32D CONG.....2D SESS.

Mr. SEWARD. I have some remarks to submit upon this question; and I will, therefore, as the usual hour of adjournment has arrived, and as the Senate may not desire to sit longer, move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. DIXON. I hope the Senator will withdraw that motion for a moment.

Mr. SEWARD. The honorable Senator from Kentucky gave notice the other day, that he intended to move to refer the resolutions before us to a committee, with instructions. Those instructions I should like to see before I address the Senate. I therefore withdraw my motion and yield the floor to him for the purpose of moving that they be printed.

Mr. DIXON. When this subject was last before the Senate, I gave notice that I should, at the proper time, move to refer the resolutions offered by the Senator from Michigan, and the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with the following instructions, which I now present to the Senate. "First. That the said committee be instructed to examine the treaty concluded at Washington, on the 4th day of July, 1850, between her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, by her Minister Plenipotentiary, Sir Henry L. Bulwer, and the Government of the United States, by John M. Clayton, Secretary of State; and ascertain whether the Government of Great Britain, since the ratification of said treaty, has violated any of the provisions thereof, by the establishment of any colonial government, the construction of fortifications in Central America, or otherwise; and that they report the facts in connection therewith; and if, in their opinion, there has been any violation of said treaty, that they may make further report, by resolution, of such measures as they may deem necessary to enforce a faithful observance of the stipulations of said treaty, and preserve the honor and interest of the country.

"Second. That said committee inquire and report whether or not the establishment in the Bay of Honduras, by the Government of Great Britain, of the colony called the Bay of Islands,' is or is not a violation of the provisions of the said treaty, or of the doctrines of Mr. Monroe, as pro

claimed in his message of the second of December, 1823, on the establishment of colonies on this continent by Eu ropean Powers: and if it shall appear that the rights of the United States have been invaded, by either a disregard of the provisions of the said treaty, or of the doctrines proclaimed by Mr. Monroe in his message aforesaid, that they report the facts to the Senate, together with such measures as, in their judginent, may be deemed necessary to vindicate the honor of the country.

"Third. That said committee inquire whether the seizure by the French Government of the peninsula of Samaná, in the Republic of Dominica, is or is not a violation of the same great principle proclaimed, as aforesaid, in the message of Mr. Monroe, and if so, what action is necessary on the part of this Government to protect itself against such encroachments on its rights."

Mr. SEWARD. I hope they will be printed. Mr. DIXON. I move that they be printed. The motion was agreed to.

WEDNESDAY, January 26, 1853. The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution.

The pending question being on the motion of Mr. DIXON to refer the resolution and the amendment of Mr. HALE to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with certain instructions.

Mr. SEWARD said: Mr. President, on the 23d day of February, 1848, John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, who had completed a circle of public service filling fifty years, beginning with an inferior diplomatic function, passing through the Chief Magistracy, and fitly closing with the trust of a Representative in Congress, departed from the earth, certainly respected by mankind, and, if all posthumous honors are not insincere and false, deplored by his countrymen.

On a fair and cloudless day in the month of June, 1850, when the loud and deep voice of wailing had just died away in the land, the Senator from Michigan, of New England born, and by New England reared, the leader of a great party, not only here, but in the whole country, rose in the Senate Chamber, and after complaining that a member of the family of that great statesman of the East, instead of going backwards with a garment to cover his infirmities, had revealed them

by the Federal compact the slaveholding class had obtained, and that they had exercised, a controlling influence in the government of the country. Placing these extracts by the side of passages taken from the Farewell Address of Washington, the Senator from Michigan said:

"He is unworthy the name of an American who does not feel at his heart's core the difference between the lofty patriotism and noble sentiments of one of these documents, and; but I will not say what the occasion would just ify. I will only say, and that is enough, the other, for it is another." "It cannot, nor will it, nor should it escape the censure of an age like this." Better that it had been entombed, like the ancient Egyptian records, till its language was lost, than thus to have been exposed to the light of day."

*

* *

*

The Senator then proceeded to set forth by contrast his own greater justice and generosity to the southern States, and his own higher fidelity to the

Union. This was in the Senate of the United States. And yet no one rose to vindicate the memory of John Quincy Adams, or to express an emotion even of surprise, or of regret, that it had been thought necessary thus to invade the sanctity of the honored grave where the illustrious statesman who had so recently passed the gates of death was sleeping. I was not of New England, by residence, education, or descent, and there were reasons enough, why I should then endure in silence a pain that I shared with so many of my countrymen. But I then determined, that when the tempest of popular passion that was raging in the country, should have passed by, I would claim a hearing here, not to defend or vindicate the sentiments which the Senator from Michigan had, thus severely censured-for Mr. Adams himself had referred them, together with all his actions and opinions concerning slavery, not to this tribunal, or even to the present time, but to that after age which gathers and records the impartial and ultimate judgment of mankind-but to show how just and generous he had been in his public career towards all the members of this Confederacy, and how devoted to the union of the States, and to the aggrandizement of this Republic. I am thankful that the necessity for performing that duty has passed by, and that the statesman of Quincy has, earlier than I hoped, received his vindication, and has received it, too, at the hands of him from whom it was justly due-the acouser himself. I regret only this-that the vindication was not as generously as it was effectually made.

There are two propositions arising out of our interests in and around the Gulf of Mexico, which are admitted by all our statesmen. One of them is, that the safety of the southern States requires a watchful jealousy of the presence of European Powers in the southern portions of the North American continent; and the other is, that the tendency of States to assume and exercise a paramount influ commercial and political events invites the United

ence in the affairs of the nations situated in this hemisphere: that is, to become and remain a great western continental Power, balancing itself against the possible combinations of Europe. The advance of the country towards that position constitutes what, in the language of many, is called

66

progress;' " and the position itself is what, by the same class, is called "manifest destiny. ." It is held by all who approve that progress and expect that destiny, to be necessary to prevent the recolonization of this continent by the European States, and to save the Island of Cuba from passing out of the possession of decayed Spain, into that of any one of the more vigorous maritime Powers of the Old World.

In December, 1823, James Monroe, President of the United States, in his annual message to Congress, proclaimed the first of these two policies substantially as follows:

"The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power; and while existing rights should be respected, the safety and interest of the United States require them to announce that no future colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established in any part of the North American continent."

This is what is called, here and elsewhere, the Monroe doctrine, so far as it involves recoloni

zation.

John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun

SENATE.

were then members, chief members, of Monroe's administration. John Quincy Adams afterwards acknowledged that he was the author of that doctrine or policy; and John C. Calhoun, on the 15th of May, 1848, in the Senate, testified on that point fully. A Senator had related an alleged conversation, in which Mr. Adams was represented as having said that three memorable propositions contained in that message, of which what I have quoted was one, had originated with himself. Mr. Calhoun replied, that Mr. Adams, if he had so stated, must have referred to only the one proposition concerning recolonization, (the one now in question,) and then added as follows:

*

"As respects that, his (Mr. Adams's) memory does not differ from mine." "It originated entirely with Mr. Adams."-App. Cong. Globe, 1847-8, p. 631. Thus much for the origin of the Monroe doctrine on colonization. Now, let us turn to the position of John Quincy Adams, concerning national jealousy of the designs of European Powers upon the Island of Cuba. The recent revelations of our diplomacy on that subject begin with the period when that statesman presided in the Department of State. On the 17th of December, 1822, Mr. Adams informed Mr. Forsyth, then American Minister in Spain, that "the Island of Cuba had excited much American Union;" and referring to reported rival attention, and had become of deep interest to the designs of France and Great Britain upon that island, instructed him to make known to Spain "the sentiments of the United States, which were favorable to the continuance of Cuba in its connection with Spain." On the 28th of April, 1823, Mr. Adams thus instructed Mr. Nelson, the successor of Mr. Forsyth:

"The Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico still remain, nom inally, and so far really dependent on Spain, that she yet possesses the power of transferring her own dominion over them to others. These islands, from their local position, are natural appendages to the North American continent; and one of them, Cuba, almost in sight of our shores, from a multitude of considerations, has become an object of tran scendent importance to the commercial and political interests of our Union. Its commanding position, with reference to the Gulf of Mexico and the West India seas; the character of its population; its situation midway between our southern coast and the Island of St. Domingo; its safe and capacious harbor of the Havana, fronting a long line of our shores destitute of the same advantage; the nature of its productions and of its wants, furnishing the supplies and needing the returns of a commerce immensely profitable and mutually beneficial-give it an importance in the sum of our national interests with which that of no other foreign territory can be compared, and little inferior to that which binds the different members of this Union together. Such, indeed, are, between the interests of that island and of this country, the geographical, commercial, moral, and political relations, forined by nature, gathering in the process of time, and even now verging to maturity, that, in looking forward to the probable course of events, for the short period of half a century, it is scarcely possible to resist the conviction that the annexation of Cuba to our Federal Republic will be indispensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself. It is obvious, however, that for this event we are not yet prepared. Numerous and formidable objections to the extension of our territorial dominions beyond sea, present themselves to the first contemplation of the subject; obstacles to the system of policy by which alone that result can be compassed and maintained, are to be foreseen and surmounted, both from at home and abroad; but there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjointed from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which, by the same law of nature, cannot cast her off from its bosom.

"It will be among the primary objects requiring your most earnest and unremitting attention, to ascertain and report to us every movement of negotiation between Spain and Great Britain upon this subject." * *

long as the constitutional Government may continue to be administered in the name of the king, your official intercourse will be with his Ministers, and to them you will repeat what Mr. Forsyth has been instructed to say, that the wishes of your Government are, that Cuba and Porto Rico may continue in connection with independent and constitutional Spain."

Thirty years afterwards, viz: on the 4th day of January, 1853, the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] without one word of acknowledgment of Mr. Adams's agency in instituting those measures of "progress "towards the "manifest destiny of the country, submitted the resolutions which are under consideration, and which are in these words:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States do hereby declare that the Ameri 'can continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth 'not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power;' and while existing rights should

32D CONG....2D Sess.

be respected,' and will be by the United States, they owe it to their own safety and interests to announce, as they now do, that no future European colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established on any part of the North American continent;' and should the attempt be made, they thus deliberately declare that it will be viewed as an act originating in motives regardless of their interests and their safety," and which will leave them free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and its honor.

"And be it further resolved, That while the United States disclaim any designs upon the Island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known, in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that island, which, as a naval or military position, might, under circumstances easy to be foreseen. become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts directed against thein, to be resisted by all the means in their power."

In bringing together these actions of John Quincy Adams in 1822, and of the Senator from Michigan in 1853, and placing them in juxtaposition in the history of the Senate, I have done all that the Senator from Michigan seems to have left undone, to vindicate the departed statesman from the censures heaped upon him by the living one in 1850. I proceed to consider the resolutions thus offered by the Senator from Michigan.

The honorable Senator from New Hampshire offers an amendment, as a condition of his vote, in

these words:

"And be it further resolved, That while the United States, in like manner, disclaim any designs upon Canada inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties to Great Britain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known, in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, either peaceably or forcibly, of that Province, (which, as a naval or military position, must, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their northern boundary, and to the lakes,) as unfriendly acts directed against them, to be resisted by all the means in their power."

I will vote for that amendment. It is not well expressed.

Mr. HALE. Will the honorable Senator allow me a moment? I am glad that my amendment meets his concurrence and will secure his vote; but as to the question of taste, I desire to say that it is copied word for word from the second resolution of the honorable Senator from Michigan, only striking out" Cuba" where it occurs, and inserting "Canada," and striking out "Spain" and inserting "Great Britain." I am, therefore, responsible for the policy involved in my amendment; but the question of taste belongs to the honorable Senator from Michigan. [Laughter.] Mr. SEWARD. It is quite immaterial shall vote for it any how. It implies the same policy in regard to Canada_which the main resolutions assert concerning Cuba. The colonies, when they confederated in 1775, invited Canada to come in. Montgomery gave up his life in scaling the Heights of Abraham, in the same year, to bring her in. Scott, in 1814, poured out his blood at Chippewa to bring her in. If the proposition shall fail, I shall lament it as a repudiation by the Senate, of a greater national interest than any other distinct one involved in this debate; but I shall, nevertheless, vote for the resolutions of the Senator from Michigan. I shall do so, be

cause

1st. The reverence I cherish for the memory of John Quincy Adams, the illustrious author of the policy which they embody, inclines me to support them.

24. While I do not desire the immediate or early annexation of Cuba, nor see how I could vote for it at all until slavery shall have ceased to counteract the workings of nature in that beautiful island, nor even then, unless it could come into the Union without injustice to Spain, without aggressive war, and without producing internal dissensions among ourselves, I nevertheless yield up my full assent to the convictions expressed by John Quincy Adams, that this nation can never safely allow the Island of Cuba to pass under the domínion of any Power that is already, or can become, a formidable rival or enemy; and cannot safely consent to the restoration of colonial relations between any portions of this continent and the monarchies of Europe.

The reestablishment of such relations would of course reproduce, in a greater or less degree, the commercial and political embarrassments of our

relations with other American communities, and even with European nations, from which we obtained relief only through the war of 1812, and the subsequent emancipation of the Spanish colonies on this continent, and their organization as free and independent Republics. Sir, I am willing, on the demand of the Senator from Michigan, or of any other leader, and without any demand from any leader, to declare myself opposed-radically opposed-opposed at all times, now, henceforth, and forever-opposed, at the risk of all hazards and consequences, to any design of any State or States on this continent, or anywhere else, which may, by possibility, result in reproducing those evils-the greatest which could befall this country, short of that greatest of all, to which they would open the way-the subversion of our own hard-won independence, and the returning dominion of some European Power over ourselves. I shall therefore vote for these resolutions, if it shall please the Senate to come to decisive action upon them, and I shall vote for reaffirming and maintaining the principles of John Quincy Adams, as defined in the Monroe doctrine, and in his policy in regard to Cuba, at all times, and under all circumstances whatsoever.

But while thus expressing my devotion to those principles, I cannot too strongly express myself against the manner in which they have been brought in issue, here on this occasion. The issue is made at a time, and under circumstances, which render it inevitable that we must fail, signally fail, in maintaining the great principles

which it involves.

The issue is raised at a wrong time. We are more than half way through a session constitutionally limited to ninety days, and engaged with vast and various subjects which cannot be disposed of without long and most discursive debate.

I think the issue is raised in a wrong way. Practically, and by custom, the President of the United States holds the initiative of measures affecting foreign relations. The President now in the Executive House will go out in thirty days, and his sanction, even if we had it, would therefore be of no value. But even that sanction, such as it would be, is withheld-and, I must confess, rightly withheld. The people have elected a new President, who is just ready to assume, and upon whom the responsibilities of the conduct of foreign relations, for four years at least, must rest. Not only do we not know what his opinions on this question are, but our action would anticipate the publication of

those opinions, and embarrass-is it too strong an expression to say, factiously embarrass?-the incoming Administration.

Moreover, we are not only required to advance in this matter without the light that Executive exposition might throw upon our path, but we are required to proceed without the aid or advice of the committee to whom the care of foreign relations has been confided by the Senate, and, as there is reason to believe, in opposition to their deliberate judgment.

Again, it results from the very nature of the case that a majority for the resolutions cannot be obtained, either in the Senate, or in the Congress, or in the country.

The principles involved in the resolutions have become a tradition among the American people, and on acknowledged occasions they would act upon them as traditions vigorously and with unanimity. On the other hand, the Americans are a practical people, engrossed with actual business affairs; and they will not act upon abstract principles, however approved, unless there be a necessity, or at least an occasion. So it has happened with the Monroe doctrine on colonization, and with the national policy concerning Cuba. They are thirty years old; they are generally accepted, and yet, not only have they never been affirmed by Congress, but Congress has refused to affirm them, solely for the reason that there was no pressing necessity, no particular occasion, for such an affirmation. Whenever a necessity or an occasion arises, it produces a popular sentiment or passion. The northern States are content now; they do not fear recolonization, and do not want Cuba. The southern States are content; they do not now desire political excitement, and they are not prepared for anything that may involve the nation in war. It is not to be denied, also, that the recent unwise

SENATE.

and unnecessary exposition of our diplomatic correspondence throughout a period of thirty years, concerning the Island of Cuba, is regarded as having created embarrassments which only the lapse of some time can remove.

The Senator from Michigan seems to be aware of these difficulties, and therefore he labors to show that there is a necessity, or at least an occasion for action. But he fails altogether in showing any new occasion-which, to the apprehension of the Senate and country, is equivalent to failing to show any necessity or occasion at all. What are his facts? 1st. In regard to Great Britain and recolonization. The grasping spirit shown by Great Britain in the Maine border question, and in the Oregon question. The Monroe doctrine, as expounded by Monroe himself, declared that existing rights were to be respected-Great Britain asserted that her claims in those cases were existing rights. Those questions have been settled, rightly or wrongly, and have passed away. What more? The British claim on the Mosquito coast. That, also, is settled by treaty. The organization of the Bay of Islands as a distinct colony. That, too, falls within the subject-matter of a treaty. In each of these cases Great Britain has violated treaty stipulations, or she has not. If she has not, then there is no cause for any action; if she has, then the remedy is not an affirmance of the Monroe doctrine, but direct pro

test or war.

I give Great Britain small credit for moderation. I think she has just as much as we have, and no more. We are of the same stock, and have the common passion of a common race for dominion. But the country will be unable to discover that the recent events show any aggressions on her part, which constitute an occasion for an affirmance of the Monroe doctrine by Congress.

And now, secondly, as to Cuba. What has Great Britain done? Nothing but just what we have done. She has sent armed ships to prevent invaders from revolutionizing the island, and so severing it from its ancient connection with Spain. We have done the same. She has also proposed to enter into an agreement with us, that neither will acquire Cuba, or suffer others to acquire it. We have declined. The natural conclusion would be, that she was more forbearing than we. the Senator avoids this by charging that the proposition was insincerely and hypocritically made on her part. British writers were before him in making that charge against us, founded on our voluntary revelations of our own diplomacy in regard to Cuba. I am too American to confess their charge to be just, and not enough American to fling it back upon Great Britain for mere retaliation.

But

What has France done by way of recolonization? Nothing. A French adventurer, Count Boulbon, has attempted to revolutionize the Mexican State of Sonora, and failed. There is not a word of evidence to connect the French Government or people with that movement. And for all that French newspapers here or in Paris may say, we know full well, that just as fast as the Mexican States shall be severed from the Mexican stock, by whomsoever it may be effected, they will seek annexation, not to France or any other European Power, but to the United States. Nor has France interposed, in regard to Cuba, otherwise than as we have ourselves interposed, to keep it in the possession of Spain.

So much for the acts of European Powers on the subjects of colonization and Cuba.

What remains of the Senator's case seems scarcely to merit grave consideration. It consists, first, of ominous articles in newspapers. But even we, the most newspaper-loving nation in the world, make our designs and policy known, not through the newspapers, but by public acts and official agents; and France and Great Britain do the same. The press speaks on all occasions, but for itself always. No wise and calm statesman in either country feels himself compromised by what the press may assume to speak for or against him, much less does either Government acknowledge any necessity for avowing or disavowing what the press may allege. The language of the press of any country, therefore, even if it were general, would not warrant national action by any other Government-much less would that lan

32D CONG....2D SESS.

guage warrant such action when it was spoken by only one out of a thousand or five thousand journals.

Secondly, the Senator from Michigan invokes our attention to what Lord George Bentinck has said in the British Parliament. Well, sir, that is important. What an English Lord has said, and said in Parliament, too-that must be looked into. Well, what did Lord George Bentinck say? Sir, he said very angry things-very furious things-indeed, very ferocious things. Prepare yourself to hear them, sir. Lord George Bentinck did say, in so many words, and in Parliament, too! what I am going to repeat. His lordship did say that

"He quite agreed with Captain Pilkington."

Ay, sir, his lordship did say that "he quite agreed with Captain Pilkington!" Ominous words -fearful conjunction; an English Lord and an English Captain. But this was not all, not by any means all that Lord George Bentinck said. He said, also:

"They would never put down the slave trade, so long as it depended upon blockading ten thousand two hundred and sixty miles of coast, and he would do what Captain Pilkington had recommended."

And what do you think it was that Captain Pilkington had recommended? Be patient, I pray you, and hear Lord George Bentinck explain. What Captain Pilkington recommended was, "to 'strike a blow at the head, and not the hand. 'He would not send an army to destroy every in'dividual hornet, but he would go to the hornet's 'nest at once." Yes, sir; and Lord George Bentinck not only echoed all these severe things which had been said by Captain Pilkington, as aforesaid, but he said also on his own account, "Let us take 'possession of Cuba, and settle the question alto'gether. Let us distrain upon it for the just debt 'due, and too long asked in vain, from the Span'ish Government. As for the rest of the alarming sayings of his lordship, I forbear from repeating them. Are they not written in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, for the years 1847 and 1848, published by Blair & Rives, printers of the Debates of Congress, at page 607?

And now, sir, it may assuage the passion and abate the fear that these threats of Lord George Bentinck to distrain upon a hornet's nest have excited, when I state, first, that they are old, and not new. They were uttered four years ago: namely, on the 3d of March, 1848. Secondly, that George Bentinck was only a lord by courtesy, and so not a real lord at all. Thirdly, that Lord George Bentinck was in a very harmless minority in Parliament when he uttered them, it being, indeed, unknown that he had any confederate in his wicked designs but Captain Pilkington. Fourthly, that this alleged speech was brought before the Senate and the American people, in 1848, by a late member of this body, whose constitutional proclivity to wit and humor was so great as to justify the belief that the speech, like the Donaldson and Greer correspondence, was a hoax, (Mr. W.) Fifthly, that Lord George Bentinck died some years ago, and Captain Pilkington not having been heard of for a long time, there is a strong presumption that the loss of his noble friend and chivalrous ally has thrown him into a decline.

The tone of the speech of the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE,] was one of complaint against the Administration of our Government, and against France and Great Britain. The Administration was censured for austerity towards the associates of Lopez. But either it could have protected or vindicated them consistently with law and treaties, or it could not. If it could, then the Senator's censures are too lenient; if it could not, then they are altogether unjust. Since the day when the gifted, ingenuous, and gentle André was executed on a gallows as a spy, by order of Washington, we have known the painful delicacy of executing general laws upon persons whose motives and bearing justly excited our respect and compassion. The Senator's sympathy in this case is right. It is only the perversion of it to awaken prejudice against the Administration that I condemn. Again: France and Great Britain are said to have menaced us, by saying in their correspondence that a renewal of such an expedition as that of Lopez might endanger the peace of the nations. No such expedition can be undertaken of which

it can be certainly affirmed that it will not in its consequences lead to a war. I think, therefore, that none but a jaundiced eye, such as does not belong to the President, or to the Secretary of State, could have discovered the insult thus complained of, and therefore they may be excused for having received it in silence."

The Senator shows us that six or seven years ago Spain herself meditated the establishment of a monarchy in New Granada, and only one hundred and forty years ago, a proposition was made to the British Ministry to privately seize the Island of Cuba in a time of peace and friendship with Spain. These facts would have been pertinent, perhaps, if the Senator had advised us to seize the Havana. But I understood him, on the contrary, to discountenance not only conquest, but even purchase, and to agree with those of us who propose to wait for the fruit to ripen, although he has been at some pains to show us that it may rot in the ripening. Indeed, Mr. President, the Senator's argument seemed to me a meandering stream, that visited and touched all the banks of controversy, but glided swiftly away from them, and especially avoided plunging into the depths of any conclusion.

Its tendency, I think, was to exasperate the American people against the European Powers, and to irritate them. I cannot sympathize with such a spirit. I would submit to no real wrong, and justify no oppression or tyranny committed by them. But, on the other hand, I will seek no factitious cause of controversy. I want no war with them. We are sure to grow by peace. A war between the two continents would be a war involving not merely a trial which was the strongest, but the integrity of our Republic. Before such a war shall come, I want to see Canada transferred from her false position in Europe, to her true position on this continent, Texas peopled like Massachusetts, the interior of the continent cultivated like Ohio, and Oregon and California not only covered, like New York, with forts and arsenals, and docks and navy-yards, but grappled fast to New York and Washington by an iron chain that shall stretch its links through the passes of the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky Mountains.

The Senator tells us that the question of the acquisition of Cuba may be upon us to-morrow, and may not be upon us for twenty-five years. That is to say, it stands now, so far as we can see, where it has stood for twenty-five years past. But he advises us to be ready. That is just what I propose to do. And the way to keep ready is to keep cool. If we keep cool, we shall be none the less prepared, if the portentous question shall indeed come to-morrow; while, on the other hand, excessive heat prematurely generated, will be sure to pass off before the expiration of the longer period.

Mr. President, let us survey our ground carefully and completely. Political action, like all other human action, is regulated by laws higher than the caprice or policy of princes, kings, and States. There is a time for colonization, and there is a time for independence. The colonization of the American hemisphere by European Powers was the work of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the breaking up of colonial dependence, and the rise of independent American States, is the work of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is a work that does not go on as broadly and as rapidly as we could wish, but it does not go backwards. It goes faster than was to have been expected, under the circumstances, for it began when the United States alone, of all the colonies, Spanish, French, and English, had attained adequate strength, and sufficient preparation for successful self-government. European States cannot establish new colonies here, for the same reason that they cannot long retain their old ones. As for France, she surrendered all her continental American empire to Great Britain in 1763, except Louisiana and Cayenne. Napoleon sold Louisiana to us in 1803, because even he could not keep it for France. She keeps Cayenne only because it is not worth the cost of conquest. What does she want of more American colonies to be severed from her as soon as matured?

Great Britain, too, lost in the American Revolution all her American possessions but a remnant. She keeps that remnant from pride, not interest,

SENATE.

as Spain does Cuba. What does she want of more American colonies, to draw upon the home treasury for defense and support, and to become independent as soon as they shall become strong? Canada is only a nominal colony or dependency. Great Britain yet retains Canada only by yielding to her what she denied to us--fiscal independence.

And now, what does France or Great Britain want of Cuba? It is a slave colony. They have abolished slavery in all their possessions. Should either of them obtain that island, the first act of Government there must be the abolition of slavery. The abolition of slavery, too, must be made with compensation, and the compensation must be drawn from the home treasury. Will either of them take Cuba at such a cost? And what would Cuba, without slavery, be worth to either of those Powers? Let their experience in the West Indies answer. Cuba, without slavery, can belong to no European State but Spain. Cuba, without slavery, would be worthless to any Power but the United States: and John Quincy Adams was right; Cuba, either with or without slavery, gravitates towards, and will ultimately fall into, the American Union.

What then! Has France ceased to be ambitious, and has Great Britain adopted the policy that Augustus Cæsar bequeathed to Rome, to forbear from extending the bounds of empire? Not at all. France and England are unchanged. I do not know that as yet they have learned that their power cannot be renewed or restored in America. But I do know that they will find it out when they try to renew and restore it again; and therefore all the alarms raised by the Senator from Michigan pass by me like the idle winds. The Monroe doctrine was a right one-the policy was a right one, not because it would require to be enforced by arms, but because it was well-timed. It was the result of a sagacious discovery of the tendency of the age. It will prevail if you affirm it. It will equally prevail if you neglect to affirm it hereafter as you have refused to do heretofore. As a practical question, therefore, it has ceased to be. It is obsolete. You are already the great Continental Power of America. But does that content you? I trust it does not. You want the commerce of the world, which is the empire of the world. This is to be looked for not on the American lakes, nor on the Atlantic coast, nor on the Caribbean sea, nor on the Mediterranean, nor on the Baltic, nor on the Atlantic ocean, but on the Pacific ocean, and its islands and continents. Be not over-confident. Disregard not France, and England, and Russia. Watch them with jealousy, and baffle their designs against you. But look for those great rivals where they are to be found-on those continents and seas in the East where the prize which you are contending with them for is to be found. Open up a highway through your country from New York to San Francisco. Put your domain under cultivation, and your ten thousand wheels of manufacture in motion. Multiply your ships, and send them forth to the East. The nation that draws most materials and provisions from the earth, and fabricates the most, and sells the most of productions and fabrics to foreign nations, must be, and will be, the great Power of the earth.

Mr. CASS. I have a right to say a word or two, Mr. President, in reply to the Senator from New York; and the first remark that I have to make is, that I cannot characterize his speech in the proper manner, so long as I entertain a respect for myself and for the Senate. But I will say this, that of all the speeches I have ever heard from that honorable Senator-and that is saying a good deal this was the most disingenuous, and marked with the most self-complacency, that I have ever heard in the American Senate. Sir, I am not going to follow the honorable Senator through the whole of his remarks. I have risen simply to read the passage which he would not read-and which an honest and just man would have read in his speech-because he did not want it to go out with his own remarks.

Mr. MANGUM. I feel constrained to call the honorable Senator to order.

Mr. CASS. Mr. President, I do not mean to say a word out of order, but the honorable Senator will recollect what the Senator from New York said. One expression which he used was, that he "absolutely compassionated " me for my "la

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

boring" in my "speech;" and there is no mistake about that sentiment running through the whole of the speech of the Senator from New York. I wonder that the honorable Senator from North Carolina was not prompt enough to stop some of its expressions. As he has not, I think I have a right to say a word or two in reply. I have done nothing yet but to characterize the speech.

Allow me to say a few words about the Senator's allusion to what I said about Mr. Adams. As I said, he did not quote those remarks, and his speech going out printed to the world would lead the world to suppose that I had indulged in remarks about Mr. Adams without the least propriety. Sir, the Senator's commentary should have been accompanied by my remarks, so that they might have gone out in the same paper, and been compared together. But I will read those remarks; and I do not believe there is another man in the Senate that will say they were not justified under the circumstances. Before I do that, however, I desire to make an observation with respect to the wording of the resolutions.

Some remarks were bandied backwards and forwards between the honorable Senators from New York and New Hampshire, about the expression used in the resolutions. All I have to say now in regard to that, is what I said in the beginningthey are in the words of Mr. Polk and Mr. Monroe; so that I consider myself only an auditor, so far as respects that--not of Mr. Adams, but of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Polk. With respect to Canada, I have nothing to say, except that the honorable Senator from New Hampshire knows as well as I do that there is no kind of parity in the condition of Canada and Cuba.

I am

not going to argue that, because he knows it as well as I do. He knows that the reasons applicable to this resolution in regard to Cuba are not applicable to Canada. He knows that if Canada falls out of the possession of England, it could not go into the hands of a stronger Power. He knows that there is no great route of our commerce which Canada commands, as does Cuba. But I am not going to argue that with him; for he will not say that he does not know it as well as

I do.

But I wish to make a remark upon one other point. The honorable Senator from New York has arraigned me for introducing this resolutionand I am amazed at the expression, but these are the very words" without the sanction of the President of the United States." Well, sir, I have very little to say on that subject. It requires no answer. I have introduced a solemn resolution into this Senate, as a member of the body, without the sanction of the President of the United States, and I have even ventured to do it without the sanction of a committee. But the honorable Senator asserted what he had no right to assert-no gentleman has a right to assert a fact unless he knows it to be so that I introduced it without the knowledge of any other member of the Senate. He was mistaken in that; and I repeat again, no man has a right to assert a fact as such, unless he knows it to be so. Yes, sir, I have introduced it without the sanction of the President of the United States; and if my constituents find fault with me for that, they will recall me, and I will reply to them there.

Colonization in North America-Mr. Cass.

it is a specimen of what I said was the nature of his remarks-alluded to the subject of the Maine controversy, and said that I gave that as one of the reasons for introducing this resolution. There is nothing like it, sir. There is no such thing in my speech, from beginning to end-not one word. What I said about the Maine controversy was this: I was recapitulating the conditions under which we were heretofore placed. The case of Maine was one, among others, which I mentioned, where, I said, we yielded to improper pressure from a foreign Power; and I believe, as the strength of the country increases, and the sentiment of the country supports its own dignity, we will not submit to it any more. That was one of the facts which I recapitulated, and it had nothing to do with the principle before us. It was a mere reference to our history, and was not given as a reason for instigating this movement.

But the honorable Senator has talked a great deal about Lord George Bentinck, and his being only a lord by courtesy, and all that. I have nothing to say about that. I have nothing to say about his title. He has talked a great deal about Lord George Bentinck and Captain somebody. I shall not go into that. But, sir, this Lord George Bentinck was not only a lord and a member of Parliament, as the honorable Senator and myself are members of the Senate, but he was the acknowledged Tory leader in the House of Commons-a most important personage in English political history. He stood up, not as a mere member of the House of Commons, but as the head of the Tory party, and that fact gave weight to his opinions; and when such a man as that—a man who, from day to day, might have been Prime Minister of England, from his political position, makes such a statement, I think we have a right to notice it. But the honorable Senator has said that he is now dead, and that he cannot "distrain" upon Cuba. I did not allude to his remarks so much as the opinions of the individual; but I alluded to the principle avowed, as belonging to men holding the same political views. That is the reason why I alluded to it; and whether Lord George Bentinck be now living or dead, it is the same thing to me. The sentiment to which I alluded was that of a high political Tory in England, who might, from day to day, have been at the head of the British Ministry, and his declarations are good for all time. But the time when he made that declaration has passed away! It has been four or five years since it was made! Sir, four or five years is a short time in English policy. That policy does not vary so rapidly as that. What England was then she is now. And when a man in Lord George Bentinck's position, stands up in the House of Commons, and avows that he wants to have Cuba for debts due to English subjects, I ask if it should not engage some attention? It is true, sir, the remarks were taken from a newspaper; but I do not disregard newspaper reports, as the honorable Senator affects to do. I think they are important; important indications of public opinion; important indications and precursors of the movements of a Government. I should say that the indications in The Times are very important. No man can doubt that. Therefore they are to be regarded, not as absolute facts, but as strong indications of what is the leading sentiment of the country.

Well, sir, the honorable Senator has said, that the time for colonization is passed. I will say but one word about that. We have had two colonizations this year, and how many more we are going to have I know not. That is the best commentary upon the Senator's remarks.

But I rose principally to make some remarks in reply to the allusions of the honorable Senator to my observations about Mr. Adams. It is now three years since those observations were made; and they are now resuscitated by the honorable

But the honorable Senator said that this is no proper time to introduce this resolution. Why, sir, as soon as I understood what was going on in Honduras and the Bay of Islands, the resolution was introduced. It was introduced to meet the case. And did I suppose-had I any right to suppose that the Senate would procrastinate in such an emergency? Suppose it had been put off until another session? Why, then the question would have been put, as it was raised by the Senator from New Hampshire this session, Why did you not introduce it before? That would have been the result. I had no right to believe that the Amer-Senator from New York--as Mr. Adams's reican Senate would procrastinate such a measure unnecessarily. There is no reason why it should not act upon it in a week as well as in a month; but whether it act upon it in a week, or in a month, or in a year, is no good reason why I should postpone it. If I deemed its introduction necessary to the welfare of the country, I was not obliged to wait any longer.

The honorable Senator from New York-and

marks were brought, so to speak, out of the grave by a near relative. What were the facts in regard to my remarks on Mr. Adams? During the pendency of the discussions arising out of the annexation of portions of the Mexican dominions,-in fact, during the discussion on the Wilmot proviso, an extract from the Diary of Mr. Adams, bearing upon the principle involved in that proviso, was published by his son, to show that Mr.

SENATE.

Adams's opinion was that such a law should pass Congress. The extract was taken from his Diary, written when he was Secretary of State, and published with the purpose of influencing Congress to perform an act which I believed then, as I believe now, would have been utterly ruinous and destructive to this Confederation. Had I no right, then, to comment, in the proper spirit, upon it?

Mr. Adams, when Secretary of State, wrote the extract to which I allude. And do you, Mr. President, believe, does the honorable Senator from New York believe, is there a man in this Senate who believes, that at that time, when he was among those who looked to the Presidency, which he ultimately attained, he would have made these sentiments known to the American people? And yet he would put them in his Diary, that they should die with him; and no relative, it seems to me, looking to the real condition, should have brought them out. Under these circumstances, what did I say? I will read to the Senate what I said:

"These are the views bequeathed to us by an eminent citizen (Mr. Adams) who, after filling the office of President of the United States, was taken away in the midst of his labors, as the ancient warriors fell, with their harness upon them. It has been long known that he kept a diary of passing events, and a portion of this record of daily occurrences has been recently taken from the depository, where it had better been shielded by time and dust, and exposed to the light of day by a member of his family. How often has the memory of distinguished men been injured by the zeal of indiscreet friends, who, instead of going backward with a garment to cover them, reveal their infirmities to the curiosity of the world! This revelation will add nothing to the claims-and they are many-which the deceased statesman had to the consideration of his countrymen, founded upon his services, his talents, his acquirements, and his unimpeached probity."

I never felt disposed to do injustice to Mr. Adams.

"Strong prejudices, not to say bitter ones, and a temperament often ill-regulated and always excitable, too frequently interfered, especially when men and measures were closely connected, with that calm investigation so essential to the exercise of a correct judgment."

Mr. President, is there a man here who knew Mr. Adams, who does not know that fact?

"This cotemporaneous record of his feelings and opinions exhibits these traits of character in bold relief, and is, indeed, a melancholy proof that a vigorous intellect may be overshadowed by strange aberrations, and rendered useless and sometimes dangerous by wayward views, originating in passing impressions, and maintained with characteristic tenacity, and with little respect for the opinions of others. "In this diary, the compromise by which the Constitution was established, and without which it could never have been established, is denounced as the bargain between freedom and slavery;' and it is pronounced morally and politically vicious ;"

He pronounced the Constitution of the United States" morally and politically vicious."

-"with various harsh epithets and illogical deductions, little creditable to the judgment of the writer at any time, and least of all at that time, considering the position in the Government he then occupied, and the acknowledged claims he had to still higher distinction.

"This condemnation of the Constitution as morally vicious, is left upon record by a statesman who sought and enjoyed the confidence of his country in many stations of high honor and responsibility-in more, indeed, perhaps, than any other man of the past generation; whose services com

menced about the commencement of the present Govern

ment, and continued almost without intermission, until his career was terminated by death. At the very time he thus embodied this opinion of the Constitution, he was the second officer of the Executive Department of the Government, and became, ere long, the first; and in each of these capacities, as in many a preceding one, he voluntarily assumed, under the most solemn sanction, the obligation to support this Constitution, thus stamped with the charge of moral and political vice. I take no pleasure in the expression of these views. But the document has been given to the country, and, regret it as we may and must, it has already passed into history; and, like all the other materials of which history is composed, cannot escape the scrutiny, nor will it escape the censure of an age like this. Nor should it. Its tone of moral sentiment is bad. The doctrine and the example are bad. That the Constitution is a vicious instrument is an opinion, it seems to me, that no right minded American can hold. That its honors and emoluments may be sought and enjoyed, and its obligations assumed by him who considers it liable to this grave censure, is certainly not reconcilable with any elevated standard of morality; nor is the opinion or the example by which position is held under such circumstances calculated to produce a salutary impression upon the American youth."

Those were my sentiments then, and they are

now.

"I am sorry to say there are other portions of this resuscitated paper equally obnoxious to the censure of patriotism and of good taste. How different are its tone and temper from that legacy of true wisdom and patriotism, the Farewell Address-a monument of high moral and political feeling, and of affectionate interest, as well as of practical wisdom,

32D CONG.....2D Sess.

such as no other citizen ever bequeathed to his country.

men.

"The one appeals to the better feelings of our natureto the common name of American'-and bids us hold on to the unity of Government, which constitutes us one people,' by all the motives that belong to the past and the present, to common exertions crowned with success, and to common hopes as bright as, in the providence of God, were ever offered to any people. It warns us also of the mischief of sectional prejudices, and of the danger of sectional questions which tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.' And that voice, which now comes to us from the tomb, should speak in trumpet tones to every American ear, and strike a responsive chord in every American heart, when it calls upon us to FROWN INDIGNANTLY UPON THE FIRST DAWNING OF EVERY ATTEMPT TO ALIENATE ONE PORTION OF OUR COUNTRY FROM THE REST, OR TO WEAKEN THE SACRED TIES WHICH NOW BIND TOGETHER THE VARIOUS PARTS.' "The other-but I will not speak of it as I might well do. Better that it had been entombed, like the ancient Egyptian records, till its language was lost, than have been thus exposed to the light of day. I will place in contact, and that will place in contrast, a few passages from the Farewell Address, and from the Diary of Mr. Adams, and close this ungrateful topic with a few remarks."

'I did place in the same column opposite to each other, the remarks of General Washington in his Farewell Address, and those of Mr. Adams. I will not read the remarks of General Washington; there is no need of it; every American has them in his heart; he knows what they are. The remarks of Mr. Adams I will read, and I will then appeal to every man who hears me, be he Senator or be he auditor, if any language of condemnation can be pronounced too strong upon the revelation of such language, written secretly by the second officer in this Government, aiming at the first post, which he afterwards attained? What did Mr. Adams say? He said this:

"The progress of this discussionThe discussion upon the Missouri compromise question was what he referred to-

"The progress of this discussion has so totally merged in passion all the reasoning faculties of these slaveholders, that these gentlemen, in the simplicity of their hearts, had come to a conclusion in direct opposition to their premises, without being aware or conscious of inconsistency. They insisted upon it, that the clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory and other property of the United States,' had reference to it only as fand, and conferred no authority to make rules binding upon its inhabitants," &c., &c.

That, you will recollect, is precisely the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Adams to the contrary notwithstanding. court has decided that it relates to land alone.

That

"It is, in truth, an all-perverted sentiment, mistaking labor for slavery, and dominion for freedom. The discussion of this Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls. In the abstract, they admit that slavery is an evil. They disclaim all participation in the introduction of it, and cast it all upon the shoulders of our old grandam Britain. But, when probed to the quick upon it, they show at the bottom of their souls pride and vainglory in their very condition of masterdom."

"The impression produced upon my mind by the progress of this discussion is, that the bargain between freedom and slavery, contained in the Constitution of the United States, is morally and politically vicious, inconsistent with the principles upon which alone our Revolution can be justified, cruel and oppressive, by riveting the chains of slavery, by pledg ing the faith of freedom to maintain and to perpetuate the tyranny of the master; and grossly unequal and impolitic, by admitting that slaves are at once enemies to be kept in subjection, property to be secured or restored to their owners, and persons not to be represented themselves, but for whom their masters are privileged with nearly a double share of representation. The consequence has been, that this slave representation has governed the Union. Benjamin, portioned above his brethren, has ravened as a wolf; in the morning he has devoured the prey, and at night he has divided the spoil.

"It would be no difficult matter to prove, by reviewing the history of the Union under this Constitution, that almost everything which has contributed to the honor and welfare of the nation has been accomplished in spite of

them, or forced upon them, and that everything unpropitious and dishonorable, including the blunders and follies of their adversaries, may be traced to them."

What a sentiment is that to be uttered by an American Secretary of State, and one who was ultimately a President of the United States! What a sentiment is that to be dug out of the tomb by one of his sons at this day, and now brought forward by the honorable gentleman as a reproach to me, because I commented upon it. I will read but one paragraph more from my own speech, and then I have done:

"He is unworthy the name of American who does not feel at his heart's core the difference between the lofty patriotism and noble sentiments of one of these documents

-; but I will not say what the occasion would justify. I will only say, and that is enough, the other-for it is an

other.

NEW SERIES.-No. 9.

"Benjamin, portioned above his brethren, has ravened as a wolf; in the morning he has devoured the prey, and at 'night he has divided the spoil.' So much for Scripture and patriotism. When translated into plain English, this means that the South has fattened upon the North, as the wolf is gorged with his prey! Lest the apologue should not be sufficiently clear, we are told that almost everything which has contributed to the honor and the welfare of the nation, has been accomplished by the North, in despite of the South; and that everything unpropitious and dishonorable, including the blunders and follics of their adversaries, may be traced to the South.

"And this judgment is pronounced upon the land of Patrick Henry, and Jefferson, and Laurens, and Rutledge, and Sumter, and Marion, and Madison, and Marshall, and Monroe, and Jackson, and-above all and beyond all-Washington; and upon the land of a host of other statesmen and warriors, as true and tried as in field or Cabinet ever maintained the honor of their country in times as perilous as any country ever encountered and survived.

I

"And yet almost all of good that has been gained by our country, has been gained by the North, in despite of the South; while the South has brought upon us all our misfortunes, and upon their adversaries all their blunders and follies!!! I suppose this word adversaries,' in the vocabulary of Mr. Adams, means the other portion of the Union. "Now, sir, I am not going to mete out to the various regions of this broad land the share of each in the wonderful career in all the elements of power and prosperity into which we have entered, and have, indeed, far advanced. The glory belongs equally to all, and all have equally contributed to obtain it. And still less will I undertake seriously to refute a proposition which, if the refutation is not in the heart of an American, he is faithless to the common deeds of the past, and to the common hopes of the future. "I am no panegyrist of the South. It needs none. am a northern man by birth, a western man by the habits and associations of half a century; but I am an American, above all. I love the land of my forefathers; I revere the memory of the Pilgrims for all they did and suffered in the great cause of human rights, political and religions; and I am proud of that monument which time and labor have built up to their memory-the institutions of New England -a memorial of departed worth as noble and enduring as the world has ever witnessed-glorious and indestructible. But while I feel thus, I should despise myself if any narrow préjudices or intemperate passions should blind my eyes to the intelligence and patriotism of other sections of our united country: to their glorious deeds, to their lofty sentiments, to their high names, and to those sacred aspirations, common to them and to us, for the perpetuity and prosperity of this great confederation, which belong to the past, to the present, and to the future; and whose feelings and opinions are brought here and reflected here by a representation in this Hall and in the other, which now occupies, and has always occupied, as high a position as that held by any other portion of the Union-a representation which does honor to our country in all that gives worth to man, and dignity to human nature."

Mr. President, I have nothing more to say. All I desire is, that the substance of these remarks may go forth with the commentary which has been made upon them. What does the Senator say? After going on and saying that I had done so and so with respect to the remarks of Mr. Adams, how does he exonerate Mr. Adams from those charges, or in what manner does he accuse me of inconsistency? He says, that in 1825, Mr. Adams, in some remarks about the Panama mission, was in favor of a good deal of the doctrine that I approve. What if he was? I have not taken a word from Mr. Adams-not one syllable. I have taken from Mr. Monroe and Mr. Polk. The Panama doctrine in full I do not approve of; but I approve of the doctrine of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Polk. What, then, does the Senator's defense of Mr. Adams amount to? His sentiments remain; for the press is more imperishable than the marble of Egypt, more indestructible than brass or marble. But the gentleman has resuscitated the remarks of Mr. Adams, with a view to cast obloquy on me. Very well; if what I have read casts obloquy upon me, I am willing to bear

it.

SENATE.

nent upon the floor of Parliament. He was said by his contemporaries to be the most stable man in England, because he kept the largest stud of horses. But the honorable Senator has mooted an important point in this case. Most of the opinions which he attributed to Lord George Bentinck, were by Lord George Bentinck himself acknowledged to have been derived from Captain Pilkington, who was a man so obscure that we have no account of him whatever from the honorable Senator.

I have a word more to say upon the merits of the case. The honorable Senator says there have been two European colonizations in this year, or within the last two or three years; one of them the Bay of Islands, and the other British Honduras. Now I do not know that; and I referred, the other day, to a speech of his own, made in 1848, in which he showed that three thousand troops had been marched out of the Balize by order of the colonial authorities there. The Balize is British Honduras. It is just as much a recolonization as it was a reestablishment of independence in the State of New York, when, about seven years ago, the people of that State exchanged their old constitution, which they did not like, for one which they liked a little better. As to the Bay of Islands, the British Government said, and say, that the Bay of Islands was a dependency of the Balize and a part of that colony, and that now they have, for the sake of convenience, made two colonies instead of one. If these make two colonizations with which Great Britain is to be charged, she must also be credited with one less colony on this continent, because within some halfdozen years she has merged Upper and Lower Canada, which were two distinct colonies, into

one.

In regard to the honorable Senator's vindication of himself for his censures of Mr. Adams within some eighteen or twenty months after his death, I have only to say this: If we allow the facts stated by the honorable Senator here to be true, if the Diary is authentic, if it was published by a relative of Mr. Adams-for which we have the honorable Senators assertion, and which I am not disposed to dispute-then it appears that Mr. Adams, instead of publishing to the world any such sentiments-and whether they be right or wrong, I am not now to speak-secreted them, and they lay for thirty years in the dust. Within this short period after his death, the honorable Senator brings extracts, which he censures so severely, from oblivion, or from the newspapers, into which an indiscreet friend, according to his own account, had placed them, and spreads them upon the records, the imperishable records, of the American Senate. Mr. CASS. No, no.

Mr. SEWARD. They were spread upon the record by the honorable Senator here in debate.

Mr. CASS. If the honorable Senator will look at the facts, he will find I took them from the publications of the day.

Mr. SEWARD. I say so, certainly. He took them from the publications of the day, and transferred them here, and placed them in John C. Rives's record of the debates of the Senate of the United States, where they are to stand imperishable forever. He vindicates himself, by bringing the same record, and giving it a new and distinct page, place, and repetition here to-day. That is his defense.

Sir, as to the sentiments of John Quincy Adams on the subject of slavery, they were controverted, and the sentiments of the honorable Senator on the subject of slavery are controverted. There is a great issue of truth between them. We who are here are temporarily umpires between them, but we render no final judgment. The day is coming when we shall all be mingled with the dust with him. Then none of us will hold as honored a place in the estimation of mankind as John Quincy Adams. And when the honorable Senator from Michigan, and all around me, shall have been gathered to the tomb, I pray, not that he may not have friends and relatives so indiscreet as those