History of the United States of America, Volume 9 (of 9) : $b During the second administration of James MadisonAdams, Henry
History
History of the United States of America, Volume 9 (of 9) : $b During the second administration of James Madison
Adams, Henry
United States -- History -- 1801-1809; United States -- History -- 1809-1817
Gallatin was peculiarly fitted to moderate a discordant body like the
negotiators, while Adams was by temperament little suited to the post
of moderator, and by circumstances ill-qualified to appear as a proper
representative of the commission in the eyes of its other members.
Unless Gallatin were one of the loftiest characters and most loyal
natures ever seen in American politics, Adams’s chance of success in
controlling the board was not within reasonable hope. Gallatin was six
years the senior, and represented the President, with the authority
of close and continuous personal friendship. The board, including
Adams himself, instinctively bowed to Gallatin’s authority; but they
were deferential to no one else, least of all to their nominal head.
Bayard, whose age was the same as that of Adams, was still in name a
Federalist; and although his party trusted him little more than it
trusted Adams or William Pinkney, who had avowedly become Republicans,
he was not the more disposed to follow Adams’s leadership. Clay,
though ten years their junior, was the most difficult of all to
control; and Jonathan Russell, though a New Englander, preferred Clay’s
social charm, and perhaps also his political prospects, to the somewhat
repellent temper and more than doubtful popularity of Adams.
Personal rivalry and jealousies counted for much in such a group; but
these were not the only obstacles to Adams’s influence. By a misfortune
commonly reserved for men of the strongest wills, he represented no
one but himself and a powerless minority. His State repudiated and, in
a manner, ostracized him. Massachusetts gave him no support, even in
defending her own rights; by every means in her power she deprived him
of influence, and loaded him with the burden of her own unpopularity.
Adams represented a community not only hostile to the war, but avowedly
laboring to produce peace by means opposed to those employed at Ghent.
If the Ghent commission should succeed in making a treaty, it could
do so only by some sacrifice of Massachusetts which would ruin Adams
at home. If the Ghent commission should fail, Adams must be equally
ruined by any peace produced through the treasonable intrigues or overt
rebellion of his State.
Such a head to a commission so constituted needed all the force of
character which Adams had, and some qualities he did not possess, in
order to retain enough influence to shape any project into a treaty
that he could consent to sign; while Gallatin’s singular tact and
nobility of character were never more likely to fail than in the effort
to make allowance for the difficulties of his chief’s position. Had
Castlereagh improved the opportunity by sending to Ghent one competent
diplomatist, or even a well-informed and intelligent man of business,
like Alexander Baring, he might probably have succeeded in isolating
Adams, and in negotiating with the other four commissioners a treaty
sacrificing Massachusetts.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account