BRITISH TREATY: THE PRETERMITTED SUBJECTS: MR. BENTON'S SPEECH:
EXTRACTS.
I. THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND ITS VALLEY.
The omitted or pretermitted subjects are four: the Columbia
River--impressment--the outrage on the Caroline--and the liberation
of American slaves, carried by violence or misfortune into the
British West India islands, or enticed into Canada. Of these, I
begin with the Columbia, because equal in importance to any, and,
from position, more particularly demanding my attention. The country
on this great river is ours: diplomacy has endangered its title:
the British have the possession and have repulsed us from the whole
extent of its northern shore, and from all the fur region on both
sides of the river, and up into all the valleys and gorges of the
Rocky Mountains. Our citizens are beginning to go there; and the
seeds of national contestation between the British and Americans
are deeply and thickly sown in that quarter. From the moment that
we discovered it, Great Britain has claimed this country; and for
thirty years past this claim has been a point of contested and
deferred diplomacy, in which every step taken has been a step for
the benefit of her claim, and for the injury of ours. The germ of a
war lies there; and this mission of peace should have eradicated
that germ. On the contrary, it does not notice it! Neither the
treaty nor the correspondence names or notices it! and if it were
not for a meagre and stinted paragraph in the President's message,
communicating and recommending the treaty, we should not know
that the name of the Oregon had occurred to the negotiators. That
paragraph is in these words:
"After sundry informal communications with the British minister
upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory
west of the Rocky Mountains, so little probability was found to
exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at present,
that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the
subjects of formal negotiation, to be entered upon between this
government and the British minister, as part of his duties under
his special mission."
This is all that appears in relation to a disputed country, equal in
extent to the Atlantic portion of the old thirteen United States;
superior to them in climate, soil, and configuration; adjacent to
the valley of the Mississippi; fronting Asia; holding the key to
the North Pacific Ocean; the only country fit for colonization on
the extended coast of Northwest America; a country which belongs
to the United States by a title as clear as their title to the
District of Columbia; which a resolve of Congress, during Mr.
Monroe's administration, declared to be occluded against European
colonization; which Great Britain is now colonizing; and the title
to which has been a subject of diplomatic discussion for thirty
years. This is all that is heard of such a country, and such a
dispute, in this mission of peace, which was to settle every
thing. To supply this omission, and to erect some barrier against
the dangers of improvident, indifferent, ignorant, or treacherous
diplomacy in future negotiations in relation to this great country,
it is my purpose at present to state our title to it; and, in doing
so, to expose the fallacy of the British pretensions; and thus to
leave in the bosom of the Senate, and on the page of our legislative
history, the faithful evidences of our right, and which shall attest
our title to all succeeding generations.
(Here Mr. Benton went into a full derivation of the American title
to the Columbia River and its valley, between the parallels of 42
and 49 degrees of north latitude--taking the latter boundary from
the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, and the former from the
second article of the Florida treaty of 1819, with Spain.)
The treaty of Utrecht between France and England, as all the world
knows, was the treaty which put an end to the wars of Queen Anne and
Louis XIV., and settled their differences in America as well as in
Europe. Both England and France were at that time large territorial
possessors in North America--the English holding Hudson's Bay and
New Britain, beyond Canada, and her Atlantic colonies on this side
of it; and France holding Canada and Louisiana. These were vast
possessions, with unfixed boundaries. The tenth article of the
treaty of Utrecht provided for fixing these boundaries. Under this
article, British and French commissioners were appointed to define
the possessions of the two nations; and by these commissioners two
great points were fixed (not to speak of others), which have become
landmarks in the definition of boundaries in North America, namely:
the Lake of the Woods, and the 49th parallel of north latitude west
of that lake. These two points were established above a century and
a quarter ago, as dividing the French and British dominions in that
quarter. As successful rebels, we acquired one of these points at
the end of the Revolution. The treaty of Independence of 1783 gave
us the Lake of the Woods as a landmark in the (then) north-west
corner of the Union. As successors to the French in the ownership of
Louisiana, we acquired the other; the treaty of 1803 having given
us that province as France and Spain had held it; and that was, on
the north, by the parallel of 49 degrees. Beginning in the Lake
of the Woods, our northern Louisiana boundary followed the 49th
parallel to the west. How far? is now the important question; and
I repeat the words of the report of the commissioners, accepted by
their respective nations, when I answer--"INDEFINITELY!" I quote the
words of the report when I answer (omitting all the previous parts
of the line), "_to the latitude of 49 degrees north of the equator,
and along that parallel indefinitely to the west_." [A senator
asked where all this was found.] Mr. BENTON. I find it in the state
papers of France and England above an hundred years ago, and in
those of the United States since the acquisition of Louisiana. I
quote now from Mr. Madison's instructions, when Secretary of State
under Mr. Jefferson in 1804, to Mr. Monroe, then our minister in
London; and given to him to fortify him in his defence of our new
acquisition. The cardinal word in this report of the commissioners
is the word "_indefinitely_;" and that word it was the object of the
British to expunge, from the moment that we discovered the Columbia,
and acquired Louisiana--events which were of the same era in our
history, and almost contemporaneous. In the negotiations with Mr.
Monroe (which ended in a treaty, rejected by Mr. Jefferson without
communication to the Senate), the effort was to limit the line, and
to terminate it at the Rocky Mountains; well knowing that if this
line was suffered to continue _indefinitely_ to the west, it would
deprive them of all they wanted; for it would strike the ocean
three degrees north of the mouth of the Columbia. Without giving us
what we were entitled to by right of discoveries, and as successors
to Spain, it would still take from Great Britain all that she
wanted--which was the mouth of the river, its harbor, the position
which commanded it, and its right bank, in the rich and timbered
region of tide-water. The line on the 49th parallel would cut her
off from all these advantages; and, therefore, to mutilate that
line, and stop it at the Rocky Mountains, immediately became her
inexorable policy. At Ghent, in 1814, the effort was renewed. The
commissioners of the United States and those of Great Britain could
not agree; and nothing was done. At London, in 1818, the effort was
successful; and in the convention then signed in that city, the
line of the treaty of Utrecht was stopped at the Rocky Mountains.
The country on the Columbia was laid open for ten years to the
joint occupation of the citizens and subjects of both powers; and,
afterwards, by a renewed convention at London, this joint occupation
was renewed indefinitely, and until one of the parties should give
notice for its termination. It is under this privilege of joint
occupation that Great Britain has taken exclusive possession of
the right bank of the river, from its head to its mouth, and also
exclusive possession of the fur trade on both sides of the river,
into the heart of the Rocky Mountains. My friend and colleague
[Mr. LINN] has submitted a motion to require the President to give
the stipulated notice for the termination of this convention--a
convention so unequal in its operation, from the inequality of
title between the two parties, and from the organized power of the
British in that quarter under the powerful direction of the Hudson's
Bay Fur Company. Thus our title as far as latitude 49, so valid
under the single guarantee of the treaty of Utrecht, without looking
to other sources, has been jeoparded by this improvident convention;
and the longer it stands, the worse it is for us.
A great fault of the treaty of 1818 was in admitting an organized
and powerful portion of the British people to come into possession
of our territories jointly with individual and disconnected
possessors on our part. The Hudson's Bay Company held dominion there
on the north of our territories. They were powerful in themselves,
perfectly organized, protected by their government, united with
it in policy, and controlling all the Indians from Canada and the
Rocky Mountains out to the Pacific Ocean, and north to Baffin's
Bay. This company was admitted, by the convention of 1818, to a
joint possession with us of all our territories on the Columbia
River. The effect was soon seen. Their joint possession immediately
became exclusive on the north bank of the river. Our fur-traders
were all driven from beyond the Rocky Mountains; then driven out
of the mountains; more than a thousand of them killed: forts were
built; a chain of posts established to communicate with Canada and
Hudson's Bay; settlers introduced; a colony planted; firm possession
acquired; and, at the end of the ten years when the _joint_
possession was to cease, the intrusive possessors, protected by
their government, refused to go--began to set up title--and obtained
a renewal of the convention, without limit of time, and until they
shall receive notice to quit. This renewed convention was made in
1828; and, instead of joint possession with us for ten years, while
we should have joint possession with them of their rivers, bays,
creeks and harbors, for the same time--instead of this, they have
had exclusive possession of our territory, our river, our harbor,
and our creeks and inlets, for above a quarter of a century. They
are establishing themselves as in a permanent possession--making the
fort Vancouver, at the confluence of the Multnomah and Columbia,
in tide-water, the seat of their power and operations. The notice
required never will be given while the present administration is
in power; nor obeyed when given, unless men are in power who will
protect the rights and the honor of their country. The fate of Maine
has doubled the dangers of the Columbia, and nearly placed us in a
position to choose between war and INFAMY, in relation to that river.
Another great fault in the convention was, in admitting a _claim_
on the part of Great Britain to any portion of these territories.
Before that convention, she stated no claim; but asked a favor--the
favor of joint possession for ten years: now she sets up title. That
title is backed by possession. Possession among nations, as well
as among individuals, is eleven points out of twelve; and the bold
policy of Great Britain well knows how to avail itself of these
eleven points. The Madawaska settlement has read us a lesson on that
head; and the success there must lead to still greater boldness
elsewhere. The London convention of 1818 is to the Columbia, what
the Ghent treaty of 1814 was to Maine; that is to say, the first
false step in a game in which we furnish the whole stake, and then
play for it. In Maine the game is up. The bold hand of Great Britain
has clutched the stake; and nothing but the courage of our people
will save the Columbia from the same catastrophe.
I proceed with more satisfaction to our title under the Nootka
Sound treaty, and can state it in a few words. All the world
knows the commotion which was excited in 1790 by the Nootka Sound
controversy between Great Britain and Spain. It was a case in which
the bullying of England and the courage of Spain were both tried to
the _ne plus ultra_ point, and in which Spanish courage gained the
victory. Of course, the British writers relate the story in their
own way; but the debates of the Parliament, and the terms of the
treaty in which all ended, show things as they were. The British,
presuming on the voyages of Captain Cook, took possession of Nootka;
the Spanish Viceroy of Mexico sent a force to fetch the English
away, and placed them in the fortress of Acapulco. Pitt demanded
the release of his English, their restoration to Nootka, and an
apology for the insult to the British Crown, in the violation of
its territory and the persons of its subjects; the Spaniard refused
to release, refused the restoration, and the apology, on the ground
that Nootka was Spanish territory, and declared that they would
fight for its possession. Then both parties prepared for war.
The preparations fixed the attention of all Europe. Great Britain
bullied to the point of holding the match over the touch-hole of
the cannon; but the Spaniards remaining firm, she relaxed, and
entered into a convention which abnegated her claim. She accepted
from the Spaniards the privilege of landing and building huts on
the unoccupied parts of the coast, for the purpose of fishing and
trading; and while this acceptance nullified her claim, yet she
took nothing under it--not even temporary use--never having built
a hut, erected a tent, or commenced any sort of settlement on any
part of the coast. Mr. Fox keenly reproached Mr. Pitt with the terms
of this convention, being, as he showed, a limitation instead of an
acquisition of rights.
Our title is clear: that of the British is null. She sets up
none--that is, she states no derivation of title. There is not a
paper upon the face of the earth, in which a British minister has
stated a title, or even a claim. They have endeavored to obtain
the country by the arts of diplomacy; but never have stated a
title, and never can state one. The fur-trader, Sir Alexander
McKenzie, prompted the acquisition, gave the reason for it, and
never pretended a title. His own discoveries gave no title. They
were subsequent to the discovery of Captain Gray, and far to the
north of the Columbia. He never saw that river. He missed the head
sources of it, fell upon the _Tacouche Tesse_, and struck the
Pacific in a latitude 500 miles (by the coast) to the north of the
Columbia. His subsequent discoveries were all north of that point.
He was looking for a communication with the sea--for a river, a
harbor, and a place for a colony--within the dominions of Great
Britain; and, not finding any, he boldly recommended his government
to seize the Columbia River, to hold it, and to expel the Americans
from the whole country west of the Rocky Mountains. And upon these
pretensions the British claim has rested, until possession has
made them bold enough to exclude it from the subjects of formal
negotiation between the two countries. The peace-mission refused
us peace on that point. The President tells us that there is "_no
probability of coming to any agreement at present!_" Then when can
the agreement be made? If refused now, when is it to come? Never,
until we show that we prefer war to ignominious peace.
This is the British title to the Columbia, and the only one that
she wants for any thing. It suits her to have that river: it is her
interest to have it: it strengthens her, and weakens others, for her
to have it; and, therefore, have it she will. This is her title, and
this her argument. Upon this title and argument, she gets a slice
from Maine, and gains the mountain barrier which covers Quebec; and,
upon this title and argument, she means to have the Columbia River.
The events of the late war, and the application of steam power to
ocean navigation, begat her title to the country between Halifax and
Quebec: the suggestions of McKenzie begat her title to the Columbia.
Improvident diplomacy on our part, a war countenance on her part,
and this strange treaty, have given success to her pretensions in
Maine: the same diplomacy, and the same countenance, have given her
a foothold on the Columbia. It is for the Great West to see that
no traitorous treaty shall abandon it to her. The President, in
his message, says that there was no chance for any "_agreement_"
about it at present; that it would not be made the subject of a
"_formal negotiation_" at present; that it could not be included
in the duties of the "_special mission_." Why so? The mission was
one of peace, and to settle every thing; and why omit this pregnant
question? Was this a war question, and therefore not to be settled
by the peace mission? Why not come to an agreement now, if agreement
is ever intended? The answer is evident. No agreement is ever
intended. Contented with her possession, Great Britain wants delay,
that _time_ may ripen _possession_ into _title_, and fortunate
events facilitate her designs. My colleague and myself were sounded
on this point: our answers forbade the belief that we would
compromise or sacrifice the rights and interests of our country;
and this may have been the reason why there were no "_formal_"
negotiations in relation to it. Had we been "_soft enough_," there
might have been an agreement to divide our country by the river, or,
to refer the whole title to the decision of a friendly sovereign!
We were not _soft enough_ for that; and if such a paper, marked B,
and identified with the initials of our Secretary, had been sent
to the Missouri delegation, as was sent to the Maine commissioners,
instead of subduing us to the purposes of Great Britain, it would
have received from the whole delegation the answer due to treason,
to cowardice, and to insolence.
But, it is demanded, what do we want with this country, so far off
from us? I answer by asking, in my turn, what do the British want
with it, who are so much further off? They want it for the fur
trade; for a colony; for an outlet to the sea; for the communication
across the continent; for a road to Asia; for the command of one
hundred and forty thousand Indians against us; for the port and
naval station which is to command the commerce and navigation
of the North Pacific Ocean, and open new channels of trade with
China, Japan, Polynesia, and the great East. They want it for these
reasons; and we want it for the same; and because it adjoins us, and
belongs to us, and should be possessed by our descendants, who will
be our friends; and not by aliens, who will be our enemies.
Forty years ago, it was written by Humboldt that the valley of the
Columbia invited Europeans to found a fine colony there; and, twenty
years ago, the American Congress adopted a resolve, _that no part
of this continent was open to European colonization_. The remark of
Humboldt was that of a sagacious European; the resolve of Congress
was the work of patriotic Americans. It remains to be seen which
will prevail. The convention of 1818 has done us the mischief; it
put the European power in possession: and possession with nations,
still more than with individuals, is the main point in the contest.
It will require the western pioneers to recover the lost ground;
and they must be encouraged in the enterprise by liberal grants of
lands, by military protection, and by governmental authority. It is
time for the bill of my colleague to pass. The first session of the
first Congress under the new census should pass it. The majority
will be democratic, and the democracy will demand that great work
at their hands. I put no faith in negotiation. I expect nothing but
loss and shame from any negotiation in London. Our safety is in the
energy of our people; in their prompt occupation of the country; and
in their invincible determination to maintain their rights.
I do not dilate upon the value and extent of this great country.
A word suffices to display both. In extent, it is larger than the
Atlantic portion of the old thirteen United States; in climate,
softer; in fertility, greater; in salubrity, superior; in position,
better, because fronting Asia, and washed by a tranquil sea. In
all these particulars, the western slope of our continent is far
more happy than the eastern. In configuration, it is inexpressibly
fine and grand--a vast oblong square, with natural boundaries, and
a single gateway into the sea. The snow-capped Rocky Mountains
enclose it to the east, an iron-bound coast on the west: a frozen
desert on the north, and sandy plains on the south. All its rivers,
rising on the segment of a vast circumference, run to meet each
other in the centre; and then flow together into the ocean, through
a gap in the mountain, where the heats of summer and the colds of
winter are never felt; and where southern and northern diseases
are equally unknown. This is the valley of the Columbia--a country
whose every advantage is crowned by the advantages of position and
configuration: by the unity of all its parts--the inaccessibility
of its borders--and its single introgression to the sea. Such a
country is formed for union, wealth, and strength. It can have but
one capital, and that will be a Thebes; but one commercial emporium,
and that will be Tyre, queen of cities. Such a country can have but
one people, one interest, one government: and that people should be
American--that interest ours--and that government republican. Great
Britain plays for the whole valley: failing in that, she is willing
to divide by the river. Accursed and infamous be the man that
divides or alienates it!
II.--IMPRESSMENT.
Impressment is another of the omitted subjects. This having been
a cause of war in 1812, and being now declared, by the American
negotiator, to be a sufficient cause for future wars, it would
naturally, to my mind, have been included in the labors of a special
mission, dedicated to peace, and extolled for its benevolent
conception. We would have expected to find such a subject, after
such a declaration, included in the labors of such a mission.
Not so the fact. The treaty does not mention impressment. A
brief paragraph in the President's message informs us that there
was a correspondence on this point; and, on turning to this
correspondence, we actually find two letters on the subject: one
from Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton--one from Lord Ashburton to Mr.
Webster: both showing, from their dates, that they were written
after the treaty was signed; and, from their character, that they
were written for the public, and not for the negotiators. The treaty
was signed on the 9th of August; the letters were written on the 8th
and 9th of the same month. They are a plea, and a reply; and they
leave the subject precisely where they found it. From their date and
character, they seem to be what the lawyers call the _postea_--that
is to say, the _afterwards_; and are very properly postponed to
the end of the document containing the correspondence, where they
find place on the 120th page. They look _ex post facto_ there;
and, putting all things together, it would seem as if the American
negotiator had said to the British lord (after the negotiation
was over): 'My Lord, here is impressment--a pretty subject for a
composition; the people will love to read something about it; so let
us compose.' To which, it would seem, his lordship had answered:
'You may compose as much as you please for your people; I leave that
field to you: and when you are done, I will write three lines for
my own government, to let it know that I stick to impressment.' In
about this manner, it would seem to me that the two letters were got
up; and that the American negotiator in this little business has
committed a couple of the largest faults: _first_, in naming the
subject of impressment at all! _next_, in ever signing a treaty,
after having named it, without an unqualified renunciation of the
pretension!
Sir, the same thing is not always equally proper. Time and
circumstances qualify the proprieties of international, as well
as of individual intercourse; and what was proper and commendable
at one time, may become improper, reprehensible, and derogatory
at another. When George the Third, in the first article of his
first treaty with the United States, at the end of a seven years'
war, acknowledged them to be free, sovereign, and independent
States, and renounced all dominion over them, this was a proud
and glorious consummation for us, and the crowning mercy of a
victorious rebellion. The same acknowledgment and renunciation from
Queen Victoria, at present, would be an insult for her to offer--a
degradation for us to accept. So of this question of impressment.
It was right in all the administrations previous to the late war,
to negotiate for its renunciation. But after having gone to war
for this cause; after having suppressed the practice by war; after
near thirty years' exemption from it--after all this, for our
negotiator to put the question in discussion, was to compromise our
rights! To sign a treaty without its renunciation, after having
proposed to treat about it, was to relinquish them! Our negotiator
should not have mentioned the subject. If mentioned to him by the
British negotiator, he should have replied, that the answer to that
pretension was in the cannon's mouth!
But to name it himself, and then sign without renunciation, and
to be invited to London to treat about it--to do this, was to
descend from our position; to lose the benefit of the late war;
to revive the question; to invite the renewal of the practice, by
admitting it to be an unsettled question--and to degrade the present
generation, by admitting that they would negotiate where their
ancestors had fought. These are fair inferences; and inferences
not counteracted by the euphonious declaration that the American
government is "_prepared to say_" that the practice of impressment
cannot hereafter be allowed to take place!--as if, after great
study, we had just arrived at that conclusion! and as if we had not
declared much more courageously in the case of the Maine boundary,
the Schlosser massacre, and the Creole mutiny and murder! The
British, after the experience they have had, will know how to value
our courageous declaration, and must pay due respect to our flag!
For one, I never liked these declarations, and never made a speech
in favor of any one of them; and now I like them less than ever,
and am _prepared_ to put no further faith in the declarations of
gentlemen who were for going to war for the smallest part of the
Maine boundary in 1838, and now surrender three hundred miles of
that boundary for fear of war, when there is no danger of war.
I am _prepared to say_ that I care not a straw for the heroic
declarations of such gentlemen. I want actions, not phrases. I want
Mr. Jefferson's act in 1806--_rejection of any treaty with Great
Britain that does not renounce impressment_! And after having
declared, by law, black impressment on the coast of Africa to be
piracy; after stipulating to send a fleet there, to enforce our
law against that impressment--after this, I am ready to do the
same thing against white impressment on our own coasts, and on the
high seas. I am ready to enact that the impressment of my white
fellow-citizens out of an American ship is an act of piracy; and
then to follow out that enactment in its every consequence.
The correspondence between our Secretary negotiator and Lord
Ashburton on this subject, has been read to you--that correspondence
which was drawn up after the treaty was finished, and intended
for the American public: and what a correspondence it is! What
an exchange of phrases! One denies the right of impressment: the
other affirms it. Both wish for an amicable agreement; but neither
attempts to agree. Both declare the season of peace to be the proper
time to settle this question; and both agree that the present season
of peace is not the convenient one. Our Secretary rises so high
as to declare that the administration "_is now prepared_" to put
its veto on the practice: the _British negotiator_ shows that his
Government is still prepared to resume the practice whenever her
interest requires it. Our negotiator hopes that his communication
will be received in the spirit of peace: the British minister
replies, that it will. Our secretary then persuades himself that the
British minister will communicate his sentiments in this respect,
to his own government: his Lordship promises it faithfully. And,
thereupon, they shake hands and part.
How different this holiday scene from the firm and virile language
of Mr. Jefferson: "_No treaty to be signed without a provision
against impressment_;" and this language backed by the fact of
the instant rejection of a treaty so signed! Lord Chatham said of
_Magna Charta_ that it was homely Latin, but worth all the classics.
So say I of this reply of Mr. Jefferson: it is plain English, but
worth all the phrases which rhetoric could ever expend upon the
subject. It is the only answer which our secretary negotiator should
have given, after committing the fault of broaching the subject.
Instead of that, he commences rhetorician, new vamps old arguments,
writes largely and prettily; and loses the question by making it
debatable. His adversary sees his advantage, and seizes it. He
abandons the field of rhetoric to the lawyer negotiator; puts in a
fresh claim to impressment; saves the question from being lost by
a non-user; re-establishes the debate, and adjourns it to London.
He keeps alive the pretension of impressment against us, the white
race, while binding us to go to Africa to fight it down for the
black race; and has actually left us on lower ground in relation
to this question, than we stood upon before the late war. If this
treaty is ratified, we must begin where we were in 1806, when
Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney went to London to negotiate against
impressment; we must begin where they did, with the disadvantage
of having yielded to Great Britain all that she wanted, and having
lost all our vantage-ground in the negotiation. We must go to
London, engage in a humiliating negotiation, become the spectacle
of nations, and the sport of diplomacy; and wear out years in
begging to be spared from British seizure, when sitting under our
own flag, and sailing in our own ship: we must submit to all this
degradation, shame and outrage, unless Congress redeems us from the
condition into which we have fallen, and provides for the liberty
of our people on the seas, by placing American impressment where
African impressment has already been placed--piracy by law! For one,
I am ready to vote the act--to execute it--and to abide its every
consequence.
III.--THE LIBERATED SLAVES.
The case of the Creole, as it is called, is another of the omitted
subjects. It is only one of a number of cases (differing in degree,
but the same in character) which have occurred within a few years,
and are becoming more frequent and violent. It is the case of
American vessels, having American slaves on board, and pursuing a
lawful voyage, and being driven by storms or carried by violence
into a British port, and their slaves liberated by British law.
This is the nature of the wrong. It is a general outrage liable to
occur in any part of the British dominions, but happens most usually
in the British West India islands, which line the passage round
the Florida reefs in a voyage between New Orleans and the Atlantic
ports. I do not speak of the 12,000 slaves (worth at a moderate
computation, considering they must be all grown, and in youth or
middle life, at least $6,000,000) enticed into Canada, and received
with the honors and advantages due to the first class of emigrants.
I do not speak of these, nor of the liberation of slaves carried
voluntarily by their owners into British ports: the man who exposes
his property wilfully to the operation of a known law, should abide
the consequences to which he has subjected it. I confine myself
to cases of the class mentioned--such as the Encomium, the Comet,
the Enterprise, the Creole, and the Hermosa--cases in which wreck,
tempest, violence, mutiny and murder were the means of carrying the
vessel into the interdicted port; and in which the slave property,
after being saved to the owners from revolt and tempests, became
the victim and the prey of British law. It is of such cases that
I complain, and of which I say that they furnish no subject for
the operation of injurious laws, and that each of these vessels
should have been received with the hospitality due to misfortune,
and allowed to depart with all convenient despatch, and with all
her contents of persons and property. This is the law of nations:
it is what the civilization of the age requires. And it is not to
be tolerated in this nineteenth century that an American citizen,
passing from one port to another of his own country, with property
protected by the laws of his country, should encounter the perils
of an unfortunate navigator in the dark ages, shipwrecked on a rude
and barbarian coast. This is not to be tolerated in this age, and
by such a power as the United States, and after sending a fleet to
Africa to protect the negroes. Justice, like charity, should begin
at home; and protection should be given where allegiance is exacted.
We cannot tolerate the spoil and pillage of our own citizens, within
sight of our own coasts, after sending 4,000 miles to redress the
wrongs of the black race. But if this treaty is ratified it seems
that we shall have to endure it, or seek redress by other means
than negotiation. The previous cases were at least ameliorated by
compensation to their owners for the liberation of the slaves; but
in the more recent and most atrocious case of the Creole, there is
no indemnity of any kind--neither compensation to the owners whose
property has been taken; nor apology to the Government, whose flag
has been insulted; nor security for the future, by giving up the
practice. A treaty is signed without a stipulation of any kind on
the subject; and as it would seem, to the satisfaction of those who
made it, and of the President, who sends it to us. A correspondence
has been had; the negotiators have exchanged diplomatic notes on the
subject; and these notes are expected to be as satisfactory to the
country as to those who now have the rule of it. The President in
his message says:
"On the subject of the interference of the British authorities
in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the
correspondence which has taken place, showing the _grounds_
taken by this government, and the _engagements_ entered into
by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the
just expectation of the people of the United States."--_Message,
August 9._
This is a short paragraph for so large a subject; but it is all the
message contains. But let us see what it amounts to, and what it is
that is expected to satisfy the just expectations of the country. It
is the _grounds_ taken in the correspondence, and the _engagements_
entered into by the British minister, which are to work out this
agreeable effect.
And it is of the _grounds_ stated in the Secretary's two letters,
and the _engagement_, entered into in Lord Ashburton's note, that
the President predicates his belief of the public satisfaction
in relation to this growing and most sensitive question. This
brings us to these grounds, and this engagement, that we may see
the nature and solidity of the one, and the extent and validity
of the other. The grounds for the public satisfaction are in the
Secretary's letters; the engagement is in Lord Ashburton's letter;
and what do they amount to? On the part of the Secretary, I am
free to say that he has laid down the law of nations correctly;
that he has well stated the principles of public law which save
from hazard or loss, or penalty of any kind, the vessel engaged
in a lawful trade, and driven or carried against her will, into a
prohibited port. He has well shown that, under such circumstances,
no advantage is to be taken of the distressed vessel; that she is
to be received with the hospitality due to misfortune, and allowed
to depart, after receiving the succors of humanity, with all her
contents of persons and things. All this is well laid down by our
Secretary. Thus far his grounds are solid. But, alas, this is all
talk! and the very next paragraph, after a handsome vindication of
our rights under the law of nations, is to abandon them! I refer
to the paragraph commencing: "_If your Lordship has no authority
to enter into a stipulation by treaty for the prevention of such
occurrences hereafter_," &c. This whole paragraph is fatal to the
Secretary's grounds, and pregnant with strange and ominous meanings.
In the first place, it is an admission, in the very first line, that
no treaty stipulation to prevent future occurrences of the same
kind can be obtained here! that the special mission, which came to
settle every thing, and to establish peace, will not settle this
thing; which the Secretary, in numerous paragraphs, alleges to be
a dangerous source of future war! This is a strange contradiction,
and most easily got over by our Secretary. In default of a treaty
stipulation (which he takes for granted, and evidently makes no
effort to obtain), he goes on to solicit a personal engagement from
his Lordship; and an engagement of what? That the law of nations
shall be observed? No! but that instructions shall be given to the
British local authorities in the islands, which shall lead them to
regulate their conduct in conformity with the rights of citizens of
the United States, and the just expectations of their government,
and in such manner as shall, in future, take away all reasonable
ground of complaint. This is the extent of the engagement which
was so solicited, and which was to supply the place of a treaty
stipulation! If the engagement had been given in the words proposed,
it would not have been worth a straw. But it is not given in those
words, but with glaring and killing additions and differences. His
Lordship follows the commencement of the formula with sufficient
accuracy; but, lest any possible consequence might be derived from
it, he takes care to add, that when these slaves do reach them "_no
matter by what means_," there is no alternative! Hospitality, good
wishes, friendly feeling, the duties of good neighborhood--all
give way! The British law governs! and that law is too well known
to require repetition. This is the sum and substance of Lord
Ashburton's qualifications of the _engagement_; and they show him
to be a man of honor, that would not leave the Secretary negotiator
the slightest room for raising a doubt as to the nature of the
instructions which he engaged to have given. These instructions
go only to the mode of executing the law. His Lordship engages
only for the civility and gentleness of the manner--_the suaviter
in modo_; while the firm execution of the law itself remains as it
was--_fortiter in re_.
Lord Ashburton proposes London as the best place to consider
this subject. Mr. Webster accepts London, and hopes that her
Majesty's government will give us treaty stipulations to remove
all further cause for complaint on this subject. This is his last
hope, contained in the last sentence of his last note. And now,
why a treaty stipulation hereafter, if this engagement is such (as
the President says it is) as to satisfy the just expectations of
the people of the United States? Why any thing more, if that is
enough? And if treaty stipulations are wanting (as in fact they
are), why go to London for them--the head-quarters of abolitionism,
the seat of the World's Convention for the abolition of slavery,
and the laboratory in which the insurrection of San Domingo was
fabricated? Why go to London? Why go any where? Why delay? Why not
do it here? Why not include it among the beatitudes of the vaunted
peace mission? The excuse that the minister had not powers, is
contradictory and absurd. The Secretary negotiator tells us, in his
first letter, that the minister came with full powers to settle
every subject in discussion. This was a subject in discussion;
and had been since the time of the Comet, the Encomium, and the
Enterprise--years ago. If instructions were forgotten, why not
send for them? What are the steamers for, that, in the six months
that the peace mission was here, they could not have brought these
instructions a dozen times? No! the truth is, the British government
would do nothing upon this subject when she found she could
accomplish all her own objects without granting any thing.
IV.--BURNING OF THE CAROLINE.
The Caroline is the last of the seven subjects in the arrangement
which I make of them. I reserve it for the last; the extreme
ignominy of its termination making it, in my opinion, the natural
conclusion of a disgraceful negotiation. It is a case in which
all the sources of national degradation seem to have been put in
requisition--diplomacy; legislation; the judiciary; and even the
military. To volunteer propitiations to Great Britain, and to
deprecate her wrath, seem to have been the sole concern of the
administration, when signal reparation was due from her to us.
And here again we have to lament the absence of all the customary
disclosures in the progress of negotiations. No protocol, no
minutes, no memorandums: nothing to show how a subject began, went
on, and reached its consummation. Every thing was informal in this
anomalous negotiation. Wat Tyler never hated the ink-horn worse
than our Secretary-negotiator hated it upon this occasion. It was
only after a thing was finished, that the pen was resorted to; and
then merely to record the agreement, and put a face upon it for
the public eye. In this way many things may have been discussed,
which leave no written trace behind them; and it would be a curious
circumstance if so large a subject, and one so delicate as the State
debts, should find itself in that predicament.
The case of the Caroline is now near four years old. It occurred in
December of the year 1838, under Mr. Van Buren's administration; but
it was not until March, 1841, and until the new administration was
in power, that the question assumed its high character of a quarrel
between the United States and Great Britain. Before that time,
the outrage upon the Caroline was only the act of the individuals
engaged in it. The arrest of one of these individuals brought out
the British government. She assumed the offence; alleged the outrage
to have been perpetrated by her authority; and demanded the release
of McLeod, under the clear implication of a national threat if he
was not surrendered. The release was demanded unconditionally--not
the slightest apology or atonement being offered for the outrage on
the Caroline, out of which the arrest of McLeod grew. The arrogant
demand of the British was delivered to the new Secretary of State on
the 12th day of March. Instead of refusing to answer under a threat,
he answered the sooner; and, in his answer went far beyond what the
minister [Mr. Fox] had demanded. He despatched the Attorney-general
of the United States to New York, to act as counsel for McLeod;
he sent a Major-general of the United States army along with him,
to give emphasis to his presence; and he gave a false version to
the law of nations, which would not only cover the McLeod case,
but all succeeding cases of the same kind. I consider all this the
work of the State Department; for General Harrison was too new
in his office, too much overwhelmed by the army of applicants who
besieged him and soon destroyed his life, to have the time to study
the questions to which the arrest of McLeod, and the demand for his
release, and the assumption of his crime by the British government
gave rise. The Romans had a noble maxim--grand in itself, and worthy
of them, because they acted upon it. PARCERE SUBJECTIS, DEBELLARE
SUPERBOS: Spare the humble--humble the proud. Our administration has
invoked this maxim to cover its own conduct. In giving up McLeod
they say it is to lay hold of the sovereign--that the poor servant
is spared while the proud master is to be held to account. Fine
phrases these, which deceive no one: for both master and servant are
let go. Our people were not deceived by these grave professions.
They believed it was all a pretext to get out of a difficulty; that,
what between love and fear of the British, the federal party was
unwilling to punish McLeod, or to see him punished by the State
of New York; that the design was to get rid of responsibility, by
getting rid of the man; and, that when he was gone, we should hear
no more of these new Romans calling his sovereign to account. This
was the opinion of the democracy, very freely expressed at the
time; and so it has all turned out to be. McLeod was acquitted,
and got off; the British government became responsible, on the
administration's own principles; they have not been held to that
responsibility; no atonement or apology has been made for the
national outrage at Schlosser; and the President informs us that no
further complaint, on account of this aggression on the soil and
sovereignty of the Union, and the lives of its citizens, is to be
made!
A note has been obtained from Lord Ashburton, and sent to us by the
President, declaring three things--first, that the burning of the
Caroline, and killing the people, was a serious fact; secondly,
that no disrespect was intended to the United States in doing it;
thirdly, that the British government unfeignedly hopes there will be
no necessity for doing it again. This is the extent, and the whole
extent, to which the special minister, with all his politeness and
good nature, and with all his desire to furnish the administration
with something to satisfy the public, could possibly go. The only
thing which I see him instructed by his government to say, or which
in itself amounts to a positive declaration, is the averment that
her Majesty's government "_considers it a most serious fact_" that,
in the hurried execution of this _necessary_ service, a violation
of the United States territory was committed. This is admitted to
be a fact!--a serious fact!--and a most serious fact! But as for
any sorrow for it, or apology for it, or promise not to commit
such serious facts again, or even not to be so hurried the next
time--this is what the minister nowhere says, or insinuates. On
the contrary, just the reverse is declared; for the justification
of this "_most serious fact_" as being the result of a hurried
execution of a "_necessary service_," is an explicit averment that
the aforesaid "_most serious fact_" will be repeated just so often
as her Majesty's government shall deem it necessary to her service.
As to the polite declaration, that no disrespect was intended to the
United States while invading its territory, killing its citizens,
setting a steamboat on fire, and sending her in flames over the
falls of Niagara--such a declaration is about equivalent to telling
a man that you mean him no disrespect while cudgelling him with both
hands over the head and shoulders.
The celebrated Dr. Johnson was accustomed to say that there was
a certain amount of gullibility in the public mind, which must
be provided for. It would seem that our Secretary-negotiator had
possessed himself of this idea, and charged himself with the duties
under it, and had determined to make full provision for all the
gullibility now extant. He has certainly provided _quantum sufficit_
of humbuggery in this treaty, and in his correspondence in defence
of it, to gorge the stomachs of all the gulls of the present
generation, both in Europe and America.
Our Secretary is full of regret that McLeod was so long imprisoned,
makes excuses for the New York court's decisions against him, and
promises to call the attention of Congress to the necessity of
providing against such detention in future. He says, in his last
letter to Lord Ashburton:
"It was a subject of _regret_ that the release of McLeod was
so long delayed. A State court--and that not of the highest
jurisdiction--decided that, on summary application, embarrassed,
as it would appear, by technical difficulties, he could not
be released by that court. His discharge, shortly afterward,
by a jury, to whom he preferred to submit his case, rendered
unnecessary the further prosecution of the legal question. It
is for the Congress of the United States, whose attention has
been _called_ to the subject to say what further provision ought
to be made to expedite proceedings in such cases."
Such is the valedictory of our Secretary--his sorrows over the
fate of McLeod. That individual had been released for a year
past. His arrest continued but for a few months, with little
personal inconvenience to himself; with no danger to his life, if
innocent; and with the gratification of a notoriety flattering to
his pride, and beneficial to his interest. He is probably highly
delighted with the honors of the occurrence, and no way injured
by his brief and comfortable imprisonment. Yet the sorrow of our
Secretary continues to flow. At the end of a year, he is still in
mourning, and renews the expression of his regret for the poor man's
detention, and gives assurances against such delays in future;--this
in the same letter in which he closes the door upon the fate of his
own countrymen burnt and murdered in the Caroline, and promises
never to disturb the British government about them again. McLeod
and all Canadians are encouraged to repeat their _most serious
facts upon us_, by the perfect immunity which both themselves and
their government have experienced. And to expedite their release,
if hereafter arrested for such _facts_, they are informed that
Congress had been "_called_" upon to pass the appropriate law--and
passed it was! The _habeas corpus_ act against the States, which
had slept for many months in the Senate, and seemed to have sunk
under the public execration--this bill was "_called_" up, and
passed contemporaneously with the date of this letter. And thus
the special minister was enabled to carry home with him an act of
Congress to lay at the footstool of his Queen, and to show that the
measure of atonement to McLeod was complete: that the executive, the
military, the legislative, and the judicial departments had all been
put in requisition, and faithfully exerted themselves to protect
her Majesty's subjects from being harmed for a past invasion,
conflagration, and murder; and to secure them from being called to
account by the State courts for such trifles in future.
And so ends the case of the Caroline and McLeod. The humiliation
of this conclusion, and the contempt and future danger which it
brings upon the country, demand a pause, and a moment's reflection
upon the catastrophe of this episode in the negotiation. The whole
negotiation has been one of shame and injury; but this catastrophe
of the McLeod and Caroline affair puts the finishing hand to our
disgrace. I do not speak of the individuals who have done this work,
but of the national honor which has been tarnished in their hands.
Up to the end of Mr. Van Buren's administration, all was safe for
the honor of the country. Redress for the outrage at Schlosser had
been demanded; interference to release McLeod had been refused;
the false application of the laws of war to a state of peace had
been scouted. On the 4th day of March, 1841, the national honor
was safe; but on that day its degradation commenced. Timing their
movements with a calculated precision, the British government
transmitted their assumption of the Schlosser outrage, their formal
demand for the release of McLeod, and their threat in the event of
refusal, so as to arrive here on the evening of the day on which
the new administration received the reins of government. Their
assumption, demand, and threat, arrived in Washington on the evening
of the 4th day of March, a few hours after the inauguration of
the new powers was over. It seemed as if the British had said to
themselves: This is the time--our friends are in power--we helped
to elect them--now is the time to begin. And begin they did. On
the 8th day of March, Mr. Fox delivered to Mr. Webster the formal
notification of the assumption, made the demand, and delivered the
threat. Then the disgraceful scene began. They reverse the decision
of Mr. Van Buren's administration, and determine to interfere in
behalf of McLeod, and to extricate him by all means from the New
York courts. To mask the ignominy of this interference, they pretend
it is to get at a nobler antagonist; and that they are going to
act the Romans, in sparing the humble and subduing the proud. It
is with Queen Victoria with whom they will deal! McLeod is too
humble game for them. McLeod released, the next thing is to get
out of the scrape with the Queen; and for that purpose they invent
a false reading of the law of nations, and apply the laws of war
to a state of peace. The _jus belli_, and not the _jus gentium_,
then becomes their resort. And here ends their grand imitation of
the Roman character. To assume the laws of war in time of peace,
in order to cover a craven retreat, is the nearest approach which
they make to war. Then the special minister comes. They accept
from him private and verbal explanations, in full satisfaction to
themselves of all the outrage at Schlosser: but beg the minister
to write them a little apology, which they can show to the people.
The minister refuses; and thereupon they assume that they have
received it, and proclaim the apology to the world. To finish this
scene, to complete the propitiation of the Queen, and to send her
minister home with legal and parchment evidence in his hand of our
humiliation, the expression of regret for the arrest and detention
of McLeod is officiously and gratuitously renewed; the prospect
of a like detention of any of her Majesty's subjects in future is
pathetically deplored; and, to expedite their delivery from State
courts when they again invade our soil, murder our citizens, and
burn our vessels, the minister is informed that Congress has been
"_called_" upon to pass a law to protect them from these courts. And
here "_a most serious fact_" presents itself. Congress has actually
obeyed the "_call_"--passed the act--secured her Majesty's subjects
in future--and given the legal parchment evidence of his success to
her minister before he departs for his home. The infamous act--the
habeas corpus against the States--squeamishly called the "_remedial
justice act_"--is now on the statute-book; the original polluting
our code of law, the copy lying at the footstool of the British
Queen. And this is the point we have reached. In the short space of
a year and a half, the national character has been run down, from
the pinnacle of honor to the abyss of disgrace. I limit myself now
to the affair of McLeod and the Caroline alone; and say that, in
this business, exclusive of other disgraces, the national character
has been brought to the lowest point of contempt. It required the
Walpole administration five-and-twenty long years of cowardly
submission to France and Spain to complete the degradation of Great
Britain: our present rulers have completed the same work for their
own country in the short space of eighteen months. And this is the
state of our America! that America which Jackson and Van Buren left
so proud! that America which, with three millions of people fought
and worsted the British empire--with seven millions fought it, and
worsted it again--and now, with eighteen millions, truckles to the
British Queen, and invents all sorts of propitiatory apologies for
her, when the most ample atonement is due to itself. Are we the
people of the Revolution?--of the war of 1812?--of the year 1834,
when Jackson electrified Europe by threatening the King of France
with reprisals!
McLeod is given up because he is too weak; the Queen is excused,
because she is too strong; propitiation is lavished where atonement
is due; an apology accepted where none was offered; the statute of
limitations pleaded against an insult, by the party which received
it! And the miserable performers in all this drama of national
degradation expect to be applauded for magnanimity, when the laws of
honor and the code of nations, stamp their conduct with the brand of
cowardice.