Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

stood where they left it, it would have remained unsettled at this moment. But it was settled. The discussions in Congress, the discussions on the other side of the water, the general sense of the community, all protested against the iniquity of two of the greatest nations of modern times rushing into war and shedding Christian blood in such a controversy. All enforced the conviction, that it was a question to be settled by an equitable and fair consideration, and it was thus settled. And that being settled, there is only one other topic connected with this subject upon which I will detain you with any remarks. I would not do this, if I did not think the honor of the country somewhat concerned, and if I did not desire to express my own dissatisfaction with the course of the administration.

What I refer to is the repeated refusal, on the part of the ad ministration, to submit this question to honorable, fair arbitration. After the United States government had withdrawn all its offers, and the case stood open, the British Minister at Washington, by order of his government, offered arbitration. On the 27th of December, 1845, Mr. Packenham wrote to Mr. Buchanan as follows, viz.: —

"An attentive consideration of the present state of affairs, with reference to the Oregon question, has determined the British government to instruct the undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's Envoy, &c., again to represent, in pressing terms, to the government of the United States, the expediency of referring the whole question of an equitable division of that territory to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state.

"Her Majesty's government deeply regret the failure of all their efforts to effect a friendly settlement of the conflicting claims, by direct negotiation between the two governments.

"They are still persuaded that great advantages would have resulted to both parties from such a mode of settlement, had it been practicable; but there are difficulties now in the way in that course of proceeding, which it might be tedious to remove, while the importance of an early settlement seems to become, at each moment, more urgent.

"Under these circumstances, her Majesty's government think that a resort to arbitration is the most prudent, and perhaps the only feasible step which could be taken, and the best calculated to allay the existing effervescence of popular feeling," &c.

To this Mr. Buchanan replied, on the 3d of January, 1846,

that

"This proposition assumes the fact, that the title of Great Britain to a portion of the territory is valid, and thus takes for granted the very question in dispute. Under this proposition, the very terms of the submission would contain an express acknowledgment of the right of Great Britain to a portion of the territory, and would necessarily preclude the United States from claiming the whole, before the arbitration, and this too in the face of the President's assertion of the 30th of August, 1845, made in the most solemn manner, of the title of the United States to the whole territory. This alone would be deemed sufficient reason for declining the proposition."

To remove this difficulty, Mr. Packenham, on the 16th of January, 1846, addressed Mr. Buchanan, to inquire "whether, supposing the British government to entertain no objection to such a course, it would suit the views of the United States government to refer to arbitration, not (as has already been proposed), the question of an equitable partition of the territory, but the question of title in either of the two powers to the whole territory; subject, of course, to the condition, that, if neither should be found, in the opinion of the arbitrator, to possess a complete title to the whole territory, there should, in that case, be assigned to each that portion which would, in the opinion of the arbitrating power, be called for by a just appreciation of the respective claims of each."

Mr. Packenham proposed a reference to some friendly sovereign or state, or "to a mixed commission with an umpire appointed by common consent; or, to a board composed of the most distinguished civilians and jurists of the time, appointed in such a manner as shall bring all pending questions to the decision of the most enlightened, impartial, and independent minds."

This proposition, also, Mr. Buchanan, in a note of the 4th of February, declines; and for thus refusing it, he says one reason was alone conclusive on the mind of the President, and that was, "that he does not believe the territorial rights of this nation to be a proper subject of arbitration."

Now, Sir, how is this? What sort of new doctrine is here advanced? I take it, that every question of boundary is a question of territory, and that from the origin of our government, from General Washington's time, under all successive administrations, down to the present time, we have been in the habit of

referring questions of boundary to arbitration. The matters in dispute with England, in General Washington's time, were referred to arbitration. Each government appointed two commissioners; these four were to agree upon a fifth, or if they could not agree, he was to be selected by lot, and the government remains bound by their doings from that day to this. This reference of disputed boundaries to some form of arbitration has received the sanction of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Van Buren, and has always been sanctioned by the Senate and House of Representatives and people. Now comes President Polk and says that no question of territory ought to be referred to any arbitration whatever, however constituted. Well, what does this lead to? How are disputes between different governments to be settled? Consider the infirmity of human nature. Two governments, like two men, do not see their respective rights in the same light. Is there no way to adjust this dispute, but to draw the sword? Who does not see that this doctrine leads directly to the assertion of the right of the strongest? Why, let us suppose a question of boundary between Russia and Sweden. There is a dispute about a boundary, or about national territory, which is the same thing. The parties cannot agree. His Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, holds his right to the disputed territory to be clear and unquestionable. Sweden doubts it, she argues the question, she puts forth her own claim. But the Emperor is an inflexible fifty-four forty man, and still insists that his right is clear and unquestionable. Sweden then proposes arbitration, either to some friendly sovereign, or to a board of intelligent, independent, and distinguished private individuals. She offers to bring the matter, for decision, before the most enlightened minds of the times. But his Majesty is of opinion, that a question of territory is not to be made the subject of arbitration. And what then remains to the weaker power, but submission or hopeless war?

Do not all perceive, that sentiments like these lead only to establish the right of the strongest? that they withdraw public questions between nations from all the jurisdiction of justice, and all the authority of right, from the control of enlightened opinion and the general judgment of mankind, and leave them entirely to the decision of the longest sword? I do not think 28

VOL. II.

this correspondence has raised the character of the United States in the estimation of the civilized world. Its spirit does not partake of the general spirit of the age. It is at war with that spirit, as much as it is at war with all our own history, from 1789 to the present day. The sense of modern times, the law of humanity, the honor of civilized states, and the authority of religion, all require that controversies of this sort, which cannot be adjusted by the parties themselves, should be referred to the decision of some intelligent and impartial tribunal. And now that none can doubt our ability and power to defend and maintain our own rights, I wish that there should be as little doubt of our justice and moderation.

The remaining topic, and it is one of vast interest, connected with our foreign relations, is the present war with Mexico. As that is an existing war, and as what we all say, in or out of Congress, will of course be heard or read, if thought worthy of being read, in Mexico, as well as in the United States, I wish, for one, to speak with caution and care, as well as with candor, in every thing respecting it. Nevertheless, there are some opinions connected with the history of this case which I sincerely entertain, and which I must avow. Allow me, therefore, to go back and bring up in short the history of the whole case. Texas achieved her independence of Mexico unexpectedly, by bravery and good fortune, displayed and obtained in a single battle. Texas threw off the dominion of Mexico, and for many years maintained a government of her own. Her independence was acknowledged by the government of this country, and by the governments of Europe. Mexico, nevertheless, did not acknowledge the independence of Texas. She made no effort, however, to re-subjugate or re-annex the territory to herself. Affairs remained in this condition for many years.

Here I am reminded of a very strange state of diplomatic things which existed in Washington, not long ago, growing out of these successive revolutions which have taken place in the world during the last thirty or forty years. There was at Washington a representative of Texas, but Texas was not acknowledged by Mexico. There was a representative of Mexico, but Mexico was not recognized by Old Spain. There was a minister from Old Spain; but the present dynasty of Spain was not recognized by Russia; and there was a minister of Russia,

who, in common with all the other ministers alluded to, was recognized by the government of the United States.

I am not about to go into a history of the annexation of Texas. I do not wish to revert to that matter. I have to say, however, that, according to my view of the case, the objections which were urged, and properly urged, against the annexation of Texas, had no great relation to any claim of Mexico. They were, first, that the annexation of Texas was not a fair exercise of constitutional power. I thought so, and others thought so, but a 'majority in the counsels of the country overruled the objection. Secondly, it was thought that we had already territory enough, and that there was some degree of danger in extending our territory further than it was already extended. But in the third place, and this was insurmountable in my judgment, it was an objection that the annexation of Texas was to bring under the control of our government, and make part of this Union, a country which was then free from slavery, but into which, when annexed, slavery and slave representation would be introduced. That objection was insurmountable in my mind, and would be so at all times, under all circumstances, and in all like cases. In the fourth place, it was evident, and so was urged in Congress again and again, that the annexation of Texas might lead to a war with Mexico. These are the four grounds upon which the annexation of Texas was opposed by those who did oppose it..

Now, Gentlemen, there is not a man in the country who thinks less respectfully than I do of the Mexican government. Unhappy, unfortunate, miserable Mexico has nothing, and for a long time has had nothing, that deserves to be called a government. When she broke off the yoke of Spain, and proclaimed herself disposed to follow the example of the United States, and uttered the name of Washington with respect; when she professed to cherish free principles, a representative government, trial by jury, and security of personal property; why, we all hailed her, and wished her well. But unfortunately the result has been, that she has had no true constitutional government; has had no government under the influence of representative principles. All her presidents from time to time have been men created through the pronunciamentos of the military. A fortunate general of to-day supersedes him who was fortunate yester

« ПредишнаНапред »