Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

politician could be trusted with the matter, and none possessed the requisite qualities in so eminent a degree as Mr Webster.

There still remained another affair to be settled with England: we refer to the boundaries of Oregon. That question was purposely made difficult by some small politicians who exasperated the public on both sides of the water. The cry was raised "Oregon or fight;" "the whole of Oregon or none;"" 54, 40." The legislature of Maine went a little further north, and shouted "54, 49." Some men, whose names are by no means forgotten, made a great outcry, and egged the ignorant headlong towards dangerous measures, threatening "war with England;" men who, like frogs in the spring just escaping from their winter of obscurity, for their own purposes, made a great deal of noise with very little sense. The intrinsic difficulty of the case was very small. England made large pretensions; so did we; both desiring a wide margin of oscillation before they settled down on a permanent boundary. But England was pacific, though firm, and not foolish enough to wish to fight with one whose peace was so profitable. A war between England and America is, on each side, a quarrel with a good customer. That is the mercantile aspect of the case. An administra

tion which should seek honestly to settle the Oregon question would find no difficulty; had Mr Webster remained a year more in the cabinet, we doubt not this affair, also, would have been amicably settled, and the country saved a good deal of wind.

Affairs certainly looked threatening in the neighbourhood of Mexico; there were troubles past, present, and to come. Americans had excited the revolution in Texas; fought her battles, and fomented her intrigues. Texas had just been annexed, or, as the phrase originally was, re-annexed. Texas and Mexico had been long at war; though not actively fighting at the time of annexation, the war was not ended. We took Texas with a defective title, subject to the claims of Mexico. If she did not prosecute those claims it was because she was too feeble, not that she had relinquished them. That was not all-we had insulted Mexico, and deeply injured her; not by accident, but with our eyes open, and of set purpose. We had wronged Mexico deeply, and then added new insults to old injuries. What made our

conduct worse, was the fact that we were powerful and Mexico defenceless. The motive which lay at the bottom of all makes this accumulated baseness still more detestable; it was done to establish a bulwark for American slavery. We have on a former occasion spoken of the origin of the Mexican war,* but will now add a few words respecting the scheme of annexation. In 1803, Mr Jefferson purchased Louisiana of France, a vast territory west of the Mississippi, for 15,000,000 dols. He thought he transgressed the Constitution in doing so, and expected an "act of indemnity" by the people, to justify the deed.† The Senate thought otherwise. Slavery was already established in Louisiana. In 1812, the present state of Louisiana was admitted to the Union with a constitution authorizing slavery. In 1820, a new state was formed from what had been the more northern portion of Louisiana. Should it be a slave state, or free? That was the question. The South, "on principle," favoured slavery; the North, 66 principle," opposed it. But both parties. laid aside their "principles" and made a compromise, such as Mr Clay and Mr Clayton so much admire. Slavery was allowed only south of Mason and Dixon's line, 36° 40′ of north latitude. This was the famous "Missouri Compromise." But only a small part of Missouri lay south of the line. All the new territory, therefore, could make only two Slave States, Louisiana and Arkansas. In 1836, Arkansas was admitted into the Union. Florida territory alone remained to be made into Slave States. Thus the territorial extension of the slave power was at an end, while vast regions were left into which the stream of Northern enterprise continually poured itself; the North rapidly increased in numbers, in wealth, and in the political power which wealth and numbers give; the rapid rise of new states was to the South a fearful proof of this. The North has always been eminently industrial, particularly eminent in the higher modes of industry, work that demands the intelligent head. The South has always been deficient in industry, especially in the higher modes of industry. The North has an abundance of skilled labour; the South chiefly brute labour. This industrial condition of * See the Massachusett's Quarterly Review, No. I, Article I. † See his Message of Oct. 17th, 1803, and his letter to Mr Breckenridge.

the South is almost wholly to be ascribed to the institution of slavery, though perhaps something must be allowed for the climate, and something for the inferior character and motives of the original colonists who settled that part of the country. But while the North is industrial, the South is political; as the North sends its ablest men to trade, so the South to politics. The race for public welfare and political power was to be run by those two competitors, "not without dust and heat." After the Revolution, the opposite characteristics of the North and South appeared more prominently than before. The North increased rapidly in numbers, and outpeopled the South. The Revolution itself showed the comparative military power of the "Southern chivalry" and the hardy industry of the North.* After the adoption of the federal constitution, the North increased with still greater rapidity, and began to show a decided superiority to the South. This is partly the result of the industry of the North; but in part the result of our navigation laws, which gave American bottoms a great national privilege. Most of the ships belonged, as they still do, to the North; they were the fruits of her industry. Did the Constitution guarantee slavery to the South, it protected the ships of the North. The South got a political advantage, and the North a commercial privilege, whose value in dollars has been greater than that of all the slaves in the United States. In all contests about money, the North carries it over the South; in all contests for immediate political power the South over the North.

Some thirty years later, the nation changed its policy. It had taken pains to encourage commerce, and had a revenue tariff. Now it took pains to restrict trade, and

*

"Let us compare a Slave State and a free one, of about equal population. In 1790, South Carolina contained 249,073 persons; Connecticut 238, 141. Supposing the population, during the war, only two-thirds as great as in 1790, then South Carolina contained 166,018 and Connecticut 158,760 persons. During the nine years of the war, South Carolina sent 6417 soldiers to the continental army, and Connecticut 32,039. In 1790, Massachusetts contained 475,257 souls; during the Revolution, according to the above ratio, 316,838. While the six Slave States, with their free population of 1,307,549, furnished but 59,336 soldiers for the continental army, and 10,123 militia men. Massachusetts alone sent 68,007 soldiers to the continental army and 15,155 militia. THUS shoulder to shoulder Massachusetts and South Carolina went through the Revolution, and felt the great arm of Washington lean on them both for support."-Letter to the people of the United States touching the Matter of Slavery, pp. 99, 100.

established a protective tariff; so the North engaged in manufactures to a greater degree than before. The South could not do this: the slaves were too ignorant, and must remain so as long as they are slaves, otherwise they could not be kept together in the large masses which manufacturing purposes require; the whites were too indolent and too proud. The South continued to increase constantly in numbers and in wealth, but compared with the North, she did not increase. In America political power is the resultant of wealth and numbers; it soon became plain that the political centre of gravity was travelling northwards continually, and with such swiftness that the South before long would lose the monopoly of the Government, which she had long enjoyed by reason of her political character, and which the North cared little for so long as money could be made without it. The prosperity of the North rests on an industrial basis, that of the South on a political basis.

So the South must contrive to outweigh the North. How? Not by industry, which creates wealth directly, and indirectly multiplies men, but by politics. The North works after its kind, and is satisfied with the possession of commerce and manufactures; the South, after its kind, rejoices in Slavery, and thinks to outwit the laws of nature by a little juggling in politics. Behold the results. To balance the North, the South must have new Slave States to give her power in the federal government. New territory must be got to make them of.

It had once been a

Texas lay there conveniently near. part of Lousiana, as far west as the Nueces. In 1819, James Long went from Natchez in Louisiana to Nacogdoches in Texas, and, on the 23rd of June, declared the independence of the republic of Texas.* About two years later, Mr Austin and his colony went thither from Mississippi, carrying their slaves with them. In 1826, another insurrection took place, under Benjamin W. Edwards, and another declaration of independence followed. At that time the American government did not interfere nor much covet the territory. Texas was a convenient neighbour, and not a dangerous one; slaveholders could migrate thither with their slaves. But in 1824, the Mexicans forbad * Speech of Hon. Luther Severance in the House of Representatives, February 4th, 1847, p. 12.

VOL. X.-Critical Writings, 2.

11

the introduction of slaves, and declared all free soon as they were born; Mexico refused to surrender up fugitive slaves. In 1827, Texas and Coahuila were united into one State with a constitution which allowed no new slaves, born or brought thither, and in 1829 Mexico emancipated all her slaves.

[ocr errors]

His

Soon as Mexico made advances toward emancipation, the American government began to covet Texas.* In 1827, under the administration of Mr Adams, an attempt was made to purchase Texas; 1,000,000 dols. were offered. In 1829, Mr Benton desired "the retrocession." reasons are instructive :-we have now a non-slaveholding empire in juxtaposition with the slaveholding Southwest;" and "five or six new slaveholding States may be added to the Union." Yes, "nine States as large as Kentucky." A Charleston newspaper desired it because "it would have a favourable influence on the future destinies of the South, by increasing the votes of the slaveholding States in the United States Senate."+ In 1829, in a Virginia convention, Judge Upshur said, the annexation of Texas "would raise the price of slaves, and be of great advantage to the slaveholders of that State;" in 1832, Mr Gholson, in the Virginia Legislature, thought "it would raise the price of slaves fifty per cent. at least." To sharpen the public appetite for Texas, in 1829 the cry was raised that England wanted Texas; British merchants had offered to loan Mexico 5,000,000 dols. if she would place Texas under British protection." This trick was frequently resorted to, but now it is plain to the public that the apprehension was groundless. The same year, the first of Gen. Jackson's administration, our minister offered 5,000,000 dols. for Texas; the offer was rejected. He then offered a loan of 10,000,000 dols., taking Texas as collateral security; that, also, was rejected. He tried also, but in vain, to obtain a treaty for the surrender of fugitive slaves.t

"

This subject has been ably treated by Judge Jay, in his "Review of the Causes and. Consequences of the Mexican War." (Boston. 1849. 12mo, p. 333.) We are indebted to it for several facts. Mr Porter, in his "Review of the Mexican War," &c., &c. (Auburn, N. Y. 1849. 12mo, p. 220), takes a different view, but writes an impartial and valuable book.

† Jay, page 13.

Executive Documents, No. 25, 19th Congress, 2nd Session; also No. 23.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »