THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES,

ON THE 19TH OF JANUARY, 1824.

[The rise and progress of the revolution in Greece attracted great

attention in the United States. Many obvious causes contributed to this

effect, and their influence was seconded by the direct appeal made to

the people of America, by the first political body organized in Greece

after the breaking out of the revolution, viz. "The Messenian Senate of

Calamata." A formal address was made by that body to the people of the

United States, and forwarded by their committee (of which the celebrated

Koray was chairman), to a friend and correspondent in this country. This

address was translated and widely circulated; but it was not to be

expected that any great degree of confidence should be at once generally

felt in a movement undertaken against such formidable odds.

The progress of events, however, in 1822 and 1823, was such as to create

an impression that the revolution in Greece had a substantial foundation

in the state of affairs, in the awakened spirit of that country, and in

the condition of public opinion throughout Christendom. The interest

felt in the struggle rapidly increased in the United States. Local

committees were formed, animated appeals were made, and funds collected,

with a view to the relief of the victims of the war.

On the assembling of Congress, in December, 1823, President Monroe made

the revolution in Greece the subject of a paragraph in his annual

message, and on the 8th of December Mr. Webster moved the following

resolution in the House of Representatives:--

"_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made, by law, for defraying the

expense incident to the appointment of an Agent or Commissioner to

Greece, whenever the President shall deem it expedient to make such

appointment."

These, it is believed, are the first official expressions favorable to

the independence of Greece uttered by any of the governments of

Christendom, and no doubt contributed powerfully towards the creation of

that feeling throughout the civilized world which eventually led to the

battle of Navarino, and the liberation of a portion of Greece from the

Turkish yoke.

The House of Representatives having, on the 19th of January, resolved

itself into a committee of the whole, and this resolution being taken

into consideration, Mr. Webster spoke to the following effect.]

I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, so far as my part in this discussion is

concerned, those expectations which the public excitement existing on

the subject, and certain associations easily suggested by it, have

conspired to raise, may be disappointed. An occasion which calls the

attention to a spot so distinguished, so connected with interesting

recollections, as Greece, may naturally create something of warmth and

enthusiasm. In a grave, political discussion, however, it is necessary

that those feelings should be chastised. I shall endeavor properly to

repress them, although it is impossible that they should be altogether

extinguished. We must, indeed, fly beyond the civilized world; we must

pass the dominion of law and the boundaries of knowledge; we must, more

especially, withdraw ourselves from this place, and the scenes and

objects which here surround us,--if we would separate ourselves entirely

from the influence of all those memorials of herself which ancient

Greece has transmitted for the admiration and the benefit of mankind.

This free form of government, this popular assembly, the common council

held for the common good,--where have we contemplated its earliest

models? This practice of free debate and public discussion, the contest

of mind with mind, and that popular eloquence, which, if it were now

here, on a subject like this, would move the stones of the

Capitol,--whose was the language in which all these were first

exhibited? Even the edifice in which we assemble, these proportioned

columns, this ornamented architecture, all remind us that Greece has

existed, and that we, like the rest of mankind, are greatly her

debtors.[1]

But I have not introduced this motion in the vain hope of discharging

any thing of this accumulated debt of centuries. I have not acted upon

the expectation, that we who have inherited this obligation from our

ancestors should now attempt to pay it to those who may seem to have

inherited from _their_ ancestors a right to receive payment. My object

is nearer and more immediate. I wish to take occasion of the struggle of

an interesting and gallant people, in the cause of liberty and

Christianity, to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances

which have accompanied that struggle, and to the principles which appear

to have governed the conduct of the great states of Europe in regard to

it; and to the effects and consequences of these principles upon the

independence of nations, and especially upon the institutions of free

governments. What I have to say of Greece, therefore, concerns the

modern, not the ancient; the living, and not the dead. It regards her,

not as she exists in history, triumphant over time, and tyranny, and

ignorance; but as she now is, contending, against fearful odds, for

being, and for the common privileges of human nature.

As it is never difficult to recite commonplace remarks and trite

aphorisms, so it may be easy, I am aware, on this occasion, to remind me

of the wisdom which dictates to men a care of their own affairs, and

admonishes them, instead of searching for adventures abroad, to leave

other men's concerns in their own hands. It may be easy to call this

resolution _Quixotic_, the emanation of a crusading or propagandist

spirit. All this, and more, may be readily said; but all this, and more,

will not be allowed to fix a character upon this proceeding, until that

is proved which it takes for granted. Let it first be shown, that in

this question there is nothing which can affect the interest, the

character, or the duty of this country. Let it be proved, that we are

not called upon, by either of these considerations, to express an

opinion on the subject to which the resolution relates. Let this be

proved, and then it will indeed be made out, that neither ought this

resolution to pass, nor ought the subject of it to have been mentioned

in the communication of the President to us. But, in my opinion, this

cannot be shown. In my judgment, the subject is interesting to the

people and the government of this country, and we are called upon, by

considerations of great weight and moment, to express our opinions upon

it. These considerations, I think, spring from a sense of our own duty,

our character, and our own interest. I wish to treat the subject on such

grounds, exclusively, as are truly _American_; but then, in considering

it as an American question, I cannot forget the age in which we live,

the prevailing spirit of the age, the interesting questions which

agitate it, and our own peculiar relation in regard to these interesting

questions. Let this be, then, and as far as I am concerned I hope it

will be, purely an American discussion; but let it embrace,

nevertheless, every thing that fairly concerns America. Let it

comprehend, not merely her present advantage, but her permanent

interest, her elevated character as one of the free states of the world,

and her duty towards those great principles which have hitherto

maintained the relative independence of nations, and which have, more

especially, made her what she is.

At the commencement of the session, the President, in the discharge of

the high duties of his office, called our attention to the subject to

which this resolution refers. "A strong hope," says that communication,

"has been long entertained, founded on the heroic struggle of the

Greeks, that they would succeed in their contest, and resume their equal

station among the nations of the earth. It is believed that the whole

civilized world takes a deep interest in their welfare. Although no

power has declared in their favor, yet none, according to our

information, has taken part against them. Their cause and their name

have protected them from dangers which might ere this have overwhelmed

any other people. The ordinary calculations of interest, and of

acquisition with a view to aggrandizement, which mingle so much in the

transactions of nations, seem to have had no effect in regard to them.

From the facts which have come to our knowledge, there is good cause to

believe that their enemy has lost for ever all dominion over them; that

Greece will become again an independent nation."

It has appeared to me that the House should adopt some resolution

reciprocating these sentiments, so far as it shall approve them. More

than twenty years have elapsed since Congress first ceased to receive

such a communication from the President as could properly be made the

subject of a general answer. I do not mean to find fault with this

relinquishment of a former and an ancient practice. It may have been

attended with inconveniences which justified its abolition. But,

certainly, there was one advantage belonging to it; and that is, that it

furnished a fit opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the

Houses of Congress upon those topics in the executive communication

which were not expected to be made the immediate subjects of direct

legislation. Since, therefore, the President's message does not now

receive a general answer, it has seemed to me to be proper that, in some

mode, agreeable to our own usual form of proceeding, we should express

our sentiments upon the important and interesting topics on which it

treats.

If the sentiments of the message in respect to Greece be proper, it is

equally proper that this House should reciprocate those sentiments. The

present resolution is designed to have that extent, and no more. If it

pass, it will leave any future proceeding where it now is, in the

discretion of the executive government. It is but an expression, under

those forms in which the House is accustomed to act, of the satisfaction

of the House with the general sentiments expressed in regard to this

subject in the message, and of its readiness to defray the expense

incident to any inquiry for the purpose of further information, or any

other agency which the President, in his discretion, shall see fit, in

whatever manner and at whatever time, to institute. The whole matter is

still left in his judgment, and this resolution can in no way restrain

its unlimited exercise.

I might well, Mr. Chairman, avoid the responsibility of this measure, if

it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the policy of the

country. With the general course of that policy I am quite satisfied.

The nation is prosperous, peaceful, and happy; and I should very

reluctantly put its peace, prosperity, or happiness at risk. It appears

to me, however, that this resolution is strictly conformable to our

general policy, and not only consistent with our interests, but even

demanded by a large and liberal view of those interests.

It is certainly true that the just policy of this country is, in the

first place, a peaceful policy. No nation ever had less to expect from

forcible aggrandizement. The mighty agents which are working out our

greatness are time, industry, and the arts. Our augmentation is by

growth, not by acquisition; by internal development, not by external

accession. No schemes can be suggested to us so magnificent as the

prospects which a sober contemplation of our own condition, unaided by

projects, uninfluenced by ambition, fairly spreads before us. A country

of such vast extent, with such varieties of soil and climate, with so

much public spirit and private enterprise, with a population increasing

so much beyond former example, with capacities of improvement not only

unapplied or unexhausted, but even, in a great measure, as yet

unexplored,--so free in its institutions, so mild in its laws, so secure

in the title it confers on every man to his own acquisitions,--needs

nothing but time and peace to carry it forward to almost any point of

advancement.

In the next place, I take it for granted that the policy of this

country, springing from the nature of our government and the spirit of

all our institutions, is, so far as it respects the interesting

questions which agitate the present age, on the side of liberal and

enlightened sentiments. The age is extraordinary; the spirit that

actuates it is peculiar and marked; and our own relation to the times we

live in, and to the questions which interest them, is equally marked and

peculiar. We are placed, by our good fortune and the wisdom and valor of

our ancestors, in a condition in which we _can_ act no obscure part. Be

it for honor, or be it for dishonor, whatever we do is sure to attract

the observation of the world. As one of the free states among the

nations, as a great and rapidly rising republic, it would be impossible

for us, if we were so disposed, to prevent our principles, our

sentiments, and our example from producing some effect upon the opinions

and hopes of society throughout the civilized world. It rests probably

with ourselves to determine whether the influence of these shall be

salutary or pernicious.

It cannot be denied that the great political question of this age is

that between absolute and regulated governments. The substance of the

controversy is whether society shall have any part in its own

government. Whether the form of government shall be that of limited

monarchy, with more or less mixture of hereditary power, or wholly

elective or representative, may perhaps be considered as subordinate.

The main controversy is between that absolute rule, which, while it

promises to govern well, means, nevertheless, to govern without control,

and that constitutional system which restrains sovereign discretion, and

asserts that society may claim as matter of right some effective power

in the establishment of the laws which are to regulate it. The spirit of

the times sets with a most powerful current in favor of these

last-mentioned opinions. It is opposed, however, whenever and wherever

it shows itself, by certain of the great potentates of Europe; and it is

opposed on grounds as applicable in one civilized nation as in another,

and which would justify such opposition in relation to the United

States, as well as in relation to any other state or nation, if time and

circumstances should render such opposition expedient.

What part it becomes this country to take on a question of this sort, so

far as it is called upon to take any part, cannot be doubtful. Our side

of this question is settled for us, even without our own volition. Our

history, our situation, our character, necessarily decide our position

and our course, before we have even time to ask whether we have an

option. Our place is on the side of free institutions. From the earliest

settlement of these States, their inhabitants were accustomed, in a

greater or less degree, to the enjoyment of the powers of

self-government; and for the last half-century they have sustained

systems of government entirely representative, yielding to themselves

the greatest possible prosperity, and not leaving them without

distinction and respect among the nations of the earth. This system we

are not likely to abandon; and while we shall no farther recommend its

adoption to other nations, in whole or in part, than it may recommend

itself by its visible influence on our own growth and prosperity, we

are, nevertheless, interested to resist the establishment of doctrines

which deny the legality of its foundations. We stand as an equal among

nations, claiming the full benefit of the established international law;

and it is our duty to oppose, from the earliest to the latest moment,

any innovations upon that code which shall bring into doubt or question

our own equal and independent rights.

I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to those pretensions put forth by the

allied sovereigns of Continental Europe, which seem to me calculated, if

unresisted, to bring into disrepute the principles of our government,

and, indeed, to be wholly incompatible with any degree of national

independence. I do not introduce these considerations for the sake of

topics. I am not about to declaim against crowned heads, nor to quarrel

with any country for preferring a form of government different from our

own. The right of choice that we exercise for ourselves, I am quite

willing to leave also to others. But it appears to me that the

pretensions to which I have alluded are wholly inconsistent with the

independence of nations generally, without regard to the question

whether their governments be absolute, monarchical and limited, or

purely popular and representative. I have a most deep and thorough

conviction, that a new era has arisen in the world, that new and

dangerous combinations are taking place, promulgating doctrines and

fraught with consequences wholly subversive in their tendency of the

public law of nations and of the general liberties of mankind. Whether

this be so, or not, is the question which I now propose to examine, upon

such grounds of information as are afforded by the common and public

means of knowledge.

Everybody knows that, since the final restoration of the Bourbons to the

throne of France, the Continental powers have entered into sundry

alliances, which have been made public, and have held several meetings

or congresses, at which the principles of their political conduct have

been declared. These things must necessarily have an effect upon the

international law of the states of the world. If that effect be good,

and according to the principles of that law, they deserve to be

applauded. If, on the contrary, their effect and tendency be most

dangerous, their principles wholly inadmissible, their pretensions such

as would abolish every degree of national independence, then they are to

be resisted.

I begin, Mr. Chairman, by drawing your attention to the treaty concluded

at Paris in September, 1815, between Russia, Prussia, and Austria,

commonly called the Holy Alliance. This singular alliance appears to

have originated with the Emperor of Russia; for we are informed that a

draft of it was exhibited by him, personally, to a plenipotentiary of

one of the great powers of Europe, before it was presented to the other

sovereigns who ultimately signed it.[2] This instrument professes

nothing, certainly, which is not extremely commendable and praiseworthy.

It promises only that the contracting parties, both in relation to other

states, and in regard to their own subjects, will observe the rules of

justice and Christianity. In confirmation of these promises, it makes

the most solemn and devout religious invocations. Now, although such an

alliance is a novelty in European history, the world seems to have

received this treaty, upon its first promulgation, with general charity.

It was commonly understood as little or nothing more than an expression

of thanks for the successful termination of the momentous contest in

which those sovereigns had been engaged. It still seems somewhat

unaccountable, however, that these good resolutions should require to be

confirmed by treaty. Who doubted that these august sovereigns would

treat each other with justice, and rule their own subjects in mercy? And

what necessity was there for a solemn stipulation by treaty, to insure

the performance of that which is no more than the ordinary duty of every

government? It would hardly be admitted by these sovereigns, that by

this compact they consider themselves bound to introduce an entire

change, or any change in the course of their own conduct. Nothing

substantially new, certainly, can be supposed to have been intended.

What principle, or what practice, therefore, called for this solemn

declaration of the intention of the parties to observe the rules of

religion and justice?

It is not a little remarkable, that a writer of reputation upon the

Public Law, described, many years ago, not inaccurately, the character

of this alliance. I allude to Puffendorf. "It seems useless," says he,

"to frame any pacts or leagues, barely for the defence and support of

universal peace; for by such a league nothing is superadded to the

obligation of natural law, and no agreement is made for the performance

of any thing which the parties were not previously bound to perform; nor

is the original obligation rendered firmer or stronger by such an

addition. Men of any tolerable culture and civilization might well be

ashamed of entering into any such compact, the conditions of which imply

only that the parties concerned shall not offend in any clear point of

duty. Besides, we should be guilty of great irreverence towards God,

should we suppose that his injunctions had not already laid a sufficient

obligation upon us to act justly, unless we ourselves voluntarily

consented to the same engagement; as if our obligation to obey his will

depended upon our own pleasure.

"If one engage to serve another, he does not set it down expressly and

particularly among the terms and conditions of the bargain, that he will

not betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor burn his house. For the same

reason, that would be a dishonorable engagement in which men should bind

themselves to act properly and decently, and not break the peace."[3]

Such were the sentiments of that eminent writer. How nearly he had

anticipated the case of the Holy Alliance will appear from the preamble

to that alliance. After stating that the allied sovereigns had become

persuaded, by the events of the last three years, that "their relations

with each other ought to be regulated exclusively by the sublime truths

taught by the eternal religion of God the Saviour," they solemnly

declare their fixed resolution "to adopt as the sole rule of their

conduct, both in the administration of their respective states, and in

their political relations with every other government, the precepts of

that holy religion, namely, the precepts of justice, charity, and peace,

which, far from being applicable to private life alone, ought, on the

contrary, to have a direct influence upon the counsels of princes, and

guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human

institutions, and remedying their imperfections."[4]

This measure, however, appears principally important, as it was the

first of a series, and was followed afterwards by others of a more

marked and practical nature. These measures, taken together, profess to

establish two principles, which the Allied Powers would introduce as a

part of the law of the civilized world; and the establishment of which

is to be enforced by a million and a half of bayonets.

The first of these principles is, that all popular or constitutional

rights are held no otherwise than as grants from the crown. Society,

upon this principle, has no rights of its own; it takes good government,

when it gets it, as a boon and a concession, but can demand nothing. It

is to live by that favor which emanates from royal authority, and if it

have the misfortune to lose that favor, there is nothing to protect it

against any degree of injustice and oppression. It can rightfully make

no endeavor for a change, by itself; its whole privilege is to receive

the favors that may be dispensed by the sovereign power, and all its

duty is described in the single word _submission_. This is the plain

result of the principal Continental state papers; indeed, it is nearly

the identical text of some of them.

The circular despatch addressed by the sovereigns assembled at Laybach,

in the spring of 1821, to their ministers at foreign courts, alleges,

"that useful and necessary changes in legislation and in the

administration of states ought only to emanate from the free will and

intelligent and well-weighed conviction of those whom God has rendered

responsible for power. All that deviates from this line necessarily

leads to disorder, commotions, and evils far more insufferable than

those which they pretend to remedy."[5] Now, Sir, this principle would

carry Europe back again, at once, into the middle of the Dark Ages. It

is the old doctrine of the Divine right of kings, advanced now by new

advocates, and sustained by a formidable array of power. That the people

hold their fundamental privileges as matter of concession or indulgence

from the sovereign power, is a sentiment not easy to be diffused in this

age, any farther than it is enforced by the direct operation of military

means. It is true, certainly, that some six centuries ago the early

founders of English liberty called the instrument which secured their

rights a _charter_. It was, indeed, a concession; they had obtained it

sword in hand from the king; and in many other cases, whatever was

obtained, favorable to human rights, from the tyranny and despotism of

the feudal sovereigns, was called by the names of _privileges_ and

_liberties_, as being matter of special favor. Though we retain this

language at the present time, the principle itself belongs to ages that

have long passed by us. The civilized world has done with "the enormous

faith, of many made for one." Society asserts its own rights, and

alleges them to be original, sacred, and unalienable. It is not

satisfied with having kind masters; it demands a participation in its

own government; and in states much advanced in civilization, it urges

this demand with a constancy and an energy that cannot well nor long be

resisted. There are, happily, enough of regulated governments in the

world, and those among the most distinguished, to operate as constant

examples, and to keep alive an unceasing panting in the bosoms of men

for the enjoyment of similar free institutions.

When the English Revolution of 1688 took place, the English people did

not content themselves with the example of Runnymede; they did not build

their hopes upon royal charters; they did not, like the authors of the

Laybach circular, suppose that all useful changes in constitutions and

laws must proceed from those only whom God has rendered responsible for

power. They were somewhat better instructed in the principles of civil

liberty, or at least they were better lovers of those principles than

the sovereigns of Laybach. Instead of petitioning for charters, they

declared their rights, and while they offered to the Prince of Orange

the crown with one hand, they held in the other an enumeration of those

privileges which they did not profess to hold as favors, but which they

demanded and insisted upon as their undoubted rights.

I need not stop to observe, Mr. Chairman, how totally hostile are these

doctrines of Laybach to the fundamental principles of our government.

They are in direct contradiction; the principles of good and evil are

hardly more opposite. If these principles of the sovereigns be true, we

are but in a state of rebellion or of anarchy, and are only tolerated

among civilized states because it has not yet been convenient to reduce

us to the true standard.

But the second, and, if possible, the still more objectionable

principle, avowed in these papers, is the right of forcible interference

in the affairs of other states. A right to control nations in their

desire to change their own government, wherever it maybe conjectured, or

pretended, that such change might furnish an example to the subjects of

other states, is plainly and distinctly asserted. The same Congress that

made the declaration at Laybach had declared, before its removal from

Troppau, "that the powers have an undoubted right to take a hostile

attitude in regard to those states in which the overthrow of the

government may operate as an example."

There cannot, as I think, be conceived a more flagrant violation of

public law, or national independence, than is contained in this short

declaration.

No matter what be the character of the government resisted; no matter

with what weight the foot of the oppressor bears on the neck of the

oppressed; if he struggle, or if he complain, he sets a dangerous

example of resistance,--and from that moment he becomes an object of

hostility to the most powerful potentates of the earth. I want words to

express my abhorrence of this abominable principle. I trust every

enlightened man throughout the world will oppose it, and that,

especially, those who, like ourselves, are fortunately out of the reach

of the bayonets that enforce it, will proclaim their detestation of it,

in a tone both loud and decisive. The avowed object of such declarations

is to preserve the peace of the world. But by what means is it proposed

to preserve this peace? Simply, by bringing the power of all governments

to bear against all subjects. Here is to be established a sort of

double, or treble, or quadruple, or, for aught I know, quintuple

allegiance. An offence against one king is to be an offence against all

kings, and the power of all is to be put forth for the punishment of the

offender. A right to interfere in extreme cases, in the case of

contiguous states, and where imminent danger is threatened to one by

what is occurring in another, is not without precedent in modern times,

upon what has been called the law of vicinage; and when confined to

extreme cases, and limited to a certain extent, it may perhaps be

defended upon principles of necessity and self-defence. But to maintain

that sovereigns may go to war upon the subjects of another state to

repress an example, is monstrous indeed. What is to be the limit to such

a principle, or to the practice growing out of it? What, in any case,

but sovereign pleasure, is to decide whether the example be good or bad?

And what, under the operation of such a rule, may be thought of our

example? Why are we not as fair objects for the operation of the new

principle, as any of those who may attempt a reform of government on the

other side of the Atlantic?

The ultimate effect of this alliance of sovereigns, for objects personal

to themselves, or respecting only the permanence of their own power,

must be the destruction of all just feeling, and all natural sympathy,

between those who exercise the power of government and those who are

subject to it. The old channels of mutual regard and confidence are to

be dried up, or cut off. Obedience can now be expected no longer than it

is enforced. Instead of relying on the affections of the governed,

sovereigns are to rely on the affections and friendship of other

sovereigns. There are, in short, no longer to be nations. Princes and

people are no longer to unite for interests common to them both. There

is to be an end of all patriotism, as a distinct national feeling.

Society is to be divided horizontally; all sovereigns above, and all

subjects below; the former coalescing for their own security, and for

the more certain subjection of the undistinguished multitude beneath.

This, Sir, is no picture drawn by imagination. I have hardly used

language stronger than that in which the authors of this new system have

commented on their own work. M. de Chateaubriand, in his speech in the

French Chamber of Deputies, in February last, declared, that he had a

conference with the Emperor of Russia at Verona, in which that august

sovereign uttered sentiments which appeared to him so precious, that he

immediately hastened home, and wrote them down while yet fresh in his

recollection. "The Emperor declared," said he, "that there can no longer

be such a thing as an English, French, Russian, Prussian, or Austrian

policy; there is henceforth but one policy, which, for the safety of

all, should be adopted both by people and kings. It was for me first to

show myself convinced of the principles upon which I founded the

alliance; an occasion offered itself,--the rising in Greece. Nothing

certainly could occur more for my interests, for the interests of my

people, nothing more acceptable to my country, than a religious war in

Turkey. But I have thought I perceived in the troubles of the Morea the

sign of revolution, and I have held back. Providence has not put under

my command eight hundred thousand soldiers to satisfy my ambition, but

to protect religion, morality, and justice, and to secure the prevalence

of those principles of order on which human society rests. It may well

be permitted, that kings may have public alliances to defend themselves

against secret enemies."

These, Sir, are the words which the French minister thought so important

that they deserved to be recorded; and I, too, Sir, am of the same

opinion. But if it be true that there is hereafter to be neither a

Russian policy, nor a Prussian policy, nor an Austrian policy, nor a

French policy, nor even, which yet I will not believe, an English

policy, there will be, I trust in God, an American policy. If the

authority of all these governments be hereafter to be mixed and blended,

and to flow in one augmented current of prerogative over the face of

Europe, sweeping away all resistance in its course, it will yet remain

for us to secure our own happiness by the preservation of our own

principles; which I hope we shall have the manliness to express on all

proper occasions, and the spirit to defend in every extremity. The end

and scope of this amalgamated policy are neither more nor less than

this: to interfere, by force, for any government against any people who

may resist it. Be the state of the people what it may, they shall not

rise; be the government what it will, it shall not be opposed.

The practical commentary has corresponded with the plain language of the

text. Look at Spain, and at Greece. If men may not resist the Spanish

Inquisition, and the Turkish cimeter, what is there to which humanity

must not submit? Stronger cases can never arise. Is it not proper for

us, at all times, is it not our duty, at this time, to come forth, and

deny, and condemn, these monstrous principles? Where, but here, and in

one other place, are they likely to be resisted? They are advanced with

equal coolness and boldness; and they are supported by immense power.

The timid will shrink and give way, and many of the brave may be

compelled to yield to force. Human liberty may yet, perhaps, be obliged

to repose its principal hopes on the intelligence and the vigor of the

Saxon race. As far as depends on us, at least, I trust those hopes will

not be disappointed; and that, to the extent which may consist with our

own settled, pacific policy, our opinions and sentiments may be brought

to act on the right side, and to the right end, on an occasion which is,

in truth, nothing less than a momentous question between an intelligent

age, full of knowledge, thirsting for improvement, and quickened by a

thousand impulses, on one side, and the most arbitrary pretensions,

sustained by unprecedented power, on the other.

This asserted right of forcible intervention in the affairs of other

nations is in open violation of the public law of the world. Who has

authorized these learned doctors of Troppau to establish new articles in

this code? Whence are their diplomas? Is the whole world expected to

acquiesce in principles which entirely subvert the independence of

nations? On the basis of this independence has been reared the beautiful

fabric of international law. On the principle of this independence,

Europe has seen a family of nations flourishing within its limits, the

small among the large, protected not always by power, but by a principle

above power, by a sense of propriety and justice. On this principle, the

great commonwealth of civilized states has been hitherto upheld. There

have been occasional departures or violations, and always disastrous, as

in the case of Poland; but, in general, the harmony of the system has

been wonderfully preserved. In the production and preservation of this

sense of justice, this predominating principle, the Christian religion

has acted a main part. Christianity and civilization have labored

together; it seems, indeed, to be a law of our human condition, that

they can live and flourish only together. From their blended influence

has arisen that delightful spectacle of the prevalence of reason and

principle over power and interest, so well described by one who was an

honor to the age;--

"And sovereign Law, the state's collected will,

O'er thrones and globes elate,

Sits empress,--crowning good, repressing ill:

Smit by her sacred frown,

The fiend, Discretion, like a vapor, sinks,

And e'en the all-dazzling crown

Hides his faint rays, and at her bidding shrinks."

But this vision is past. While the teachers of Laybach give the rule,

there will be no law but the law of the strongest.

It may now be required of me to show what interest _we_ have in

resisting this new system. What is it to _us_, it may be asked, upon

what principles, or what pretences, the European governments assert a

right of interfering in the affairs of their neighbors? The thunder, it

may be said, rolls at a distance. The wide Atlantic is between us and

danger; and, however others may suffer, _we_ shall remain safe.

I think it is a sufficient answer to this to say, that we are one of the

nations of the earth; that we have an interest, therefore, in the

preservation of that system of national law and national intercourse

which has heretofore subsisted, so beneficially for all. Our system of

government, it should also be remembered, is, throughout, founded on

principles utterly hostile to the new code; and if we remain undisturbed

by its operation, we shall owe our security either to our situation or

our spirit. The enterprising character of the age, our own active,

commercial spirit, the great increase which has taken place in the

intercourse among civilized and commercial states, have necessarily

connected us with other nations, and given us a high concern in the

preservation of those salutary principles upon which that intercourse is

founded. We have as clear an interest in international law, as

individuals have in the laws of society.

But apart from the soundness of the policy, on the ground of direct

interest, we have, Sir, a duty connected with this subject, which I

trust we are willing to perform. What do _we_ not owe to the cause of

civil and religious liberty? to the principle of lawful resistance? to

the principle that society has a right to partake in its own government?

As the leading republic of the world, living and breathing in these

principles, and advanced, by their operation, with unequalled rapidity

in our career, shall we give _our_ consent to bring them into disrepute

and disgrace? It is neither ostentation nor boasting to say, that there

lies before this country, in immediate prospect, a great extent and

height of power. We are borne along towards this without effort, and not

always even with a full knowledge of the rapidity of our own motion.

Circumstances which never combined before have co-operated in our favor,

and a mighty current is setting us forward which we could not resist

even if we would, and which, while we would stop to make an observation,

and take the sun, has set us, at the end of the operation, far in

advance of the place where we commenced it. Does it not become us, then,

is it not a duty imposed on us, to give our weight to the side of

liberty and justice, to let mankind know that we are not tired of our

own institutions, and to protest against the asserted power of altering

at pleasure the law of the civilized world?

But whatever we do in this respect, it becomes us to do upon clear and

consistent principles. There is an important topic in the message to

which I have yet hardly alluded. I mean the rumored combination of the

European Continental sovereigns against the newly established free

states of South America. Whatever position this government may take on

that subject, I trust it will be one which can be defended on known and

acknowledged grounds of right. The near approach or the remote distance

of danger may affect policy, but cannot change principle. The same

reason that would authorize us to protest against unwarrantable

combinations to interfere between Spain and her former colonies, would

authorize us equally to protest if the same combination were directed

against the smallest state in Europe, although our duty to ourselves,

our policy, and wisdom, might indicate very different courses as fit to

be pursued by us in the two cases. We shall not, I trust, act upon the

notion of dividing the world with the Holy Alliance, and complain of

nothing done by them in their hemisphere if they will not interfere with

ours. At least this would not be such a course of policy as I could

recommend or support. We have not offended, and I hope we do not intend

to offend, in regard to South America, against any principle of national

independence or of public law. We have done nothing, we shall do

nothing, that we need to hush up or to compromise by forbearing to

express our sympathy for the cause of the Greeks, or our opinion of the

course which other governments have adopted in regard to them.

It may, in the next place, be asked, perhaps, Supposing all this to be

true, what can _we_ do? Are we to go to war? Are we to interfere in the

Greek cause, or any other European cause? Are we to endanger our pacific

relations? No, certainly not. What, then, the question recurs, remains

for us? If we will not endanger our own peace, if we will neither

furnish armies nor navies to the cause which we think the just one, what

is there within our power?

Sir, this reasoning mistakes the age. The time has been, indeed, when

fleets, and armies, and subsidies, were the principal reliances even in

the best cause. But, happily for mankind, a great change has taken place

in this respect. Moral causes come into consideration, in proportion as

the progress of knowledge is advanced; and the public opinion of the

civilized world is rapidly gaining an ascendency over mere brutal force.

It is already able to oppose the most formidable obstruction to the

progress of injustice and oppression; and as it grows more intelligent

and more intense, it will be more and more formidable. It may be

silenced by military power, but it cannot be conquered. It is elastic,

irrepressible, and invulnerable to the weapons of ordinary warfare. It

is that impassible, inextinguishable enemy of mere violence and

arbitrary rule, which, like Milton's angels,

"Vital in every part, ...

Cannot, but by annihilating, die."

Until this be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for power to talk

either of triumphs or of repose. No matter what fields are desolated,

what fortresses surrendered, what armies subdued, or what provinces

overrun. In the history of the year that has passed by us, and in the

instance of unhappy Spain, we have seen the vanity of all triumphs in a

cause which violates the general sense of justice of the civilized

world. It is nothing that the troops of France have passed from the

Pyrenees to Cadiz; it is nothing that an unhappy and prostrate nation

has fallen before them; it is nothing that arrests, and confiscation,

and execution, sweep away the little remnant of national resistance.

There is an enemy that still exists to check the glory of these

triumphs. It follows the conqueror back to the very scene of his

ovations; it calls upon him to take notice that Europe, though silent,

is yet indignant; it shows him that the sceptre of his victory is a

barren sceptre; that it shall confer neither joy nor honor, but shall

moulder to dry ashes in his grasp. In the midst of his exultation, it

pierces his ear with the cry of injured justice; it denounces against

him the indignation of an enlightened and civilized age; it turns to

bitterness the cup of his rejoicing, and wounds him with the sting which

belongs to the consciousness of having outraged the opinion of mankind.

In my opinion, Sir, the Spanish nation is now nearer, not only in point

of time, but in point of circumstance, to the acquisition of a regulated

government, than at the moment of the French invasion. Nations must, no

doubt, undergo these trials in their progress to the establishment of

free institutions. The very trials benefit them, and render them more

capable both of obtaining and of enjoying the object which they seek.

I shall not detain the committee, Sir, by laying before it any

statistical, geographical, or commercial account of Greece. I have no

knowledge on these subjects which is not common to all. It is

universally admitted, that, within the last thirty or forty years, the

condition of Greece has been greatly improved. Her marine is at present

respectable, containing the best sailors in the Mediterranean, better

even, in that sea, than our own, as more accustomed to the long

quarantines and other regulations which prevail in its ports. The number

of her seamen has been estimated as high as 50,000, but I suppose that

estimate must be much too large. She has, probably, 150,000 tons of

shipping. It is not easy to ascertain the amount of the Greek

population. The Turkish government does not trouble itself with any of

the calculations of political economy, and there has never been such a

thing as an accurate census, probably, in any part of the Turkish

empire. In the absence of all official information, private opinions

widely differ. By the tables which have been communicated, it would seem

that there are 2,400,000 Greeks in Greece proper and the islands; an

amount, as I am inclined to think, somewhat overrated. There are,

probably, in the whole of European Turkey, 5,000,000 Greeks, and

2,000,000 more in the Asiatic dominions of that power.

The moral and intellectual progress of this numerous population, under

the horrible oppression which crushes it, has been such as may well

excite regard. Slaves, under barbarous masters, the Greeks have still

aspired after the blessings of knowledge and civilization. Before the

breaking out of the present revolution, they had established schools,

and colleges, and libraries, and the press. Wherever, as in Scio, owing

to particular circumstances, the weight of oppression was mitigated, the

natural vivacity of the Greeks, and their aptitude for the arts, were

evinced. Though certainly not on an equality with the civilized and

Christian states of Europe,--and how is it possible, under such

oppression as they endured, that they should be?--they yet furnished a

striking contrast with their Tartar masters. It has been well said, that

it is not easy to form a just conception of the nature of the despotism

exercised over them. Conquest and subjugation, as known among European

states, are inadequate modes of expression by which to denote the

dominion of the Turks. A conquest in the civilized world is generally no

more than an acquisition of a new dominion to the conquering country. It

does not imply a never-ending bondage imposed upon the conquered, a

perpetual mark,--an opprobrious distinction between them and their

masters; a bitter and unending persecution of their religion; an

habitual violation of their rights of person and property, and the

unrestrained indulgence towards them of every passion which belongs to

the character of a barbarous soldiery. Yet such is the state of Greece.

The Ottoman power over them, obtained originally by the sword, is

constantly preserved by the same means. Wherever it exists, it is a mere

military power. The religious and civil code of the state being both

fixed in the Koran, and equally the object of an ignorant and furious

faith, have been found equally incapable of change. "The Turk," it has

been said, "has been _encamped_ in Europe for four centuries." He has

hardly any more participation in European manners, knowledge, and arts,

than when he crossed the Bosphorus. But this is not the worst. The power

of the empire is fallen into anarchy, and as the principle which belongs

to the head belongs also to the parts, there are as many despots as

there are pachas, beys, and viziers. Wars are almost perpetual between

the Sultan and some rebellious governor of a province; and in the

conflict of these despotisms, the people are necessarily ground between

the upper and the nether millstone. In short, the Christian subjects of

the Sublime Porte feel daily all the miseries which flow from despotism,

from anarchy, from slavery, and from religious persecution. If any thing

yet remains to heighten such a picture, let it be added, that every

office in the government is not only actually, but professedly,

venal,--the pachalics, the vizierates, the cadiships, and whatsoever

other denomination may denote the depositary of power. In the whole

world, Sir, there is no such oppression felt as by the Christian Greeks.

In various parts of India, to be sure, the government is bad enough; but

then it is the government of barbarians over barbarians, and the feeling

of oppression is, of course, not so keen. There the oppressed are

perhaps not better than their oppressors; but in the case of Greece,

there are millions of Christian men, not without knowledge, not without

refinement, not without a strong thirst for all the pleasures of

civilized life, trampled into the very earth, century after century, by

a pillaging, savage, relentless soldiery. Sir, the case is unique. There

exists, and has existed, nothing like it. The world has no such misery

to show; there is no case in which Christian communities can be called

upon with such emphasis of appeal.

But I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, indeed I need have said nothing to

satisfy the House, that it must be some new combination of

circumstances, or new views of policy in the cabinets of Europe, which

have caused this interesting struggle not merely to be regarded with

indifference, but to be marked with opprobrium. The very statement of

the case, as a contest between the Turks and Greeks, sufficiently

indicates what must be the feeling of every individual, and every

government, that is not biassed by a particular interest, or a

particular feeling, to disregard the dictates of justice and humanity.

And now, Sir, what has been the conduct pursued by the Allied Powers in

regard to this contest? When the revolution broke out, the sovereigns

were assembled in congress at Laybach; and the papers of that assembly

sufficiently manifest their sentiments. They proclaim their abhorrence

of those "criminal combinations which had been formed in the eastern

parts of Europe"; and, although it is possible that this denunciation

was aimed, more particularly, at the disturbances in the provinces of

Wallachia and Moldavia, yet no exception is made, from its general

terms, in favor of those events in Greece which were properly the

commencement of her revolution, and which could not but be well known at

Laybach, before the date of these declarations. Now it must be

remembered, that Russia was a leading party in this denunciation of the

efforts of the Greeks to achieve their liberation; and it cannot but be

expected by Russia, that the world should also remember what part she

herself has heretofore acted in the same concern. It is notorious, that

within the last half-century she has again and again excited the Greeks

to rebellion against the Porte, and that she has constantly kept alive

in them the hope that she would, one day, by her own great power, break

the yoke of their oppressor. Indeed, the earnest attention with which

Russia has regarded Greece goes much farther back than to the time I

have mentioned. Ivan the Third, in 1482, having espoused a Grecian

princess, heiress of the last Greek Emperor, discarded St. George from

the Russian arms, and adopted the Greek two-headed black eagle, which

has continued in the Russian arms to the present day. In virtue of the

same marriage, the Russian princes claim the Greek throne as their

inheritance.

Under Peter the Great, the policy of Russia developed itself more fully.

In 1696, he rendered himself master of Azof, and, in 1698, obtained the

right to pass the Dardanelles, and to maintain, by that route,

commercial intercourse with the Mediterranean. He had emissaries

throughout Greece, and particularly applied himself to gain the clergy.

He adopted the _Labarum_ of Constantine, "In hoc signo vinces"; and

medals were struck, with the inscription, "Petrus I. Russo-Graecorum

Imperator." In whatever new direction the principles of the Holy

Alliance may now lead the politics of Russia, or whatever course she may

suppose Christianity now prescribes to her, in regard to the Greek

cause, the time has been when she professed to be contending for that

cause, as identified with Christianity. The white banner under which the

soldiers of Peter the First usually fought, bore, as its inscription,

"In the name of the Prince, and for our country." Relying on the aid of

the Greeks, in his war with the Porte, he changed the white flag to red,

and displayed on it the words, "In the name of God, and for

Christianity." The unfortunate issue of this war is well known. Though

Anne and Elizabeth, the successors of Peter, did not possess his active

character, they kept up a constant communication with Greece, and held

out hopes of restoring the Greek empire. Catharine the Second, as is

well known, excited a general revolt in 1769. A Russian fleet appeared

in the Mediterranean, and a Russian army was landed in the Morea. The

Greeks in the end were disgusted at being expected to take an oath of

allegiance to Russia, and the Empress was disgusted because they refused

to take it. In 1774, peace was signed between Russia and the Porte, and

the Greeks of the Morea were left to their fate. By this treaty the

Porte acknowledged the independence of the Khan of the Crimea; a

preliminary step to the acquisition of that country by Russia. It is not

unworthy of remark, as a circumstance which distinguished this from most

other diplomatic transactions, that it conceded to the cabinet of St.

Petersburg the right of intervention in the interior affairs of Turkey,

in regard to whatever concerned the religion of the Greeks. The

cruelties and massacres that happened to the Greeks after the peace

between Russia and the Porte, notwithstanding the general pardon which

had been stipulated for them, need not now be recited. Instead of

retracing the deplorable picture, it is enough to say, that in this

respect the past is justly reflected in the present. The Empress soon

after invaded and conquered the Crimea, and on one of the gates of

Kerson, its capital, caused to be inscribed, "The road to Byzantium."

The present Emperor, on his accession to the throne, manifested an

intention to adopt the policy of Catharine the Second as his own, and

the world has not been right in all its suspicions, if a project for the

partition of Turkey did not form a part of the negotiations of Napoleon

and Alexander at Tilsit.

All this course of policy seems suddenly to be changed. Turkey is no

longer regarded, it would appear, as an object of partition or

acquisition, and Greek revolts have all at once become, according to the

declaration of Laybach, "criminal combinations." The recent congress at

Verona exceeded its predecessor at Laybach in its denunciations of the

Greek struggle. In the circular of the 14th of December, 1822, it

declared the Grecian resistance to the Turkish power to be rash and

culpable, and lamented that "the firebrand of rebellion had been thrown

into the Ottoman empire." This rebuke and crimination we know to have

proceeded on those settled principles of conduct which the Continental

powers had prescribed for themselves. The sovereigns saw, as well as

others, the real condition of the Greeks; they knew as well as others

that it was most natural and most justifiable, that they should

endeavor, at whatever hazard, to change that condition. They knew that

they themselves, or at least one of them, had more than once urged the

Greeks to similar efforts; that they themselves had thrown the same

firebrand into the midst of the Ottoman empire. And yet, so much does it

seem to be their fixed object to discountenance whatsoever threatens to

disturb the actual government of any country, that, Christians as they

were, and allied, as they professed to be, for purposes most important

to human happiness and religion, they have not hesitated to declare to

the world that they have wholly forborne to exercise any compassion to

the Greeks, simply because they thought that they saw, in the struggles

of the Morea, the sign of revolution. This, then, is coming to a plain,

practical result. The Grecian revolution has been discouraged,

discountenanced, and denounced, solely because it _is_ a revolution.

Independent of all inquiry into the reasonableness of its causes or the

enormity of the oppression which produced it; regardless of the peculiar

claims which Greece possesses upon the civilized world; and regardless

of what has been their own conduct towards her for a century; regardless

of the interest of the Christian religion,--the sovereigns at Verona

seized upon the case of the Greek revolution as one above all others

calculated to illustrate the fixed principles of their policy. The

abominable rule of the Porte on one side, the value and the sufferings

of the Christian Greeks on the other, furnished a case likely to

convince even an incredulous world of the sincerity of the professions

of the Allied Powers. They embraced the occasion with apparent ardor:

and the world, I trust, is satisfied.

We see here, Mr. Chairman, the direct and actual application of that

system which I have attempted to describe. We see it in the very case of

Greece. We learn, authentically and indisputably, that the Allied

Powers, holding that all changes in legislation and administration ought

to proceed from kings alone, were wholly inexorable to the sufferings of

the Greeks, and entirely hostile to their success. Now it is upon this

practical result of the principle of the Continental powers that I wish

this House to intimate its opinion. The great question is a question of

principle. Greece is only the signal instance of the application of that

principle. If the principle be right, if we esteem it conformable to the

law of nations, if we have nothing to say against it, or if we deem

ourselves unfit to express an opinion on the subject, then, of course,

no resolution ought to pass. If, on the other hand, we see in the

declarations of the Allied Powers principles, not only utterly hostile

to our own free institutions, but hostile also to the independence of

all nations, and altogether opposed to the improvement of the condition

of human nature; if, in the instance before us, we see a most striking

exposition and application of those principles, and if we deem our

opinions to be entitled to any weight in the estimation of

mankind,--then I think it is our duty to adopt some such measure as the

proposed resolution.

It is worthy of observation, Sir, that as early as July, 1821, Baron

Strogonoff, the Russian minister at Constantinople, represented to the

Porte, that, if the undistinguished massacres of the Greeks, both of

such as were in open resistance and of those who remained patient in

their submission were continued, and should become a settled habit, they

would give just cause of war against the Porte to all Christian states.

This was in 1821.[6] It was followed, early in the next year, by that

indescribable enormity, that appalling monument of barbarian cruelty,

the destruction of Scio; a scene I shall not attempt to describe; a

scene from which human nature shrinks shuddering away; a scene having

hardly a parallel in the history of fallen man. This scene, too, was

quickly followed by the massacres in Cyprus; and all these things were

perfectly known to the Christian powers assembled at Verona. Yet these

powers, instead of acting upon the case supposed by Baron Strogonoff,

and which one would think had been then fully made out,--instead of

being moved by any compassion for the sufferings of the Greeks,--these

powers, these Christian powers, rebuke their gallantry and insult their

sufferings by accusing them of "throwing a firebrand into the Ottoman

empire." Such, Sir, appear to me to be the principles on which the

Continental powers of Europe have agreed hereafter to act; and this, an

eminent instance of the application of those principles.

I shall not detain the committee, Mr. Chairman, by any attempt to recite

the events of the Greek struggle up to the present time. Its origin may

be found, doubtless, in that improved state of knowledge which, for some

years, has been gradually taking place in that country. The emancipation

of the Greeks has been a subject frequently discussed in modern times.

They themselves are represented as having a vivid remembrance of the

distinction of their ancestors, not unmixed with an indignant feeling

that civilized and Christian Europe should not ere now have aided them

in breaking their intolerable fetters.

In 1816 a society was founded in Vienna for the encouragement of Grecian

literature. It was connected with a similar institution at Athens, and

another in Thessaly, called the "Gymnasium of Mount Pelion." The

treasury and general office of the institution were established at

Munich. No political object was avowed by these institutions, probably

none contemplated. Still, however, they had their effect, no doubt, in

hastening that condition of things in which the Greeks felt competent to

the establishment of their independence. Many young men have been for

years annually sent to the universities in the western states of Europe

for their education; and, after the general pacification of Europe, many

military men, discharged from other employment, were ready to enter even

into so unpromising a service as that of the revolutionary Greeks.

In 1820, war commenced between the Porte and Ali, the well-known Pacha

of Albania. Differences existed also with Persia and with Russia. In

this state of things, at the beginning of 1821, an insurrection broke

out in Moldavia, under the direction of Alexander Ypsilanti, a

well-educated soldier, who had been major-general in the Russian

service. From his character, and the number of those who seemed inclined

to join him, he was supposed to be countenanced by the court of St.

Petersburg. This, however, was a great mistake, which the Emperor, then

at Laybach, took an early opportunity to rectify. The Turkish government

was alarmed at these occurrences in the northern provinces of European

Turkey, and caused search to be made of all vessels entering the Black

Sea, lest arms or other military means should be sent in that manner to

the insurgents. This proved inconvenient to the commerce of Russia, and

caused some unsatisfactory correspondence between the two powers. It may

be worthy of remark, as an exhibition of national character, that,

agitated by these appearances of intestine commotion, the Sultan issued

a proclamation, calling on all true Mussulmans to renounce the pleasures

of social life, to prepare arms and horses, and to return to the manner

of their ancestors, the life of the plains. The Turk seems to have

thought that he had, at last, caught something of the dangerous

contagion of European civilization, and that it was necessary to reform

his habits, by recurring to the original manners of military roving

barbarians.

It was about this time, that is to say, at the commencement of 1821,

that the revolution burst out in various parts of Greece and the isles.

Circumstances, certainly, were not unfavorable to the movement, as one

portion of the Turkish army was employed in the war against Ali Pacha in

Albania, and another part in the provinces north of the Danube. The

Greeks soon possessed themselves of the open country of the Morea, and

drove their enemy into the fortresses. Of these, that of Tripolitza,

with the city, fell into their hands, in the course of the summer.

Having after these first movements obtained time to breathe, it became,

of course, an early object to establish a government. For this purpose

delegates of the people assembled, under that name which describes the

assembly in which we ourselves sit, that name which "freed the

Atlantic," a _Congress_. A writer, who undertakes to render to the

civilized world that service which was once performed by Edmund Burke, I

mean the compiler of the English Annual Register, asks, by what

authority this assembly could call itself a Congress. Simply, Sir, by

the same authority by which the people of the United States have given

the same name to their own legislature. We, at least, should be

naturally inclined to think, not only as far as names, but things also,

are concerned, that the Greeks could hardly have begun their revolution

under better auspices; since they have endeavored to render applicable

to themselves the general principles of our form of government, as well

as its name. This constitution went into operation at the commencement

of the next year. In the mean time, the war with Ali Pacha was ended, he

having surrendered, and being afterwards assassinated, by an instance of

treachery and perfidy, which, if it had happened elsewhere than under

the government of the Turks, would have deserved notice. The negotiation

with Russia, too, took a turn unfavorable to the Greeks. The great point

upon which Russia insisted, beside the abandonment of the measure of

searching vessels bound to the Black Sea, was, that the Porte should

withdraw its armies from the neighborhood of the Russian frontiers; and

the immediate consequence of this, when effected, was to add so much

more to the disposable force ready to be employed against the Greeks.

These events seemed to have left the whole force of the Ottoman empire,

at the commencement of 1822, in a condition to be employed against the

Greek rebellion; and, accordingly, very many anticipated the immediate

destruction of the cause. The event, however, was ordered otherwise.

Where the greatest effort was made, it was met and defeated. Entering

the Morea with an army which seemed capable of bearing down all

resistance, the Turks were nevertheless defeated and driven back, and

pursued beyond the isthmus, within which, as far as it appears, from

that time to the present, they have not been able to set their foot.

It was in April of this year that the destruction of Scio took place.

That island, a sort of appanage of the Sultana mother, enjoyed many

privileges peculiar to itself. In a population of 130,000 or 140,000, it

had no more than 2,000 or 3,000 Turks; indeed, by some accounts, not

near as many. The absence of these ruffian masters had in some degree

allowed opportunity for the promotion of knowledge, the accumulation of

wealth, and the general cultivation of society. Here was the seat of

modern Greek literature; here were libraries, printing-presses, and

other establishments, which indicate some advancement in refinement and

knowledge. Certain of the inhabitants of Samos, it would seem, envious

of this comparative happiness of Scio, landed upon the island in an

irregular multitude, for the purpose of compelling its inhabitants to

make common cause with their countrymen against their oppressors. These,

being joined by the peasantry, marched to the city and drove the Turks

into the castle. The Turkish fleet, lately reinforced from Egypt,

happened to be in the neighboring seas, and, learning these events,

landed a force on the island of fifteen thousand men. There was nothing

to resist such an army. These troops immediately entered the city and

began an indiscriminate massacre. The city was fired; and in four days

the fire and sword of the Turk rendered the beautiful Scio a clotted

mass of blood and ashes. The details are too shocking to be recited.

Forty thousand women and children, unhappily saved from the general

destruction, were afterwards sold in the market of Smyrna, and sent off

into distant and hopeless servitude. Even on the wharves of our own

cities, it has been said, have been sold the utensils of those hearths

which now exist no longer. Of the whole population which I have

mentioned, not above nine hundred persons were left living upon the

island. I will only repeat, Sir, that these tragical scenes were as

fully known at the Congress of Verona, as they are now known to us; and

it is not too much to call on the powers that constituted that congress,

in the name of conscience and in the name of humanity, to tell us if

there be nothing even in these unparalleled excesses of Turkish

barbarity to excite a sentiment of compassion; nothing which they regard

as so objectionable as even the very idea of popular resistance to

power.

The events of the year which has just passed by, as far as they have

become known to us, have been even more favorable to the Greeks than

those of the year preceding. I omit all details, as being as well known

to others as to myself. Suffice it to say, that with no other enemy to

contend with, and no diversion of his force to other objects, the Porte

has not been able to carry the war into the Morea; and that, by the last

accounts, its armies were acting defensively in Thessaly. I pass over,

also, the naval engagements of the Greeks, although that is a mode of

warfare in which they are calculated to excel, and in which they have

already performed actions of such distinguished skill and bravery, as

would draw applause upon the best mariners in the world. The present

state of the war would seem to be, that the Greeks possess the whole of

the Morea with the exception of the three fortresses of Patras, Coron,

and Modon; all Candia, but one fortress; and most of the other islands.

They possess the citadel of Athens, Missolonghi, and several other

places in Livadia. They have been able to act on the offensive, and to

carry the war beyond the isthmus. There is no reason to believe their

marine is weakened; more probably, it is strengthened. But, what is most

important of all, they have obtained time and experience. They have

awakened a sympathy throughout Europe and throughout America; and they

have formed a government which seems suited to the emergency of their

condition.

Sir, they have done much. It would be great injustice to compare their

achievements with our own. We began our Revolution, already possessed of

government, and, comparatively, of civil liberty. Our ancestors had from

the first been accustomed in a great measure to govern themselves. They

were familiar with popular elections and legislative assemblies, and

well acquainted with the general principles and practice of free

governments. They had little else to do than to throw off the paramount

authority of the parent state. Enough was still left, both of law and of

organization, to conduct society in its accustomed course, and to unite

men together for a common object. The Greeks, of course, could act with

little concert at the beginning; they were unaccustomed to the exercise

of power, without experience, with limited knowledge, without aid, and

surrounded by nations which, whatever claims the Greeks might seem to

have upon them, have afforded them nothing but discouragement and

reproach. They have held out, however, for three campaigns; and that, at

least, is something. Constantinople and the northern provinces have sent

forth thousands of troops;--they have been defeated. Tripoli, and

Algiers, and Egypt, have contributed their marine contingents;--they

have not kept the ocean. Hordes of Tartars have crossed the

Bosphorus;--they have died where the Persians died. The powerful

monarchies in the neighborhood have denounced their cause, and

admonished them to abandon it and submit to their fate. They have

answered them, that, although two hundred thousand of their countrymen

have offered up their lives, there yet remain lives to offer; and that

it is the determination of _all_, "yes, of ALL," to persevere until they

shall have established their liberty, or until the power of their

oppressors shall have relieved them from the burden of existence.

It may now be asked, perhaps, whether the expression of our own

sympathy, and that of the country, may do them good? I hope it may. It

may give them courage and spirit, it may assure them of public regard,

teach them that they are not wholly forgotten by the civilized world,

and inspire them with constancy in the pursuit of their great end. At

any rate, Sir, it appears to me that the measure which I have proposed

is due to our own character, and called for by our own duty. When we

shall have discharged that duty, we may leave the rest to the

disposition of Providence.

I do not see how it can be doubted that this measure is entirely

_pacific_. I profess my inability to perceive that it has any possible

tendency to involve our neutral relations. If the resolution pass, it is

not of necessity to be immediately acted on. It will not be acted on at

all, unless, in the opinion of the President, a proper and safe occasion

for acting upon it shall arise. If we adopt the resolution to-day, our

relations with every foreign state will be to-morrow precisely what they

now are. The resolution will be sufficient to express our sentiments on

the subjects to which I have adverted. Useful for that purpose, it can

be mischievous for no purpose. If the topic were properly introduced

into the message, it cannot be improperly introduced into discussion in

this House. If it were proper, which no one doubts, for the President to

express his opinions upon it, it cannot, I think, be improper for us to

express ours. The only certain effect of this resolution is to signify,

in a form usual in bodies constituted like this, our approbation of the

general sentiment of the message. Do we wish to withhold that

approbation? The resolution confers on the President no new power, nor

does it enjoin on him the exercise of any new duty; nor does it hasten

him in the discharge of any existing duty.

I cannot imagine that this resolution can add any thing to those

excitements which it has been supposed, I think very causelessly, might

possibly provoke the Turkish government to acts of hostility. There is

already the message, expressing the hope of success to the Greeks and

disaster to the Turks, in a much stronger manner than is to be implied

from the terms of this resolution. There is the correspondence between

the Secretary of State and the Greek Agent in London, already made

public, in which similar wishes are expressed, and a continuance of the

correspondence apparently invited. I might add to this, the unexampled

burst of feeling which this cause has called forth from all classes of

society, and the notorious fact of pecuniary contributions made

throughout the country for its aid and advancement. After all this,

whoever can see cause of danger to our pacific relations from the

adoption of this resolution has a keener vision than I can pretend to.

Sir, there is no augmented danger; there is no danger. The question

comes at last to this, whether, on a subject of this sort, this House

holds an opinion which is worthy to be expressed.

Even suppose, Sir, an agent or commissioner were to be immediately

sent,--a measure which I myself believe to be the proper one,--there is

no breach of neutrality, nor any just cause of offence. Such an agent,

of course, would not be accredited; he would not be a public minister.

The object would be inquiry and information; inquiry which we have a

right to make, information which we are interested to possess. If a

dismemberment of the Turkish empire be taking place, or has already

taken place; if a new state be rising, or be already risen, in the

Mediterranean,--who can doubt, that, without any breach of neutrality,

we may inform ourselves of these events for the government of our own

concerns? The Greeks have declared the Turkish coasts in a state of

blockade; may we not inform ourselves whether this blockade be _nominal_

or _real_? and, of course, whether it shall be regarded or disregarded?

The greater our trade may happen to be with Smyrna, a consideration

which seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is the reason,

in my opinion, why we should seek to be accurately informed of those

events which may affect its safety. It seems to me impossible,

therefore, for any reasonable man to imagine that this resolution can

expose us to the resentment of the Sublime Porte.

As little reason is there for fearing its consequences upon the conduct

of the Allied Powers. They may, very naturally, dislike our sentiments

upon the subject of the Greek revolution; but what those sentiments are

they will much more explicitly learn in the President's message than in

this resolution. They might, indeed, prefer that we should express no

dissent from the doctrines which they have avowed, and the application

which they have made of those doctrines to the case of Greece. But I

trust we are not disposed to leave them in any doubt as to our

sentiments upon these important subjects. They have expressed their

opinions, and do not call that expression of opinion an interference;

in which respect they are right, as the expression of opinion in such

cases is not such an interference as would justify the Greeks in

considering the powers at war with them. For the same reason, any

expression which we may make of different principles and different

sympathies is no interference. No one would call the President's message

an interference; and yet it is much stronger in that respect than this

resolution. If either of them could be construed to be an interference,

no doubt it would be improper, at least it would be so according to my

view of the subject; for the very thing which I have attempted to resist

in the course of these observations is the right of foreign

interference. But neither the message nor the resolution has that

character. There is not a power in Europe which can suppose, that, in

expressing our opinions on this occasion, we are governed by any desire

of aggrandizing ourselves or of injuring others. We do no more than to

maintain those established principles in which we have an interest in

common with other nations, and to resist the introduction of new

principles and new rules, calculated to destroy the relative

independence of states, and particularly hostile to the whole fabric of

our government.

I close, then, Sir, with repeating, that the object of this resolution

is to avail ourselves of the interesting occasion of the Greek

revolution to make our protest against the doctrines of the Allied

Powers, both as they are laid down in principle and as they are applied

in practice. I think it right, too, Sir, not to be unseasonable in the

expression of our regard, and, as far as that goes, in a manifestation

of our sympathy with a long oppressed and now struggling people. I am

not of those who would, in the hour of utmost peril, withhold such

encouragement as might be properly and lawfully given, and, when the

crisis should be past, overwhelm the rescued sufferer with kindness and

caresses. The Greeks address the civilized world with a pathos not easy

to be resisted. They invoke our favor by more moving considerations than

can well belong to the condition of any other people. They stretch out

their arms to the Christian communities of the earth, beseeching them,

by a generous recollection of their ancestors, by the consideration of

their desolated and ruined cities and villages, by their wives and

children sold into an accursed slavery, by their blood, which they seem

willing to pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the name,

which unites all Christians, that they would extend to them at least

some token of compassionate regard.

[Footnote 1: The interior of the hall of the House of Representatives is

surrounded by a magnificent colonnade of the composite order. [1824.]]

[Footnote 2: See Lord Castlereagh's speech in the House of Commons,

February 3, 1816. Debates in Parliament, Vol. XXXVI. p. 355; where also

the treaty may be found at length.]

[Footnote 3: Law of Nature and Nations, Book II. cap. 2, § 11.]

[Footnote 4: Martens, Recueil des Traités, Tome XIII. p. 656.]

[Footnote 5: Annual Register for 1821, p. 601.]

[Footnote 6: Annual Register for 1821, p. 251.]