User:Tud55822
Gag Rule United States
References
[edit]- Journal of Negro History Vol. 26 No. 2 April 1941, pg 203-243. Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc.
Before the Gag Rule
Slavery was a choice made by our founding fathers to help aid in the growth of our nation’s economy. Pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists continually debated and argued with protests, petitions and mobs. Mobs, both pro and anti-slavery, were common in the past and could be anything from peaceful to violent fiery protests. Anti-slavery literature was burned by pro-slavery advocates, even PA hall in Philadelphia was burned down only a few days have it was erected when men and women of multiple races congregated at the hall to discuss issues of civil rights. Abolitionists also created petitions, protests and attempted violent rebellions, such as Gabriel’s rebellion, which was thwarted by pro-slavery advocates who caught wind of the plans.
Tensions rising
Government officials and representatives were both pro-slavery and anti-slavery while others were simply at a loss with how to resolve the issues of slavery in North America. Many grew tired and abstained from discussing the issue, others carefully chose their words to not ever actually mention slavery. Even the constitution brings forth the matter, but does so by mentioning everything but slavery when stating who gets what rights.
Silencing the Issue
In 1835, one man, Henry L. Pinckney, who was particularly bothered by the heated and emotional debates brought about by the subject of slavery proposed a gag-rule. The gag-rule decreed that any and every petition having to do with slavery would be dealt with by a selected committee, this committee was then told to explain to petitioners that congress had no power to interfere with slavery. The proposal of the gag-rule was based on the idea that slavery brought about violence, excitement and disorderly behavior (i.e. mobs, murders, burning of literature and halls) and also based on the idea that slave owning was a right not allowed to be taken away. Three months after Pinckney proposed the gag-rule it was adopted. Its adoption was explained as a hope to bring peace of mind to the people, however many believe that pro-slavery advocates had a strong influence in the decision to adopt the gag-rule. Immediately after adoption of the slavery gag-rule abolitionists fought strongly, and with much will to have it removed, but unfortunately lost. Also with the adoption of the slavery gag-rule, it was much easier for congress to declare gag-rule on other hot-button issues.
Immediate Opposition to the Gag Rule
John Quincy Adams was strongly against the idea of a gag-rule, declaring that people of a nation have the right to be heard on any and every issue. Abolitionists did not view Adams as an anti-slavery advocate, nor did Adams attack the institution of slavery when approaching the gag-rule. Adams knew what congress was attempting to do with the adoptions of these gag-rules, which was to sweep the issues under the rug so they did not have to be discussed and fought over as they had been. Adams lost his first battle to have the gag-rule removed, but had not given up the war. Many members of congress then proceeded to discuss what should be done with Adams, some suggested he be appointed a position in which he would not have time to fight the gag-rule. Adams would not give up and presented an idea to resolve the gag-rule issue which led to a special meeting of congress in 1837.
Bureaucracy's Faults
The special congressional meeting of 1837 went on for months wherein Adams continually brings up the point that the special committees created to deal with petitions were a joke and none of the petitions were being taken seriously, also that it was specifically abolition petitions and Texas annexation petitions which are being ignored. Abolitionist representatives stood up and spoke and pro-slavery representatives warned that such topics (as slavery) would bring about a divide between the North and South. Other representatives from the south claimed that their offices would retire if they had to continue discussing slavery and declared they would refuse any petitions fitting under the umbrella of slavery and abolition. By the end of the meeting the gag-rule stayed in effect with a vote of 122-74.
The Fight Continues
Many pro-slavery advocates would call gag-rule at the beginning of meetings while abolitionists tried to ignore the gag-rule, leading to more frustration and hostility. Abolitionists made a few savvy moves to find a new route in which their voice could be heard. They sent endless petitions against annexation of Texas, more than anything to be bothersome since the annexation of Texas did not fall under the slavery gag-rule, one day even turning in 400 petitions with over 50,000 signatures. Congress could not ignore these petitions because the subject matter did not fall under gag-rule. This led to a review of the petition committees.
Bureaucratic Reactions
The committee changed the gag-rule to a more sweeping statement than one relating specifically to anti-slavery issues. Many abolitionists did as the government was doing in their official reports, and carefully wording their documents and petitions to be about slavery without ever discussing slavery, which frustrated pro-slavery advocates, who in return frustrated and angered abolitionists with the same methods growing hostility and tensions even stronger. Both parties relentlessly fought with bureaucracy and more petitions, more speakers making hour long speeches. Another vote is taken and, once again, the gag-rule is not repealed.
An Abrupt End
Nothing changes in moods and manners as emotions continue to bubble and boil with heat. Adams continues to beg and preach that the gag-rule needs to be dissolved. Arguments about whether or not citizens have the right to petition against the institution of slavery continue. Members of congress never stop debating on what will happen to the nation if the institute of slavery is tampered with. Adams and others point out that members of congress must listen to the people of the nation and the people are allowed to petition. The debates quickly moved towards the main issue at hand, the institute of slavery itself. They discuss the repercussions of ending and continuing slavery, discussing outcomes such as disunion other societal issues and economic problems. Adams and abolitionists further debate that the issue is not over slavery, but the ability to petition and to discuss any and all issues. The debates grow with emotion causing nasty comments that both abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates take offense to, leading back to discussions of disunion. Emotions were running high and congress was finding it difficult to stay on the subject of gagging petitions without constantly moving back to discussions of slavery. Adams and other abolitionists continued to argue that the gag-rule was unconstitutional. The ones in favor of the gag-rule could not unify on a main problem solving tactic, however they did point out that if the gag were to be removed, the institution of slavery would have to be dealt with, causing a threat to the union. It was also debate that removal of the gag-rule would make congress seem weak, going back on their stand to put the gag-rule in effect in the first place. Adams stands his ground reminding congress, again, that the gag goes against the constitution, that citizens and congress have the right to discuss all and any subjects. Adams argues that there is a great threat to congress and the nation if they are to ignore the first amendment. Another vote is taken and somewhat anticlimactically the gag-rule dissolved with a vote of 108-80 and never revived.