that circumstances have placed me in an antagonist relation to a man
whose vast powers of intellect the world has long so vividly enjoyed
and so profoundly admired. I well know that a _personal_ contest
between us seems unequal, far more than did the impending combat
between the Hebrew stripling and that champion of the Philistines who
had a helmet of brass upon his head, and greaves of brass upon his
legs, and the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. But
the contest is not between _us_. It is between truth and error; and
just so certain as the spirit of Good will prevail over the spirit of
Evil, just so certain will Truth ultimately triumph. In such a case as
this, there is one point of view in which Mr. Webster is a desirable
antagonist; for the thick and far-beaming points of light which he has
left all along his former course of life, cannot fail to expose, to all
eyes but his own, the devious path into which he has now wandered.
HORACE MANN.
WASHINGTON, June 6, 1850.
* * * * *
Several editions of the preceding Letters having been exhausted,
another was printed, under date of July 8, 1850, with Notes.
FOOTNOTES:
[9] All my quotations from Mr. Webster are taken from the edition of
his speech which he dedicated to the “PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS,” March
18, 1850. Among the numerous readings which have appeared, I suppose
this to be the most authentic.
[10] This argument may be found repeated and enlarged upon in a
subsequent part of the present volume, p. 409, _et seq._ It is retained
here only to preserve the logical and legal symmetry of the letter.
[11] See an elaborate opinion of Chancellor Walworth, 14 Wend. 507,
_Jack_ VS. _Martin_.
NOTES
TO THE PRECEDING LETTERS.
I had hoped not to be required to say more on the subject discussed
in the above Letters; but, during the last week, Mr. Webster has
issued, in a pamphlet form, a speech made by him in the Senate on
the 17th ult., accompanied by his letter, dated on the same day, to
some gentlemen on the Kennebec River. In this letter, Mr. Webster has
referred to me again; and I regret exceedingly to say, that he seems
to have given himself full license to depart from all the rules of
courtesy belonging to a gentleman, and to disobey the obligations of
truth belonging to a man.
That I may not be supposed to make any over-statement respecting the
character of Mr. Webster’s language towards me, as expressed in this
letter, I quote a specimen or two from it.
“A pamphlet has been put into circulation,” says he, referring to the
first of the above two letters, “in which it is said that my remark
is ‘undertaking to settle by mountains and rivers, and not by the Ten
Commandments, the question of human duty,’ ‘Cease to transcribe,’ it
adds, ‘upon the statute book what our wisest and best men believed to
be the will of God, in regard to our worldly affairs, and the passions
which we think appropriate to devils will soon take possession of
society.’” He then adds, “One hardly knows which most to contemn, the
nonsense or the dishonesty of such commentaries on another’s words. I
know no passion more appropriate to devils than the passion for gross
misrepresentation and libel,” &c., &c.
The angry and reproachful language, in which Mr. Webster has here
indulged himself, releases me from all further obligation to treat
him with personal regard. Yet I do not mean to avail myself of this
release. Under our present relations, however, I do feel at liberty to
use considerable plainness of speech.
1. Let me first refer to a misrepresentation by Mr. Webster of a plain
matter of fact. In professing to quote, from his 7th of March speech,
a passage on which I had made a criticism, he alters the passage so
as to evade the criticism, and then condemns me for making it. The
original passage in his speech read as follows: “I would not take pains
to reäffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to reënact the will of God.”
This was the sentiment I criticized. It appears in these words in the
_National Intelligencer_, in the _Washington Union_, in the _Republic_,
in the _Globe_, and in the pamphlet edition of his speech, which he
dedicated to the people of Massachusetts. But in the Kennebec letter,
in order to elude the point of my criticism, he has interpolated a
word into the sentence, which changes its whole meaning. Affirming
that he quotes himself, he says, “I would not take pains USELESSLY to
reäffirm an ordinance of Nature, or to reënact the will of God.” By
foisting in the word which I have underscored, he changes the entire
character of the sentiment advanced. As now stated, nobody can dissent
from it; for who would announce, in a distinct proposition, that he
would _uselessly_ do any thing? But, as originally stated, nobody can
assent to it. This alteration of his language, after my criticism upon
it was made, is not only unjust towards me, but it contains a latent
confession that he knew he was wrong, but thought this surreptitious
changing of his doctrine to be a less evil than a frank acknowledgment
of his error. Had he truly quoted the original false sentiment, the
world would have seen that I was right; but, in his dilemma, he falsely
interpolated a true sentiment, not only to evade the force of my
criticism upon him, but to make occasion for an unfounded imputation
against me.
I shall not undertake to define or describe a proceeding like this in
words of my own. But I may be permitted, without discourtesy, to use
a sentiment advanced by himself, and leave its application to be made
by its author. It is in the same connection that Mr. Webster makes the
following remark: “I know no passion more appropriate to devils than
the passion for gross misrepresentation and libel.” Can any mortal
specify a grosser instance of “gross misrepresentation and libel”
than when one of the parties to a public discussion has uttered an
obnoxious sentiment, and when this sentiment has met with very general
reprobation, and when, in the progress of the discussion, the guilty
party professes to restate the case, that he should then expunge the
false sentiment he originally advanced, foist a trite and common-place
one in its stead, then apply the criticism made on the suppressed
sentiment to the forged one, and proceed to condemn his critic for
“nonsense” or “dishonesty”? Is it not as palpable a case of alteration,
as to change the date of a note of hand in order to take it out of
the statute of limitations, or to obliterate the description of the
premises in a deed, and put a more valuable estate in its place? This
proceeding is worse, if possible, than the former “misrepresentation
and libel” of my argument and myself, contained in the Newburyport
letter. But the subject is painful, and I leave it.
2. Following up his attack upon me, Mr. Webster proceeds to say:
“In classical times, there was a set of small but rapacious critics,
denominated _captatores verborum_, who snatched and caught at
particular expressions; expended their strength on the _disjecta
membra_ of language; birds of rapine which preyed on words and
syllables, and gorged themselves with feeding on the garbage of
phrases, chopped, dislocated, and torn asunder by themselves, as flesh
and limbs are by the claws of unclean birds.”
May I most respectfully ask Mr. Webster on what authority he says there
was, “in classical times,” any such “set” of “small but rapacious
critics,” as he here speaks of--or exemplifies? In my ignorance, I
have always supposed the “_captator_” of classical times, to be a kind
of “genius” the very opposite of what Mr. Webster describes. Horace,
Juvenal, and Livy represent him as a selfish, sycophantic gift-seeker,
or fortune-hunter; not a twister, torturer, or interpolator, even, of
words and phrases. If _captator_ meant a cavilling, cynical critic,
then _captatrix_ should mean a scold, a vixen, or virago; but its true
meaning was “a fawning gossip,” or “mean flatterer.”
No mistake could well be greater than that the old _captatores_
“expended their strength on the _disjecta membra_ of language,” or
“gorged themselves with the garbage of phrases, chopped, dislocated,
and torn asunder, by themselves.” On the contrary, they were “gentle as
a sucking dove.” The accompanying words descriptive of the “_captator_”
were not _torve_, _ringi_, and so forth; but _collide_, _blande_, or
_blandicule_. There was nothing like the harpy about them, as Mr.
Webster seems to suppose, in this remarkable description of his, which
is as rhetorically unsavory as it is classically untrue.
So far from there being any “set” of critics, in classic times,
denominated and known as _captatores verborum_, I doubt whether
even the abstract noun “_captatio_” occurs half a dozen times, in
all the classics, in connection with the genitive of his pretended
appellation. He could hardly have made a greater or more ludicrous
mistake. It is exceedingly to be regretted, after the numerous
instances we have lately had of Mr. Webster’s bad logic, and bad
humanity, and bad discoveries of natural law, that he should now
offend the classical taste of the country, and bring discredit upon
the New England colleges, by his bad Latin. This whole anti-classical
paragraph about “_disjecta membra_,” and “chopping,” and “gorging,” and
“uncleanness,” is an unclean conception of his own; not a pure but an
impure invention, and seems more epigastric than intellectual in its
origin.[12]
3. I will now give a specimen or two of Mr. Webster’s errors in
geography, and of his false citation of authorities. It will then be
seen that his geographical statements are worthy to be placed side by
side with his classical. In the same letter, he says the extent of New
Mexico, north and south, on the line of the Rio Grande, “can hardly be
less than a thousand miles.” This makes a little more than _fourteen_
degrees of latitude. Now, as its northern boundary is in 42°, its
southern must be as low as 28°. This is _four_ degrees below El Paso
del Norte. Yet Mr. Webster, on the 13th of June last, declared himself
in favor of fixing the northern boundary of Texas at or near El Paso,
and more than four degrees of latitude north of what he here says is
the southern boundary of New Mexico. He also supported that part of
the compromise bill which proposes to give Texas, not only these four
degrees of latitude, but millions of money also, for taking what, as he
now says, belongs to New Mexico and the United States. How can these
views stand together?
In his 7th of March speech, Mr. Webster declared it to be a natural
impossibility that African slavery could ever exist “in California
or New Mexico.” (p. 42.) He now defines the southern boundary of New
Mexico. It can hardly be less, says he, than “a thousand miles” from
the forty-second degree of north latitude. This places it four degrees
south of El Paso. He is in favor of that part of the bill which gives
these four degrees to Texas. According to him, therefore, should
Texas get possession of these four degrees of what is now New Mexican
territory, slavery will exist, as far up as the old southern boundary
line of New Mexico, by virtue of the laws of Texas, but beyond this
line, although within the bounds of Texas, it will not exist, because
forbidden by the “will of God.” Hence the extraordinary spectacle will
be exhibited, of the existence of slavery coming plump up to the south
side of an imaginary line, by the laws of Texas, while on the north
side of the said imaginary line, its existence will be cut square off
by the “will of God,” although both sides are within the same political
jurisdiction. This will be a miracle, compared with which the supposed
miraculous preservation of the Jewish feature and complexion, for two
thousand years, will be unworthy to be mentioned. It remains to be
seen, however, whether this miracle will be vouchsafed to Mr. Webster,
as a proof of the divine favor.
On the 5th of June, Mr. Webster voted against incorporating the
“Proviso” into the governments for New Mexico and Utah, because
slavery was already prohibited there by “Asiatic scenery” and the law
of “physical geography.” On the next day, too, he voted against the
following amendment, offered by Mr. Walker: “And that peon servitude
is forever abolished and prohibited.” Whether he so voted because this
species of slavery, (which is an existing institution at the present
time,) was prohibited by “scenery” and “geography,” does not appear.
But on the 17th of June, Mr. Webster, in the Senate, suggested a
qualification of his doctrine as laid down on the 7th of March,
viz., that “every foot of territory of the United States has a fixed
character for slavery.” An uncertainty as to the boundary line between
New Mexico and Texas, gave rise to this qualification. “Let me say to
gentlemen,” said Mr. Webster, “that if any portion which they or I do
not believe to be Texas, should be considered to become Texas, then, so
far, that qualification of my remark is applicable.” (_Cong. Globe_,
31st Cong., 1st session, p. 1239.) That is, if the compromise bill
should so establish the boundary line between New Mexico and Texas,
as that “any portion [of New Mexico] which they or I [other gentlemen
or Mr. Webster,] do not believe to be Texas, should be considered to
become Texas,” then _as Texan territory_, it might lose its “fixed
character,” and become slave territory, notwithstanding the “ordinance
of Nature” and the “will of God,” to the contrary. But, strange to
say, on this same 17th of June, the Kennebec letter was written, which
carries the southern boundary of Mexico, on the east side of the Rio
Grande, four degrees below El Paso, and, of course, includes all that
region within New Mexico, and therefore within the “ordinance of
Nature” and the “will of God!” So that, after all, he acknowledges
that the “ordinance of Nature” and the “will of God,” as he expounds
them, may be overridden by the laws of Texas;--in which view he is
undoubtedly right.
But his citation of authorities is among the most surprising of all
his aberrations from fact. He first quotes Major Gaines, who, as he
says, “traversed a part of this country during the Mexican war.” By
“this country,” I suppose he means New Mexico. If he does not mean New
Mexico, then the citation has no relation to the subject. If he does
mean New Mexico, then he asserts what is untrue. Major Gaines did not
go within four or five hundred miles of New Mexico during the war; and
if the quotation from him was designed to create the belief that, in
what Major Gaines said, he was speaking of New Mexico, it was as gross
an imposition as could well be made.
The next citation is from Colonel Hardin. Two sentences are taken. I
transcribe the first with Mr. Webster’s italics.
_“The whole country is miserably watered; large districts have no
water at all. The streams are small, and at great distances apart._
One day we marched on the road from Monclova to Parras, _thirty-five
miles, without water_; a pretty severe day’s march for infantry.”
And what country does this describe?
“From Monclova to Parras, thirty-five miles”! says Colonel Hardin. And
where is Monclova? Away down south, in Coahuila, hundreds of miles from
any part of New Mexico.
I submit the following notes, one from the colonel of the regiment
in which Mr. Gaines was a major; and the other from a major in the
regiment of which Mr. Hardin was colonel. Both letters are from
gentlemen who are now members of Congress.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 27, 1850.
SIR; In reply to your note of this date, I state that Major Gaines did
not, during the Mexican war, travel through any part of New Mexico.
Major Gaines entered Mexico at Camargo, on the Rio Grande; was engaged
near Saltillo, until he was captured and taken to the city of Mexico;
and thence he returned to the United States by the way of Vera Cruz.
I am, sir, very respectfully, &c.,
HUMPHREY MARSHALL.
P.S. In reply to your verbal inquiry, whether Colonel Hardin was in
New Mexico, I state, that Colonel Hardin was attached to General
Wool’s command, and passed from San Antonio de Bexar, by the Presidio
de Rio Grande, Monclova, and Parras, to Saltillo; so that he did not
enter New Mexico.
H. M.
Hon. H. MANN.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 28, 1850.
HON. H. MANN. SIR; In reply to your note of this date, I have the
honor to say, that I was an officer of the first regiment, Illinois
volunteers, commanded by Colonel J.J. Hardin, during the Mexican war,
and that during the time Colonel Hardin was in command of the regiment
he was not in New Mexico. His nearest point to New Mexico was Monclova
or Parras, which was several hundred miles distant. In my opinion,
Colonel Hardin was never in New Mexico; he certainly was not in that
country during the Mexican war.
Respectfully,
W. A. RICHARDSON.
Now what possible excuse can be offered for these misleading citations?
What information would be given of the soil of the Genesee valley of
New York, by proving the condition of the sands of Cape Cod?
Mr. Webster next quotes, for the second time, the letter of Hugh
N. Smith, Esq. This letter, if taken by itself, would render it
improbable, in Mr. Smith’s opinion, that slavery would go into New
Mexico; but it by no means proves the physical impossibility of its
existence there. But what different language has Mr. Smith since held
in his address to his constituents in New Mexico itself? I will quote a
few passages from this address to show its general drift and intent.
“Your state, [New Mexico,] is threatened with dismemberment, and _what
is yet more fatal, the introduction of slavery into its bosom_.” (p.
1.)
“The most formidable part of this combination against you is that
which originates in the slave interest. It not only rallies against
you the whole slaveholding south, but all the influence of selfish,
venal, and ambitious men in the north, _looking to speculations in
discredited bonds and land jobbing, or to the political honors which
the combined vote of the south may promise_.” (p. 2.)
“The doctrine of the slaveholding states, in regard to their domestic
institutions, is non-intervention; but with regard to yours, it is
_instant intervention_, to set at nought the prohibition of slavery,
which you brought with you into the Union,” &c. _Ib._
“I am myself a native of the section, [Mr. Smith is a Kentuckian,]
whose fate I deplore, and if my duty did not require, I would be the
last to advert to the malady that preys upon its life.... The schemes
of those who would bind you to the destiny of the slave states, render
it necessary that your representative should be excluded from the
halls of Congress.” (p. 3.)
“_You are left prostrate, that Texas may dismember and divide New
Mexico, and subject her to southern influence; that negro slavery
may be introduced into the remnant of territory that may not be
appropriated to Texas; and, finally, that the region thus secured to
southern policy may become the stock on which to graft new conquests
from Mexico._” (p. 4.) [_These_ are Mr. Smith’s italics.]
“The first step in this process is to supplant the fundamental
municipal institutions brought by New Mexico with her into the Union,
by a territorial government, which, by omitting the inhibition against
slavery in the Congressional act, failing to reserve that contained
in the Mexican code, and preventing the people of the territory
from legislating upon the subject of slavery, and from reënacting
the prohibitory clause, will unquestionably abolish all protections
against that institution; and, indeed, more effectual legislation for
the extension of slavery into New Mexico could not be enacted.” (p. 5.)
“The whole body of southern influence, now that mining is a mania,
would combine to pour an immense colony of slaves into New Mexico.
The consequence of this would be to level the whole population of
New Mexico with the new caste brought into competition; and you,
my Mexican fellow-citizens, who till your own soil with your own
hands, would be compelled to fly your country, or be degraded from
your equality of freemen, forfeiting your hopes of rising to the new
elevation promised by your alliance with the great North American
republic, and living only to witness the ruin of all that renders life
desirable.” (p. 6.)
This is what Mr. Smith says, when he writes home to his own people, who
know all about their own country, and its danger of being invaded by
slavery.
Now, let the reader suppose himself to have read from Mr. Smith’s
address, as much more of the same kind as the above, and then say how
far his evidence goes to sustain Mr. Webster’s discovery, that slavery
can never go into New Mexico. Mr. Smith’s address has been published
for two months; it has been on the tables of members, published, and
quoted from in the newspapers, and yet Mr. Webster continues to cite
Mr. Smith as a witness in his favor. What influences were used to
induce Mr. Smith to withhold, in the letter to Mr. Webster, the facts
and views which he has so clearly brought out in the letter to his
constituents?
The next and last citation is from an officer at Santa Fe. No name is
given. We are informed neither of the character of the author nor of
his means of information; and if this authority is as fallacious and
deceptive as the preceding, it is a great deal worse than nothing. It
would be like the testimony sometimes offered in court, which ruins the
cause and dishonors the counsel.
4. In his Kennebec letter, Mr. Webster says, “I have studied the
geography of New Mexico diligently, having read all that I could find
in print, and inquired of many intelligent persons, who have been
in the country, traversed it, and become familiar with it.” He sets
forth his knowledge in this confident tone, so that his impressions
in favor of the _natural_ prohibition of slavery may be more readily
received. According to this statement, he must have read the letters
of Mr. James S. Calhoun, Indian agent at Santa Fe, communicated to
Congress by the President, on the 23d of January last. Speaking of the
Navajoes, a tribe of 7,000 Indians, within the limits of what it is
proposed to include in New Mexico, Mr. Calhoun says, that it is “not
a rare instance for one individual to possess 5,000 to 10,000 sheep,
and 400 to 500 head of other stock,” (p. 184;) and that their country
“is rich in its valleys, rich in its fields of grain, and rich in its
vegetables and peach orchards.” (p. 199.) “We encamped,” says he, “near
extensive cornfields, belonging to the Navajoes.” (p. 197.) Their
“soil is easy of cultivation, and capable of sustaining nearly as many
millions of inhabitants as they have thousands.” (p. 202.) Look at
this: A country owned by one tribe capable, according to Mr. Calhoun,
of sustaining nearly 7,000,000 inhabitants, and yet, as Mr. Webster
avers, inaccessible to slavery, on account of its barrenness!
Speaking of the Indians, (Pueblos,) on the Rio Grande, Mr. Calhoun
says, “These people can raise immense quantities of corn and wheat, and
have large herds of sheep and goats. The grazing for cattle generally
is superior.” (p. 206.) Of the more western Pueblos, he says, they
have “an extent of country nearly four hundred miles square”;--more
than twenty times as large as Massachusetts;--“they have rich valleys
to cultivate, grow quantities of corn and wheat, and raise vast herds
of horses, mules, sheep, and goats, all of which may be immensely
increased by properly stimulating their industry, and instructing them
in the agricultural arts.” (p. 215.)
I might cite much more from the same authority, to the same effect; but
I do not refer to Mr. Calhoun so much for the purpose of showing the
agricultural capabilities of New Mexico, as of asking why Mr. Webster
did not quote from this recent official work, which has been lying on
the tables of members for months, instead of quoting descriptions from
military officers respecting a country which he well knew they had
never seen?