Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Interesting to meet another Madison fan. I don't see many.
Madison, more than any other politician I can think of, was entirely married to the founding ideals and what was written in the Constitution. His ideas would change over time, but he always worked in what he perceived as the best interest of the nation. He would be on my list as well.
Madison
Franklin
John Quincy Adams
Lincoln
JPeter, I was wondering if you could give a few thoughts on John Quincy Adams. I've been doing a little reading (apart from slavery) in the period of the early 19th century: mainly John Quincy Adams. My impression so far is that he was a remarkable man: rather testy, and short-tempered, but a man of independence, courage and extreme honesty - a true statesman. He was very prescient in his views on the fact that slavery would dissolve the union back in the 1820's. His diaries alone are an extraordinary feat.
Your thoughts, or any other members' thoughts, on JQ Adams would be appreciated.
Just a thought, Clara, and I'm grateful that you haven't disappeared into the woodwork as I momentarily though you had, is that you've about captured the man. I haven't followed him closely, but I do recognize that he was massively important in the development of our nation, no matter how quirky he was. I should read up on him, he was a puzzle, wasn't he? Will avidly await responses to your question, as well as what you can add.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Just a thought, Clara, and I'm grateful that you haven't disappeared into the woodwork as I momentarily though you had, is that you've about captured the man. I haven't followed him closely, but I do recognize that he was massively important in the development of our nation, no matter how quirky he was. I should read up on him, he was a puzzle, wasn't he? Will avidly await responses to your question, as well as what you can add.
ole
ole,
I've been following the forum and doing a lot of reading, and finding out how incredibly ignorant I am about US History. You are right, he was quirky, but imagine a man who refuses to campaign for the presidency because he feels that the public should recognize and respect his years of distinguished public service: he's up against Clay, Jackson, Crawford. He refused to campaign and said his record would speak for itself.
Once elected he would not participate in 'patronage' for public offices. He kept the men in the positions based on fitness whether they were supportive of him or not.
I will post later today a few quotes from a book by John T. Morse if I have time. The book certainly tells about his 'quirkiness' but, somehow, sets that trait alongside his other sterling qualities and those quirky traits somehow don't matter much in the bigger picture.
JQ Adams was very, very remarkable. I somewhat flinch when I compare him to our current bevy of candidates (no slight intended), just an observation. Actually, comparing him to Jackson is rather an unnerving experience.
More thoughts by anyone would be really appreciated.
but imagine a man who refuses to campaign for the presidency because he feels that the public should recognize and respect his years of distinguished public service:
Well, at that time it was considered improper to personally campaign for the office. Stephen A. Douglas, in 1860, was the first presidential candidate to actively campaign for office.
Well, at that time it was considered improper to personally campaign for the office. Stephen A. Douglas, in 1860, was the first presidential candidate to actively campaign for office.
Regards,
Cash
Cash,
You certainly may be right. However, from my reading of Morse, I understood somewhat differently. Also, following JQ Adams Presidency, Andrew Jackson created the "political machine", party politics, patronage, etc. rather successfully (per Morse).
John T. Morse, (John Torrey), 1840-1937
John Quincy Adams
American Statesmen Series
Morse on the upcoming JQ Adams Election:
"As the period of election drew nigh, interest in it absorbed everything else; indeed during the last year of Monroe's Administration public affairs were so quiescent and the public business so seldom transcended the simplest routine, that there was little else than the next Presidency to be thought or talked of. The rivalship for this, as has been said, was based not upon conflicting theories concerning public affairs, but solely upon individual preference for one or another of four men no one of whom at that moment represented any great principle in antagonism to any of the others. Under no circumstances could the temptation to petty intrigue and malicious tale-bearing be greater than when votes were (p. 164) to be gained or lost solely by personal predilection. In such a contest Adams was severely handicapped as against the showy prestige of the victorious soldier, the popularity of the brilliant orator, and the artfulness of the most dexterous political manager then in public life. Long prior to this stage Adams had established his rule of conduct in the campaign. So early as March, 1818, he was asked one day by Mr. Everett whether he was "determined to do nothing with a view to promote his future election to the Presidency as the successor of Mr. Monroe," and he had replied that he "should do absolutely nothing." To this resolution he sturdily adhered. Not a breach of it was ever brought home to him, or indeed--save in one instance soon to be noticed--seriously charged against him. There is not in the Diary the faintest trace of any act which might be so much as questionable or susceptible of defence only by casuistry. That he should have perpetuated evidence of any flagrant misdoing certainly could not be expected; but in a record kept with the fulness and frankness of this Diary we should read between the lines and detect as it were in its general flavor any taint of disingenuousness or concealment; we should discern moral unwholesomeness in its atmosphere. A thoughtless sentence would slip from the pen, a sophistical argument would be (p. 165) formulated for self-comfort, some acquaintance, interview, or arrangement would slide upon some unguarded page indicative of undisclosed matters. But there is absolutely nothing of this sort. There is no tinge of bad color; all is clear as crystal. Not an editor, nor a member of Congress, nor a local politician, not even a private individual, was intimidated or conciliated. On the contrary it often happened that those who made advances, at least sometimes stimulated by honest friendship, got rebuffs instead of encouragement. Even after the contest was known to have been transferred to the House of Representatives, when Washington was actually buzzing with the ceaseless whisperings of many secret conclaves, when the air was thick with rumors of what this one had said and that one had done, when, as Webster said, there were those who pretended to foretell how a representative would vote from the way in which he put on his hat, when of course stories of intrigue and corruption poisoned the honest breeze, and when the streets seemed traversed only by the busy tread of the go-betweens, the influential friends, the wire-pullers of the various contestants,--still amid all this noisy excitement and extreme temptation Mr. Adams held himself almost wholly aloof, wrapped in the cloak of his rigid integrity. His proud honesty was only not quite (p. 166) repellent; he sometimes allowed himself to answer questions courteously, and for a brief period held in check his strong natural propensity to give offence and make enemies. This was the uttermost length that he could go towards political corruption. He became for a few weeks tolerably civil of speech, which after all was much for him to do and doubtless cost him no insignificant effort. Since the days of Washington he alone presents the singular spectacle of a candidate for the Presidency deliberately taking the position, and in a long campaign really never flinching from it: "that, if the people wish me to be President I shall not refuse the office; but I ask nothing from any man or from any body of men."
You certainly may be right. However, from my reading of Morse, I understood somewhat differently. Also, following JQ Adams Presidency, Andrew Jackson created the "political machine", party politics, patronage, etc. rather successfully (per Morse).
John T. Morse, (John Torrey), 1840-1937
John Quincy Adams
American Statesmen Series
Morse on the upcoming JQ Adams Election:
"As the period of election drew nigh, interest in it absorbed everything else; indeed during the last year of Monroe's Administration public affairs were so quiescent and the public business so seldom transcended the simplest routine, that there was little else than the next Presidency to be thought or talked of. The rivalship for this, as has been said, was based not upon conflicting theories concerning public affairs, but solely upon individual preference for one or another of four men no one of whom at that moment represented any great principle in antagonism to any of the others. Under no circumstances could the temptation to petty intrigue and malicious tale-bearing be greater than when votes were (p. 164) to be gained or lost solely by personal predilection. In such a contest Adams was severely handicapped as against the showy prestige of the victorious soldier, the popularity of the brilliant orator, and the artfulness of the most dexterous political manager then in public life. Long prior to this stage Adams had established his rule of conduct in the campaign. So early as March, 1818, he was asked one day by Mr. Everett whether he was "determined to do nothing with a view to promote his future election to the Presidency as the successor of Mr. Monroe," and he had replied that he "should do absolutely nothing." To this resolution he sturdily adhered. Not a breach of it was ever brought home to him, or indeed--save in one instance soon to be noticed--seriously charged against him. There is not in the Diary the faintest trace of any act which might be so much as questionable or susceptible of defence only by casuistry. That he should have perpetuated evidence of any flagrant misdoing certainly could not be expected; but in a record kept with the fulness and frankness of this Diary we should read between the lines and detect as it were in its general flavor any taint of disingenuousness or concealment; we should discern moral unwholesomeness in its atmosphere. A thoughtless sentence would slip from the pen, a sophistical argument would be (p. 165) formulated for self-comfort, some acquaintance, interview, or arrangement would slide upon some unguarded page indicative of undisclosed matters. But there is absolutely nothing of this sort. There is no tinge of bad color; all is clear as crystal. Not an editor, nor a member of Congress, nor a local politician, not even a private individual, was intimidated or conciliated. On the contrary it often happened that those who made advances, at least sometimes stimulated by honest friendship, got rebuffs instead of encouragement. Even after the contest was known to have been transferred to the House of Representatives, when Washington was actually buzzing with the ceaseless whisperings of many secret conclaves, when the air was thick with rumors of what this one had said and that one had done, when, as Webster said, there were those who pretended to foretell how a representative would vote from the way in which he put on his hat, when of course stories of intrigue and corruption poisoned the honest breeze, and when the streets seemed traversed only by the busy tread of the go-betweens, the influential friends, the wire-pullers of the various contestants,--still amid all this noisy excitement and extreme temptation Mr. Adams held himself almost wholly aloof, wrapped in the cloak of his rigid integrity. His proud honesty was only not quite (p. 166) repellent; he sometimes allowed himself to answer questions courteously, and for a brief period held in check his strong natural propensity to give offence and make enemies. This was the uttermost length that he could go towards political corruption. He became for a few weeks tolerably civil of speech, which after all was much for him to do and doubtless cost him no insignificant effort. Since the days of Washington he alone presents the singular spectacle of a candidate for the Presidency deliberately taking the position, and in a long campaign really never flinching from it: "that, if the people wish me to be President I shall not refuse the office; but I ask nothing from any man or from any body of men."
With all due respect to Mr. Morse, there's nothing remarkable for the times there. That he thinks there is, in my opinion, reflects poorly on him as an historian. The view of the times was that a true statesman wasn't outwardly interested in getting the office--the office would find him. The true statesman would remain disinterested, and it was thought to be unseemly to actively pursue an office. He let his followers do the campaigning for him. See Joseph Ellis' book, _Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation_ for a discussion of this. As I said, Stephen A. Douglas was the first presidential candidate in American history to actively campaign for the office. Lincoln didn't actively campaign. He let his followers campaign for him.
I guess we may be speaking to different concepts of campaigning. JQ Adams did not even solicit friends to campaign for him. Also, I believe Lincoln did some campaign speeches, if I'm not mistaken.
Perhaps, Morse (Torrey) is not an accurate historian ... I don't know.
Morse again:
"His retirement brought to a close a list of Presidents who deserved to be called statesmen in the highest sense of that term, honorable men, pure patriots, and, with perhaps one exception, all of the first order of ability in public affairs. It is necessary to come far down towards this day before a worthy successor of those great men is met with in the list. Dr. Von Holst, by far the ablest writer who has yet dealt with American history, says: "In the person of Adams the last statesman who was to occupy it for a long time left the White House." General Jackson, the candidate of the populace and the (p. 214) representative hero of the ignorant masses, instituted a new system of administering the Government in which personal interests became the most important element, and that organization and strategy were developed which have since become known and infamous under the name of the "political machine.""
I guess we may be speaking to different concepts of campaigning. JQ Adams did not even solicit friends to campaign for him.
Somebody put his name in nomination, and I don't think it was one of his enemies. Also, Jackson actually won the majority of the popular vote and he had more electoral votes, but the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, where Adams emerged with the victory. Jackson accused Adams and Henry Clay of striking a "corrupt bargain" in order to give Adams the presidency with Clay being appointed Secretary of State. Adams was far more involved behind the scenes than Morse lets you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
Also, I believe Lincoln did some campaign speeches, if I'm not mistaken.
Your thoughts, or any other members' thoughts, on JQ Adams would be appreciated.
Clara:
JQ Adams had journal entries for many years, so there's a nice body of evidence to pull from. He was a bit short-tempered as you point out, but what he did in relation to the Gag Rule over 8 years took the patience of Job. He took the Amistad case when few people would ....and won! He didn't always follow the party line... which eventually worked against him with Democrats.
Like Madison, JQ Adams best years were not in the White House. For Madison it was his work at the Constitutional Convention and for Adams it was his work in Congress.
Two good books of a general nature outlining some of the positive aspects of Adams overall body of work...
Arguing Slavery by William Lee Miller (mostly about the Gag Rule over his last years in Congress)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe (covers most of his presidency and much of his later life)
We're almost talking apples and oranges here. It starts, perhaps, with the definition of "campaigning." It was considered undignified that a candidate should tour the country promoting himself. That didn't mean that a candidate didn't have friends and fellow travellers who would do exactly that.
John Q might have refused to campaign -- and I have no doubt that he did abstain -- but I find it hard to believe that he didn't have people out there doing it for him.
A very interesting discussion, Clara. Thanks for keeping it going.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
