the Constitution to make a regulation prohibiting slavery
in a territory?"
My opinion is that it has.
And in answer to the question in the words following:
"Is the eighth section of the act,^ which passed both
Houses on the 3d instant for the admission of Missouri into
the Union, consistent with the Constitution?" ^
My opinion is that it is.
Which is respectfully submitted.
John Quincy Adams.
'In his Memoirs for 1820 Adams has recorded the impressions made upon his
mind by the Missouri question and the formation of a conviction may be there
traced. See especially the entries for February 23, 24, and March 3 and 5, 1820.
* Interdicting slavery forever in the territory north of latitude 36° 30'.
' The original form of this question was, whether the eighth section was applicable
only to the territorial state, or could extend to it after it should become a state.
The discussion and reasons for changing the question are given in Memoirs, March 3,
1820.
2 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
We are of opinion that Congress has a right under the powers
vested in it by the Constitution to make a regulation prohibiting
slavery in a territory.
We are also of opinion that the eighth section of the act which
passed both houses on the 3d instant for the admission of Missouri
into the Union is consistent with the Constitution, because we
consider the prohibition as applying to territories only and not to
states.
Wm. H. Crawford.
J. C. Calhoun.
Wm. Wirt, Attorney Genl. U. S.
My answer to the within questions is in the affirmative, and
would add that in my opinion the eighth section of the act applies
only to Territories.
Smith Thompson.
Deposited by the President in the Department of State. ^
PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT 2
20 March, 1820.
By the communications lately received from St. Petersburg
and Madrid, as well those of an official character from Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Forsyth as others more indirect and in-
formal, it appears that the Russian government takes an
earnest interest in the late transactions between the United
States and Spain; that they have a full knowledge of the
facts relating to the negotiation of the Florida treaty, and
have manifested unequivocally the opinion that Spain was
bound in good faith to ratify it.^ In consequence of which
^ The original paper was not found in the Department of State when search was
jnade for it about 1870. lb., v. 1571.
^ Adams, Memoirs, March 18, 20-25, 1820.
'See "Correspondence of the Russian Ministers in Washington, 1818-1825,"
in American Historical Review, XVIII. 309, 537.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 3
it appears that the Russian minister to Spain, who was at
St. Petersburg upon a leave of absence, had been ordered to
return to Madrid. That in the meantime the Russian charge
d'affaires there had made such representations to the Spanish
government as had drawn from them the strongest assur-
ances of the king's desire and determination to settle ami-
cably the differences with the United States. That Mr. Onis,
who is known since his return to Europe to have declared
uniformly and explicitly that he understood the grants to
have been declared null by the treaty, has been appointed
Spanish minister to Russia, and that the appointment by
the king of Spain of General Vives to come as Minister to
the United States has been officially communicated by the
Duke of San Fernando to Mr. Forsyth, but that he had not
left Madrid on the loth of January. The information from
Mr. Everett that General Vives was at Paris in December
having proved to be erroneous, though given on the author-
ity of the Spanish charge d'affaires at The Hague, Mr. For-
syth thinks that General Vives will not arrive here earlier
than the month of May.^
^ Vives had, in February passed through Paris, on his way to Liverpool, and
had conferred with Pasquier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on his mission to the
United States. Pasquier on February 12 informed Gallatin of this conference, who
reported to Adams as follows: "General Vives had told him that the principal
points with Spain were that the honor of the Crown should be saved (mis a convert)
in the business of the grants, and to receive satisfactory evidence of our intention
to preserve a fair neutrality in the colonial war. Mr. Pasquier had observed to
him that it would be a matter of deep regret that private interest should prevent
the conclusion of such an important arrangement, and that when it was clear that
there had been at least a misunderstanding on the subject, the King's dignity could
not be injured by a resumption of the grants or by an exchange for other lands. . . .
He had expressed to General Vives his opinion of the impropriety of asking from the
United States any promise not to recognize the independence of the insurgent
colonies,- and had told him that, on that subject, Spain could only rely on the
moral effect which a solemn treaty, accommodating all her differences with the
United States would have on their future proceedings." From Vives Gallatin
4 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
It is also ascertained that the Emperor of Russia earnestly
wishes that no act of hostility on the part of the United
States may in the present state of things intervene to en-
danger the general peace of Europe,
The sentiments of France in this respect are known to
coincide with those of Russia, and the recent disturbances
in Spain, although they may render it more certain that
possession might be taken of Florida without hazarding a
war, yet In the reasoning of a generous policy, may plead
for a new proof of moderation and forbearance on the part
of the United States.
It is suggested in Mr. Forsyth's dispatch that Spain may
herself wish that the United States take forcible possession
of Florida, with the expectation that she might under that
circumstance contend with a better grace for a confirmation
of the grants. It may be worthy of consideration whether
the occasion even for this pretext should not be withheld
from her.
There Is a delicacy and some danger in making some of
the important facts publicly known at this time, but it is
submitted to the President's judgment, whether in the
present aspect of affairs It would be advisable by a message
to Congress ^ to state that while the most recent Information
from Europe forbids the expectation of the arrival of the
Spanish minister before the close of their present session,
learned that he was not the bearer of the certificates of ratification of the treaty,
but he could "in case of an arrangement, give satisfactory security to the United
States, and that it would consist in consenting that they should take immediate
possession of Florida, without waiting for the ratification of the treaty." Adams,
Writings of Gallatin, II. 134. Almost a month passed after Vives' visit before the
King of Spain declared his acceptance of the constitution, which gave opportunity
to urge its restriction on his power to alienate national territory as a reason for
delaying ratification of the treaty with the United States.
' See Monroe's message to Congress, March 27, 1820. Messages and Papers of
the Presidents, II. 69; Adams, Memoirs, March 31, 1820.
1
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS S
Incidents have arisen which In the opinion of the President
make It expedient that no step for the forcible occupation of
Florida should be taken before the next meeting of Congress,
and that he Is not without hopes that amicable arrangements
may during the recess be made with Spain, which will pre-
clude the necessity of resorting to that measure.^
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES ^
Department of State, ^
Washington, April 21, 1820.
Sir:
I am directed by the President of the United States to ex-
press to you the surprise and concern with which he has
^ "I return you the note of the Spanish minister with your draft of a reply, with
such modifications as the short time I have had it in my possession has enabled
me to make. . . . Among those proposed is the entire omission of what relates to
Mr. Forsyth. The minister does not press his complaint, and as we cannot al-
together justify Mr. F., and know that the public have disapproved the tone he
assumed, I am inclined to think that perfect silence in regard to him is the most
advisable." Monroe to Adams, April 15, 1820. Ms. Poletica reported to Nessel-
rode (February 12, 1820): "Le ton de la correspondance de Mr. Forsyth avec le
Ministre Espagnol est maintenant presque generalement desaprouve et Ton at-
tribue la faute a Mr. Adams, qui en avait donne le premier exemple dans sa corre-
spondance avec le chevalier Onis anterieurement a la conclusion du Traite."
"It is worthy consideration whether it will not be most advisable to decline all
discussion with the Spanish minister and simply to consider his government in
the wrong in not having ratified the treaty within the time stipulated, and to call
on him for the proper reparation at this time. I fear if you enter on the subject
at all, by replying to his specific heads, that he will prolong the discussion to in-
definite length. I wish you to reflect on this, and to bring with you a short note to
this effect, to be taken into view at the same time, as an alternate plan, provided
it will not occasion improper delay." Monroe to Adams, April 17, 1820. Ms.
^ He arrived in Washington, March 9, as Spanish minister in succession to Onis,
but did not present his credentials to the President until April 12. See Gallatin to
J. Q. Adams, February 15, 1820, Adams, Writings of Gallatin, II. 133; Adams,
Memoirs, April 7.
' Adams had prepared, on April 19, the draft of a note to the Spanish minister.
6 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
learned that you are not the bearer of the ratification by
his Catholic Majesty of the treaty signed on the 22d Febru-
ary, 1819, by Don Luis de Onis, by virtue of a full power
equally comprehensive with that which you have now pro-
duced, a full power, by which his Catholic Majesty prom-
ised " on the faith and word of a king, to approve, ratify,
and fulfil whatsoever might be stipulated and signed by
him."
By the universal usage of nations, nothing can release a
sovereign from the obligation of a promise thus made, except
the proof that his minister, so impowered, has been faithless
to his trust, by transcending his instructions.
Your sovereign has not proved, nor even alleged, that
Mr. Onis had transcended his instructions; on the contrary,
with the credential letter which you have delivered, the
President has learned that he has been relieved from the
mission to the United States only to receive a new proof of
the continued confidence of his Catholic Majesty in the ap-
pointment to another mission of equal dignity and im-
portance.
On the faith of this promise of the king, the treaty was
signed and ratified on the part of the United States, and it
contained a stipulation that it should also be ratified by
his Catholic Majesty, so that the ratifications should,
within six months from the date of its signature, be ex-
changed.
In withholding this promised ratification beyond the stipu-
having positively learned from Vives that he did not bring the Spanish ratification
of the treaty of 1819, and could give only pledges for a future performance condi-
tional upon satisfactory answers to proposals to be submitted to the United States.
Calhoun objected that this would mean a new negotiation which might be long
continued, and suggested it would be best to refuse to negotiate again and insist
on bringing the matter to a close. Accordingly a new note was prepared, as above,
approved by the cabinet and sent to Vives.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 7
lated period, his Catholic Majesty made known to the Presi-
dent that he should forthwith dispatch a person possessing
entirely his confidence to ask certain explanations which
were deemed by him necessary previous to the performance
of his promise to execute the ratification.
The Minister of the United States at Madrid was enabled,
and offered, to give all the explanations which could justly
be required in relation to the treaty. Your government de-
clined even to make known to him their character; and they
are now, after the lapse of more than a year, first officially
disclosed by you.
I am directed by the President to inform you that ex-
planations which ought to be satisfactory to your govern-
ment will readily be given upon all the points mentioned in
your letter of the 14th instant; but that he considers none
of them in the present state of the relations between the
two countries, as points for discussion. It is indispensable
that, before entering into any new negotiation between the
United States and Spain, that relating to the treaty already
signed should be closed. If, upon receiving the explanations
which your government has asked, and which I am prepared
to give, you are authorized to issue orders to the Spanish
officers commanding in Florida to deliver up to those of the
United States who may be authorized to receive it, imme-
diate possession of the province, conformably to the stipu-
lations of the treaty, the President, if such shall be the
advice and consent of the Senate, will wait (with such posses-
sion given) for the ratification of his Catholic Majesty till
your messenger shall have time to proceed to Madrid; but
if you have no such authority, the President considers it
would be at once an unprofitable waste of time, and a course
incompatible with the dignity of this nation, to give explana-
tions which are to lead to no satisfactory result, and to re-
8 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
sume a negotiation the conclusion of which can no longer
be deferred.
Be pleased to accept, etc.^
TO DON FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES ^
Department of State,
Washington, 3 May, 1820.
Sir:
The explanations upon the points mentioned in your letter
of the 14th ultimo, which I have had the honor of giving you
at large in the conference between us on Saturday last,^ and
the frankness of the assurances which I had the pleasure of
receiving from you, of your conviction that they would prove
satisfactory to your government, will relieve me from the
necessity of recurring to circumstances which might tend to
irritating discussions. In the confident expectation that
upon the arrival of your messenger at Madrid, his Catholic
Majesty will give his immediate ratification to the treaty of
22 February, 18 19, I readily forbear all reference to the
delays which have hitherto retarded that event, and all dis-
quisition upon the perfect right which the United States
have had to that ratification.
^ The reply of the Spanish Minister, dated April 24, is In the American State
Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 682. Adams thought this reply "seems to leave
the possibility of coming to an agreement with him [Vives] desperate."
* Printed In American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 683. The first draft
of a note was prepared, April 26, and after some changes was approved by the
cabinet on the 28th. The French minister had arranged for a conference between
Adams and Vives, and the note was held back to await the result. The conference
took place on the 29th and made a new and different note necessary. This was pre-
pared April 30 and submitted to the cabinet on the next day. A second conference
with Vives modified it, but on May 3 It was sent, without signature.
' Adams, Memoirs, April 29.
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 9
I am now instructed to repeat the assurance which has
already been given you, that the representations which ap-
pear to have been made to your government of a system of
hostiHty in various parts of this Union against the Spanish
dominions and the property of Spanish subjects; of decisions
marked with such hostiUty by any of the courts of the United
States, and of the toleration in any case of it by this govern-
ment, are unfounded. In the existing unfortunate civil war
between Spain and the South American provinces, the
United States have constantly avowed and faithfully main-
tained an impartial neutrality. No violation of that neu-
trality by any citizen of the United States has ever received
sanction or countenance from this government. Whenever
the laws previously enacted for the preservation of neutrality
have been found by experience in any manner defective,
they have been strengthened by new provisions and severe
penalties. Spanish property, illegally captured, has been
constantly restored by the decisions of the tribunals of the
United States, nor has the life itself been spared of individ-
uals guilty of piracy, committed upon Spanish property on
the high seas. Should the treaty be ratified by Spain, and
the ratification be accepted by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, the boundary line recognized by it
will be respected by the United States, and due care will be
taken to prevent any transgression of it. No new law or
engagement will be necessary for that purpose. The existing
laws are adequate to the suppression of such disorders, and
they will be, as they have been, faithfully carried into effect.
The miserable disorderly movement of a number not ex-
ceeding seventy lawless individual stragglers, who never
assembled within the jurisdiction of the United States, into
a territory to which his Catholic Majesty has no acknowl-
edged right other than the yet unratified treaty, was so far
lO
THE WRITINGS OF [1820
from receiving countenance or support from the government
of the United States, that every measure necessary for its
suppression was promptly taken under their authority; and
from the misrepresentations which have been made of this
very insignificant transaction to the Spanish government,
there is reason to believe that the pretended expedition itself,
as well as the gross exaggerations which have been used to
swell its importance proceed from the same sources, equally
unfriendly to the United States and to Spain.
As a necessary consequence of the neutrality between
Spain and the South American provinces, the United States
can contract no engagement, not to form any relations with
those provinces. This has explicitly and repeatedly been
avowed and made known to your government both at
Madrid and at this place. The demand was resisted both
in conference and in written correspondence between Mr.
Erving and Mr. Pizarro, and afterwards the Marquis of
Casa Yrujo. Mr. Onis had long and constantly been in-
formed that a persistence in it would put an end to the pos-
sible conclusion of any treaty whatever. Your sovereign
will perceive that, as such an engagement cannot be con-
tracted by the United States consistently with their obliga-
tions of neutrality, it cannot justly be required of them.
Nor have any of the European nations ever bound them-
selves to Spain by such an engagement.
With regard to your proposals, it is proper to observe that
his Catholic Majesty in announcing his purpose of asking
explanations of the United States gave no intimation of an
intention to require new articles to the treaty. You are
aware that the United States cannot consistently with what
is due to themselves stipulate new engagements as the price
of obtaining the ratification of the old. The declaration
which Mr. Forsyth was instructed to deliver at the exchange
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ii
of the ratification of the treaty, with regard to the eighth
article, was not intended to annul, or in the slightest degree
to alter or impair the stipulations of that article. Its only
object was to guard your government, and all persons who
might have had an interest in any of the annulled grants,
against the possible expectation or pretence that those grants
would be made valid by the treaty. All grants subsequent
to the 24th of January, 18 18, were declared to be positively
null and void; and Mr. de Onis always declared that he
signed the treaty, fully believing that the grants to the Duke
of Alagon, Count Punon Rostro, and Mr. Vargas, were sub-
l sequent to that date. But he had in his letter to me of
i6th November, 1818, declared that those grants were null
and void, because the essential conditions of the grants had
! not been fulfilled by the grantees. It was distinctly under-
stood by us both that no grant, of whatever date, should
be made valid by the treaty, which would not have been
: valid by the laws of Spain and the Indies, if the treaty had
not been made. It was, therefore, stipulated that grants
prior to 24 January, 18 18, should be confirmed, only "to the
I same extent that the same grants would be valid, If the
! territories had remained under the dominion of his Catholic
: Majesty." This, of course, excluded the three grants above
mentioned, which Mr. Onis had declared invalid for want
of the fulfilment of their essential conditions — a fact which
is now explicitly admitted by you. A single exception to the
principle that the treaty should give no confirmation to any
imperfect title was admitted; which exception was, that
owners in possession of lands, who by reason of the recent
: circumstances of the Spanish nation and the revolutions In
i Europe, had been prevented from fulfilling all the conditions
of their grants, should complete them within the terms lim-
i ited In the same, from the date of the treaty*. This had ob-
12 THE WRITINGS OF [1820
viously no reference to the above mentioned grants, the
grantees of which were not In possession of the lands, who
had fulfilled none of their conditions, and who had not been
prevented from fulfilling any of them by the circumstances
of Spain or the revolutions of Europe. The article was
drawn up by me, and before assenting to It, Mr. Onis en-
quired what was understood by me as the import of the
terms "shall complete them." I told him that in connection
with the term, "all the conditions," they necessarily implied
that the indulgence would be limited to grantees who had
performed some of the conditions, and who had commenced
settlements which it would allow them to complete. These
were precisely the cases for which Mr. Onis had urged the
equity of making a provision, and he agreed to the article
fully understanding that it would be applicable only to them.
When after the signature of the treaty there appeared to be
some reason for supposing that Mr. Onis had been mistaken
In believing that the grants to the Duke of Alagon, Count
Pufion Rostro, and Mr. Vargas, were subsequent to the
24th of January, 18 18, candor required that Spain and the
grantees should never have a shadow of ground to expect
or allege that this circumstance was at all material, in re-
lation to the bearing of the treaty upon those grants. Mr.
Onis had not been mistaken In declaring that they were in-
valid because their conditions were not fulfilled. He had
not been mistaken in agreeing to the principle that no grant
invalid as to Spain should by the treaty be made valid
against the United States. He had not been mistaken in j
the knowledge that those grantees had neither commenced
settlements, nor been prevented from completing them by
the circumstances of Spain, or the revolutions in Europe.
The declaration which Mr. Forsyth was instructed to de-
liver, was merely to caution all whom it might concern, not
i82o] JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 13
to infer from an unimportant mistake of Mr. Onis as to the
date of the grants, other Important mistakes which he had
not made, and which the United States would not permit
to be made by any one. It was not, therefore, to annul or
to alter, but to fulfil the eighth article as It stands, that the
declaration was to be delivered; and It Is for the same pur-
pose that this explanation is now given.
As by the eleventh article of the treaty, the proceeds of
the sales of lands In the ceded territories are expressly desig-
nated as the source of the funds from which the just claims
of the citizens of the United States, acknowledged and pro-
vided for by the treaty, are to be paid, no other disposition
of any part of the lands by Spain could In any event be
assented to by the United States; and the only effect of their
acquiescence in the diversion of them to any other purpose
would be, to give them a just and indispensable claim upon
Spain, to provide for those indemnities by other means. It
was with much satisfaction, therefore, that I learnt from you
the determination of your government to concur in the con-
struction of the article as understood by this government,
and to assent to the total nullity of the above mentioned
grants.
As I flatter myself that those explanations will remove
every obstacle to the ratification of the treaty by his Catholic