Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

We cannot. Our pen falls to the ground; our lips are silent; eloquence were folly, genius impotence, in such a work. We pass away from that theme.

"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light

To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish

Is wasteful and ridiculous excess."

What has been the conduct of the famous men of America? Great Statesmen are the mountains of the world which earliest show the dawn and latest hold the lingering rays of the departing sun; foremost prophets of the day when morning promises to come; most conservative of light when darkness shrouds the vulgar plains. But great Politicians are but the steeples of America, whose topmost summit bears-a weather-cock. There are, in America, amongst her children, four famous men. We shall not now discuss their general merits, nor attempt to decide whether they are politicians who interpret the interests of a party, or statesmen that incarnate principles in a nation's life. These four tower far above the vulgar mass that drive a thriving trade in politics; are most conspicuous men-beheld far off at sea. They have been long in public life, and all four may be deemed competitors for the chair of the President. What has been their conduct? Mr. Benton spoke nobly against annexation, and-voted for it. Voted also for the war. Mr. Calhoun,so oftne superior to party ties, is the author of annexation, and voted for the war. These two belong to the party in power, and men might have looked for their allegiance. The two others are hostile to the administration: have they been hostile to the war? Mr. Clay is a private man- and therefore has not been called on to take any official stand in relation to this matter. But in December, 1846, at the celebration of a memorable event in the history of America, he was toasted at table, and made a reply, which was thus reported in the newspapers of the time. Although leading a life of retirement, I am not wholly unobservant of the proceedings relating to the condition, welfare, and prospects of our country. And when I saw around me to-night, Gen. Brooke, and other old friends, I felt half inclined to ask for some nook or corner in the army, in which I might serve, to avenge the wrongs done to my country. I have thought that I might yet be able to capture or

66

slay a Mexican. I shall not be able to do so, however, this year, but hope that success will still crown our gallant arms, and the war terminate in an honorable peace." To add yet more to the shame of America, this speech was delivered at the dinner of the Sons of New England, on the 22d of December, met to celebrate the landing of the Forefathers of New England on Plymouth rock. Poor men! in that puritanic blood of theirs was there no tinge from the heart of the Pilgrims? Could they not, on that day, amid the feasting, the wine, and the revelry, amid the politicians, and the generals, and the great applause," could they not for a moment think of those outcasts of the world who came in the name of Justice to found a state? Oh, no. How could they think of that? There stood one of the foremost men of America, hoping to "capture or slay a Mexican!" the son of some woman that never injured him-who might go down, heart-broken and refusing to be comforted, in sorrow to her grave. Alas-could he have known it- vain man, how soon is he doomed to weep at the "inscrutable Providence," by which his own son, the dear one, lies slain, in battle-not slain by a great statesman, but by some vulgar bullet of a nameless soldier, who fought for his country, her altars, and her homes, while the American volunteer fell inglorious and disgraced, a willing murderer, in that war so treacherous and so cruel. The father who had hoped to "slay a Mexican," shall find but sad consolation kissing the cold lips of his only son. Is Providence so "inscrutable?" He who would deal death upon the sons of other men-shall he not feel it in his own home?

But the great champion of the north, that man of giant intellect which dwarfs his three competitors to littleness, himself perhaps unequalled among living men in magnificence of understanding-he has stood on Plymouth Rock, and his words which found a footing there have gone as pilgrims to be forefathers of mighty deeds- at least in humbler men! How broke the thunders of that unequalled eloquence, which so oft before had shaken every heart? Did he thunder in the Senate, and lighten all over the land till wondering nations saw it from afar? Let us look at this. He had condemned annexation. "It struck a blow at the influence of our institutions. . . . Thank God I did not slumber over that danger." He had condemned the war; it was "illegal," unconstitutional, unjust; "a war of pretexts," "a presidential war;" the President's action was "an impeachable offence;" the Mexicans were

[blocks in formation]

weak, distracted, the prey of military tyrants. She has had nothing that deserved to be called a government;" and America is strong and united. In making war, the President had "very much nullified an important provision of the constitution." Yet Mr. Webster could say, at Philadelphia, Dec. 2d, 1846,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Nevertheless, war is upon us, armies are in the field, navies are upon the sea. We believe that the government ought immediately, in an honorable and satisfactory manner, to bring the war to a conclusion, if possible. . . . But while the war lasts, [this unjust and unconstitutional war,] while soldiers are on the land, and seamen on the sea, upholding the flag of our country, you feel, and I feel, and every American feels, that they must be succoured and sustained. They have done honor to the country to which they belong. . . Where can we look for such steadiness, calmness, bravery, and modesty, as in these volunteers! The most distinguished incident in the history of our country — of the good conduct of the militia-of new raised levies from amongst the people, is, perhaps, that of the battle of Bunker Hill... I might go further and say, that at Bunker Hill the newly raised levies and recruits sheltered themselves behind some temporary defences, but at Monterey the volunteers assailed a fortified city."

[ocr errors]

Nor was that all; but the day before, addressing a body of volunteers, misguided young men who probably had never considered the justice of the war, nor asked whether they were to fight for slavery or freedom-he could cheer and encourage them to fight in a war which he declared "illegal," and threatened to impeach the President for beginning; could bid them go and uphold the stars of their country's banner!

Such was the conduct of that man on whom nature has lavished so prodigally her gifts—a kingly intellect, a heart of noble make." In the Senate what did he to end the war?-to "impeach" the President? Nothing. So far as opposition to the war is concerned no mouse in the wall could have lain stiller or more snug. All winter he sat in his seat busy -but with other things. The instigators of the invasion passed by and said: "See, Webster is the friend of the war." Had he not a son invested in that enterprise?

Such is the conduct of the four most eminent men of Amer

We have followed the report of this speech in Niles's Register. The language in the Pennsylvania Inquirer is a little more intense.

ica. No one of them opposes the war. Does any one say a good word against it he is sure to eat that word the next day. The war is thought "glorious," and called "patriotic;" men are bid to fight the war of their country, "right or wrong." How few remember that to fight on the wrong side is to fight against the country. The "glory" of the enter prise, what does it amount to? Why, if the United States were to conquer all Mexico, viewed as a military exploit the glory of the deed would be nothing. As well might the Horseguards at London claim glory because they had chased a crowd of women from Billingsgate, and driven them up Ludgate hill. We make no doubt, that a private company for the conquest of Mexico might be got up in Boston, which in two years' time would conquer the whole of that country, and keep it-perhaps for ever. The glory which twenty millions of Anglo-Saxons" are likely to get from conquering the miserable population of Mexico is glory in the wrong column, even when looked at merely with the unscrupulous eyes of a soldier. It seems surprising all men cannot see that such a glory is only a shame. One day the people must awaken. Justice will at last hold a stern reckoning with the memories of our famous men.

66

But what is the real cause which lay at the bottom of the national design, produced annexation, and made and prosecutes the war for the partition of Mexico? There is a power behind the constitution, but greater than the constitution itself, rising above and projecting beyond it; yes, greater than Congress — overshadowing the "unalienable rights" of man; we mean the institution of domestic slavery. Despotic monarchs of the old world are too liberal and enlightened to allow it any longer in their domain. It is cleared off from the soil of western Europe. The Bey of Tunis solemnly says to the world, "It is a very cruel thing, and our heart shrinks from it." abolished men's slavery in all our dominions." that shall touch our territory shall become free." ico, weak, semibarbarous Mexico, will have no slaves on her soil. But in democratic America it has found an asylum, a home. The egg was laid surreptitiously in the nest of the American Eagle, who now loves its ghastly and hideous disclosure better than all her legitimate brood, whose food that young cormorant devours apace, defiling what is not destroyed. The American Eagle broods over this Harpy with fond delight,

"We have "All slaves

Even Mex

caressing it with beak and wing. For that she plunders the living and tears the dead-slain for its insatiate craw.

The constitution of the United States in spirit and letter defends slavery; the laws are on its side. There is not a state in the Union which dares say with that Mohammedan prince-"All slaves that touch our territory shall become free." Neither political party is opposed to it; both favor, both love it-now with open ardor, now with longings in secret. A resolution refusing to extend the area of slavery is consistently hissed down at a convention of political democrats in the heart of Massachusetts. Scarce a prominent man in the whig party is prominently opposed to this. The great politicians who reach to the upper currents of the popular air all point that way; the little politicians whose stature does not exceed the range of gusts and eddies in the street, tell mainly the same tale. Certainly the politicians of America- the large dealers and the little hucksters of politics are its friends. They oppose it; how could they? With here and there an exception, the American churches are also on its side, and can quote scripture for their purpose, defending it in the name of God. "Southern chivalry," with its boasting tone, and the "morality of the north," with its cringing gait, are united in its defence. The press supports it, the newspapers, with their thin but continuous talk, and the grave, sober literature, an imitation of English models in all besides-is American only in its support of slavery! It is this which annexed Texas, this which began the war.

Slavery is the idol of America. Men of ablest intellectwho differ on most other matters of national concern-agree in defence of this. But its subtlest apology-as of all evil -is in the name of God. "No man," said Mr. Simms, of South Carolina, in his speech in Congress, "No man who reads his Bible and who is a Christian, can denounce

slavery as immoral. . . . The very first steps taken by the French encyclopedists for overthrowing the authority of the Bible was to publish to the world... that slavery was wrong in principle, and then that the Bible was the advocate of slavery." "It is founded on the laws of God, written in the climate and soil of the country." "It is your inferior clergy," says an able writer, a "northern man with southern citizenship,' that are teaching. . . that slavery is contrary

*See letters in the New York Courier and Enquirer to Hon. George P. Marsh, by "a northern man with southern citizenship."

« AnkstesnisTęsti »