The History Book Club discussion

John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life
This topic is about John Quincy Adams
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES > 8. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS~~CHAPTER EIGHT (189 - 211) (2/27/12 - 3/4/12)~No Spoilers, please

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Bryan Craig This is the Week Eight thread for the next Presidential Series selection (John Quincy Adams).

The week's reading assignment is:

Week Eight - February 27th - March 4th -> EIGHT p. 189 - 211

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library. Bryan's edition is ISBN: 0679404449 (hardcover)

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to begin reading this selection and/or to post.

Bryan Craig will be your moderator for this selection as he is our lead for all Presidential selections. We hope you enjoy Week Eight of this discussion.



John Quincy Adams A Public Life, a Private Life by Paul C. Nagel by Paul C. Nagel

Bryan Craig Chapter Overview and Summary

Chapter Eight: St. Petersburg

The Adams family (with nephew Billy Smith and Louisa's sister Kitty) reached St. Petersburg before ice closed the harbor in October 1809. The Russian Court welcomed JQA and he became well-respected. The Czar, Alexander I, liked him, they walked together, and JQA got away with less diplomatic formalities than what was required. Alexander and JQA began to talk about a trade treaty. After getting over the required dysentery from drinking the water, JQA hit the social scene and found a suitable apartment. He also returned to a scholarly routine as he researched weights and measures and read more religious material. He cut back on the wine and even tried waking early and taking a cold bath until he dropped them all together.

Back in the U.S., JQA was offered a supreme court appointment, but he turned Madison down. Madison told JQA to stay in Russia where he was needed. His oldest son, George, was staying with his Uncle and Aunt Cranch and he was having a difficult time. JQA began to write him letters about controlling his passions and leading a virtuous life. Although a new daughter was born in August 1810, news from home became stark as Louisa's mother died in September 1811, Uncle and Aunt Cranch died, and his sister Nabby had a mastectomy due to breast cancer. Since JQA was staying in Russia, Louisa and JQA decided to bring George to Russia.

This plan was delayed when Napoleon invaded the country in June 1812. Also, the U.S. and Britain were now at war. However, Russia's army beat Napoleon and France retreated. JQA had to face some issues in his own home when he had to fire household staff after they stole inventory, and Kitty, got pregnant by Billy Smith. Finally, JQA's daughter died in September 1812 after fighting dysentery. Once spring arrived, the Czar asked JQA if he could mediate the war between Britain and the U.S. Both JQA and Madison said yes. JQA would work with Albert Gallatin and James Bayard in Britain on the peace negotiations.

Bryan Craig Alexander I:

served as Emperor of Russia from 23 March 1801 to 1 December 1825 and the first Russian King of Poland from 1815 to 1825. He was also the first Russian Grand Duke of Finland and Lithuania.

He was born in Saint Petersburg to Grand Duke Paul Petrovich, later Emperor Paul I, and Maria Feodorovna, daughter of the Duke of Württemberg. Alexander was the eldest of four brothers. He succeeded to the throne after his father was murdered, and ruled Russia during the chaotic period of the Napoleonic Wars. In the first half of his reign Alexander tried to introduce liberal reforms, while in the second half he turned to a much more arbitrary manner of conduct, which led to the revoking of many early reforms. In foreign policy Alexander gained certain successes, mainly by his diplomatic skills and winning of several military campaigns. In particular under his rule Russia acquired Finland and part of Poland.


(no image)Alexander I by Alan Warwick Palmer

Bryan Craig I enjoyed learning about how JQA and his family settled into Russian life. What a place! Although it was bitter cold and expensive, they did the social scene.

Russians have a long history of heavy drinking, but I was surprised how little he observed.

One trend I see with homes that JQA gets, he gets his own room to study.

Rodney | 83 comments It is amazing the amount of history JQA lived through. From the American Revolution to Napoleon's invasion of Russia. it also should be noted that the advances in today's medical treatment have prevented a great many heartbreaks that those in this time period had to endure I simply could not fathom the heartbreak that losing your children was not at all uncommon.

With St.Petersburgh being the most modern city in Russia, it's a shame we do not get a comparison to a city like Moscow. I think there is a hint when the surfs are given up to fight in the war. To my knowledge, Russia was a harsh desolate place to live during these times, it doesn't appear that JQA saw that, or if he did it was not recorded.

message 6: by Larry (new)

Larry Montello (LarryMontello) | 5 comments Thanks for posting interesting and informative comments!

Bryan Craig Rodney wrote: "It is amazing the amount of history JQA lived through. From the American Revolution to Napoleon's invasion of Russia. it also should be noted that the advances in today's medical treatment have pr..."

I bit unsettling today to read that everyone had to go through dysentery, because you drank from the River Neva.

I suppose people were used to death back then, for it was more common, but still difficult as we see with JQA. It is very sad; I have a baby girl on the way and it was not easy to read.

It would have been interesting to hear about Moscow. It seems JQA did not travel in Russia and we don't even know if he wanted to. I guess St. Petersburg was the place to be socially and culturally, etc. due to the czar.

Some information on Neva River:
is a river in northwestern Russia flowing from Lake Ladoga through the western part of Leningrad Oblast (historical region of Ingria) to the Neva Bay of the Gulf of Finland. Despite its modest length (74 km), it is the third largest river in Europe in terms of average discharge (after the Volga and the Danube).

The Neva is the only river flowing from Lake Ladoga. It flows through the city Saint Petersburg, three smaller towns of Shlisselburg, Kirovsk and Otradnoye, and dozens of settlements. The river is navigable throughout and is part of the Volga–Baltic Waterway and White Sea – Baltic Canal. It is a site of numerous major historical events, including the Battle of the Neva in 1240 which gave Alexander Nevsky his name, the founding of Saint Petersburg in 1703, and the Siege of Leningrad by the German army during World War II.


Bryan Craig JQA's letter to his children is interesting:

"Take it, then, as a general principle to be observed as one of the directing impulses of life, that you must have some one great purpose of make your talents and your knowledge most beneficial to your country and most useful to mankind." (p. 190)

Does this sound familiar?

Bryan Craig Napoleon's Invasion of Russia:

On June 24, 1812, ignoring the advice of his closest advisors, Napoleon invaded Russia. Never in living memory had so large an army been assembled — Italians, Poles, German, French — more than 600,000 men from every corner of his empire. Napoleon prophesied the war would be over in twenty days.


Bryan Craig This is a gruesome, but very good article on Nabby's mastectomy:

Bryan Craig JQA's responses to George's behavior is interesting. His messages about seeking a virtuous life and controlling your passions is reminiscent of his parents as he was growing up in Europe.

You wonder if he realized he has become, in a way, his parents.

Rodney | 83 comments Byron, I thought the exact same thing. Perhaps it was a realization of all the different paths he could have taken as a child and now realizes that his own son is at the same point in life. As a parent, I can relate to that sudden terror of realization where you have to hope your child was brought up well enough to make thier decisions with integrity and purpose. I always remember what I may have missed or not emphasized enough. It appears JQA was feeling the same way

It has always amazed me how much more rational and intelligent my parents were/are as I got older and had a family of my own.

Bryan Craig Rodney wrote: "Byron, I thought the exact same thing. Perhaps it was a realization of all the different paths he could have taken as a child and now realizes that his own son is at the same point in life. As a p..."

Good thoughts, Rodney. As a parent, too, I connected on that same level. It must be difficult to parent from across the ocean without phone and internet.

Bryan Craig Here is an interesting observation JQA made about Charles when he wandered from task to task:

"The true genius is noting but the power of applying the minds to its object." (p. 204)

Sometimes boys have trouble focusing but you do see JQA's frustrations coming out.

Bryan Craig Declaration of War:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

I communicate to Congress certain documents, being a continuation of those heretofore laid before them on the subject of our affairs with Great Britain.

Without going back beyond the renewal in 1803 of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude, the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral nation.

British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent right rounded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong, and a self-redress is assumed which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign which falls within the definition of war. Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudged without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a trial these rights are subjected to the will of every petty commander.

The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects alone that, under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public law and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and from everything dear to them; have been dragged on board ships of war of a foreign nation and exposed, under the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles of their oppressors, and to be the melancholy instruments of taking away those of their own brethren.

Against this crying enormity, which Great Britain would be so prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations, and that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the practice, the British Government was formally assured of the readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements such as could not be rejected if the recovery of British subjects were the real and the sole object. The communication passed without effect.

British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the rights and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless proceedings in our very harbors, and have wantonly spilt American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation, when a neutral nation, against armed vessels of belligerents hovering near her coasts and disturbing her commerce are well known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States to punish the greater offenses committed by her own vessels, her Government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of honor and confidence.

Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate force and sometimes without the practicability of applying one, our commerce has been plundered in every sea, the great staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate markets, and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests. In aggravation of these predatory measures they have been considered as in force from the dates of their notification, a retrospective effect being thus added, as has been done in other important cases, to the unlawfulness of the course pursued. And to render the outrage the more signal these mock blockades have been reiterated and enforced in the face of official communications from the British Government declaring as the true definition of a legal blockade "that particular ports must be actually invested and previous warning given to vessels bound to them not to enter."

Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste our neutral trade, the cabinet of Britain resorted at length to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of orders in council, which has been molded and managed as might best suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the avidity of British cruisers.

To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendent injustice of this innovation the first reply was that the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain as a necessary retaliation on decrees of her enemy proclaiming a general blockade of the British Isles at a time when the naval force of that enemy dared not issue from his own ports. She was reminded without effect that her own prior blockades, unsupported by an adequate naval force actually applied and continued, were a bar to this plea; that executed edicts against millions of our property could not be retaliation on edicts confessedly impossible to be executed; that retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party setting the guilty example, not on an innocent party which was not even chargeable with an acquiescence in it.

When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our trade with her enemy by the repeal of his prohibition of our trade with Great Britain, her cabinet, instead of a corresponding repeal or a practical discontinuance of its orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them against the United States until the markets of her enemy should be laid open to British products, thus asserting an obligation on a neutral power to require one belligerent to encourage by its internal regulations the trade of another belligerent, contradicting her own practice toward all nations, in peace as well as in war, and betraying the insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them.

Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of the United States and for its own consistency, the British Government now demands as prerequisites to a repeal of its orders as they relate to the United States that a formality should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees nowise necessary to their termination nor exemplified by British usage, and that the French repeal, besides including that portion of the decrees which operates within a territorial jurisdiction, as well as that which operates on the high seas, against the commerce of the United States should not be a single and special repeal in relation to the United States, but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations unconnected with them may be affected by those decrees. And as an additional insult, they are called on for a formal disavowal of conditions and pretensions advanced by the French Government for which the United States are so far from having made themselves responsible that, in official explanations which have been published to the world, and in a correspondence of the American minister at London with the British minister for foreign affairs such a responsibility was explicitly and emphatically disclaimed.

It has become, indeed, sufficiently certain that the commerce of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as supplying the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but as interfering with the monopoly which she covets for her own commerce and navigation. She carries on a war against the lawful commerce of a friend that she may the better carry on a commerce with an enemy--a commerce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which are for the most part the only passports by which it can succeed.

Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of injured nations, the United States have withheld from Great Britain, under successive modifications, the benefits of a free intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but outweigh the profits accruing from her restrictions of our commerce with other nations. And to entitle these experiments to the more favorable consideration they were so framed as to enable her to place her adversary under the exclusive operation of them. To these appeals her Government has been equally inflexible, as if willing to make sacrifices of every sort rather than yield to the claims of justice or renounce the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were the attempts carried to overcome the attachment of the British cabinet to its unjust edicts that it received every encouragement within the competency of the executive branch of our Government to expect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between the United States and France, unless the French edicts should also be repealed. Even this communication, although silencing forever the plea of a disposition in the United States to acquiesce in those edicts originally the sole plea for them, received no attention.

If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British Government against a repeal of its orders, it might be found in the correspondence of the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London and the British secretary for foreign affairs in 1810, on the question whether the blockade of May, 1806, was considered as in force or as not in force. It had been ascertained that the French Government, which urged this blockade as the ground of its Berlin decree, was willing in the event of its removal to repeal that decree, which, being followed by alternate repeals of the other offensive edicts, might abolish the whole system on both sides. This inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so important to the United States, and professed so often to be the desire of both the belligerents, was made known to the British Government. As that Government admits that an actual application of an adequate force is necessary to the existence of a legal blockade, and it was notorious that if such a force had ever been applied its long discontinuance had annulled the blockade in question, there could be no sufficient objection on the part of Great Britain to a formal revocation of it, and no imaginable objection to a declaration of the fact that the blockade did not exist. The declaration would have been consistent with her avowed principles of blockade, and would have enabled the United States to demand from France the pledged repeal of her decrees, either with success, in which case the way would have been opened for a general repeal of the belligerent edicts, or without success, in which case the United States would have been justified in turning their measures exclusively against France. The British Government would, however, neither rescind the blockade nor declare its nonexistence, nor permit its nonexistence to be inferred and affirmed by the American plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by representing the blockade to be comprehended in the orders in council, the United States were compelled so to regard it in their subsequent proceedings.

Bryan Craig Declaration of War Part Two:

There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of the British cabinet was justly considered as established. The minister plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty here proposed an adjustment of the differences more immediately endangering the harmony of the two countries. The proposition was accepted with the promptitude and cordiality corresponding with the invariable professions of this Government. A foundation appeared to be laid for a sincere and lasting reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly vanished. The whole proceeding was disavowed by the British Government without any explanations which could at that time repress the belief that the disavowal proceeded from a spirit of hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United States; and it has since come into proof that at the very moment when the public minister was holding the language of friendship and inspiring confidence in the sincerity of the negotiation with which he was charged a secret agent of his Government was employed in intrigues having for their object a subversion of our Government and a dismemberment of our happy union.

In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain toward the United States our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers--a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons without connecting their hostility with that influence and without recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that Government.

Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have been heaped on our country, and such the crisis which its unexampled forbearance and conciliatory efforts have not been able to avert. It might at least have been expected that an enlightened nation, if less urged by moral obligations or invited by friendly dispositions on the part of the United States, would have found in its true interest alone a sufficient motive to respect their rights and their tranquillity on the high seas; that an enlarged policy would have favored that free and general circulation of commerce in which the British nation is at all times interested, and which in times of war is the best alleviation of its calamities to herself as well as to other belligerents; and more especially that the British cabinet would not, for the sake of a precarious and surreptitious intercourse with hostile markets, have persevered in a course of measures which necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market of a great and growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of an active commerce.

Other counsels have prevailed. Our moderation and conciliation have had no other effect than to encourage perseverance and to enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafaring citizens still the daily victims of lawless violence, committed on the great common and highway of nations, even within sight of the country which owes them protection. We behold our vessels, freighted with the products of our soil and industry, or returning with the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful destinations, confiscated by prize courts no longer the organs of public law but the instruments of arbitrary edicts, and their unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced or inveigled in British ports into British fleets, whilst arguments are employed in support of these aggressions which have no foundation but in a principle equally supporting a claim to regulate our external commerce in all cases whatsoever.

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

Having presented this view of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and of the solemn alternative growing out of them, I proceed to remark that the communications last made to Congress on the subject of our relations with France will have shewn that since the revocation of her decrees, as they violated the neutral rights of the United States, her Government has authorized illegal captures by its privateers and public ships, and that other outrages have been practiced on our vessels and our citizens. It will have been seen also that no indemnity had been provided or satisfactorily pledged for the extensive spoliations committed under the violent and retrospective orders of the French Government against the property of our citizens seized within the jurisdiction of France. I abstain at this time from recommending to the consideration of Congress definitive measures with respect to that nation, in the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions between our minister plenipotentiary at Paris and the French Government will speedily enable Congress to decide with greater advantage on the course due to the rights, the interests, and the honor of our country.



Bryan Craig I wonder what JQA saw in regards to the Napoleonic war. Apparently, he saw some of the serf army, but it is unclear if he saw anymore than that.

They were lucky they were not in Moscow.

Vincent (vpbrancato) | 1245 comments Interesting chapter - JQA liked the good life in St. Petersburg - he wanted to make more money and have less work than as a Supreme Court justice. He took similar steps to his father and mother to try to guide the upbringing of his "away" son. I really think he is an interesting guy but removed from the common man.

message 19: by Bryan (last edited Mar 19, 2012 01:21PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Bryan Craig "Removed from the common man." Well said, I tend to agree with you. Do you get a sense anyone is more attuned to the common man?

Vincent (vpbrancato) | 1245 comments Bryan wrote: ""Removed from the common man." Well said, I tend to agree with you. Do you get a sense anyone is more attuned to the common man?"

Great question Bryan - I think, in this book, maybe his siblings or his mother - and his father - As you have made me think about it I think that maybe JQA was just too often, for too long, starting too young, in exotic far away places living on government expense accounts - but just maybe - I will think on it some more but I thought the question merited an immediate response.


Bryan Craig great vince. i don't get a sense he was in touch for some of these ideas you mentioned.

back to top