Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:34:24.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethics of Power in American Diplomacy: The Statecraft of John Quincy Adams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Daniel G. Lang  and
Greg Russell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article defends the proposition that the distinctive diplomatic legacy of John Quincy Adams constitutes an important case study documenting the significance of moral reasoning in the statesman's obligation to uphold the national interest in a universal system of power politics. Recourse to political ethics afforded Adams a vantage point from which to evaluate the volatile problem of intervention—viewed in terms of the moral responsibilities and limits of American power—at a crucial turning point in the diplomatic history of the young republic. Important in this connection is how Adams attempted to reconcile the blessings of liberty with the methods and purposes of American diplomacy within and beyond the Western Hemisphere.An attempt is made to evaluate the sources and meaning of statesmanship for Adams who—as perhaps the nation's most experienced diplomat and accomplished Secretary of State—judged the limits and opportunities of American power from a perspective that considered moral precepts and international law as compatible with the prudent pursuit of American national interest in world affairs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , Winter 1990 , pp. 3 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The founding as an epochal moment in our own and in world history was the guiding theme of several essays collected under the “The New Face of the American Founding” in the Social Science Quarterly 68 (12 1987): 653–744.Google Scholar See, for example, Robert Middlekauff, “The Assumptions of the Founders in 1787”; Donald S. Lutz, “The Changing View of the Founding and A New Perspective on American Political Theory”; John Phillip Reid, “Originalism and Subjectivism in the Bicentennial Year”; J. G. A. Pocock, “States, Republics, and Empires: The American Founding in Early Modern Perspective”; and Ellis Sandoz, “The American Constitutional Order after Two Centuries: Concluding Reflections.”

2. Morgenthau, Hans J., “The Founding Fathers and Foreign Policy: Some Implications for the Late Twentieth Century,” Orbis (Spring 1976): 15.Google Scholar

3. Quoted in Kennedy, John F., Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper, 1956), p. 33.Google Scholar

4. Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788, in The Complete Anti-Federalist, ed. Storing, Herbert J., 7 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981),CrossRefGoogle Scholar 5:214. See also Storing, Herbert J., What the Anti-Federalists Were For (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Adams, John Quincy, Lives of James Madison and James Monroe (Buffalo: George Derby and Co., 1850), pp. 43–44.Google Scholar See also “Publicola, No. 4,” 18 June 1791, in The Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed. Ford, Washington C., 7 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1913–1917),Google Scholar 1:79.

6. Adams, , Lives, p. 33.Google Scholar

7. Adams, , Lives, p. 10;Google Scholar Adams, “Marcellus, No. 2,” 4 May 1793, Writings, 1:139; “Columbus, No. 3,” 7 December 1793, ibid., p. 164.

8. Adams, “Marcellus, No. 3,” ibid., p. 146.

9. Ibid., p. 140.

10. Adams, “Publicola, No. 3,” ibid., p. 77; “Columbus, No.l,” ibid., p. 158. See also Tarcov, Nathan, “Principle and Prudence in Foreign Policy: The Founders' Perspective,” Public Interest 76 (Summer 1984): 57.Google Scholar

11. Hume, David, “Of the Balance of Power,” Philosophical Works, eds. Green, T. H. and Grose, T. H., 4 vols. (Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Allen, 1964),Google Scholar 1:353–56.

12. “Centinel,” Complete Anti–Federalist, 2:40; John DeWitt, ibid., 4:38; “Columbian Patriot,” ibid., 4:281.

13. On Hamilton's appeasement of the British see Bemis, Samuel Flagg, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (New York: Knopf, 1949);Google ScholarVarg, Paul, Foreign Policies of the Founding Fathers (Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1970);Google Scholar and Bowman, Alfred, “Jefferson, Hamilton and American Foreign Policy,” Political Science Quarterly 71 (03 1956): 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gilbert Lycan provides a more favorable account in his Alexander Hamilton and American Foreign Policy (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970).Google Scholar Compare Hamilton's letters of 17 and 27 March and 8 June 1798 to Thomas Pickering with “The Strand, Nos. IV, V, and VI,” in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, eds. Syrett, Harold and Cooke, Jacob, 26 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963–1979), 21:364–67; 379–80; 500–501;Google Scholar 412–40.

14. Ames, Fisher, “Balance of Europe,” Works of Fisher Ames, ed. Ames, Seth, 2 vols. (New York, 1971),Google Scholar 2:232.

15. Gallatin, Albert, “House Debate on the Foreign Intercourse Bill” 1 March 1798,Google ScholarSelected Writings of Albert Gallatin, ed. Ferguson, E. James (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967), p. 127.Google Scholar

16. George Washington to John Adams, 20 February 1797, in Works of John Adams, 10 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1853),Google Scholar 8:529.

17. Thomas Jefferson to President Monroe, 18 January 1819, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Ford, Paul Leicester, 12 vols. (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1904–1905), 10:122.Google Scholar

18. Brooks Adams, “Introduction,” in Adams, Henry, The Degradation of Democratic Dogma (New York: Macmillan, 1920), p. 13.Google Scholar

19. Adams to Abigail Adams, 23 April 1817, Writings, 6:182.

20. Adams to Charles W. Upham, 2 February 1837, in Tatum, Edward, “Ten Unpublished Letters of John Quincy Adams,” The Huntington Library Quarterly 4 (04 1941): 383.Google Scholar

21. Quoted in East, Robert A., John Quincy Adams, The Critical Years, 1785–1794 (New York: Bookman, 1962), p. 179.Google Scholar

22. Adams to John Quincy Adams, 1 August 1816, Writings, 6:61–62.

23. Adams, , Lives, p. 87;Google Scholar Adams to Hugh Nelson, 28 April 1823, ibid., 7:371.

24. Adams, John Quincy, An Oration Delivered before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at their request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.Google Scholar

25. Perkins, Bradford, Castlereagh and Adams, England and the United States, 1812–1823 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964), pp. 40–41;Google Scholar Adams to Levett Harris, Ghent, 15 November 1814, Writings, 5:187; Adams to Abigail Adams, Ghent, 23 November 1814, ibid., 5:208; Lipsky, George A., John Quincy Adams, His Theory and Ideas (New York: Thomas Crowell, 1950), pp. 22–24.Google Scholar

26. National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 9:8; Adams to Don Francisco Dionisio Vivés, State Department, 8 May 1820, Writings, 7:18.

27. Adams to Don Francisco Dionisio Vivés, State Department, 8 May 1820, Writings, 7:18.

28. Adams, , Lives, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

29. Adams, “Marcellus No. 3,” Writings, 1:145.

30. Hamilton cited in Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar Adams to Elbridge Gerry, Berlin, 20 February 1798, in Tatum, , “Ten Unpublished Letters Of John Quincy Adams,” p. 373.Google Scholar

31. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, ed. Adams, Charles Francis, 12 vols. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1874–1877),Google Scholar 5:47–48.

32. Adams, , Lives, p. 88.Google Scholar

33. From 1824 to 1828, the United States strengthened its maritime powers through an agreement with England (Rush-Bagot) to clear the Great Lakes of warships and by obtaining rights to fish the banks of Labrador and Newfoundland. American continental expansion proceeded with the annexation of Florida, by removing Russian influence from the southwestern coast of the continent, through the establishment of the American-Canadian boundary from the Great Lakes to the Rockies, and by staking first claims to the Pacific coast. Adams participated in all these events; in most he was the central figure. See LaFeber, Walter, ed., John Quincy Adams and American Continental Empire (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965), p. 13.Google Scholar

34. Adams to John Adams, St. Petersburg, 31 August 1811, Writings, 4:209.

35. Adams, , Memoirs, 4:438f.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., 5:252f.

37. Ibid., 6:157. When Secretary of State Adams drew up in November 1823 the customary sketch of the topics of foreign policy which might interest the President in connection with the preparation of the forthcoming message, he included in the paragraph on the Russian negotiations a reference to the new dogma. That paragraph was taken over almost without verbal change by Monroe and thus it appeared in his communication to Congress. See Perkins, Dexter, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823–26 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

38. Adams to Henry Middleton, State Department, 5 July 1820, Writings 7: 46–51; Adams to Richard Rush, State Department, 6 February 1821, ibid., pp. 92–94; Adams to Caesar Augustus Rodney, State Department, 17 May 1823, ibid., pp. 437ff; Adams to Richard C. Anderson, State Department, 27 May 1823, ibid., pp. 457–61; Alaskan Boundary Tribunal Proceedings, Senate Documents, Fifty–eighth Congress, Second Session, 7 vols. (Washington, 1904),Google Scholar 2:50–54. Numerous authorities have argued that Adams's legal position (i.e., the two continents, consisting of sovereign and independent powers, were not ferae naturae, and were therefore not open to colonization) was difficult to maintain in light of either the facts or accepted maxims of international law. See Perkins, , The Monroe Doctrine, pp. 20–26;Google ScholarWheaton, Henry, Elements of International Law, ed. Dana, R. H., 8th ed. (London: Milford, 1936),Google Scholar p. 82n.

39. Quoted in Dangerfield, George, The Era of Good Feelings (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963), pp. 268–69.Google Scholar

40. Graebner, Norman, “John Quincy Adams and the Federalist Tradition,” in Tradition and Values: American Diplomacy, 1790–1865, ed. Graebner, N. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), p. 123.Google Scholar

41. Adams to Henry Middleton, State Department, 5 July 1820, Writings, 7:47.

42. Ibid., pp. 47–51; See also Adams to Hugh Nelson, State Department, 28 April 1823, ibid., 7:370.

43. Adams, , Memoirs, 4:107–115.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., p. 113.

45. Adams to George W. Erving, State Department, 28 November 1818, Writings, 6:174.

46. Ibid., p. 115.

47. Drinnon, Richard, Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980), pp. 108–111.Google Scholar

48. John Adams quoted in Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, 5th ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), pp. 90–91.Google Scholar

49. Adams, , Memoirs, 5:324–25.Google Scholar

50. Morrison, Samuel Eliot and Commager, Henry Steele, The Growth of the American Republic, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950),Google Scholar 1:454.

51. Adams, , Memoirs, 6:138;Google Scholar Adams to Hugh Nelson, State Department, 28 April 1823, Writings, 7:372, 381.

52. Ibid., pp. 193–98.

53. Graebner, Norman, Foundations of American Foreign Policy, A Realist Appraisal from Franklin To McKinley (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1985), p. 169.Google Scholar

54. Adams, , Memoirs, 6:177, 180–81;Google ScholarVarg, , United States Foreign Relations, 1820–1860, pp. 52–56.Google Scholar

55. Quoted in Tatum, , The United States and Europe, 1815–1823, pp. 244–45.Google Scholar

56. Ibid.

57. Adams, , Memoirs, 11:330.Google Scholar

58. Ibid., 12:150–51; Niles Weekly Register 64 (3 03 1843): 173–75.Google Scholar

59. The British Foreign Secretary had frankly acknowledged diplomatic intervention to bring about Mexican recognition of Texas independence — valuable to Great Britain only in a commercial way—and implied that the abolition of slavery there would be an acceptable equivalent. In a letter of instruction to the new British minister in Washington, dated 23 December 1843, Lord Aberdeen wrote: “It must be and is well known both to the United States and to the whole world, that Great Britain desires, and is constantly exerting herself to procure, the general abolition of slavery throughout the world” (Bemis, Samuel Flagg, John Quincy Adams and the Union [New York: Knopf, 1956], pp. 470–71Google Scholar).

60. “The policy of the British Government is to cherish, sustain, and protect the institution of slavery in our Southern States and Texas, and their task is to do it by humbugging the abolitionists in England into the belief that they intend directly the reverse.& I perceive nothing, as yet, to relieve the deep distrust, which I would fain discard if I could, of the British ministerial policy with regard to slavery in Texas and in our Southern states” (Adams, , Memoirs, 11:406–407Google Scholar).

61. Adams had never opposed the annexation of a foreign territory, though he had taken exception (in the case of Louisiana) to incorporating a foreign people into the Union without a constitutional amendment. See Bemis, , John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy, pp. 120–21.Google Scholar

62. Adams, , Memoirs, 12:152–53; 173; 202.Google ScholarBemis, , John Quincy Adams and the Union, p. 479.Google Scholar

63. Adams, , Memoirs, 4:32, 107–115;Google ScholarSchlesinger, Arthur Jr., The Imperial Presidency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), pp. 26–27, 41–42;Google ScholarBemis, , John Quincy Adams and the Union, pp. 499–500.Google Scholar

64. Adams quoted in Quincy, Josiah, Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams (Boston: Phillips, Sampson, and Co., 1859), pp. 282–83;Google Scholar 422.

65. Statement of the Honorable George F. Kennan before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the United States, 10 February 1966.

66. Schlesinger, Arthur Jr., “National Interests And Moral Absolutes,” in International Ethics in the Nuclear Age, ed. Myers, Robert J. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

67. Walzer, Michael, “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (Spring 1980): 216;Google ScholarTarcov, , “Principle and Prudence in Foreign Policy,” pp. 56–58.Google Scholar

68. Morgenthau, Hans J., Human Rights and Foreign Policy (New York: Council on Religion and International Affairs, 1979), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

69. Tucker, Robert W., “Ideology and Foreign Policy,” in World Politics 87/88, ed. Ogden, Suzanne (Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1988), p. 14.Google Scholar