Historians these days regularly have to brace themselves for some new, hallucinatory version of the American past. The latest example is Representative Michele Bachmann's claim that the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.
Really?
In framing the Constitution in 1787, the Federal Convention ducked the issue, writing into the Constitution clauses compromising with slavery while avoiding the word. Nonetheless, pro-slavery delegates assured their state ratifying conventions in 1788 that the Constitution gave slavery every protection they could desire. Further, Southern founding fathers worked with sympathetic or indifferent Northerners to tilt the federal government toward protecting slavery in domestic and foreign policy. In 1820 and 1850, crises over slavery and its expansion threatened to shatter the Union. Finally, in 1861, nearly twenty-five years after the death of James Madison, the last first-rank founding father (and a slaveowner), the nation plunged into civil war. As President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation in his second inaugural address in 1865, slavery was "somehow" the cause of the war -- as well as being its leading casualty.
So what was Representative Bachmann thinking?
When critics challenged her, Bachmann stood her ground -- by invoking John Quincy Adams. The response? Adams was too young to sign the Declaration of Independence or to help frame the Constitution. How could he be a founding father? Bachmann insisted that John Quincy Adams was a founding father, having served as his father's secretary on a diplomatic mission when he was 10 years old, and that he worked tirelessly all his life to end slavery.
Representative Bachmann has it partly right. Calling John Quincy Adams a founding father makes sense. But Bachmann makes two distinct claims -- first, that John Quincy Adams was a founding father, and, second, that he worked tirelessly all his life to end slavery. Her second claim is problematic.
The founding fathers include signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the Constitution's framers and signers in 1787 and its supporters and opponents in 1787-1788; those who fought in the Revolutionary War as officers or enlisted soldiers; and those who held office under the Confederation and in the first years of government under the Constitution. John Quincy Adams fits into that last category.
Born in 1767, oldest son and second child of John and Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams realized early in his life that his parents wanted him to achieve greatly, and he struggled to fulfill their hopes for him. In 1778, when his father went to Europe as an American diplomat, he took the ten-year-old John Quincy along as his secretary and to further his education. After living with his father in France and in the Netherlands, for three years he served Francis Dana as a secretary and interpreter in Russia. Returning home to continue his studies, he was graduated from Harvard College in 1788 and became a lawyer in Boston. In 1794, President George Washington named the 26-year-old Adams American minister to the Netherlands, and then in 1796 named him American minister to Portugal. In 1797, at Washington's urging, President John Adams named him American minister to Prussia, where he served until 1801.
After returning to the law, John Quincy Adams was elected to the Massachusetts legislature, lost an election for the U.S. House of Representatives, and was chosen a United States Senator from Massachusetts. In 1808, his political independence cost him his Senate seat, but in 1809 President James Madison named him American minister to Russia. In 1814, he was the lead American negotiator in the peace talks ending the War of 1812 with Great Britain. Then Madison named him American minister to Great Britain (a post his father had held), and from 1817 to 1825 Adams was America's greatest Secretary of State. In 1824, he ran for President; after the election landed in the House of Representatives, he was declared elected -- despite charges by backers of his chief rival, Andrew Jackson, that he had made a corrupt bargain to win the Presidency. In 1828, Jackson trounced Adams, who thought that his political career was over. But, in 1830, he was elected to the House of Representatives from his home district in Massachusetts, serving until his death in 1848.
In his length and diversity of public service, John Quincy Adams was a truly distinguished American, and because he was a junior member of the Washington and Adams administrations, he qualifies as a founding father. But what of his opposition to slavery?
Although his parents never owned slaves, and although his mother questioned slavery in private letters, neither was an abolitionist -- someone demanding the immediate end of the institution of slavery -- nor was he. Whenever, as an American diplomat and as Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams had to advocate the interests of slaveowners, he did so with his full determination and ability. Further, when Secretary of State Adams confronted the incident of the Antelope, a slave ship captured by a U.S. Treasury cutter, he showed himself startlingly indifferent to the fate of the enslaved men, women, and children who were the ship's cargo.
In his later years, when, as a member of the House, Adams was responsible to nobody but his constituents and his conscience, he emerged as a fierce opponent of slavery -- when it collided with constitutional principles that he held dear. At first, however, he was wary of such issues, writing in his diary in 1832 that public discussion of slavery "would lead to ill will, to heart-burnings, to mutual hatred, where the first of wants was harmony; and without accomplishing anything else."
What roused him to action was the House's adoption of a "gag rule" requiring any petition concerning slavery to be tabled without debate. From 1838 to 1844, when the House repealed it, Adams opposed the gag rule as a violation of the right of petition protected by the First Amendment and an attempt by the slavery interest to protect itself by violating the people's rights.
In 1841, in his second great antislavery battle, Adams was lead counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court for the enslaved Africans who, carried on the Spanish ship Amistad, overpowered their captors and tried to return to Africa. At issue in the case were competing claims to the enslaved Africans as property to be seized for profit, by the Spanish owners of the vessel (backed by Spain) and by the officers of the U.S. warship that salvaged the Amistad. Adams insisted to the Court that the Africans were not property and should be treated not as slaves but as free human beings wrongly captured who were exercising their natural right to defend their liberty. The Court ruled for his clients, who presented him with a rare Bible still treasured as part of the collection of the Adams National Historic Site.
In his last great struggle against the consequences of slavery, Adams opposed the Mexican War (1846-1848) as a war of territorial expansion fought to secure more territory where American slavery could spread. In 1848, he suffered the stroke that finally killed him while waiting to speak against a congressional resolution honoring the generals of the American armies in Mexico.
Thus, though Adams waged various battles against slavery and the power of slave-state politicians, he was not a tireless, lifelong opponent of slavery, as Rep. Bachmann claims. Sadly, Bachmann's inflated version of John Quincy Adams's antislavery record exemplifies how she and other Tea Party advocates remold the past into a founding-era-Disneyland version bolstering their political agenda. The past rarely cooperates with the demands of the present, as historians know all too well.
Did the Founding Fathers really work 'tirelessly' to end slavery?
John Wayne to John Adams: Michele Bachmann stands by her (mis)statements
Hannity Panel Accuses Media Of Exaggerating Rep. Bachmann Gaffes
Bachmann, Angle, Palin: Triumvirate of Tea Party Idiocracy
Wait -- Was Michele Bachmann Actually Right About The Founding Fathers Working ...
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
If Bachmann believes this lie, then she is delusional. It is a lie.
John Quincy Adams brought Hiroshima Nagasaki to the table. Then Perry knocked over that table with his unprofessionalism.
But, JQA tried!
JQA tried.
I think it's primarily an example of the tyranny of the status quo.
And the founding fathers are regular people, flaws and all. We actually do them a disservice by making them one-dimensional cardboard figures.
They would be well-advised to pay attention to these words of Mark Twain:
The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
Second, the author misses the bigger point of the Bachmann's story. Her original claim was that "the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery." In fact, the majority of Founding Fathers supported slavery, and none of them did anything significant to try to abolish it. When confronted with this fact, Bachmann's staff went into frantic research mode, and the closest person they could find to a Founding Father who opposed slavery was J.Q.. But even if we accept that he was Founding Father (he wasn't), and even if we accept that he worked "tirelessly" to end slavery (he didn't), he was STILL just one anti-slavery voice among hundreds that were not.
Bachmann's original statement is still wrong, and by saying it, Bachmann demonstrated she did not know a basic fact about American history. She also demonstrated that she buys into the myth that the Founding Fathers were perfect and could do no wrong. I'm sure Bachmann was shocked to find out that most of the Founding Fathers were pro-slavery. I'm sure that was a huge moment of cognitive dissonance for her. But instead of learning anything, she found a way to rationalize it in her own mind. Typical conservative mindset.
The participants in the Boston Tea Party were many things. Patriots they were not. They dressed as Indians to conceal their identities. That bespeaks cowardice.
All, or almost all, were smugglers or shop owners selling those smuggled goods. They were criminals.
Ben Franklin and other Founding Fathers called them scoundrels.
They destroyed private property. Is that something the present Tea Party advocates honor?
What were the alternatives? Ships loaded with tea came to every American port. There were no illegal incidents at any of the others. The ships remained loaded and either returned to British ports or to ports in the Caribbean.
It is probably only to be expected that the members of the present Tea Parties are no more true patriots than the ones they identify with.
"We have seen that after independence the American Founders actually took steps to end slavery. Some could have done more, but as a whole they probably did more than any group of national leaders up until that time in history to deal with the evil of slavery. They took steps toward liberty for the enslaved and believed that the gradual march of liberty would continue, ultimately resulting in the complete death of slavery. The ideas they infused in the foundational civil documents upon which America was founded - such as Creator endowed rights and the equality of all men before the law - eventually prevailed and slavery was abolished. But not without great difficulty."
I also give you the words of Fredrick Douglas, former slave.
"I base my sense of the certain overthrow of slavery, in part, upon the nature of the American Government, the Constitution, the tendencies of the age, and the character of the American people….The Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, and the sentiments of the founders of the Republic, give us a platform broad enough, and strong enough, to support the most comprehensive plans for the freedom and elevation of all the people of this country, without regard to color, class, or clime."
You judge the truth.