in a nation composed of states. The question first came up in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. President Thomas Jefferson wondered about whether the acquisition of this vast land was constitutional; specifically, did Congress and the Executive have the right to appropriate the funds, spend them on an acquisition, and federally administer the territory. Jefferson urged bringing the issue to the people to approve with a constitutional amendment, which was consistent with his view that the Constitution be interpreted narrowly in its grants of federal power. But Congress had its eyes on the prize and disregarded his draft amendments to use that process, and the Senate ratified the Louisiana Purchase Treaty in October. Jefferson saw the importance acquiring Louisiana, put aside his objection, and assented.

The first real test of the General Welfare Clause came over the federal government’s potential involvement in a broader policy of internal improvements, such as building canals and roads. Jefferson opposed a federal role absent a constitutional amendment (which he hoped would not pass). This reticence was due to a widely held concern amongst the Jeffersonians that any broad, generalized interpretation (such as Alexander Hamilton had) would open the door to a host of Hamiltonian exercises of federal power, and the abuses they felt would follow. However, under pressure from a nation expanding westward, he authorized construction of the federally-funded interstate Cumberland Road, but only after the states involved gave their consent, and solely under the use of the governmental right of eminent domain (the right to acquire private property for compensation, without the owner’s consent). Though this was an internal improvement, it was a very limited and narrow one, which is how Jefferson finessed it. James Madison also believed that a constitutional amendment would be required, but was willing to consider one if framed in narrow terms around specific grants of improvements. But limiting federal projects to those with state consent and under the fetters of eminent domain (as interpreted individually in every state) was impractical as a policy, as Henry Clay pointed out in 1818. President James Monroe vetoed an improvement on the grounds that a constitutional amendment would be required for a “competent power to adopt and execute a system of internal improvements”, but left the door open to some type of improvements by reciting that federal funds could be used for construction so long as the U.S. government did not assume jurisdiction. Then, in 1826, Madison, clarifying his thought, proposed a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to make appropriations for roads and canals specifically, to be applied as the states where the improvements occurred saw fit.

John Quincy Adams was the first president to take a broad view of the General Welfare Clause as conferring a federal spending power on projects authorized by Congress. He was totally committed to internal improvements, and believed that the Constitution gave Congress the right to legislate for them and finance them through taxation. Moreover, further separating himself from his predecessors, his interpretation depended upon a reading of the General Welfare Clause that gave the U.S. government the power to administer the appropriated funds at a federal level. And with Adams supporting federal involvement in not only construction, but in science and education, forces against this kind of federal power marshaled. As President, Adams signed a number of internal improvement bills, one of which made the U.S. government a shareholder in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company.

In 1828 Adams signed a major tariff bill based on his view of the General Welfare Clause. The tariff had as its purpose protection of industries in the northern United States that were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods, mainly from Britain, by taxing those imports to a point where American goods were competitive. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region had to import, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South. Later that year in response to the tariff, Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina articulated the doctrine of nullification, which emphasized a state’s right to reject federal laws within its borders, and it questioned the constitutionality of taxing imports without the explicit goal of raising revenue. So here the battle over the General Welfare Clause was joined – could it be used to justify taxation to raise funds, not for the operation of the U.S. government, but for specific policy purposes that might benefit some citizens while operating to the detriment of others. Adams left office on March 4, 1829.

In 1830, Madison wrote a letter to House Speaker Andrew Stevenson explaining what he saw as the intent of the drafters and signers of the Constitution as to the General Welfare Clause. He held that it limited the scope of federal spending to the enumerated powers listed, and claimed, in a well-known phrase, that the clause was intended to be “harmless” and had a “harmless character” – meaning that it was an offhand statement that could be ignored.

In 1832 Adams was a member of the House of Representatives and chairman of the Committee on Manufactures. He was criticized by Speaker Stevenson and others for a position he took as committee head to the effect that the committee and House could consider and pass legislation protective of manufacturers. Stevenson called the position “latitudinarian”, a term borrowed from Protestantism, where latitudinarianism was a doctrine that a religion’s priority should be to stress improvement of society over eternal rewards. In this case Stevenson was saying Adams favored loose rather then strict construction of the Constitution; Stevenson was doubtless repeating Martin Van Buren’s remark about Adams – “The latitudinarianism of whose constitutional views extended beyond those of any of his contemporaries.”  At that time, Stevenson’s remark was meant as a criticism.

In a famous response, Adams wrote to Speaker Stevenson, providing the closest thing to a legal argument on the interpretation of the General Welfare Clause that he would give. He was, of course, also responding to the arguments Madison had made to Stevenson two years earlier. In Adams’ letter, he maintained that the General Welfare Clause should be read as permitting affirmative federal legislation, such as that protective of manufacturers. He conceded that while the clause’s language did not confer a substantive power, it did modify the taxing power in Article 1, Section 8. And that modification was not “harmless”, but had the legal effect of broadened taxing and spending authority. He cited the Louisiana Purchase as supporting his argument, and the Cumberland Road legislation as well.

Founded by Hezekiah Niles in 1811, “Niles’ Weekly Register” was a widely circulated and highly influential American newspaper that provided comprehensive coverage of news and current affairs in United States and the wider world. It is a key source for scholars researching the first half of the 19th century and contemporary responses to events such as the War of 1812, the Napoleonic Wars, the Indian Wars, the eras of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, and the revolutions of 1820 and 1830 in Europe. Niles was its editor and publisher until his retirement in 1836, having made himself into one of the most influential journalists of his day.

Adams had his letter to Stevenson published, but the press got it wrong. Here he seeks to present a correct and final version of his letter to the public, and give it the widest possible circulation. He also stresses fairness to Madison, wanting to assure that their two arguments were presented together side-by-side, so as to be fairly evaluated. Autograph letter signed, Washington, July 13, 1832, to Niles, concerning the constitutionality of legislating and spending for the general welfare, and the controversy between him and James Madison. “ Dear Sir, In the National Intelligence of yesterday you may have seen a letter from me, to the Speaker, Stevenson, upon the Constitutional power of Congress to protect domestic industry, by taxation upon foreign competition. I have thought you might give it a place in the Register; in which case I would thank you to notice the correction in the Intelligence of this day of the Errors of the Press in the publication of yesterday.  It is in substance a reply to a letter from James Madison to the Speaker, which has lately published to put down a supposed heresy of mine, advanced in the Report of the Committee of Manufacturers of this House at the present session – If James Madison’s letter to the Speaker has not yet been registered, perhaps in fairness the two letters should be published together. Very respectfully yours, J. Q, Adams”.  Of course, Adams’ position eventually prevailed.

This is the first letter of Adams relating to this key constitutional controversy that we have had, or can recall seeing.