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

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.

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.