[THE house having again resolved itself into a committee of
the whole on the general appropriation bill, to which Mr. Clay
had moved an amendment, which was still pending, to introduce
an appropriation for a mission to Buenos Ayres (as stated in
the last foregoing speech), Mr. Clay said, that as no other
gentleman appeared disposed to address the chair, he would avail
himself of this opportunity of making some remarks in reply to
the opponents of his motion. The members who had spoken against
the measure were Messrs. Lowndes, of South Carolina, Forsyth, of
Georgia, Smith, of Maryland, Smyth and H. Nelson, of Virginia,
and Poindexter, of Mississippi; while those who supported it
were Messrs. Robertson, of Louisiana, Holmes, of Massachusetts,
Floyd and Tucker, of Virginia, and R. M. Johnson, of Kentucky.
The amendment was rejected by a vote of one hundred and fifteen
to forty-five; a result which was reversed in 1820.]
The first objection which I think it incumbent on me to notice is
that of my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Lowndes), who opposed the
form of the proposition, as being made on a general appropriation
bill, on which he appeared to think nothing ought to be engrafted
which was likely to give rise to a difference between the two branches
of the legislature. If the gentleman himself had always acted on
this principle, his objection would be entitled to more weight; but,
the item in the appropriation bill next following this, and reported
by the gentleman himself, is infinitely more objectionable――which
is, an appropriation of thirty thousand dollars for defraying the
expenses of three commissioners, appointed, or proposed to be paid,
in an unconstitutional form. It cannot be expected that a general
appropriation bill will ever pass without some disputable clauses,
and in case of a difference between the two houses (a difference which
we have no right to anticipate in this instance), which cannot be
compromised as to any article, the obvious course is, to omit such
article altogether, retaining all the others; and, in a case of this
character, relative to brevet pay, which has occurred during the
present session, such has been the ground the gentleman himself has
taken in a conference with the senate, of which he is a manager.
The gentleman from South Carolina, has professed to concur with me
in a great many of his general propositions; and neither he nor any
other gentleman has disagreed with me, that the mere recognition of
the independence of the provinces is no cause of war with Spain, except
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith), to whom I recommend, without
intending disrespect to him, to confine himself to the operation of
commerce, rather than undertake to expound questions of public law;
for I can assure the gentleman, that, although he may make some figure,
with his practical knowledge, in the one case, he will not in the other.
No man, except the gentleman from Maryland, has had what I should call
the hardihood to contend, that, on the ground of principle and mere
public law, the exercise of the right of recognizing another power is
cause of war. But though the gentleman from South Carolina admitted,
that the recognition would be no cause of war, and that it was not
likely to lead to a war with Spain, we find him, shortly after, getting
into a war with Spain, how, I do not see, and by some means, which he
did not deign to discover to us, getting us into a war with England
also. Having satisfied himself, by this course of reasoning, the
gentleman has discovered, that the finances of Spain are in a most
favorable condition. On this part of the subject, it is not necessary
for me to say any thing after what the committee has heard from the
eloquent gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Holmes), whose voice, in
a period infinitely more critical in our affairs than the present,
has been heard with so much delight from the east in support of the
rights and honor of the country. He has clearly shown, that there is no
parallel between the state of Spain and of this country――the one of a
country whose resources are completely impoverished and exhausted; the
other of a country whose resources are almost untouched. But, I would
ask of the gentleman from South Carolina, if he can conceive that a
state, in the condition of Spain, whose minister of the treasury admits
that the people have no longer the means of paying new taxes――a nation
with an immense mass of floating debt, and totally without credit――can
feel any anxiety to engage in a war with a nation like this, whose
situation is, in every possible view, directly the reverse? I ask, if
an annual revenue, equal only to five eighths of the annual expenditure,
exhibits a financial ability to enter upon a new war, when, too, the
situation of Spain is altogether unlike that of the United States and
England, whose credit, resting upon a solid basis, enables them to
supply, by loans, any deficit in the income?
Notwithstanding the diversity of sentiment which has been displayed
during the debate, I am happy to find that, with one exception, every
member has done justice to the struggle in the south, and admitted it
to be entitled to the favor of the best feelings of the human heart.
Even my honorable friend near me (Mr. Nelson) has made a speech on our
side, and we should not have found out, if he had not told us, that he
would vote against us. Although his speech has been distinguished by
his accustomed eloquence, I should be glad to agree on a cartel with
the gentlemen on the other side of the house, to give them his speech
for his vote. The gentleman says his heart is with us, that he ardently
desires the independence of the south. Will he excuse me for telling
him, that if he will give himself up to the honest feelings of his
heart, he will have a much surer guide than by trusting to his head,
to which, however, I am far from offering any disparagement?
But, sir, it seems that a division of the republican party is about
to be made by the proposition. Who is to furnish, in this respect, the
correct criterion――whose conduct is to be the standard of orthodoxy?
What has been the great principle of the party to which the gentleman
from Virginia refers, from the first existence of the government to the
present day? An attachment to liberty, a devotion to the great cause of
humanity, of freedom, of self-government, and of equal rights. If there
is to be a division, as the gentleman says; if he is going to leave
us, who are following the old track, he may, in his new connections,
find a great variety of company, which, perhaps, may indemnify him
for the loss of his old friends. What is the great principle that has
distinguished parties in all ages, and under all governments――democrats
and federalists, whigs and tories, plebeians and patricians? The one,
distrustful of human nature, appreciates less the influence of reason
and of good dispositions, and appeals more to physical force; the other
party, confiding in human nature, relies much upon moral power, and
applies to force as an auxiliary only to the operations of reason. All
the modifications and denominations of political parties and sects may
be traced to this fundamental distinction. It is that which separated
the two great parties in this country. If there is to be a division
in the republican party, I glory that I, at least, am found among
those who are anxious for the advancement of human rights and of human
liberty; and the honorable gentleman who spoke of appealing to the
public sentiment, will find, when he does so, or I am much mistaken,
that public sentiment is also on the side of public liberty and of
human happiness.
But the gentleman from South Carolina has told us, that the
constitution has wisely confided to the executive branch of the
government, the administration of the foreign interests of the country.
Has the honorable gentleman attempted to show, though his proposition
be generally true, and will never be controverted by me, that we
also have not our participation in the administration of the foreign
concerns of the country, when we are called upon, in our legislative
capacity, to defray the expenses of foreign missions, or to regulate
commerce? I stated, when up before, and I have listened in vain for
an answer to the argument, that no part of the constitution says which
shall have the precedence, the act of making the appropriation for
paying a minister, or the act of sending one. I have contended, and
now repeat, that either the acts of deputing and of paying a minister
should be simultaneous, or, if either has the preference, the act
of appropriating his pay should precede the sending of a minister.
I challenge gentlemen to show me any thing in the constitution which
directs that a minister shall be sent before his payment is provided
for. I repeat, what I said the other day, that, by sending a minister
abroad, during the recess, to nations between whom and us no such
relations existed as to justify incurring the expense, the legislative
opinion is forestalled, or unduly biased. I appeal to the practice
of the government, and refer to various acts of congress for cases of
appropriations, without the previous deputation of the agent abroad,
and without the preliminary of a message from the president, asking
for them.
[MR. CLAY here quoted the act, authorizing the establishment of
certain consulates in the Mediterranean, and affixing salaries
thereto, in consequence of which the president had subsequently
appointed consuls, who had been receiving their salaries to this
day.]
From these it appears that congress has constantly pursued the
great principle of the theory of the constitution, for which I now
contend――that each department of the government must act within its
own sphere, independently, and on its own responsibility. It is a
little extraordinary, indeed, after the doctrine which was maintained
the other day, of a sweeping right in congress to appropriate money
to any object, that it should now be contended that congress has no
right to appropriate money to a particular object. The gentleman’s
(Mr. Lowndes’s) doctrine is broad, comprehending every case; but, when
proposed to be exemplified in any specific case, it does not apply.
My theory of the constitution, on this particular subject, is, that
congress has the right of appropriating money for foreign missions,
the president the power to use it. The president having the power,
I am willing to say to him, ‘here is the money, which we alone have a
right to appropriate, which will enable you to carry your power into
effect, if it seems expedient to you.’ Both being before him, the power
and the means of executing it, the president would judge, on his own
responsibility, whether or not it was expedient to exercise it. In
this course, each department of the government would act independently,
without influence from, and without interference with, the other. I
have stated cases, from the statute-book, to show, that, in instances
where no foreign agent has been appointed, but only a possibility of
their being appointed, appropriations have been made for paying them.
Even in the case of the subject matter of negotiation (a right much
more important than that of sending an agent), an appropriation of
money has preceded the negotiation of a treaty――thus, in the third
volume of the new edition of the laws, page twenty-seven, a case of an
appropriation of twenty-five thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars
to defray the expense of such treaties as the president of the United
States might deem proper to make with certain Indian tribes. An act,
which has been lately referred to, appropriating two millions for
the purchase of Florida, is a case still more strongly in point, as
contemplating a treaty, not with a savage, but a civilized power.
In this case there may have been, though I believe there was not, an
executive message, recommending the appropriation; but I take upon
myself to assert, that, in almost all the cases I have quoted, there
was no previous executive intimation that the appropriation of the
money was necessary to the object; but congress has taken up the
subject, and authorized these appropriations, without any official
call from the executive to do so.
With regard to the general condition of the provinces now in revolt
against the parent country, I will not take up much of the time of
the house. Gentlemen are, however, much mistaken as to many of the
points of their history, geography, commerce, and produce, which have
been touched upon. Gentlemen have supposed there would be from those
countries a considerable competition of the same products which we
export. I venture to say, that, in regard to Mexico, there can be no
such competition; that the table-lands are at such a distance from the
seashore, and the difficulty of reaching it is so great, as to make
the transportation to La Vera Cruz too expensive to be borne, and the
heat so intense as to destroy the bread-stuffs as soon as they arrive.
With respect to New Grenada, the gentleman from Maryland is entirely
mistaken. It is the elevation of Mexico, principally, which enables it
to produce bread-stuffs; but New Granada, lying nearly under the line,
cannot produce them. The productions of New Granada for exportation
are, the precious metals, (of which, of gold, particularly, a greater
portion is to be found than in any of the provinces, except Mexico,)
sugar, coffee, cocoa, and some other articles of a similar character.
Of Venezuela, the principal productions are coffee, cocoa, indigo, and
some sugar. Sugar is also produced in all the Guianas――French, Spanish,
and Dutch. The interior of the provinces of La Plata may be productive
of bread stuffs, but they are too remote to come into competition with
us in the West India market, the voyages to the United States generally
occupying from fifty to sixty days, and some times as long as ninety
days. By deducting from that number the average passage from the United
States to the West Indies, the length of the usual passage between
Buenos Ayres and the West Indies will be found, and will show that, in
the supply of the West India market with bread-stuffs, the provinces
can never come seriously into competition with us. And in regard
to Chili, productive as it may be, does the gentleman from Maryland
suppose that vessels are going to double Cape Horn and come into
competition with us in the West Indies? It is impossible. But I feel
a reluctance at pursuing the discussion of this part of the question;
because I am sure these are considerations on which the house cannot
act, being entirely unworthy of the subject. We may as well stop
all our intercourse with England, with France, or with the Baltic,
whose products are in many respects the same as ours, as to act on
the present occasion, under the influence of any such considerations.
It is too selfish, too mean a principle for this body to act on, to
refuse its sympathy for the patriots of the south, because some little
advantage of a commercial nature may be retained to us from their
remaining in the present condition, which, however, I totally deny.
Three fourths of the productions of the Spanish provinces are the
precious metals, and the greater part of the residue not of the same
character as the staple productions of our soil. But it seems that a
pamphlet has recently been published on this subject to which gentlemen
have referred. Now permit me to express a distrust of all pamphlets of
this kind, unless we know their source. It may, for aught I know, if
not composed at the instance of the Spanish minister, have been written
by some merchant who has a privilege of trading to Lima under royal
license; for such do exist, as I am informed, and some of them procured
under the agency of a celebrated person by the name of Sarmiento,
of whom perhaps the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) can give the
house some information. To gentlemen thus privileged to trade with the
Spanish provinces under royal authority, the effect of a recognition
of the independence of the provinces would be, to deprive them of
that monopoly. The reputed author of the pamphlet in question, if I
understand correctly, is one who has been, if he is not now, deeply
engaged in the trade, and I will venture to say, that many of his
statements are incorrect. In relation to the trade of Mexico, I happen
to possess the Royal Gazette of Mexico of 1804, showing what was the
trade of that province in 1803; from which it appears that, without
making allowance for the trade from the Philippine Islands to Acapulco,
the imports into the port of Vera Cruz were in that year twenty-two
millions in value, exclusive of contraband, the amount of which was
very considerable. Among these articles were many which the United
States could supply as well, if not on better terms, than they could
be supplied from any other quarter; for example, brandy and spirits,
paper, iron, implements for agriculture and the mines; wax, spices,
naval stores, salt fish, butter, provisions; these articles amounting
in the whole to one seventh part of the whole import trade to Mexico.
With regard to the independence of that country, which gentlemen seemed
to think improbable, I rejoice that I am able to congratulate the
house, that we have this morning intelligence that Mina yet lives,
and the patriot flag is still unfurled, and the cause infinitely more
prosperous than ever. This intelligence I am in hopes will prove true,
notwithstanding the particular accounts of his death, which, there is
so much of fabrication and falsehood in the Spanish practice, are not
entitled to credit, unless corroborated by other information. Articles
are manufactured in one province to produce effect on other provinces,
and in this country; and I am, therefore, disposed to think, that the
details respecting the capture and execution of Mina, are too minute to
be true, and were made up to produce an effect here.
With regard to the general value of the trade of a country, it is
to be determined by the quantum of its population, and its character,
its productions, and the extent and character of the territory; and,
applying these criteria to Spanish America, no nation offers higher
inducements to commercial enterprise. Washed on the one side by the
Pacific, on the other by the south Atlantic; standing between Africa
and Europe on the one hand, and Asia on the other; lying along side of
the United States; her commerce must, when free from the restraints of
despotism, be immensely important; particularly when it is recollected
how great a proportion of the precious metals it produces; for that
nation which can command the precious metals, may be said to command
almost the resources of the world. For one moment, imagine the mines of
the south locked up from Great Britain for two years, what would be the
effect on her paper system? Bankruptcy, explosion, revolution. Even if
the supply which we get abroad of the precious metals was cut off for
any length of time, I ask if the effect on our paper system would not
be, not perhaps equally as fatal as to England, yet one of the greatest
calamities which could befall this country. The revenue of Spain, in
Mexico alone, was, in 1809, twenty millions of dollars, and in the
other provinces in about the same proportion, taking into view their
population, independent of the immense contributions annually paid
to the clergy. When you look at the resources of the country, and the
extent of its population, recollecting that it is double our own; that
its consumption of foreign articles, under a free commerce would be
proportionably great; that it yields a large revenue under the most
abominable system, under which nearly three fourths of the population
are unclad, and almost naked as from the hands of nature, because
absolutely deprived of the means of clothing themselves, what may not
be the condition of this country, under the operation of a different
system, which would let industry develope its resources in all possible
forms? Such a neighbor cannot but be a valuable acquisition in a
commercial point of view.
Gentlemen have denied the fact of the existence of the independence
of Buenos Ayres at as early a date as I have assigned to it. The
gentleman from South Carolina, who is well informed on the subject,
has not, I think, exhibited his usual candor on this part of it. When
the gentleman talked of the upper provinces being out of the possession
of the patriots as late as 1815, he ought to have gone back and told
the house what was the actual state of the fact, with which I am sure
the gentleman is very well acquainted. In 1811, the government of
Buenos Ayres had been in possession of every foot of the territory of
the vice-royalty. The war has been raging from 1811 to 1814 in those
interior provinces, bordering on Lima, which have been as often as
three times conquered by the enemy, and as often recovered, and from
which the enemy is now finally expelled. Is this at all remarkable
during the progress of such a revolution? During the different periods
of our war of independence, the British had possession of different
parts of our country; as late as 1780, the whole of the southern states
were in their possession; and at an earlier date they had possession
of the great northern capitals. There is, in regard to Buenos Ayres,
a distinguishing trait, which does not exist in the history of our
revolution. That is, that from 1810 to the present day, the capital
of the republic of La Plata has been invariably in the possession
of the patriot government. Gentlemen must admit that when, in 1814,
she captured at Montevideo an army as large as Burgoyne’s captured at
Saratoga, they were then in possession of independence. If they have
been since 1810 in the enjoyment of self-government, it is, indeed,
not very material under what name or under what form. The fact of their
independence is all that is necessary to be established. In reply to
the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, derived from his
having been unable to find out the number of the provinces, this arose
from the circumstance that, thirty-six years ago, the vice-royalty
had been a captain-generalship; that it extended then only to Tucuman,
whilst of late and at present the government extends to Desaguedera, in
about the sixteenth degree of south latitude. There are other reasons
why there is some confusion in the number of the provinces, as stated
by different writers; there is, in the first place, a territorial
division of the country; then a judicial; and next a military division;
and the provinces have been stated at ten, thirteen, or twenty,
according to the denominations used. This, however, with the gentleman
from South Carolina, I regard as a fact of no sort of consequence.
I will pass over the report lately made to the house by the
department of state, respecting the state of South America, with only
one remark――that it appears to me to exhibit evidence of an adroit and
experienced diplomatist, negotiating, or rather conferring on a subject
with a young and inexperienced minister, from a young and inexperienced
republic. From the manner in which this report was communicated,
after a call for information so long made, and after a lapse of two
months from the last date in the correspondence on the subject, I
was mortified at hearing the report read. Why talk of the mode of
recognition? Why make objections to the form of the commission? If the
minister has not a formal power, why not tell him to send back for one?
Why ask of him to enumerate the particular states whose independence he
wished acknowledged? Suppose the French minister had asked of Franklin
what number of states he represented? Thirteen, if you please, Franklin
would have replied. But Mr. Franklin, will you tell me if Pennsylvania,
whose capital is in possession of the British, be one of them? What
would Dr. Franklin have said? It would have comported better with the
frankness of the American character, and of American diplomacy, if the
secretary, avoiding cavils about the form of the commission, had said
to the minister of Buenos Ayres, ‘at the present moment we do not
intend to recognise you, or to receive or to send a minister to you.’
But among the charges which gentlemen have industriously brought
together, the house has been told of factions prevailing in Buenos
Ayres. Do not factions exist every where? Are they not to be found in
the best regulated and most firmly established governments? Respecting
the Carreras, public information is abused; they were supposed to have
had improper views, designs hostile to the existing government, and it
became necessary to deprive them of the power of doing mischief. And
what is the fact respecting the alleged arrest of American citizens?
Buenos Ayres has been organizing an army to attack Chili. Carrera
arrives at the river La Plata with some North Americans; he had before
defeated the revolution in Chili, by withholding his coöperation; the
government of Buenos Ayres therefore said to him, we do not want your
resources; our own army is operating; if you carry yours there, it may
produce dissension, and cause the loss of liberty; you shall not go.
On his opposing this course, what was done which has called forth the
sympathy of gentlemen? He and those who attended him from this country
were put in confinement, but only long enough to permit the operations
of the Buenos Ayrean army to go on; they were then permitted to go,
or made their escape to Montevideo, and afterwards where they pleased.
With respect to the conduct of that government, I would only recall the
attention of gentlemen to the orders which have lately emanated from
it, for the regulation of privateers, which has displayed a solicitude
to guard against irregularity, and to respect the rights of neutrals,
not inferior to that ever shown by any government, which has on any
occasion attempted to regulate this licentious mode of warfare.
The honorable gentleman from Georgia commenced his remarks the other
day by an animadversion which he might well have spared, when he
told us, that even the prayers of the chaplain of this house had been
offered up in behalf of the patriots. And was it reprehensible, that
an American chaplain, whose cheeks are furrowed by age, and his head
as white as snow, who has a thousand times, during our own revolution,
implored the smiles of heaven on our exertions, should indulge in the
pious and patriotic feelings flowing from his recollections of our own
revolution? Ought he to be subject to animadversion for so doing, in a
place where he cannot be heard? Ought he to be subject to animadversion
for soliciting the favor of heaven on the same cause as that in which
we fought, the good fight, and conquered our independence? I trust not.
But the gentleman from Georgia, it appears, can see no parallel between
our revolution and that of the Spanish provinces. Their revolution,
in its commencement, did not aim at complete independence, neither
did ours. Such is the loyalty of the Creole character, that, although
groaning under three hundred years of tyranny and oppression, they have
been unwilling to cast off their allegiance to that throne, which has
been the throne of their ancestors. But, looking forward to a redress
of wrongs, rather than a change of government, they gradually, and
perhaps at first unintentionally, entered into a revolution. I have it
from those who have been actively engaged in our revolution, from that
venerable man (chancellor Wythe), whose memory I shall ever cherish
with filial regard, that, a very short time before our declaration of
independence, it would have been impossible to have got a majority of
congress to declare it. Look at the language of our petitions of that
day, carrying our loyalty to the foot of the throne, and avowing our
anxiety to remain under the crown of our ancestors; independence was
then not even remotely suggested as our object.
The present state of facts, and not what has passed and gone in South
America, must be consulted. At the present moment, the patriots of the
south are fighting for liberty and independence; for precisely what
we fought. But their revolution, the gentleman told the house, was
stained by scenes which had not occurred in ours. If so, it was because
execrable outrages had been committed upon them by troops of the mother
country, which were not upon us. Can it be believed, if the slaves had
been let loose upon us in the south, as they have been let loose in
Venezuela; if quarters had been refused; capitulations violated; that
general Washington, at the head of the armies of the United States,
would not have resorted to retribution? Retaliation is sometimes mercy,
mercy to both parties. The only means by which the coward soul that
indulges in such enormities can be reached, is to show to him that they
will be visited by severe but just retribution. There are traits in the
history of this revolution, which show what deep root liberty has taken
in South America. I will state an instance. The only hope of a wealthy
and reputable family was charged, at the head of a small force, with
the care of the magazine of the army. He saw that it was impossible
to defend it. ‘Go,’ said he to his companions in arms, ‘I alone am
sufficient for its defence.’ The assailants approached; he applied
a match and blew up the magazine, with himself, scattering death and
destruction on his enemy. There is another instance of the intrepidity
of a female of the patriot party. A lady in New Granada had given
information to the patriot forces, of plans and instructions by which
the capitol might be invaded. She was put upon the rack to divulge her
accomplices. She bore the torture with the greatest fortitude, and died
exclaiming, ‘you shall not hear it from my mouth; I will die, and may
those live who can free my country.’
But the house has been asked, and asked with a triumph worthy of a
better cause, why recognise this republic? Where is the use of it?
And is it possible that gentlemen can see no use in recognising this
republic? For what did this republic fight? To be admitted into the
family of nations. Tell the nations of the world, says Pueyrredon,
in his speech, that we already belong to their illustrious rank. What
would be the powerful consequences of a recognition of their claim?
I ask my honorable friend before me (general Bloomfield), the highest
sanction of whose judgment in favor of my proposition, I fondly
anticipate, with what anxious solicitude, during our revolution, he
and his glorious compatriots turned their eyes to Europe and asked to
be recognised, I ask him, the patriot of ’76, how the heart rebounded
with joy, on the information that France had recognised us. The moral
influence of such a recognition, on the patriot of the south, will
be irresistible. He will derive assurance from it, of his not having
fought in vain. In the constitution of our natures there is a point,
to which adversity may pursue us, without perhaps any worse effect
than that of exciting new energy to meet it. Having reached that point,
if no gleam of comfort breaks through the gloom, we sink beneath the
pressure, yielding reluctantly to our fate, and in hopeless despair
lose all stimulus to exertion. And is there not reason to fear such
a fate to the patriots of La Plata? Already enjoying independence for
eight years, their ministers are yet spurned from the courts of Europe,
and rejected by the government of a sister republic. Contrast this
conduct of ours with our conduct in other respects. No matter whence
the minister comes, be it from a despotic power, we receive him; and
even now, the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Smith) would have us send a
minister to Constantinople, to beg a passage through the Dardanelles to
the Black Sea, that, I suppose, we might get some hemp and bread-stuffs
there, of which we ourselves produce none; he, who can see no advantage
to the country from opening to its commerce the measureless resources
of South America, would send a minister to Constantinople for a little
trade. Nay, I have seen a project in the newspapers, and I should not
be surprised, after what we have already seen, at its being carried
into effect, for sending a minister to the porte. Yes, sir, from
Constantinople, or from the Brazils; from Turk or christian; from black
or white; from the dey of Algiers or the bey of Tunis; from the devil
himself, if he wore a crown, we should receive a minister. We even
paid the expenses of the minister of his sublime highness, the bey of
Tunis, and thought ourselves highly honored by his visit. But, let the
minister come from a poor republic, like that of La Plata, and we turn
our back on him. The brilliant costumes of the ministers of the royal
governments are seen glistening in the circles of our drawing-rooms,
and their splendid equipages rolling through the avenues of the
metropolis; but the unaccredited minister of the republic, if he visit
our president or secretary of state at all, must do it _incognito_,
lest the eye of don Onis should be offended by so unseemly a sight! I
hope the gentleman from South Carolina, who is so capable of estimating
the effect of moral causes, will see some use in recognising the
independence of La Plata. I appeal to the powerful effect of moral
causes, manifested in the case of the French revolution, when, by their
influence, that nation swept from about her the armies of the combined
powers, by which she was environed, and rose up, the colossal power
of Europe. There is an example of the effect of moral power. All the
patriots ask, all they want at our hands, is, to be recognised as, what
they have been for the last eight years, an independent power.
But, it seems, we dare not do this, lest we tread on sacred ground; and
an honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth), who, when he has been
a little longer in this house, will learn to respect its powers, calls
it an usurpation on the part of this house. Has the gentleman weighed
the terms which he employed? If I mistake not, the gentleman, in the
debate respecting the power to make internal improvements, called that
too an usurpation on the part of this house. That power, too, however,
he admitted to belong to the executive, and traced it to an imperial
source, informing us that Cæsar or somebody else, had exercised it.
Sir, the gentleman has mistaken his position here; he is a military
chieftain, and an admirable defender of executive authority, but he
has yet to learn his horn-book as to the powers of this branch of the
legislature. Usurpation is arrogating to yourself authority which is
vested elsewhere. But what is it that I propose, to which this term has
been applied? To appropriate money to pay a foreign minister his outfit
and a year’s salary. If that be an usurpation, we have been usurping
power from the commencement of the government to the present time.
The chairman of the committee of ways and means has never reported an
appropriation bill without some instance of this usurpation.
There are three modes under our constitution, in which a nation may
be recognised; by the executive receiving a minister; secondly, by
its sending one thither; and, thirdly, this house unquestionably has
the right to recognise, in the exercise of the constitutional power
of congress to regulate foreign commerce. To receive a minister from a
foreign power, is an admission that the party sending him is sovereign
and independent. So the sending a minister, as ministers are never
sent but to sovereign powers, is a recognition of the independence of
the power to whom the minister is sent. Now, the honorable gentleman
from South Carolina would prefer the expression of our opinion by a
resolution, independent of the appropriation bill. If the gentleman
will vote for it in that shape, I will readily gratify him; all that
I want to do is, to convey to the president an expression of our
willingness, that the government of Buenos Ayres should be recognised.
Whether it shall be done by receiving a minister or sending one, is
quite immaterial. It is urged, that there may be an impropriety in
sending a minister, not being certain, after what has passed, that
he will be received; but that is one of the questions submitted to
the direction of the executive, which he will determine, upon a view
of all the circumstances; and who, of course, will previously have an
understanding, that our minister will be duly respected. If gentlemen
desire to know what a minister from us is to do, I would have him
congratulate the republic on the establishment of free government and
on their liberation from the ancient dynasty of Spain; assure it of
the interest we feel in its welfare, and of our readiness to concur
in any arrangement which may be advantageous to our mutual interest.
Have we not a minister at the Brazils, a nation lying along side of
the provinces of La Plata; and, considering the number of slaves in it,
by no means so formidable as the latter, and about equi-distant from
us? In reference to the strength of the two powers, that of La Plata
is much stronger, and the government of Brazil, trembling under the
apprehension of the effect of the arms of La Plata, has gone further
than any other power to recognise its independence, having entered into
a military convention with the republic, by which each power guaranties
the possessions of the other. And we have exchanged ministers with
the Brazils. The one, however, is a _kingdom_, the other a _republic_;
and if any gentleman can assign any other better reason why a minister
should be sent to one and not to the other of these powers, I shall be
glad to hear it disclosed, for I have not been able myself to discover
it.
A gentleman yesterday told the house that the news from Buenos Ayres
was unfavorable. Take it altogether, I believe it is not. But I put
but little trust in such accounts. In our revolution, incredulity
of reports and newspaper stories, propagated by the enemy, was so
strengthened by experience, that at last, nothing was believed which
was not attested by the signature of ‘Charles Thomson.’ I am somewhat
similarly situated; I cannot believe these reports; I wish to see
‘Charles Thomson’ before I give full credit to them. The vessel which
has arrived at Baltimore――and, by the way, by its valuable cargo
of specie, hides, and tallow, gives evidence of a commerce worth
pursuing――brought some rumor of a difference between Artigas and
the authorities of Buenos Ayres. With respect to the Banda Oriental,
which is said to be occupied by Artigas, it constitutes but a very
subordinate part of the territory of the United Provinces of La Plata;
and it can be no more objection to recognising the nation, because that
province is not included within its power, than it could have been to
our recognition, because several states held out against the adoption
of the constitution. Before I attach any confidence to a letter not
signed ‘Charles Thomson,’ I must know who the man is who writes it,
what are his sources of information, his character for veracity, and so
forth, and of all those particulars, we are deprived of the information,
in the case of the recent intelligence in the Baltimore papers, as
extracted from private letters.
But we are charged, on the present occasion, with treading on sacred
ground. Let me suppose, what I do not believe to be the case, that the
president has expressed an opinion one way and we another. At so early
a period of our government, because a particular individual fills the
presidential chair――an individual whom I highly respect, more perhaps
than some of those who would be considered his exclusive friends――is
the odious doctrine to be preached here, that the chief magistrate can
do no wrong? Is the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance,
are the principles of the Stuarts, to be revived in this free
government? Is an opinion to be suppressed and scouted, because it is
in opposition to the opinion of the president? Sir, as long as I have
a seat on this floor, I shall not hesitate to exert the independence
which belongs to the representative character; I shall not hesitate
to express my opinions, coincident or not with those of the executive.
But I can show that this cry has been raised on the present occasion
without reason. Suppose a case――that the president had sent a
minister to Buenos Ayres, and this house had been called on to make
an appropriation for the payment of his salary. I ask of gentlemen,
whether in that case they would not have voted an appropriation? And
has not the house a right to deliberate on the propriety of doing so,
as well before, as after a minister is sent? Will gentlemen please to
point out the difference? I contend that _we_ are the true friends of
the executive; and that the title does not belong to those who have
taken it. We wish to extend his influence, and give him patronage;
to give him means, as he has now the power, to send another minister
abroad. But, apart from this view of the question, as regards the
executive power, this house has the incontestable right to recognise a
foreign nation in the exercise of its power, to regulate commerce with
foreign nations. Suppose, for example we pass an act to regulate trade
between the United States and Buenos Ayres, the existence of the nation
would be thereby recognised, as we could not regulate trade with a
nation which does not exist.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Smyth), the great champions of executive power, and the opponent
of legislative authority, have contended that recognition would be
cause of war. These gentlemen are reduced to this dilemma. If it is
cause of war, the executive ought not to have the right to produce a
war upon the country, without consulting congress. If it is no cause of
war, it is an act which there is no danger in performing. There is very
little difference in principle, between vesting the executive with the
power of declaring war, or with the power of necessarily leading the
country into war, without consulting the authority to whom the power
of making war is confided. But I deny that it is cause of war; but
if it is, the sense of congress ought certainly in some way or other
to be taken on it, before that step is taken. I know that some of the
most distinguished statesmen in the country have taken the view of this
subject, that the power to recognise the independence of any nation
does not belong to the president; that it is a power too momentous
and consequential in its character, to belong to the executive. My
own opinion, I confess, is different, believing the power to belong to
either the president or congress, and that it may, as most convenient,
be exercised by either. If aid is to be given, to afford which will be
cause of war, however, congress alone can give it.
This house, then, has the power to act on the subject, even though
the president has expressed an opinion, which he has not, further than,
as appears by the report of the secretary of state, to decide that
in January last, it would not be proper to recognise them. But the
president stands pledged to recognise the republic, if on the return
of the commissioners whom he has deputed, they shall make report
favorable to the stability of the government. Suppose the chairman
of the committee of foreign relations had reported a provision for an
appropriation of that description which I propose, should we not all
have voted for it? And can any gentleman be so pliant, as, on the mere
ground of an executive recommendation, to vote an appropriation without
exercising his own faculties on the question; and yet, when there is no
such suggestion, will not even so far act for himself as to determine
whether a republic is so independent that we may fairly take the step
of recognition of it? I hope that no such submission to the executive
pleasure will characterize this house.
One more remark, and I have done. One gentleman told the house that the
population of the Spanish provinces is eighteen millions; that we, with
a population of two millions only, have conquered our independence;
and that, if the southern provinces willed it, they must be free. This
population, I have already stated, consists of distinct nations, having
but little, if any, intercourse, the largest of which is Mexico; and
they are so separated by immense distances, that it is impossible there
should be any coöperation between them. Besides, they have difficulties
to encounter which we had not. They have a noblesse; they are divided
into jealous castes, and a vast proportion of Indians; to which adding
the great influence of the clergy, and it will be seen how widely
different the circumstances of Spanish America are, from those under
which the revolution in this country was brought to a successful
termination. I have already shown how deep-rooted is the spirit
of liberty in that country. I have instanced the little island of
Margarita, against which the whole force of Spain has been in vain
directed; containing a population of only sixteen thousand souls, but
where every man, woman, and child, is a Grecian soldier, in defence
of freedom. For many years the spirit of freedom has been struggling
in Venezuela, and Spain has been unable to conquer it. Morillo, in an
official despatch, transmitted to the minister of marine of his own
country, avows that Angostura and all Guayana are in possession of the
patriots, as well as all that country from which supplies can be drawn.
According to the last accounts, Bolivar and other patriot commanders,
are concentrating their forces, and are within one day’s march of
Morillo; and if they do not forsake the Fabian policy, which is the
true course for them, the result will be, that even the weakest of
the whole of the provinces of Spanish America, will establish their
independence, and secure the enjoyment of those rights and blessings,
which rightfully belong to them.