REVOLT IN CANADA: BORDER SYMPATHY: FIRMNESS OF MR. VAN BUREN: PUBLIC
PEACE ENDANGERED--AND PRESERVED:--CASE OF MCLEOD.
The revolt which took place in Canada in the winter of 1837-'8 led
to consequences which tried the firmness of the administration, and
also tried the action of our duplicate form of government in its
relations with foreign powers. The revolt commenced imposingly,
with a large show of disjointed forces, gaining advantages at
the start; but was soon checked by the regular local troops. The
French population, being the majority of the people, were chiefly
its promoters, with some emigrants from the United States; and
when defeated they took refuge on an island in the Niagara River
on the British side, near the Canadian coast, and were collecting
men and supplies from the United States to renew the contest.
From the beginning an intense feeling in behalf of the insurgents
manifested itself all along the United States border, upon a line of
a thousand miles--from Vermont to Michigan. As soon as blood began
to flow on the Canadian side, this feeling broke out into acts on
the American side, and into organization for the assistance of the
revolting party--the patriots, as they were called. Men assembled
and enrolled, formed themselves into companies and battalions,
appointed officers--even generals--issued proclamations--forced the
public stores and supplied themselves with arms and ammunition: and
were certainly assembling in sufficient numbers to have enabled
the insurgents to make successful head against any British forces
then in the provinces. The whole border line was in a state of
excitement and commotion--many determined to cross over, and
assist--many more willing to see the assistance given: the smaller
part only discountenanced the proceeding and wished to preserve the
relations which the laws of the country, and the duties of good
neighborhood, required. To the Canadian authorities these movements
on the American side were the cause of the deepest solicitude; and
not without reason: for the numbers, the inflamed feeling, and
the determined temper of these auxiliaries, presented a force
impossible for the Canadian authorities to resist, if dashing upon
them, and difficult for their own government to restrain. From the
first demonstration, and without waiting for any request from the
British minister at Washington (Mr. FOX), the President took the
steps which showed his determination to have the laws of neutrality
respected. A proclamation was immediately issued, admonishing and
commanding all citizens to desist from such illegal proceedings,
and threatening the guilty with the utmost penalties of the law.
But the President knew full well that it was not a case in which
a proclamation, and a threat, were to have efficacy; and he took
care to add material means to his words. Instructions were issued
to all the federal law officers along the border, the marshals and
district attorneys, to be vigilant in making arrests: and many were
made, and prosecutions instituted. He called upon the governors of
the border States to aid in suppressing the illegal movement: which
they did. And to these he added all the military and naval resources
which could be collected. Major-general Scott was sent to the line,
with every disposable regular soldier, and with authority to call on
the governors of New York and Michigan for militia and volunteers:
several steamboats were chartered on Lake Erie, placed under the
command of naval officers, well manned with regular soldiers, and
ordered to watch the lake.
The fidelity, and even sternness with which all these lawless
expeditions from the United States, were repressed and rebuked by
President Van Buren, were shown by him in his last communication to
Congress on the subject; in which he said:
"Information has been given to me, derived from official
and other sources, that many citizens of the United States
have associated together to make hostile incursions from our
territory into Canada, and to aid and abet insurrection there,
in violation of the obligations and laws of the United States,
and in open disregard of their own duties as citizens.
"The results of these criminal assaults upon the peace and order
of a neighboring country have been, as was to be expected,
fatally destructive to the misguided or deluded persons engaged
in them, and highly injurious to those in whose behalf they are
professed to have been undertaken. The authorities in Canada,
from intelligence received of such intended movements among our
citizens, have felt themselves obliged to take precautionary
measures against them; have actually embodied the militia,
and assumed an attitude to repel the invasion to which they
believed the colonies were exposed from the United States. A
state of feeling on both sides of the frontier has thus been
produced, which called for prompt and vigorous interference. If
an insurrection existed in Canada, the amicable dispositions of
the United States towards Great Britain, as well as their duty
to themselves, would lead them to maintain a strict neutrality,
and to restrain their citizens from all violations of the laws
which have been passed for its enforcement. But this government
recognizes a still higher obligation to repress all attempts
on the part of its citizens to disturb the peace of a country
where order prevails, or has been re-established. Depredations
by our citizens upon nations at peace with the United States,
or combinations for committing them, have at all times been
regarded by the American government and people with the greatest
abhorrence. Military incursions by our citizens into countries
so situated, and the commission of acts of violence on the
members thereof, in order to effect a change in its government,
or under any pretext whatever, have, from the commencement of
our government, been held equally criminal on the part of those
engaged in them, and as much deserving of punishment as would
be the disturbance of the public peace by the perpetration of
similar acts within our own territory."
By these energetic means, invasions from the American side were
prevented; and in a contest with the British regulars and the
local troops, the disjointed insurgents, though numerous, were
overpowered--dispersed--subjected--or driven out of Canada. Mr.
Van Buren had discharged the duties of neutrality most faithfully,
not merely in obedience to treaties and the law of nations, but
from a high conviction of what was right and proper in itself,
and necessary to the well-being of his own country as well as
that of a neighboring power. Interruption of friendly intercourse
with Great Britain, would be an evil itself, even if limited to
such interruption: but the peace of the United States might be
endangered: and it was not to be tolerated that bands of disorderly
citizens should bring on war. He had done all that the laws, and all
that a sense of right and justice required--and successfully, to
the repression of hostile movements--and to the satisfaction of the
British authorities. Faithfully and ably seconded by his Secretary
of State (Mr. Forsyth), and by his Attorney-general (Mr. Gilpin), he
succeeded in preserving our neutral relations in the most trying
circumstances to which they had ever been exposed, and at large cost
of personal popularity to himself: for the sympathy of the border
States resented his so earnest interference to prevent aid to the
insurgents.
The whole affair was over, and happily, when a most unexpected
occurrence revived the difficulty--gave it a new turn--and made
the soil of the United States itself, the scene of invasion--of
bloodshed--of conflagration--and of abduction. Some remnant of the
dispersed insurgents had taken refuge on Navy Island, near the
Canadian shore; and reinforced by some Americans, were making a
stand there, and threatening a descent upon the British colonies.
Their whole number has been ascertained to have been no more than
some five hundred--but magnified by rumor at the time to as many
thousands. A small steamboat from the American side, owned by a
citizen of the United States, was in the habit of carrying men and
supplies to this assemblage on the island. Her practices became
known to the British military authorities, encamped with some
thousand men at Chippewa, opposite the island; and it was determined
to take her in the fact, and destroy her. It was then the last of
December. A night expedition of boats was fitted out to attack this
vessel, moored to the island; but not finding her there, the vessel
was sought for in her own waters--found moored to the American
shore; and there attacked and destroyed. The news of this outrage
was immediately communicated to the President, and by him made known
to Congress in a special message--accompanied by the evidence on
which the information rested, and by a statement of the steps which
the President had taken in consequence. The principal evidence was
from the master of the boat--her name, the Caroline--and Schlosser,
on the American shore, her home and harbor. After admitting that
the boat had been employed in carrying men and supplies to the
assemblage on Navy Island, his affidavit continues:
"That from this point the Caroline ran to Schlosser, arriving
there at three o'clock in the afternoon; that, between this time
and dark, the Caroline made two trips to Navy Island, landing as
before. That, at about six o'clock in the evening, this deponent
caused the said Caroline to be landed at Schlosser, and made
fast with chains to the dock at that place. That the crew and
officers of the Caroline numbered ten, and that, in the course
of the evening, twenty-three individuals, all of whom were
citizens of the United States, came on board of the Caroline,
and requested this deponent and other officers of the boat to
permit them to remain on board during the night, as they were
unable to get lodgings at the tavern near by; these requests
were acceded to, and the persons thus coming on board retired to
rest, as did also all of the crew and officers of the Caroline,
except such as were stationed to watch during the night. That,
about midnight, this deponent was informed by one of the watch,
that several boats filled with men, were making towards the
Caroline from the river, and this deponent immediately gave the
alarm; and before he was able to reach the deck, the Caroline
was boarded by some 70 or 80 men, all of whom were armed. That
they immediately commenced a warfare with muskets, swords,
and cutlasses, upon the defenceless crew and passengers of
the Caroline, under a fierce cry of G--d damn them, give them
no quarter; kill every man: fire! fire! That the Caroline was
abandoned without resistance, and the only effort made by
either the crew or passengers seemed to be to escape slaughter.
That this deponent narrowly escaped; having received several
wounds, none of which, however, are of a serious character. That
immediately after the Caroline fell into the hands of the armed
force who boarded her, she was set on fire, cut loose from the
dock, was towed into the current of the river, there abandoned,
and soon after descended the Niagara Falls: that this deponent
has made vigilant search after the individuals, thirty-three
in number, who are known to have been on the Caroline at the
time she was boarded, and twenty-one only are to be found, one
of whom, to wit, Amos Durfee, of Buffalo, was found dead upon
the dock, having received a shot from a musket, the ball of
which penetrated the back part of the head, and came out at
the forehead. James II. King, and Captain C. F. Harding, were
seriously, though not mortally wounded. Several others received
slight wounds. The twelve individuals who are missing, this
deponent has no doubt, were either murdered upon the steamboat,
or found a watery grave in the cataract of the falls. And this
deponent further says, that immediately after the Caroline was
got into the current of the stream and abandoned, as before
stated, beacon lights were discovered upon the Canada shore,
near Chippewa; and after sufficient time had elapsed to enable
the boats to reach that shore, this deponent distinctly heard
loud and vociferous cheering at that point. That this deponent
has no doubt that the individuals who boarded the Caroline, were
a part of the British forces now stationed at Chippewa."
Ample corroborative testimony confirmed this affidavit--for which,
in fact, there was no necessity, as the officer in command of the
boats made his official report to his superior (Col. McNab), to the
same effect--who published it in general orders; and celebrated the
event as an exploit. This report varied but little from the American
in any respect, and made it worse in others. After stating that he
did not find the Caroline at Navy Island, "as expected," he went
in search of her, and found her at Grand Island, and moored to the
shore. The report proceeds:
"I then assembled the boats off the point of the Island, and
dropped quietly down upon the steamer; we were not discovered
until within twenty yards of her, when the sentry upon the
gangway hailed us, and asked for the countersign, which I told
him we would give when we got on board; he then fired upon us,
when we immediately boarded and found from twenty to thirty men
upon her decks, who were easily overcome, and in two minutes she
was in our possession. As the current was running strong, and
our position close to the Falls of Niagara, I deemed it most
prudent to burn the vessel; but previously to setting her on
fire, we took the precaution to loose her from her moorings, and
turn her out into the stream, to prevent the possibility of the
destruction of anything like American property. In short, all
those on board the steamer who did not resist, were quietly put
on shore, as I thought it possible there might be some American
citizens on board. Those who assailed us, were of course dealt
with according to the usages of war.
"I beg to add, that we brought one prisoner away, a British
subject, in consequence of his acknowledging that he had
belonged to Duncombe's army, and was on board the steamer to
join Mackenzie upon Navy Island. Lieutenant McCormack, of the
Royal Navy, and two others were wounded, and I regret to add
that five or six of the enemy were killed."
This is the official report of Captain Drew, and it adds the crimes
of impressment and abduction to all the other enormities of that
midnight crime. The man carried away as a British subject, and
because he had belonged to the insurgent forces in Canada, could not
(even if these allegations had been proved upon him), been delivered
up under any demand upon our government: yet he was carried off by
violence in the night.
This outrage on the Caroline, reversed the condition of the parties,
and changed the tenor of their communications. It now became the
part of the United States to complain, and to demand redress; and
it was immediately done in a communication from Mr. Forsyth, the
Secretary of State, to Mr. Fox, the British minister, at Washington.
Under date of January 5th, 1838, the Secretary wrote to him:
"The destruction of the property, and assassination of citizens
of the United States on the soil of New York, at the moment
when, as is well known to you, the President was anxiously
endeavoring to allay the excitement, and earnestly seeking to
prevent any unfortunate occurrence on the frontier of Canada,
has produced upon his mind the most painful emotions of surprise
and regret. It will necessarily form the subject of a demand
for redress upon her majesty's government. This communication
is made to you under the expectation that, through your
instrumentality, an early explanation may be obtained from the
authorities of Upper Canada, of all the circumstances of the
transaction; and that, by your advice to those authorities,
such decisive precautions may be used as will render the
perpetration of similar acts hereafter impossible. Not doubting
the disposition of the government of Upper Canada to do its duty
in punishing the aggressors and preventing future outrage, the
President, notwithstanding, has deemed it necessary to order a
sufficient force on the frontier to repel any attempt of a like
character, and to make known to you that if it should occur, he
cannot be answerable for the effects of the indignation of the
neighboring people of the United States."
In communicating this event to Congress, Mr. Van Buren showed that
he had already taken the steps which the peace and honor of the
country required. The news of the outrage, spreading through the
border States, inflamed the repressed feeling of the people to
the highest degree, and formidable retaliatory expeditions were
immediately contemplated. The President called all the resources of
the frontier into instant requisition to repress these expeditions,
and at the same time took measures to obtain redress from the
British government. His message to the two Houses said:
"I regret, however, to inform you that an outrage of a most
aggravated character has been committed, accompanied by a
hostile, though temporary invasion of our territory, producing
the strongest feelings of resentment on the part of our citizens
in the neighborhood, and on the whole border line; and that the
excitement previously existing, has been alarmingly increased.
To guard against the possible recurrence of any similar act,
I have thought it indispensable to call out a portion of the
militia to be posted on that frontier. The documents herewith
presented to Congress show the character of the outrage
committed, the measures taken in consequence of its occurrence,
and the necessity for resorting to them. It will also be seen
that the subject was immediately brought to the notice of the
British minister accredited to this country, and the proper
steps taken on our part to obtain the fullest information of all
the circumstances leading to and attendant upon the transaction,
preparatory to a demand for reparation."
The feeling in Congress was hardly less strong than in the border
States, on account of this outrage, combining all the crimes of
assassination, arson, burglary, and invasion of national territory.
An act of Congress was immediately passed, placing large military
means, and an appropriation of money in the President's hands,
for the protection of our frontier. His demand for redress was
unanimously seconded by Congress; and what had been so earnestly
deprecated from the beginning, as a consequence of this border
trouble--a difficulty between the two nations--had now come to
pass; but entirely from the opposite side from which it had been
expected. The British government delayed the answer to the demand
for redress--avoided the assumption of the criminal act--excused
and justified it--but did not assume it: and in fact could not,
without contradicting the official reports of her own officers, all
negativing the idea of any intention to violate the territory of
the United States. The orders to the officer commanding the boats,
was to seek the Caroline at Navy Island, where she had been during
the day, and was expected to be at night. In pursuance of this
order, the fleet of boats went to the island, near midnight; and not
finding the offending vessel there, sought her elsewhere. This is
the official report of Capt. Drew, of the Royal Navy, commanding the
boats: "I immediately directed five boats to be armed, and manned
with forty-five volunteers; and, at about eleven o'clock, P. M.,
we pushed off from the shore for Navy Island, when not finding her
there, as expected, we went in search, and found her moored between
the island and the main shore." The island here spoken of as the
one between which and the main shore, the Caroline was found, was
the American island, called Grand Island, any descent upon which,
Colonel McNab had that day officially disclaimed, because it was
American territory. The United States Attorney for the District of
New York, (Mr. Rodgers), then on the border to enforce the laws
against the violators of our neutrality, hearing that there was a
design to make a descent upon Grand Island, addressed a note to Col.
McNab, commanding on the opposite side of the river, to learn its
truth; and received this answer:
"With respect to the report in the city of Buffalo, that certain
forces under my command had landed upon Grand Island--an island
within the territory of the United States--I can assure you
that it is entirely without foundation; and that so far from my
having any intention of the kind, such a proceeding would be in
direct opposition to the wishes and intentions of her Britannic
majesty's government, in this colony, whose servant I have the
honor to be. Entering at once into the feeling which induced
you to address me on this subject, I beg leave to call your
attention to the following facts: That so far from occupying or
intending to occupy, that or any other portion of the American
territory, aggressions of a serious and hostile nature have been
made upon the forces under my command from that island. Two
affidavits are now before me, stating that a volley of musketry
from Grand Island was yesterday fired upon a party of unarmed
persons, some of whom were females, without the slightest
provocation having been offered. That on the same day, one of my
boats, unarmed, manned by British subjects, passing along the
American shore, and without any cause being given, was fired
upon from the American side, near Fort Schlosser, by cannon, the
property, I am told, of the United States."
This was written on the 29th day of December, and it was eleven
o'clock of the night of that day that the Caroline was destroyed
on the American shore. It was Col. McNab, commanding the forces at
Chippewa, that gave the order to destroy the Caroline. The letter
and the order were both written the same day--probably within the
same hour, as both were written in the afternoon: and they were
coincident in import as well as in date. The order was to seek
the offending vessel at Navy Island, being British territory, and
where she was seen at dark: the letter disclaimed both the fact,
and the intent, of invading Grand Island, because it was American
territory: and besides the disclaimer for himself, Col. McNab
superadded another equally positive in behalf of her Majesty's
government in Canada, declaring that such a proceeding would be
in direct opposition to the wishes and intentions of the colonial
government. In the face of these facts the British government found
it difficult, and for a long time impossible, to assume this act of
destroying the Caroline as a government proceeding. It was never
so assumed during the administration of Mr. Van Buren--a period of
upwards of three years--to be precise--(and this is a case which
requires precision)--three years and two months and seven days: that
is to say, from the 29th of December, 1837, to March 3d, 1841.
When this letter of Col. McNab was read in the House of
Representatives (which it was within a few days after it was
written), Mr. Fillmore (afterwards President of the United States,
and then a representative from the State of New York, and, from that
part of the State which included the most disturbed portion of the
border), stood up in his place, and said:
"The letter just read by the clerk, at his colleague's request,
was written in reply to one from the district attorney as to the
reported intention of the British to invade Grand Island; and in
it is the declaration that there was no such intention. Now, Mr.
F. would call the attention of the House to the fact that that
letter was written on the 29th December, and that it was on the
very night succeeding the date of it that this gross outrage was
committed on the Caroline. Moreover, he would call the attention
of the House to the well-authenticated fact, that, after burning
the boat, and sending it over the falls, the assassins were
lighted back to McNab's camp, where he was in person, by beacons
lighted there for that purpose. Mr. F. certainly deprecated a
war with Great Britain as sincerely as any gentleman on that
floor could possibly do: and hoped, as earnestly, that these
difficulties would be amicably adjusted between the two nations.
Yet, he must say, that the letter of McNab, instead of affording
grounds for a palliation, was, in reality, a great aggravation
of the outrage. It held out to us the assurance that there was
nothing of the kind to be apprehended; and yet, a few hours
afterwards, this atrocity was perpetrated by an officer sent
directly from the camp of that McNab."
At the time that this was spoken the order of Col. McNab to Captain
Drew had not been seen, and consequently it was not known that the
letter and the order were coincident in their character, and that
the perfidy, implied in Mr. Fillmore's remarks, was not justly
attributable to Col. McNab: but it is certain he applauded the act
when done: and his letter will stand for a condemnation of it, and
for the disavowal of authority to do it.
The invasion of New York was the invasion of the United States, and
the President had immediately demanded redress, both for the public
outrage, and for the loss of property to the owners of the boat.
Mr. Van Buren's entire administration went off without obtaining an
answer to these demands. As late as January, 1839--a year after the
event--Mr. Stevenson, the United States minister in London, wrote:
"I regret to say that no answer has yet been given to my note in
the case of the Caroline." And towards the end of the same year,
Mr. Forsyth, the American Secretary of State, in writing to him,
expressed the belief that an answer would soon be given. He says:
"I have had frequent conversations with Mr. Fox in regard to this
subject--one of very recent date--and from its tone, the President
expects the British government will answer your application in the
case without much further delay."--Delay, however, continued; and,
as late as December, 1840, no answer having yet been received, the
President directed the subject again to be brought to the notice of
the British government; and Mr. Forsyth accordingly wrote to Mr. Fox:
"The President deems this to be a proper occasion to remind
the government of her Britannic majesty that the case of the
"Caroline" has been long since brought to the attention of her
Majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs, who,
up to this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. It
is hoped that the government of her Majesty will perceive the
importance of no longer leaving the government of the United
States uninformed of its views and intentions upon a subject
which has naturally produced much exasperation, and which has
led to such grave consequences. I avail myself of this occasion
to renew to you the assurance of my distinguished consideration."
This was near the close of Mr. Van Buren's administration, and up
to that time it must be noted, _first_, that the British government
had not assumed the act of Captain Drew in destroying the Caroline;
_secondly_, that it had not answered (had not refused redress) for
that act. Another circumstance showed that the government, in its
own conduct in relation to those engaged in that affair, had not
even indirectly assumed it by rewarding those who did it. Three
years after the event, in the House of Commons, Lord John Russell,
the premier, was asked in his place, whether it was the intention
of ministers to recommend to her Majesty to bestow any reward upon
Captain Drew, and others engaged in the affair of the Caroline; to
which he replied negatively, and on account of the delicate nature
of the subject. His answer was: "No reward had been resolved upon,
and as the question involved a subject of a very delicate nature, he
must decline to answer it further." Col. McNab had been knighted;
not for the destruction of the Caroline on United States territory
(which his order did not justify, and his letter condemned), but for
his services in putting down the revolt.
Thus the affair stood till near the close of Mr. Van Buren's
administration, when an event took place which gave it a new turn,
and brought on a most serious question between the United States
and Great Britain, and changed the relative positions of the two
countries--the United States to become the injured party, claiming
redress. The circumstances were these: one Alexander McLeod,
inhabitant of the opposite border shore, and a British subject,
had been in the habit of boasting that he had been one of the
destroyers of the Caroline, and that he had himself killed one of
the "damned Yankees." There were enough to repeat these boastings
on the American side of the line; and as early as the spring of
1838 the Grand Jury for the county in which the outrage had been
committed, found a bill of indictment against him for murder and
arson. He was then in Canada, and would never have been troubled
upon the indictment if he had remained there; but, with a boldness
of conduct which bespoke clear innocence, or insolent defiance, he
returned to the seat of the outrage--to the county in which the
indictment lay--and publicly exhibited himself in the county town.
This was three years after the event; but the memory of the scene
was fresh, and indignation boiled at his appearance. He was quickly
arrested on the indictment, also sued for damages by the owner of
the destroyed boat, and committed to jail--to take his trial in the
State court of the county of Niagara. This arrest and imprisonment
of McLeod immediately drew an application for his release in a note
from Mr. Fox to the American Secretary of State. Under date of the
13th December, 1840, he wrote:
"I feel it my duty to call upon the government of the United
States to take prompt and effectual steps for the liberation
of Mr. McLeod. It is well known that the destruction of
the steamboat 'Caroline' was a public act of persons in
her Majesty's service, obeying the order of their superior
authorities.--That act, therefore, according to the usages of
nations, can only be the subject of discussion between the two
national governments; it cannot justly be made the ground of
legal proceedings in the United States against the individuals
concerned, who were bound to obey the authorities appointed
by their own government. I may add that I believe it is quite
notorious that Mr. McLeod was not one of the party engaged
in the destruction of the steamboat 'Caroline,' and that the
pretended charge upon which he has been imprisoned rests
only upon the perjured testimony of certain Canadian outlaws
and their abettors, who, unfortunately for the peace of that
neighborhood, are still permitted by the authorities of the
State of New York to infest the Canadian frontier. The question,
however, of whether Mr. McLeod was or was not concerned in the
destruction of the 'Caroline,' is beside the purpose of the
present communication. That act was the public act of persons
obeying the constituted authorities of her Majesty's province.
The national government of the United States thought themselves
called upon to remonstrate against it; and a remonstrance
which the President did accordingly address to her Majesty's
government is still, I believe, a pending subject of diplomatic
discussion between her Majesty's government and the United
States legation in London. I feel, therefore, justified in
expecting that the President's government will see the justice
and the necessity of causing the present immediate release of
Mr. McLeod, as well as of taking such steps as may be requisite
for preventing others of her Majesty's subjects from being
persecuted, or molested in the United States in a similar manner
for the future."
This note of Mr. Fox is fair and unexceptionable--free from
menace--and notable in showing that the demand for redress for
the affair of the Caroline was still under diplomatic discussion
in London, and that the British government had not then assumed
the act of Captain Drew. The answer of Mr. Forsyth was prompt and
clear--covering the questions arising out of our duplicate form of
government, and the law of nations--and explicit upon the rights of
the States, the duties of the federal government, and the principles
of national law. It is one of the few answers of the kind which
circumstances have arisen to draw from our government, and deserves
to be well considered for its luminous and correct expositions of
the important questions of which it treats. Under date of the 28th
of December, and writing under the instructions of the President, he
says:
"The jurisdiction of the several States which constitute the
Union is, within its appropriate sphere, perfectly independent
of the federal government. The offence with which Mr. McLeod is
charged was committed within the territory, and against the laws
and citizens of the State of New York, and is one that comes
clearly within the competency of her tribunals. It does not,
therefore, present an occasion where, under the constitution
and laws of the Union, the interposition called for would be
proper, or for which a warrant can be found in the powers
with which the federal executive is invested. Nor would the
circumstances to which you have referred, or the reasons you
have urged, justify the exertion of such a power, if it existed.
The transaction out of which the question arises, presents the
case of a most unjustifiable invasion, in time of peace, of a
portion of the territory of the United States, by a band of
armed men from the adjacent territory of Canada, the forcible
capture by them within our own waters, and the subsequent
destruction of a steamboat, the property of a citizen of the
United States, and the murder of one or more American citizens.
If arrested at the time, the offenders might unquestionably
have been brought to justice by the judicial authorities of the
State within whose acknowledged territory these crimes were
committed; and their subsequent voluntary entrance within that
territory, places them in the same situation. The President is
not aware of any principle of international law, or, indeed, of
reason or justice, which entitles such offenders to impunity
before the legal tribunals, when coming voluntarily within
their independent and undoubted jurisdiction, because they
acted in obedience to their superior authorities, or because
their acts have become the subject of diplomatic discussion
between the two governments. These methods of redress, the legal
prosecution of the offenders, and the application of their
government for satisfaction, are independent of each other, and
may be separately and simultaneously pursued. The avowal or
justification of the outrages by the British authorities might
be a ground of complaint with the government of the United
States, distinct from the violation of the territory and laws
of the State of New York. The application of the government
of the Union to that of Great Britain, for the redress of an
authorized outrage of the peace, dignity, and rights of the
United States, cannot deprive the State of New York of her
undoubted right of vindicating, through the exercise of her
judicial power, the property and lives of her citizens. You have
very properly regarded the alleged absence of Mr. McLeod from
the scene of the offence at the time when it was committed,
as not material to the decision of the present question. That
is a matter to be decided by legal evidence; and the sincere
desire of the President is, that it may be satisfactorily
established. If the destruction of the Caroline was a public act
of persons in her Majesty's service, obeying the order of their
superior authorities, this fact has not been communicated to
the government of the United States by a person authorized to
make the admission; and it will be for the court which has taken
cognizance of the offence with which Mr. McLeod is charged, to
decide upon its validity when legally established before it."
This answer to Mr. Fox, was read in the two Houses of Congress, on
the 5th of January, and was heard with great approbation--apparently
unanimous in the Senate. It went to London, and on the 8th and
9th of February, gave rise to some questions and answers, which
showed that the British government did not take its stand in
approving the burning of the Caroline, until after the presidential
election of 1840--until after that election had ensured a change
of administration in the United States. On the 8th of February, to
inquiries as to what steps had been taken to secure the liberation
of McLeod, the answers were general from Lord Palmerston and Lord
Melbourne, "_That her Majesty's ministers would take those measures
which, in their estimation, would be best calculated to secure the
safety of her Majesty's subjects, and to vindicate the honor of the
British nation_." This answer was a key to the instructions actually
given to Mr. Fox, showing that they were framed upon a calculation
of what would be most effective, and not upon a conviction of
what was right. They would do what they thought would accomplish
the purpose; and the event showed that the calculation led them
to exhibit the war attitude--to assume the offence of McLeod, and
to bully the new administration. And here it is to be well noted
that the British ministry, up to that time, had done nothing to
recognize the act of Captain Drew. Neither to the American minister
in London, nor to the Secretary of State here, had they assumed it.
More than that: they carefully abstained from indirect, or implied
assumption, by withholding pensions to their wounded officers in
that affair--one of whom had five severe wounds. This fact was
brought out at this time by a question from Mr. Hume in the House
of Commons to Lord John Russell, in which--
"He wished to ask the noble lord a question relating to a matter
of fact. He believed that, in the expedition which had been
formed for the destruction of the Caroline, certain officers,
who held commissions in her Majesty's army and navy, were
concerned in that affair, and that some of these officers had,
in the execution of the orders which were issued, received
wounds. The question he wished to ask was, whether or not her
Majesty's government had thought proper to award pensions to
those officers, corresponding in amount with those which were
usually granted for wounds received in the regular service of
her Majesty."
This was a pointed question, and carrying an argument along with it.
Had the wounded officers received the usual pension? If not, there
must be a reason for departing from the usual practice; and the
answer showed that the practice had been departed from. Lord John
Russell replied:
"_That he was not aware of any pensions having been granted to
those officers who were wounded in the expedition against the
Caroline._"
This was sufficiently explicit, and showed that up to the 8th
day of February, 1841, the act of Captain Drew had not been even
indirectly, or impliedly recognized. But the matter did not stop
there. Mr. Hume, a thoroughly business member, not satisfied with an
answer which merely implied that the government had not sanctioned
the measure, followed it up with a recapitulation of circumstances
to show that the government had not answered, one way or the other,
during the three years that the United States had been calling for
redress; and ending with a plain interrogatory for information on
that point.
"He said that the noble lord (Palmerston), had just made a
speech in answer to certain questions which had been put to him
by the noble lord, the member for North Lancashire; but he (Mr.
Hume) wished to ask the House to suspend their opinion upon
the subject until they had the whole of the papers laid before
the House. He had himself papers in his possession, that would
explain many things connected with this question, and which,
by-the-bye, were not exactly consistent with the statement which
had just been made. It appeared by the papers which he had in
his possession, that in January, 1838, a motion was made in the
U. S. House of Representatives, calling upon the President to
place upon the table of the House, all the papers respecting
the Caroline, and all the correspondence which had passed
between the government of the United States and the British
government on the subject of the destruction of the Caroline. In
consequence of that motion, certain papers were laid upon the
table, including one from Mr. Stevenson, the present minister
here from the U. States. These were accompanied by a long
letter, dated the 15th of May, 1838, from that gentleman, and
in that letter, the burning of the Caroline was characterized
in very strong language. He also stated, that agreeably to
the orders of the President, he had laid before the British
government the whole of the evidence relating to the subject,
which had been taken upon the spot, and Mr. Stevenson _denied he
had ever been informed that the expedition against the Caroline
was authorized or sanctioned by the British government_. Now,
from May, 1838, the time when the letter had been written, up
to this hour, no answer had been given to that letter, nor had
any satisfaction been given by the British government upon this
subject. In a letter dated from London, the 2d of July, Mr.
Stevenson stated that he had not received any answer upon the
subject, and that he did not wish to press the subject further;
but if the government of the United States wished him to do so,
he prayed to be informed of it. By the statement which had taken
place in the House of Congress, it appeared that the government
of the United States had been ignorant of any information
that could lead them to suppose that the enterprise against
the Caroline had been undertaken by the orders of the British
government, or by British authority. That he believed was the
ground upon which Mr. Forsyth acted as he had done. He takes his
objections, and denies the allegation of Mr. Fox, that neither
had he nor her Majesty's government made any communication to
him or the authorities of the United States, that the British
government had _authorized the destruction of the Caroline_.
He (Mr. Hume) therefore hoped that no discussion would take
place, until all the papers connected with the matter were
laid before the House. He wished to know what the nature of
those communications was with Mr. Stevenson and her Majesty's
government which had induced him to act as he had done."
Thus the ministry were told to their faces, and in the face of the
whole Parliament, that for the space of three years, and under
repeated calls, they had never assumed the destruction of the
Caroline: and to that assertion the ministry _then_ made no answer.
On the following day the subject was again taken up, "_and in the
course of it Lord Palmerston admitted that the government approved
of the burning of the Caroline_." So says the Parliamentary
Register of Debates, and adds: "_The conversation was getting rather
warm, when Sir Robert Peel interposed by a motion on the affairs of
Persia._" This was the first knowledge that the British parliament
had of the assumption of that act, which undoubtedly had just been
resolved upon. It is clear that Lord Palmerston was the presiding
spirit of this resolve. He is a bold man, and a man of judgment in
his boldness. He probably never would have made such an assumption
in dealing with General Jackson: he certainly made no such
assumption during the three years he had to deal with the Van Buren
administration. The conversation was "getting warm;" and well it
might: for this pregnant assumption, so long delayed, and so given,
was entirely gratuitous, and unwarranted by the facts. Col. McNab
was the commanding officer, and gave all the orders that were given.
Captain Drew's report to him shows that his orders were to destroy
the vessel at Navy Island: McNab's letter of the same day to the
United States District Attorney (Rodgers), shows that he would not
authorize an expedition upon United States territory; and his sworn
testimony on the trial of McLeod shows that he did not do it in his
orders to Captain Drew. That testimony says:
"I do remember the last time the steamboat Caroline came down
previous to her destruction; from the information I received, I
had every reason to believe that she came down for the express
purpose of assisting the rebels and brigands on Navy Island with
arms, men, ammunition, provisions, stores, &c.; to ascertain
this fact, I sent two officers with instructions to watch the
movements of the boat, to note the same, and report to me; they
reported they saw her land a cannon (a six or nine-pounder),
several men armed and equipped as soldiers, and that she had
dropped her anchor on the east side of Navy Island; on the
information I had previously received from highly respectable
persons in Buffalo, together with the report of these gentlemen,
I determined to destroy her that night. I intrusted the command
of the expedition for the purposes aforesaid, to Capt. A. Drew,
royal navy; seven boats were equipped, and left the Canadian
shore; I do not recollect the number of men in each boat;
Captain Drew held the rank of commander in her Majesty's royal
navy; I ordered the expedition, and first communicated it to
Capt. Andrew Drew, on the beach, where the men embarked a short
time previous to their embarkation; Captain Drew was ordered
to take and destroy the Caroline wherever he could find her;
I gave the order as officer in command of the forces assembled
for the purposes aforesaid; they embarked at the mouth of the
Chippewa river; in my orders to Captain Drew nothing was said
about invading the territory of the United States, but such was
their nature that Captain Drew might feel himself justified in
destroying the boat wherever he might find her."
From this testimony it is clear that McNab gave no order to invade
the territory of the United States; and the whole tenor of his
testimony agrees with Captain Drew's report, that it was "expected"
to have found the Caroline at Navy Island, where she was in fact
immediately before, and where McNab saw her while planning the
expedition. No such order was then given by him--nor by any other
authority; for the local government in Quebec knew no more of it
than the British ministry in London. Besides, Col. McNab was only
the military commander to suppress the insurrection. He had no
authority, for he disclaimed it, to invade an American possession;
and if the British government had given such authority, which they
had not, it would have been an outrage to the United States, not to
be overlooked. They then assumed an act which they had not done;
and assumed it! and took a war attitude! and all upon a calculation
that it was the most effectual way to get McLeod released. It was
in the evening of the 4th day of March that all Washington city
was roused by the rumor of this assumption and demand: and on the
12th day of that month they were all formally communicated to our
government. It was to the new administration that this formidable
communication was addressed--and addressed at the earliest moment
that decency would permit. The effect was to the full extent all
that could have been calculated upon; and wholly reversed the stand
taken under Mr. Van Buren's administration. The burning of the
Caroline was admitted to be an act of war, for which the sovereign,
and not the perpetrators, was liable: the invasion of the American
soil was also an act of war: the surrender of McLeod could not be
effected by an _order_ of the federal government, because he was
in the hands of a State court, charged with crimes against the
laws of that State: but the United States became his defender and
protector, with a determination to save him harmless: and all this
was immediately communicated to Mr. Fox in unofficial interviews,
before the formal communication could be drawn up and delivered.
Lord Palmerston's policy was triumphant; and it is necessary to
show it in order to show in what manner the Caroline affair was
brought to a conclusion; and in its train that of the northeastern
boundary, so long disputed; and that of the north-western boundary,
never before disputed; and that of the liberated slaves on their
way from one United States port to another: and all other questions
besides which England wished settled. For, emboldened by the success
of the Palmerstonian policy in the case of the Caroline, it was
incontinently applied in all other cases of dispute between the
countries--and with the same success. But of this hereafter. The
point at present is, to show, as has been shown, that the assumption
of this outrage was not made until three years after the event, and
then upon a calculation of its efficiency, and contrary to the facts
of the case; and when made, accompanied by large naval and military
demonstrations--troops sent to Canada--ships to Halifax--newspapers
to ourselves, the _Times_ especially--all odorous of gunpowder and
clamorous for war.
This is dry detail, but essential to the scope of this work, more
occupied with telling how things were done than what was done:
and in pursuing this view it is amazing to see by what arts and
contrivances--by what trifles and accidents--the great affairs
of nations, as well as the small ones of individuals, are often
decided. The finale in this case was truly ridiculous: for, after
all this disturbance and commotion--two great nations standing to
their arms, exhausting diplomacy, and inflaming the people to the
war point--after the formal assumption of McLeod's offence, and war
threatened for his release, it turned out that he was not there! and
was acquitted by an American jury on ample evidence. He had slept
that night in Chippewa, and only heard of the act the next morning
at the breakfast table--when he wished he had been there. Which
wish afterwards ripened into an assertion that he was there! and,
further, had himself killed one of the damned Yankees--by no means
the first instance of a man boasting of performing exploits in a
fight which he did not see. But what a lesson it teaches to nations!
Two great countries brought to angry feelings, to criminative
diplomacy, to armed preparation, to war threats--their governments
and people in commotion--their authorities all in council, and
taxing their skill and courage to the uttermost: and all to settle
a national quarrel as despicable in its origin as the causes of
tavern brawls; and exceedingly similar to the origin of such brawls.
McLeod's false and idle boast was the cause of all this serious
difficulty between two great Powers.
Mr. Fox had delivered his formal demand and threat on the 12th day
of March: the administration immediately undertook McLeod's release.
The assumption of his imputed act had occasioned some warm words in
the British House of Commons, where it was known to be gratuitous:
its communication created no warmth in our cabinet, but a cold chill
rather, where every spring was immediately put in action to release
McLeod. Being in the hands of a State court, no order could be
given for his liberation; but all the authorities in New York were
immediately applied to--governor, legislature, supreme court, local
court--all in vain: and then the United States assumed his defence,
and sent the Attorney-General, Mr. Crittenden, to manage his
defence, and General Scott, of the United States army, to protect
him from popular violence; and hastened to lay all their steps
before the British minister as fast as they were taken.
The acquittal of McLeod was honorable to the jury that gave it; and
his trial was honorable to the judge, who, while asserting the right
to try the man, yet took care that the trial should be fair. The
judges of the Supreme Court (Bronson, Nelson, and Cowan) refused the
_habeas corpus_ which would take him out of the State: the Circuit
judge gave him a fair trial. It was satisfactory to the British; and
put an end to their complaint against us: unhappily it seemed to put
an end to our complaint against them. All was postponed for a future
general treaty--the invasion of territory, the killing of citizens,
the arson of the boat, the impressment and abduction of a supposed
British subject--all, all were postponed to the day of general
settlement: and when that day came all were given up.
The conduct of the administration in the settlement of the affair
became a subject of discussion in both Houses of Congress, and was
severely censured by the democracy, and zealously defended by the
whigs. Mr. Charles Jared Ingersoll, after a full statement of the
extraordinary and successful efforts of the administration of Mr.
Van Buren to prevent any aid to the insurgents from the American
side, proceeded to say:
"Notwithstanding, however, every exertion that could be and was
made, it was impossible altogether to prevent some outbreaks,
and among the rest a parcel of some seventy or eighty Canadians,
as I have understood, with a very few Americans, took possession
of a place near the Canadian shore, called Navy Island, and
fortified themselves in defiance of British power. If I have not
been misinformed there were not more than eight or ten Americans
among them. An American steamboat supplied them with a cannon
and perhaps other munitions of war: for I have no disposition to
diminish whatever was the full extent of American illegality,
but, in this statement of the premises, desire to present the
argument with the most unreserved concessions. I am discussing
nothing as the member of a party. I consider the Secretary of
State as the representative of his government and country. I
desire to be understood as not intending to say one word against
that gentleman as an individual; as meaning to avoid every thing
like personality, and addressing myself to the position he has
assumed for the country, without reference to whether he is
connected with one administration or another; viewing this as a
controversy between the United States and a foreign government,
in which all Americans should be of one party, acknowledging no
distinction between the acts of Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Webster,
but considering the whole affair, under both the successive
administrations, as one and indivisible; and on many points, I
believe this country is altogether of one and the same sentiment
concerning this controversy. It seems to be universally agreed
that British _pirates_ as they were, as I will show according
to the strictest legal definition of the term, in the dead
of night, _burglariously invaded_ our country, _murdered_ at
least one of our unoffending fellow-citizens, were guilty of
the further crime of _arson_ by burning what was at least the
temporary dwelling of a number of persons asleep in a steamboat
moored to the wharf, and finally cutting her loose, carried her
into the middle of the stream, where, by romantic atrocity,
unexampled in the annals of crime, they sent her over the Falls
of Niagara, with how many persons in her, God only will ever
know.
"Now Mr. Speaker, this, in its national aspect, was precisely
the same as if perpetrated in your house or mine, and should
be resented and punished accordingly. Some time afterwards
one of the perpetrators, named McLeod, in a fit of that
sort of infatuation with which Providence mostly betrays the
guilty, strayed over from Canada to the American shore, like
a fool, as he was, and there was soon arrested and imprisoned
by that popular police, which is always on the alert to
administer justice upon malefactors. First proceeded against,
as it appears, for civil redress for the loss of the vessel,
he was soon after indicted by the appropriate grand jury,
and has remained ever since in custody, awaiting the regular
administration of justice. Guilty or innocent, however, there
he was, under the ægis of the law of the sovereign State of New
York, with the full protection of every branch of the government
of that State, when the present administration superseded
the last, and the first moment after the late President's
inauguration was ungenerously seized by the British minister
to present the new Secretary of State with a letter containing
the insolent, threatening, and insufferable language which I am
about to read from it:
"'The undersigned is instructed to demand from the government
of the United States, formally, in the name of the British
government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander McLeod.
The transaction in question may have been, as her Majesty's
government are of opinion that it was, a justifiable employment
of force for the purpose of defending the British territory
from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and
American pirates, who, having been permitted to arm and organize
themselves within the territory of the United States, had
actually invaded and occupied a portion of the territory of
her Majesty; or it may have been, as alleged by Mr. Forsyth,
in his note to the undersigned of the 26th of December, a most
unjustifiable invasion in time of peace, of the territory of the
United States.'"
"Finally, after a tissue of well elaborated diplomatic
contumely, the very absurdity of part of which, in the
application of the term pirates to the interfering Americans, is
demonstrated by Mr. Webster--the British minister reiterates,
towards the conclusion of his artfully insulting note--that
'be that as it may, her Majesty's government formally demands,
upon the grounds already stated, the immediate release of Mr.
McLeod; and her Majesty's government entreats the President of
the United States--I pray the House to mark the sarcasm of this
offensive entreaty--to take into his deliberate consideration
the serious nature of the consequences which must ensue from a
rejection of this demand.'
"Taken in connection with all the actual circumstances of the
case--the tone of the British press, both in England and Canada,
the language of members in both Houses of Parliament, and the
palpable terms of Mr. Fox's letter itself, it is impossible,
I think, not to see we cannot wink so hard as not to perceive
that Mr. Fox's is a threatening letter. It surprises me that
this should have been a subject of controversy in another
part of this building, while I cannot doubt that Mr. Webster
was perfectly satisfied of the menacing aspect of the first
letter he received from the British minister. Anxious--perhaps
laudably anxious--to avoid a quarrel so very unpromising at
the very outset of a new administration, he seems to have shut
his eyes to what must flash in every American face. And here
was his first mistake; for his course was perfectly plain. He
had nothing to do but, by an answer in the blandest terms of
diplomatic courtesy, to send back the questionable phrases to
Mr. Fox, with a respectful suggestion that they looked to him
as if conveying a threat; that he hoped not, he believed not;
he trusted for the harmony of their personal relations, and the
peace of their respective nations, that he was laboring under
a mistake; but he could not divest his mind of the impression,
that there were in this note of Mr. Fox, certain phrases which,
in all controversies among gentlemen as well as nations,
inevitably put an end to further negotiation. Mr. Fox must have
answered negatively or affirmatively, and the odious indignity
which now rankles in the breast of at least a large proportion
of the country, interpreting it as the meaning of the British
communication, would have been avoided. Mr. Webster had Mr. Fox
absolutely in the hollow of his hand. He had an opportunity of
enlisting the manly feeling of all his countrymen, the good will
of right-minded Englishmen themselves, to a firm and inoffensive
stand like this, on the threshold of the correspondence. Why he
did not, is not for me to imagine. With no feeling of personal
disparagement to that gentleman, I charge this as an obvious, a
capital, and a deplorable lapse from the position he should have
assumed, in his very first attitude towards the British minister.
"The British argument addressed to him was, that 'the
transaction in question was a justifiable employment of public
force, with the sanction, or by order of the constituted
authorities of a State, engaging individuals in military or
naval enterprises in their country's cause, when it would be
contrary to the universal practice of civilized nations to fix
individual responsibility upon the persons engaged.' This,
as I do not hesitate to pronounce it, false assumption of
law, is, at once, conceded by Mr. Webster, in the remarkable
terms, that the 'government of the United States,' by which
he must mean himself, entertains _no doubt_ of the asserted
British principle. Mr. Webster had just before said, that 'the
President is not certain that he understands precisely the
meaning intended to be conveyed by her Majesty's government,'
'which doubt,' he adds, 'has occasioned with the President some
hesitation.' Thus while the President entertained a doubt,
the government entertained no doubt at all; which I cannot
understand, otherwise, than that while the President hesitated
to concede, the Secretary of State had no hesitation whatever
to concede at once the whole British assumption, and surrender
at discretion the whole American case. For where is the use of
Mr. Webster's posterior, elaborated argument, when told by the
British minister that this transaction was _justifiable_, and
informed by the public prints that at a very early day, one of
the British Secretaries, Lord John Russell, declared in open
Parliament that the British government _justified_ what is
called the _transaction_ of McLeod. The matter was ended before
Mr. Webster set his powerful mind to produce an argument on the
subject. The British crown had taken its position. Mr. Webster
knew it had; and he may write the most elegant and pathetic
letters till doomsday, with no other effect than to display
the purity of his English to admiring fellow-citizens, and the
infirmity of his argument to Great Britain and the world. By
asserting the legal position which they assume, and justifying
the transaction, together with Mr. Webster's concession of their
legal position, the transaction is settled. Nothing remains to
be done. Mr. Webster may write about it if he will, but Mr.
Fox and the British minister hold the written acknowledgment
of the American Secretary of State, that the affair is at an
end. I call this, sir, a terrible mistake, a fatal blunder,
irrecoverable, desperate, leaving us nothing but Mr. Webster's
dreadful alternative of cold-blooded, endless, causeless war.
"Our position is false, extremely and lamentably false. The
aggrieved party, as we are, and bound to insist upon redress,
to require the punishment of McLeod, Drew, and McNab, and the
other pirates who destroyed the Caroline, we have been brought
to such a reverse of the true state of things, as to be menaced
with the wrong-doer's indignation, unless we yield every thing.
I care not whose fault it is, whether of this administration
or that. In such an affair I consider both the present and the
past, as presenting one and the same front to one and the same
assailant. I cannot refrain, however, from saying, that whatever
may have been our position, it has been greatly deteriorated by
Mr. Webster's unfortunate concession.
"Never did man lose a greater occasion than Mr. Webster cast
away, for placing himself and his country together, upon a
pinnacle of just renown. Great Britain had humbled France,
conquered Egypt, subdued vast tracts of India, and invaded
the distant empire of China--there was nothing left but our
degradation, to fill the measure of her glory, if it consists
in such achievements; and she got it by merely demanding,
without expecting it. And why have we yielded? Was there any
occasion for it? Did she intend to realize her threat? Were the
consequences which Mr. Webster was entreated to take into his
consideration, the immediate and exterminating warfare, servile
war and all, which belligerent newspapers, peers, and other such
heralds of hostilities have proclaimed? No such thing. We may
rely, I think, with confidence, upon the common good sense of
the English nation, not to rush at once upon such extremities,
and for such a cause. Mr. Fox took Mr. Webster in the melting
mood, and conquered by a threat; that is to say, conquered
for the moment; because the results, at some distant day,
unless his steps are retraced, will and must be estrangement
between kindred nations, and cold-blooded hostilities. I have
often thought, Mr. Speaker, that this affair of McLeod is what
military men call a demonstration, a feint, a false attack, to
divert us from the British design on the State of Maine; of
which I trust not one inch will ever be given up. And truly,
when we had the best cause in the world, and were the most
clearly in the right, it has been contrived, some how or other,
to put us in false position, upon the defensive, instead of
the offensive, and to perplex the plainest case with vexatious
complication and concession."
The latter part of this speech was prophetic--that which related to
the designs on the State of Maine. Successful in this experiment
of the most efficacious means for the release of McLeod, the
British ministry lost no time in making another trial of the same
experiment, on the territory of that State--and again successfully:
but of this in its proper place. Mr. John Quincy Adams, and Mr.
Caleb Cushing, were the prominent defenders of the administration
policy in the House of Representatives--resting on the point that
the destruction of the Caroline was an act of war. Mr. Adams said:
"I take it that the late affair of the Caroline was in hostile
array against the British government, and that the parties
concerned in it were employed in acts of war against it: and
I do not subscribe to the very learned opinion of the chief
justice of the State of New York (not, I hear, the chief
justice, but a judge of the Supreme Court of that State), that
there was no act of war committed. Nor do I subscribe to it
that every nation goes to war only on issuing a declaration or
proclamation of war. This is not the fact. Nations often wage
war for years, without issuing any declaration of war. The
question is not here upon a declaration of war, but acts of war.
And I say that in the judgment of all impartial men of other
nations, we shall be held as a nation responsible; that the
Caroline, there, was in a state of war against Great Britain;
for purposes of war, and the worst kind of war--to sustain an
insurrection; I will not say rebellion, because rebellion is a
crime, and because I heard them talked of as patriots."
Mr. Cushing said:
"It is strange enough that the friends of Mr. Van Buren should
deny that the attack on the Caroline was an act of war. I reply
to them not only by exhibiting the reason and the principle of
the thing, but by citing the authority of their own President.
I hold in my hand a copy of the despatch addressed by Mr.
Stevenson to Lord Palmerston, under the direction of Mr. Van
Buren, making demand of reparation for the destruction of the
Caroline, and in that despatch, which has been published, Mr.
Stevenson pursues the only course he could pursue; he proceeds
to prove the hostile nature of the act by a full exhibition
of facts, and concludes and winds up the whole with declaring
in these words: 'The case then is one of open, undisguised,
and unwarrantable hostility.' After this, let no one complain
of Mr. Webster for having put the case of the Caroline on the
same precise ground which Mr. Van Buren had assumed for it, and
which, indeed, is the only ground upon which the United States
could undertake to hold the British government responsible.
And when the gentleman from Pennsylvania is considering the
first great negotiation of Mr. Webster, how does he happen to
forget the famous, or rather infamous, first great negotiation
undertaken by Mr. Van Buren? And is it not an act of mere
madness on the part of the friends of Mr. Van Buren, to compel
us to compare the two? Here is a despatch before us, addressed
in a controversy between the United States and Great Britain,
containing one of the ablest vindications of the honor and
integrity of the United States that ever was written. Mr. Van
Buren began, also, with the discussion of the question between
us and Great Britain. And in what spirit?--that of a patriot,
a man of honor, and an American? Is not that despatch, on the
contrary, a monument of ignominy in the history of the United
States? Instead of maintaining the interests of this country,
did not Mr. Van Buren, on that occasion, utterly sacrifice
them? Did he not dictate in that despatch, a disposition of the
great question of the colony trade between the United States
and Great Britain, which, from that time to this, has proved
most disastrous in its effects on the commercial and navigating
interests of the United States? And pernicious as was the object
of the despatch, was not the spirit of it infinitely worse? in
which, for the first time, party quarrels of the people of the
United States were carried into our foreign affairs--in which
a preceding administration was impliedly reproached for the
zeal with which it had defended our interests--in which it was
proclaimed that the new administration started in the world with
a set purpose of concession toward Great Britain--in which the
honor of the United States was laid prostrate at the foot of the
British throne, and the proud name of America, to sustain which
our fathers had carried on a first and a second war, as we may
have to do a third--that glory which the arms of our enemy could
not reach, was, in this truckling despatch, laid low for the
first, and, I trust in God, the last time, before the lion of
England."
The ground taken by Mr. Adams and Mr. Cushing for the defence of Mr.
Webster (for they seemed to consider him, and no doubt truly, as the
whole administration in this case) was only shifting the defence
from one bad ground to another. The war ground they assumed could
only apply between Great Britain and the insurgents: she had no war
with the United States: the attack on the Caroline was an invasion
of the territory of a neutral power--at peace with the invader. That
is a liberty not allowed by the laws of nations--not allowed by the
concern which any nation, even the most inconsiderable, feels for
its own safety, and its own self-respect. A belligerent party cannot
enter the territory of a neutral, even in fresh pursuit of an enemy.
No power allows it. That we have seen in our own day, in the case of
the Poles, in their last insurrection, driven across the Austrian
frontier by the Russians; and the pursuers stopped at the line, and
the fugitive Poles protected the instant they had crossed it: and
in the case of the late Hungarian revolt, in which the fugitive
Hungarians driven across the Turkish frontier, were protected from
pursuit. The Turks protected them, Mahometans as they were; and
would not give up fugitive Christians to a Christian power; and
afterwards assisted the fugitives to escape to Great Britain and
the United States. The British then had no right to invade the
United States even in fresh pursuit of fugitive belligerents: but
the Caroline and crew were not belligerents. She was an American
ferry-boat carrying men and supplies to the insurgents, but she
was not a combatant. And if she had been--had been a war-vessel
belonging to the insurgents, and fighting for them, she could not
be attacked in a neutral port. The men on board of her were not
Canadian insurgents, but American citizens, amenable to their own
country for any infraction of her neutrality laws: and if they
had been Canadian insurgents they could not have been seized on
American soil; nor even demanded under the extradition clause in the
treaty of 1796, even if in force. It did not extend to political
offences, either of treason or war. It only applied to the common
law offences of murder and forgery. How contradictory and absurd
then to claim a right to come and take by violence, what could not
be demanded under any treaty or the law of nations. No power gives
up a political fugitive. Strong powers protect them openly, while
they demean themselves orderly: weak powers get them to go away when
not able to protect them. None give them up--not even the weakest.
All the countries of Europe--the smallest kingdom, the most petty
principality, the feeblest republic, even San Marino--scorn to give
up a political fugitive, and though unable to chastise, never fail
to resent any violation of its territory to seize them. We alone,
and in the case of the Caroline, acknowledge the right of Great
Britain to invade our territory, seize and kill American citizens
sleeping under the flag of their country, to cut out an American
vessel moored in our port, and send her in flames over the Falls of
Niagara. We alone do that! but we have done it but once! and history
places upon it the stigma of opprobrium.
Mr. William O. Butler of Kentucky, replied to Mr. Cushing,
especially to his rehash of the stale imputations, worn out at the
time of Mr. Van Buren's senatorial rejection as minister to Great
Britain, and said:
"He expected from the gentleman a discussion on national law;
but how much was he astonished the next day, on reading his
speech in the _Intelligencer_, and finding him making a most
virulent attack on the conduct and reputation of Mr. Van Buren.
The gentleman referred to the letter of instructions of Mr. Van
Buren to our Minister at the Court of St. James, and compared it
with the instructions of Mr. Webster to the Attorney-general;
speaking of the latter as breathing the statesman and patriot
throughout, while he characterizes the former as infamous. Mr.
B. said he would not repeat the harsh and offensive terms in
which the gentleman had spoken of Mr. Van Buren's letter; he
would read what the gentleman said from his printed speech,
in order that the House might see the length to which his
invectives were carried. [Here Mr. B. read extracts from Mr.
Cushing's speech.] The gentleman spoke of comparing the two
letters together. But did he think of comparing the thing we
complain of with the thing he complains of? No: that would be
next to madness. The gentleman shrinks from that comparison, and
goes on to compare not the thing we complain of with the letter
of Mr. Van Buren, but the beautiful composition of Mr. Webster,
written forty days after complying with the British minister's
insulting demands, and intended to cover over the instructions
to Mr. Crittenden, after which he characterizes Mr. Van Buren's
letter as a monument of ignominy. Now Mr. B. said he would
make the same reply that a dignified farmer of Kentucky did to
a lawyer. The lawyer prosecuted the farmer for a slander, and
in the course of the trial took occasion to heap on him all the
abuse and invective of which the Billingsgate vocabulary is
capable. Yet the jury, without leaving their box, pronounced a
verdict of acquittal. The verdict of an honest and intelligent
jury, said the farmer, is a sufficient answer to all your abuse.
Just so it was with Mr. Van Buren. His letter had made a great
noise in the country; had been extensively circulated and read,
and had been assailed with the utmost virulence by the opposite
party. Yet the highest jury on earth, the American people, had
pronounced the acquittal of Mr. Van Buren by electing him to the
Chief Magistracy. The gentleman complained that the patriotism
of Mr. Webster not only had been assailed, but that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania had had the temerity to attack that
most beautiful of letters which the patriotic Secretary wrote
to Mr. Fox. Now he (Mr. B.) would admit that it was a beautiful
piece of composition, and he knew of but one that would compare
with it, and that was the proclamation of General Hull, just
before surrendering the Northwestern army to the British."
The friends of Mr. Webster had a fashion of extolling his intellect
when his acts were in question; and on no occasion was that fashion
more largely indulged in than on the present one. His letter,
superscribed to Mr. Fox--brought out for home consumption forty days
after the satisfactory answer had been given--was exalted to the
skies for the harmony of its periods, the beauty of its composition,
the cogency of its reasons! without regarding the national honor
and interest which it let down into the mud and mire; and without
considering that the British imperious demand required in the answer
to it, nerve as well as head--and nerve most. It was a case for an
iron will, more than for a shining intellect: and iron will was
not the strong side of Mr. Webster's character. His intellect was
great--his will small. His pursuits were civil and intellectual;
and he was not the man, with a goose quill in his hand, to stand
up against the British empire in arms. Throughout the debate, in
both Houses of Congress, the answer to Mr. Fox was treated by Mr.
Webster's friends, as his own; and, no doubt, justly--his supremacy
as a jurist being so largely deferred to.
The debate in the House was on the adoption of a resolution offered
by Mr. John G. Floyd, of New York, calling on the President for
information in relation to the steps taken to aid the liberation of
McLeod; and the fate of the resolution was significant of the temper
of the House--a desire to get rid of the subject without a direct
vote. It was laid upon the table by a good majority--110 to 70. The
nays, being those who were for prosecuting the inquiry, were:
Messrs. Archibald H. Arrington, Charles G. Atherton, Linn
Banks, Henry W. Beeson, Benjamin A. Bidlack, Samuel S. Bowne,
Linn Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, Charles Brown, Edmund Burke, Reuben
Chapman, James G. Clinton, Walter Coles, Edward Cross, John R.
J. Daniel, Richard D. Davis, Ezra Dean, William Doan, Andrew
W. Doig, Ira A. Eastman, John C. Edwards, Charles G. Ferris,
John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, Joseph Fornance, James Gerry,
William O. Goode, Samuel Gordon, William A. Harris, John
Hastings, Samuel L. Hays, Isaac E. Holmes, Jacob Houck, jr.,
George S. Houston, Edmund W. Hubard, Charles J. Ingersoll,
William Jack, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, George M. Keim,
Abraham McClellan, Robert McClellan, James J. McKay, John
McKeon, Albert G. Marchand, Alfred Marshall, John Thompson
Mason, James Mathews, William Medill, John Miller, Christopher
Morgan, Peter Newhard, William Parmenter, Samuel Patridge,
William W. Payne, Arnold Plumer, John Reynolds, Lewis Riggs,
Tristram Shaw, John Snyder, Lewis Steenrod, George Sweeny,
Thomas A. Tomlinson, Hopkins L. Turney, John Van Buren, Aaron
Ward, Harvey M. Watterson, John Westbrook, James W. Williams,
Henry A. Wise, Fernando Wood.
The same subject was largely debated in the Senate--among others by
Mr. Benton--some extracts from whose speech will constitute the next
chapter.