Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

I am persuaded that the first proposition of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] would have been voted for by every sincere free-trade man upon this side of the House, had it not been sprung upon us unawares. They were afraid of some trap set for them. They thought it extraordinary that the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] should be the author of such a proposition. It never once occurred to them that that gentleman was capable of making a mistake. I could see plainly that he had made a mistake in submitting that proposition; that the parliamentary rule would give us the committee, and that the whole thing would result in a thorough investigation of the question, and lead to a discussion, not upon the abstract question of philosophical political economy, but upon the existing crisis now before the country. It would have been a specific inquiry as to the present revenue, the present commerce, the present surplus, laying aside all philosophical abstractions.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi. I desire to call the gentleman's attention to one point he has made. He seems to be apprehensive that, under the operation of the present tariff, we are in danger of a commercial revulsion. The present tariff has raised a larger amount of revenue than the Government consumes. One of the chief complaints is, that we have more revenue than our wants demand. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. WooDWARD,] if I understand the drift of his argument, is in favor of reducing the duties. The point which I submit to him is this: If you reduce the duties, will you not necessarily increase the amount of imports; and in doing that, will you not of necessity make the danger more imminent of that very commercial revulsion of which the gentleman seems to be apprehensive?

Lieutenant General-Mr. Smith.

sending abroad forty or fifty millions of gold, that
specie might be retained in this country, and no
such evils as the gentleman seems to apprehend
would result. It strikes me, therefore, that as long
as we continue to get gold in much larger quanti-
ties than we need it, this system will not produce the
injury which the gentleman apprehends. But the
moment we stop producing gold, or the moment we
produce less than sufficient to supply our wants,
then I think this difficulty will present itself.

Mr. WOODWARD. My friend has stated
what I endeavored to state, that the increase in the
production of gold has operated to postpone this
crisis. But I think he falls into one error. He
seems to suppose that as long as the yield of gold
continues what it is, we will have a safeguard
against such revulsions for all future time, or for
an indefinite future. I dissent from that. It will
only postpone it for a certain time, under the laws
of political economy. The yield of gold, too, must
be progressive in order to put off such a crisis.
If a people will have a bank currency based upon
credit-three paper capitals to one specie capital,
or probably no specie capital at all-they must
suffer the consequence, and all the governments on
God's earth cannot save them from it. Now, I
think, however, that there is a probability that
the yield of the gold mines of California will be
for a time progressive. The earth seems to con-
tain an indefinite quantity of gold. The yield
thus far has been in proportion to the population.
Just exactly as the population has increased in
California, the produce of gold has increased; and
we have a right to expect that if the population
doubles during twenty years, the increase of gold
may also double, and that might save the country
from revulsions. But the impost system is the
question I am upon. Revulsions were referred to
incidentally.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I do not think my friend understood me exactly. My view is this: that until the export of gold has to be stopped, this danger will not occur. As long as we are a great gold-exporting country the want of money here will check that exportation and must check it, and whilst we produce a great deal more gold than we need, the danger is not to be apprehended.

[Mr. WOODWARD at the time of speaking did not rightly apprehend the interrogatory of Mr. CLINGMAN. The following answer would have been appropriate.]

Mr. WOODWARD. I have not said that the surplus in the Treasury, or that large importations threatened us with a revulsion. I said, distinctly, that the gold from California, which produced the surplus, had paid for the importations, and thus saved the country from revulsion. The causes which were about to bring on this revulsion, are to be found in the great expansion of bank currency, producing high prices, and thus stimulating the mercantile adventurer to exhaust his credit abroad, in the hope of realizing the high prices at home. This foreign debt has been discharged as far as required by the foreign creditor, by means of California gold. But if no gold had come from California, the metallic currency would have been drawn off to pay the debt, and your paper currency would have lost its basis. The consequence would have been the calling in of their paper by the banks, leaving the people without any kind of money, whether metal-inquiry whether the circulating medium be not alfic or paper. And if the State governments will incorporate banks indefinitely; if the people will receive as money the scrip of town councils, railroads, and other corporations; and if the commercial adventurer, prompted by the high prices that follows, will exhaust his credit abroad, the country must take the consequences. This Government has no jurisdiction to prevent it, and has no means if it had jurisdiction.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I desire to ask the gentleman from South Carolina a question. I agree with him in the general doctrine that this expansion of bank currency is likely to be attended with such effects as he attributes to it. But since the last revulsion, the United States have become a great gold-producing country-producing sixty or seventy millions of gold annually, and exporting some forty or fifty millions. Now, the question I wish to put to my friend from South Carolina, is this: Suppose there should be a pressure here, would not the effect of it really be to stop this export of forty or fifty millions of gold, and thus prevent the revulsion from operating as it did formerly? For instance, if things became very tight, instead of relying on bank currency alone, and

As has already been said, the gold. from your mines has postponed the period of revulsion, and will continue to have that tendency more or less, according to the yield of the mines. But I do not believe that any amount of gold will prevent the evils of licentious banking, such as we have in this country. The instincts which lead to bank ing, will always carry it to excess. The rivalry of cities and towns and villages, and a great variety of corporations, seeking each to aggrandize itself, leads inevitably to over-banking where banks have once come into existence. If a bank be given to one, then all the rest set up their claim on the score of justice and equality, and a bank is given to each on that score; and without any ready sufficient. Bank paper will therefore run up to, or beyond the healthy point. And if it never fails to surcharge the whole sphere of circulation when specie has retired to the vaults, and left it the whole, for the same reason it will never fail to surcharge any portion of that sphere which specie may leave vacant for it. I mean to say it will always occupy more space than it is entitled to.

But while the indefinite supply of native gold may fail to prevent revulsion or depression, it will, at all times, tend to mitigate them, for the reason stated by my friend, [Mr. CLINGMAN.] But it will not obviate the necessity of moderate duties or imposts; and that is the point I have been considering.

Paper money, when it has once acquired the confidence of the people, will drive metallic currency to other countries, or into the sphere of international money, whither paper cannot go. Your gold crop, therefore, will in the main go abroad to pay debts, or be exchanged for importations. And as a crop, it will have a similar relation to paper medium, as any other crop of equal value, except that its indefinite increase will cause the depreciation of all money, itself in particular.

HO. OF REPS.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL.

SPEECH OF MR. SMITH,
OF ALABAMA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 5, 1853.

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the bill to confer the title of Lieutenant General by Brevet

Mr. SMITH said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I am not here for the purpose of defending the private, the political, or the personal character of General Scott. I rise to advocate the passage of the Senate resolution creating a new title of lieutenant general, and authorizing the President to confer it, by brevet, for tion, and I propose to address myself to it as such; eminent military services. It is a military quesmyself, mainly, to his military character. There is and in speaking of General Scott, I shall confine no man in the country who was more sincerely or earnestly opposed to his elevation to the Presidency than I was. But my opposition to him, my political opposition, was tempered by my admiration of his military character; and I have never permitted myself, on any occasion, to detract his military renown.

ings; but before I go into the midst of the subject,
Sir, I have examined this question in all its bear-
as I have arranged it, I must refer to the remarks
of the honorable gentlemen who spoke yesterday,
the gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. LANE.]
the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. PоLK,] and

I expected, sir, and I had my pencil ready to take notes thereof-I expected that the honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] would bring forward some substantial arguments against the passage of this resolution. I was disappointed; perhaps it was because his mind was directed to another and a greater question. The gentleman's opposition to this bill merged itself into a simple attack upon the private character of General Scott, under the declaration that he was unworthy of the honor

Mr. POLK, (interrupting.) The assault that the gentleman from Alabama makes upon me, that the speech I made on yesterday was conceived in the spirit of personal feeling, is unjust.

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman misunderstands

me

Mr. POLK. I relied upon the testimony of Jackson, of Wilkinson, of De Witt Clinton, of Worth, of Pillow, of Duncan, of Brown, and a host of others that form the galaxy of military greatness in this country, to show that he was unworthy of it, and the course I pursued proves that I had no personal feeling in it.

Mr. SMITH. I expect to answer the gentleI beg him to be patient. I am a patient man myman in the spirit in which he made his remarks.

self.

Mr. POLK. So am I.

THE QUARRELS OF GREAT LEADERS.

Mr. SMITH. I propose to show that the arguments brought forward by the honorable genleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] against this resolution, in whatever spirit they may have been conceived, are, to say the most for them, but objections to General Scott's private and personal character. I did not intimate that the gentleman had any personal motive, because he disclaimed it at the time. What was the argument? The charge was that General Jackson, and General Wilkinson, and De Witt Clinton and others, had quarreled with General Scott. The intimation was that because they had quarreled with General Scott, he, General Scott, was a knave, and unworthy of his honors. Sir, great men have the right to quarrel-very many of them do quarrel. Is a quarrel an indication that either of the parties is a knave? Why, sir, does the British press, when our condidates for the Presidency are announced, say that the people of the United States have selected two of the greatest scamps in the country to be their candidates for the Presidency? Because the antagonistic presses of the country authorize the conclusion. The English press can prove its assertions by the Herald on the one side, and the Tribune on the other; so common is it to slander and abuse great men.

32D CONG.....1st SESS.

Well, sir, it seems that General Jackson, De Witt Clinton, and General Wilkinson were not friendly with General Scott. But what does that amount to? No one would pause to answer a charge made by General Wilkinson; but anything coming from General Jackson must be respected, and noted, and answered. And I answer. How? That General Jackson knew very well that the way to rise in the world was to put his foot upon || his enemy and crush him, to prevent the enemy from crushing him:-and he had all those qualities in an eminent degree which rendered him the very man to take advantage of the suggestions of his intuitive sagacity.

Sir, from the beginning of the world we see great political leaders commencing life friendly, remaining so until they become competitors, and then-they become enemies. Go back to the olden times, and you see one great Athenian ostracizing his enemy to-day-he himself, in his turn, is ostracized to-morrow. You see the great Ronian exiling his enemy to-day, and himself exiled tomorrow. You see Cæsar and Pompey, whose young plumes kissed each other in the beginning of life, afterwards quarreling. Brutus and Cassius quarreled. Cæsar and Cato quarreled. General Jackson quarreled with General Scott, and he quarreled with Mr. Clay, and he quarreled with Mr. Calhoun. What is the argument? It resolves itself at last into this, that great leaders want to get one another out of the way.

I remember a phrase—it is the whole idea in a nut-shell-in the quarrel between Percy and Prince Hal, when they met upon the field of battle"Think not, Percy,

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK,] in his fine eulogy upon the character of General Washington, gravely and solemnly asks: "Will you make, by a solemn enactment of Congress, General Scott equal to General Washington?" This is an intimation, of course, that, as General Washington had once held the office of lieutenant general, no other man ought to hold it! Why, sir, it is true that General Washington was made, by act of Congress, a lieutenant general; but it was no elevation to him. It was positively a degradation; so understood and so acted upon afterwards by Congress. Sir, General Washington was not only a lieutenant general, but he was a President of the United States. Will you say, that because he happened to be President, it is a profanation of his character to make any other man President; and that because he happened to be a lieutenant general, it is a profanation of his character to make any other man a lieutenant general? I have as high an appreciation of the character of General Washington as any American citizen. But I do not despair of many Washingtons. It was not because he won great battles alone that he is revered; not because he was a great warrior, for there have been greater mere fighters, but it was because the battles he won were liberty's first battles, and because, in the moral grandeur of his character, he refused to take advantage of the popularity which his military achievements had acquired, to elevate and aggrandize himself.

To share with me in glory any more: Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere; Nor can one England brook the double reign Of Harry Percy and the Prince of Wales."° There is the philosophy. There is the principle. This is a complete, and a full and perfect answer to the fact that General Jackson quarreled with General Scott. General Jackson had in his elements those terrible traits of character (without which no man could have achieved such a successful career) which made him the best friend and the fiercest enemy. General Jackson was himself assailed by the coffin hand-bills! Is that any evidence that he was a knave? If it be admitted that that is no evidence that General Jack-I son was a knave, I am sure General Wilkinson's hand-bill against General Scott is no evidence that he is a knave.

Now, I must pass from my honorable friend from Tennessee, giving to him for his motives the utmost patriotism in all his movements. I know that he does not intend anything wrong; and the gallant manner in which he fought for the bill just passed by this House, for the relief of Mrs. Worth, met with my approbation so heartily that forgive him for the mistake which he has made in this. It is a great mistake in a small matter. GENERAL LANE, GENERAL WOOL, AND THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPOSITION.

Now, sir, I propose to disarm the gentleman from I now go to the honorable gentleman from OreTennessee [Mr. POLK] further in this matter, by gon, [Mr. LANE,] and propose to disarm him. I his own witnesses, by his own men, his own am glad he is not here, (I see his seat vacant,) befriends. Beginning with the history of the coun- cause I can say freely how much I admire himtry, and with the compliments of Congress to Gen-how great I believe him to be in arms-how largely eral Scott, I pass to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] and with him disarm the gentleman from Tennessee, in this attack upon General Scott. I understood the gentleman, [Mr. POLK,] in the fine eulogy he passed upon General Washington, to say that General Washington was first in the hearts of his officers, thereby intimating that General Scott was not in the hearts of his officers. Did I understand aright?

[ocr errors]

Mr. POLK. I meant that the history of his difficulties with his officers will prove what I said. Mr. SMITH. If by the words, "General Washington was first in the hearts of his officers,' I interpret the gentleman properly, that he meant that General Scott was not in the hearts of his officers, I call the gentleman's attention to the speech of his distinguished friend from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] a man with a big military heart-a man who had served with General Scott-a man who had smelled gunpowder-a man who knew how to appreciate military capacity and military character; and what did General LANE say? "1 love General Scott as a man, and I have the 'highest admiration of him as the Commander-inChief of the Army of the United States. He 'deserves the place." I ask if that does not disarm General Wilkinson? I ask if it is not a fair answer to the bitter enmity of General Jackson? Here is one officer, at least, who speaks in favor of General Scott's military and personal character.

The gentleman mis-reads the history of Washington, sir, when he says he was first in the hearts of his officers. It is well known that even he had to contend with the jealousies and heartburnings of ambitious and aspiring spirits, who wished to

the country is indebted to him for his eminent services in Mexico and Oregon-and how high the pillar of glory ought to be erected for him. I can say this in his absence, which I might be unwilling to say in his presence. But, on another account, I regret his absence. I must say something that I would rather say in his presence. I would show him how completely he has disarmed himself in his argument.

The gentleman from Oregon [General LANE] spoke of the necessity, under this resolution, of reorganizing the Army-of increasing its generals. That is an important question, but no longer an open one. The Army, at least, must be increased; and a reorganization, as suggested by the gentleman, could do no harm. Sir, if we continue to look forward to the acquisition of new territories, (and we do,)—if we intend to stand by the Monroe doctrine as to the foreign occupancy of American soil, (and we do,) our Army must be increased. Our conduct and designs cannot always be mere brag and bluster. Our continuous fillibustering is bound to bring about a fight after awhile. You will not only have to increase your armies, sir, but you must repair your navies. There should be new grades in the Navy, as well as new ships. Your little squadron of canoes must be changed into a great and respectable and powerful steam Navy to meet the exigencies of the day.

You remember, that the gentleman, [General LANE,] after making some suggestion about the consequence of the passage of this resolution as to the necessity of a reorganization of the Army, paused and commented upon General Wool, giving to him

Ho. OF REPS.

in a splendid eulogy the glory of the battle of Buena Vista. General Wool may possibly deserve it. I have a high admiration of General Wool, and I wish him to have the last laurel, and more than the last, for all the honors that he has won in the service of his country. But what use have I for that reference?

The opinions expressed by the honorable gentleman from Oregon, (General LANE,] were the opinions of a distinguished military chieftain, and⚫ they are entitled to credit as coming from such a source. I propose to answer him with his own witness:-and I now call the attention of the committee to the HISTORY OF THE PROPOSITION with reference to the establishment of the grade and title of lieutenant general.

It has been pending many years in Congress, and is not offered now as a mere salvo to General Scott. I would scorn to make such an offer to such a man. His consolation may be found in the speech of an old Roman, who, upon being defeated for Consul, rejoiced that Rome had in her limits one greater man than himself.

But as to the history of this resolution, in connection with General LANE's eulogy upon General Wool:

"July 29, 1850, Hon. Mr. CLEMENS Submitted the following: "Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be 'instructed to inquire into the expediency of conferring, by 'law, the brevet rank of lieutenant general on Major Gen'eral Winfield Scott, with such additional pay and allow'ances as may be deemed proper, in consideration of the distinguished services rendered to the Republic by that officer

'during the late war with Mexico.'

"Eight days later that resolution was referred to the Senate's Military Committee.

"On the last day of the session, September 30, 1850, Hon. JEFFERSON DAVIS, chairman, reported the following resolution on the same subject:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested to refer to an army board of 'officers, to be designated by him, the following questions, 'viz :

"Is it expedient or necessary to provide for additional 'grades of commissioned officers in the Army of the United States? If so, what grades, in addition to the present or'ganization, should be created?'

"In pursuance of this request the President of the United States, by order, December 2, 1852, appointed a board of officers-Generals Jesup, (President,) WooL, Gibson, Totten, Talcott, Hitchcock, and Colonel Crane, who reported, unanimously, as follows:

"Under the first inquiry referred to it, the board is of 'opinion that it is expedient to create, by law, for the Army, 'the additional grade of lieutenant general, and that when, in the opinion of the President and Senate, it shall be 'deemed proper to acknowledge eminent services of offi'cers of the Army, and in the mode already provided for in 'subordinate grades, it is expedient and proper that the ' grade of lieutenant general inay be conferred by brevet.' "December 17, 1850, that report was laid before the Senate, and 'referred to the Committee on Military Affairs,'

&c.

"January 25, 1851, Hon. Mr. SHIELDS, chairman, &c.,, reported a joint resolution in conformity with the recom

mendation of the Military Board."

You will see from this that the President of the United States, in compliance with the request of the Senate, appointed a board of Army officers to examine the matter. That board consisted of the following gentlemen: Jesup, WooL, Totten, Talcott, Hitchcock, and Colonel Crane. Recollect that General Wool, the man who was so much eulogized by the honorable Delegate from Oregon on yesterday, was placed on that board; and you have this report recommending, in the fullest possible manner, the passage of this proposition.

I ask if the gentleman from Oregon [General LANE] is not partially disarmed by his own eulogized witness? General Wool is a regular officer of the Army; bred in the Army-a Major General, having earned the distinction by long service in camp. I have shown you that he recommended, after solemn investigation and examination, the adoption of this new military rank. Now I propose to offset the opinion of the gentleman from Oregon against this resolution, with the opinion of his own great witness, General Wool, in its favor. And General Wool is a Democrat of the first

water.

Mr. HALL, (in his seat.) What sort is that? Mr. SMITH. The phrase is applicable to a diamond-a diamond of the first water-purest. There is your answer. General Jesup was the President of this board of inquiry. He, too, is a Democrat of the first water-an old soldier-beginning life in arms with General Scott; bred in the camp, his opinion is entitled to weight-much weight. And doubtless those other gentlemen of the board are greatly distinguished and learned in

[ocr errors]

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

the science of arms and the strategics of war. In reference to the remarks of the gentleman from Oregon, as to the ingratitude of the country and Congress, I concur with them fully. The Congress is in fault in not having appreciated General Wool, and many other distinguished officers who have fought and bled for the country. But that is no argument against the passage of this resolution. Do you believe that Ben McCullough, the distinguished captain so honorably alluded to by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] on yesterday, if he were here, would oppose this resolution? No, sir-ee! [Laughter.] If the country be ungrateful upon one occasion, is it any reason why it should be ungrateful upon another? That would be a strange sort of logic. The fact that the country refuses to-day to do its duty is no reason that it should refuse to-morrow to do it. Congress has signally failed to do its duty in this matter. But let us begin. This is as good a time as any, and we are beginning, in my opinion, at a very proper point.

NATIONAL INGRATITUDE-REWARDS.

Mr. Chairman, national ingratitude will always be visited with proper retribution. If you refuse to reward your military men, you make them sullen, silent, and gloomy-panting for honors which you refuse to them-they may desert your flag and drive you to the necessity of throwing yourself upon newer men, more untried soldiers. The true policy of nations and of princes, is to reward merit at all times. The love and desire of reward is insatiate in man's heart. It is exhibited in the child whose little mouth is upturned to receive its mother's approving kiss; in the school-boy in his struggles for the medal; in the student who trims the midnight lamp, and coaxes up the last drop of the oil that can yield him light; and in the man when he is rejoicing over the success of his first achievement. In the days of chivalry, what was a knight without a rose-what was knighthood without a lady's smile? This word "reward," embodies in it a greater and loftier word-excelsior, which lifts a man above the common places of earth, and inspires him to the loftiest pursuits. Reward is the nurse of ambition, and what would life be worth without ambition?

Your mere politician may plod through life, and, if he be a reasonable man, only expect a seat in Congress as his reward. Unless he has extraordinary qualities, or uncommon luck, that is as high as he can reasonably expect to climb; but he faces no bullets, (except paper bullets,) he storms no fortresses, (except the groceries.) But blood and peril demand to be paid in pleasures and rewards. There, sir, is the difference between the deserts of a military man and a mere politician.

With the kind attention of the committee, I could now demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, that all the nations of the earth, from the beginning of time, have been in the habit of rewarding their military men to the utmost extent. But I must crowd the history of the past into this phrase, while I make particular allusion to the lately-deceased Duke of Wellington, who has occupied much of the attention of the people of the earth so recently.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S PROMOTIONS. I desire to show you that with less military capacity, with fewer military achievements and fewer military difficulties, the Duke of Wellington has been rewarded a thousand times more than General Scott-living in the same age-but under a more enlightened and more liberal, and a more grateful Government than ours: I mean as to military matters. I show that the secret is known to the Powers of England. They know the sources of their success in arms; and that secret is the reward they bestow upon their military heroes. The Duke of Wellington was promoted at a very early age, and he never made a military movement upon any occasion without receiving a promotion. He was sent as a colonel to the East Indies, and after a few skirmishes there, rising grade by grade, he was made a major general on the 2d of April, 1802. Here is a list of his commissions when he was a young man. The first commission of colonel was conferred on the 3d of May, 1796, that of major general on the 2d of April, 1802, that of lieutenant general on the 25th of April, 1808, that of general in Spain and Portugal 1811, and that of field mar

|

Lieutenant General-Mr. Smith.

shal in 1813. This is rapid promotion for a military man, and he sometimes received two or three promotions for a single military display. The achievements of Wellington in the East deserve but the name of mere military skirmishes. He there contended with untutored barbarians, yet he was made a field marshal before 1813. After his return he had the marshals of France to contend with. He won some very clever victories in France, but nothing more brilliant than we see in the career of General Scott, except the battle of Waterloo. I will read as a matter of curiosity a list of the promotions of the Duke of Wellington.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] yesterday said something about hereditary titles and the heraldry of nobility. In referring to the promotions of the distinguished Duke, of course I do not wish to follow the example of England in conferring titles of nobility, but I wish merely to show that his promotions were given on account of military achievements:

"His commission of colonel was conferred on the 3d of May, 1796; that of major general, 2d of April, 1802; of lieutenant general, 25th April, 1808; of general in Spain and Portugal, 31st July, 1811; of field marshal, 21st June

1813."

These promotions followed his skirmishes in the East, and before his achievements in France "He embarked for Europe on the 10th of March, 1805, the Trident frigate, after having received, from the officers of the army he had commanded, the merchants of Calcutta, and the native inhabitants of Seringapatam, highly gratify ing and substantial tokens of admiration and esteem. The officers of the Army subscribed for a gold vase, to be in scribed with the name of his great victory, Assye; this was subsequently changed to a service of plate; the merchants of Calcutta presented him with a sword valued at a thousand guineas; and, a far more honoring tribute than these, the native people of Seringapatam presented him with an address, containing a prayer to the God of all castes and colors,' to bless and reward him for his just and equal rule in the Mysore. He had been previously, on the 1st September, 1804, created a Knight Companion of the Bath, and was consequently now Sir Arthur Wellesley, K. C. B."

Soon after he was voted a sum of £200,000 sterling. But here to-day, in the American Congress, you have stickled at voting fifty dollars a month to the widow and children of General Worth, one of the most gallant officers of your Army. That is American gratitude?

How soon you forget your great battles. I remember a place called Monterey. There was once a fight there, thought at the time to have brought some glory to the American arms. I remember a leader after long and continuous fighting, storm||ing the Bishop's castle, with his bright sword and red plume flashing amid the smoke and fire of the furious conflict, himself heading the charge, and closing a great victory. That was General Worth. Will you count by dollars and cents the value of such glorious deeds, and pause at the proposition to take adequate care of the widow and orphans of

such a hero?

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Ho. OF REPS.

subscribed to the parliamentary roll, the patents of all his titles having been first read by the officer of the House."

Well, sir, I could go on with a still longer list of these promotions. It is true that Wellington was an English general, but I apprehend that he was no better than an American general. He achieved these high honors by his military exploits alone.

"On the final evacuation of France on the 1st of November, 1818, he returned to England, and soon afterwards entered Lord Liverpool's cabinet as master general of the ordnance. An extra grant of £200,000 was voted him in 1815, making in all £700,000 in money, besides the pension of £2,000 a year, and many lucrative appointments bestowed upon him by the Government-an amount of pecuniary reward as unexampled as the military services it recompensed."

I do not mean to say that the history of these promotions forms an argument conclusive in favor of the passage of this resolution, but is it anything extraordinary that we should ask for its passage? Is this the first time that an effort has been made to reward an American chieftain. Eleven thousand acres of land were donated to Lafayette by the Congress of the United States, and $200,000 in money besides. It is true that Lafayette afforded us very great aid in the great struggle which made us free. I do not offer this as an argument why this resolution should pass, but I ask, in connection with the fact, if it is extraordinary that this proposition should be made to an American Congress. I believe I stated that leaving out the battle of Waterloo, I would place General Scott and his battles beside Wellington and his battles. It is not my business to eulogize General Scott; I leave that to other hands; but I cannot forget the history of the country. From Queenstown to the City of Mexico his military achievements have been of the most brilliant, striking character, with few and unimportant reverses. It has been recorded by great men, that the career of General Scott in Mexico, or at least of his army, was unparalleled in modern history.

COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF NOT EXPECTED TO EXPOSE THEMSELVES.

But some gentlemen say that General Scott was not in the battles at all, that he did not smell gunpowder, and that he was not on the field of danger. I know nothing about the truth of that, but I know that in modern times it is not expected that a commander-in-chief should expose himself, except at times of great emergency. In days of old, when it was a hand-to-hand, hip-and-thigh, and sword-to-sword conflict, then it was necessary and customary for the Cæsars, Alexanders, and Timoleons to mingle in the thickest of the fight; but in modern times, after a man establishes his character for courage, as Napoleon did at Lodi, and trusted with the chief command of armies, they Scott at Lundy's Lane-when such men are inare not expected to mingle directly in the fight. It was the boast of Napoleon Bonaparte, in his old age, that he very rarely had to go into battle. Said he, "I won my battles by my eye, and not by my arms." Lundy's Lane and Chippewa

form a fair offset to Lodi. General Scott established a character of courage. It was not necessary that he should expose himself, as commander-in-chief, unless the peril of the occasion

"On the 12th of August following, Wellington made his required it. I do not care if he was not in the

triumphant entry into Madrid amidst the acclamations of the inhabitants, and was immediately afterwards appointed generalissimo of the Spanish armies. On the 18th of the same month he was created Marquis of Wellington by the Prince-Regent of England."

[ocr errors]

"In the beginning of 1813, the Marquis of Wellington, upon whom the colonelcy of the royal regiment of Horseguards had been previously conferred, was created a Knight of the Garter. He visited Cadiz, and sailed thence to Lisbon, where he was received by the population with great enthusiasm." "Honors and rewards were thickly showered about this time upon the triumphant British general. One hundred thousand pounds for the purchase of an estate had been voted him by the English Parliament, and he was now created by the Spanish authorities Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo, and a grandee of Spain of the first class. The estate of Soto de Roma, of which the unhappily celebrated Prince of Peace had been despoiled, was bestowed upon him by the Cadiz Cortes, 'in testimony of the gratitude of the Spanish nation.' He accepted the gift, but the proceeds of the estate were devoted during the war to the public service."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Their renowned commander was created, on the 3d of May of that year, Marquis of Douro and Duke of Wellington; and in June £400,000, making, with the previous grant of £100,000, half a million of money, was awarded him by the House of Commons. On the 28th of the same month, the Duke took his seat in the House of Peers, and

battles. His commands, his strategics, carried out by his gallant officers, gained the battles. Common custom, common decency gives him the honor of the victories, while it takes nothing from any man-not a single laurel which may have been won in the thicker conflict. At the battle of Waterloo, Wellington and Napoleon were both out of danger most of the time, according to true history. It was their duty to be. The fate, not only of France, but of England and all Europe depended upon the decision of the contest. Why, in such an emergency, should the chief be exposed to danger? Napoleon had his place of elevation from which to take his observations, and his commands were given to his subordinates according as the aspects of the field authorized. Sir, an impetuous man is never fit for a chief command. Napoleon knew very well where to place Muratnever at the head of a division, but at the head of a charge. These madcaps are only fit to lead columns upon the plans and judgment of cooler heads. General Scott is entitled to the glory, great as it is, derived from our conquest in the recent

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

war with Mexico, and no effort of historians or legislators can deprive him of it.

Sir, in addition to the merits of General Scott as a military man, he is entitled to the gratitude of his country for his literature. He has enriched the annals of our military department by books of tactics, industriously, skillfully, and scientifically arranged. Grateful France gives Napoleon infinite credit for every little scrap he wrote, whether upon the art of war or anything else. But, as I said before, it is not my business to eulogize General Scott.

OUGHT THIS BE MADE A POLITICAL QUESTION?

Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell.

Democrats choose for themselves, and pardon me if I do the same for myself.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, of Mississippi, vote?

How did Adams,

Mr. SMITH. He voted against the resolution. Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. How did Mr. Seward vote? [Laughter.]

Mr. SMITH. I did not inquire. [Renewed laughter.] I was only looking for Democrats. I wanted to show a Democratic side of the case; that was my argument, and I have not named them all. I find here, Mr. SoULE, another distinguished Democrat, voting for this resolution. And nearly all the Democratic States who voted for General Pierce, have voted, by their Senators, for this resolution!

Well, now, Mr. Chairman, in this aspect of

Disguise it as you may, the objection to this resolution is political. Gentlemen deceive themselves, no doubt honestly, when they think otherwise. It is said by General Scott's detractors that he cannot make political speeches, and that case, I ask the Democracy what they expect he he is not a great civilian Well, I am not dispu- make by opposing this resolution? What great ting that. Themistocles could not "play the fid-political effect is this opposition to achieve? dle, but he could make a small town a great city."

General Scott cannot make political speeches, but he can win great battles-that is better.

I come now to consider the political aspect of this resolution. I tell the Democracy in all kindness, that they are making a small business of this, and of themselves, by opposing it. I speak it as a friend-not as an enemy; for I challenge any man in this Hall to compare votes with me upon all questions involving Democratic policy. But I cannot make this a political question. Let us inquire if it was made a political question in the Senate.

THE DEMOCRACY OF THE SENATE VOTING FOR THE RESOLUTION.

I here [unrolling a list of the senatorial vote] show you a gallant roll of the standard Democrats in the country, who voted for this bill in the Senate. I begin with Atchison, the President of the Senate; then Butler, of South Carolina; there is General Cass, a long distinguished chief; then I come to Clemens, of Alabama, the mover and father of this resolution-a young statesman, a gallant colonel in the Army in Mexico; a man whose genius has made him a peer among Senators, and whose genuine Democracy has never been disputed except by the slaves of faction. I come then to De Saussure, of South Carolina; is it possible that the South Carolina delegation in this House will vote against this resolution? I come then to the two Dodges, old and young in Democracy-a noble father and a noble son! I come then to Gwin, of California, and then to Hunter, of Virginia. I do not speak of Mr. Hunter as a Senator merely; I speak of him as a prospective Secretary of State-a leader not only of the Democracy, but a leader in the grand councils of the incoming Executive. Is any man ashamed now, upon the question of Democracy, to sit side by side with these men? Then, sir, there is Mason, of Virginia. What will the Virginia delegation do here? Are they a unit in opposition to this resolution? Do they stoop to make it a party question? Then there is General Rusk-a hero worthy of the soil he represents, and a Democrat. He voted for it, too. Then there is General Shields, not only a Democrat, not only a Senator, but a soldier with a bullet through his body, received at Cerro Gordo-the hero of the heights-living through extraordinary mercy, preserved by a miracle, to be permitted to utter the praises of his noble commander in the grandest council of the world. How nobly he does it, with the characteristic magnanimity of an Irish gentleman! What else do you want to make it a Democratic measure? Ah, but there is another side to this picture, which I will present to southern Democrats.

I beg them to view the other side of this picture. There were thirty-four Senators in favor of this resolution, and twelve against it. Who were the twelve? JOHN P. HALE was one of them. I speak of him, not as a Senator merely, but as a competitor of General Scott in the late contest. He voted against this resolution. I come next to the name of Mr. CHASE, of Ohio. He, too, voted against it. I am talking now to southern Democrats. CHARLES SUMNER, also voted against it. Now, the question is, are you willing to sit down with CASS and BUTLER, and SHIELDS and ATCHISON and CLEMENS, or will you squeeze yourselves down between HALE and CHASE? Let southern

There was something said about magnanimity

yesterday. I understood the word magnanimity to be scoffed at, scorned, and scouted in this Hall; but still it remains in the vocabulary of our language, and has a meaning. I heard a gentleman here yesterday use the word "whipped," as applicable to General Scott. If that word (meaning, selected, I think it was ungenerous to use it. Was as it does, to lacerate with stripes) was carefully it liberal, I ask, to go through the vocabulary and select such a degrading phrase? Why not say "defeated?" Everybody understands that, and it would have been respectful.

Well, you have defeated General Scott in an open conflict, and what do you propose to do now? He is not asking anything at your hands. The Democracy at the other end of the Capitol, headed by the Military Committee and advised by a board of distinguished officers of the Army, who were selected at the Senate's request, are asking this honor for General Scott. He is your defeated competitor. How will you treat him? Will you imitate the ancients who put Regulus in a spiked barrel and rolled it down hill? Will you imitate the Romans who chained Jugurtha to the wheels of the triumphal car and dragged him through the streets of Rome and thrust him into a dungeon? Will you send him to a far-off island in the ocean, under a perpetual guard, as the British did the grand Napoleon? How will you treat him? Do you remember the anecdote told of Alexander and Porus, familiar to the school children of the day, but which may be forgotten by politicans: When Alexander defeated and overthrew Porus, the Indian king was brought a prisoner to the conqueror and asked how he desired to be treated?

You all remember the answer: "Treat me like a king." The gallant response will never be forgotten. The reward of the gallant response will never be forgotten. He was treated like a king. How will you treat General Scott? Why, treat him like a hero, as he is.

Sir, in all the speeches that have been made here, on this subject, I have not heard a solitary substantial objection to the passage of this resolution. Ah! but gentlemen say he has got glory enough. He has got the history-the record-the "brevet of glory."

REWARDING THE DEAD.

Well, there is something in that. "The brevet of glory" is a beautiful and poetical phrase, for which I am indebted to my young friend from Virginia, [Mr. CLEMENS,] in an incidental remark. We know that when General Scott goes to the grave, he will be rewarded. We cannot look upon the monuments springing up around us in this city, in memory of the great heroic DEAD; we cannot look forward to what is to happen here on the eighth of January, (the inauguration of the Jackson statue,) without being convinced that when he is dead, he will be rewarded. But reward him while he lives. The eyes of the dead cannot see these lofty pillars of renown. The ears of the dead cannot hear the shouts of the living millions. Give him his reward while he needs it. He has now all the advantages of posterity. Posterity is to him, as it is to all, a dream, a fiction to be realized by imagination, if realized at all.

What a satire upon the practice of mankind to neglect merit, is found in the touching incident of the death of the young poet, Keats, who died of a crushed heart, from the scorn of a cold world.

Ho. OF REPS.

Despairing of an immortality which he had really achieved, in the bitterness of his last moments, he dictated his own epitaph:

"Here lies one whose name was writ in water!"

Sir, if you have any rewards to give, let them be given in time.

But you stickle at the pay. Oh! yes-the pay. Well, I do not believe the resolution, in its present shape, would carry pay with it. The pay, if any, must be provided hereafter; but that is a small matter. Many of you, gentlemen, who oppose this resolution upon the ground that it carries extra pay with it, voted last session to give five millions of dollars to a mere steamboat monopoly, to fatten a few New York SNOB PRINCES, and yet now you quarrel over the prospective pay which this grade will probably carry with it. Sir, if it carries the pay, it is right. Give him the money-give him the pay-give him the rank-let your economy be better directed.

I see, Mr. Chairman, from the impatient wag of your hammer, that my hour is about expiring. How much time have I?

The CHAIRMAN. Only two minutes. Mr. SMITH. Then I omit many things, and Ohio, Mr. CARTTER.] He talked yesterday about must pay my respects to the gentleman from the "heraldry of nobility," and titles, and mock legislation, and moved an amendment, to insert the word "lord," so as to make it read "Lord Lieutenant General Winfield Scott." Well, now, I merely want to suggest as an amendment to that, the better to suit the taste of that gentleman, to insert after the words "lord lieutenant general," the words "Louis Kossuth alias Alexander Smith." [Great laughter, and cries of "Bravo!" "Bravo!""] The gentleman [Mr. CARTTER] was a hero in the

Kossuth contest in this House. Was that mock legislation or not? A member of Congress and a native of this country, advocating the rewarding of a mere runaway governor with honors unheard of and unprecedented before in this Hall, inducing the Congress of the nation to stand up uncovered in the gorgeous presence of that arrogant foreigner, to get a peep at his sword, and a far off-vision of the train of monkeys that made up his foreign suite. The same gentleman, on this occasion, speaks against a resolution conferring on one of his own countrymen a mere military badge of honor, which is dearer to a soldier's heart than anything except a victory! Sir, I think the gentleman from Ohio is a proper man to talk about the “heraldry of nobility,” and “mock legislation."

ACQUISITION OF CUBA-CANADA.

SPEECH OF HON. HIRAM BELL,
OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 10, 1853,

In the Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, on the annexation of Cuba, Canada, &c.
Mr. BELL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I presume I shall not trespass upon the time of this committee beyond the usual time allotted upon such occasions. I rise now mainly for the purpose of entering my protest before this House, and before the public, in relation to some positions which have been assumed as admitted by honorable members of this House. And I should not consider that necessary, were it not for the fact, that upon former occasions, the popular acquiescence in opinions in relation to, and constructions of former acts of Congress have been considered as an assent to those declarations. We have been told by honorable members of this House, that the people of this country were for annexation of Cuba; that they were for progress; that they were for the extension of the country; and even some have gone so far, without a limit as regards time, as to express themselves in favor of taking the balance of Mexico. That may all be right; but I would inquire of honorable gentlemen who entertain those sentiments, and send them abroad, upon what pretext are we to acquire this territory? Why are we talking about the conquest of Cuba? Perhaps some gentlemen may say that they are not in favor of a war; why, then, are we-the representatives of this nationsending abroad to the world an expression of

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

the legislative branch of this Government, that we are in favor of taking possession of territory to which we admit we have no right, and to the acquisition of which we have not the shadow of a pretext? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if that is a portion of the present Democratic creed? Are we in a state of war with Spain? No, sir. On the contrary, we are at peace, and professing the most amicable relations toward that Government. How, then, are we to have an opportunity of accomplishing what it is said upon this floor the people of this country are in favor of? Are we to hatch up some pretext for a disturbance with that country? Why, it would seem to look like it. And, sir, what effect would such a state of things have upon our national character, but to dishonor it in the opinion of all christendom? I stand here, as one of the Representatives of this House, of this nation, and especially of the State from whence I come, to protest against all such doctrines. I tell you, sir, and in doing so, I would wish to send it abroad throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands,-that these are not the sentiments of the people of this country. They never have been the sentiments of our people, and I trust they never will.

We hear it said in high places that we are to acquire all this territory-that we are to aggran dize ourselves by the acquisition of that which does not now belong to us, and of which there is no possible evidence that we have any right to assume to claim. Why, they say it is our destiny as a nation-our manifest destiny! Why, sir, I have heard of spiritual rappers, and I believe they affect to reveal destiny; but I would like to know if, at this day, we are to risk the future policy of this Government upon the pretended revelations of this class of impostors? If not, shall we sanction these schemes of unlimited annexation of territory, under the plea of "destiny," which have at least as sandy a foundation as those taught by the delusions of the class just referred to? I hope not, sir. But, Mr. Chairman, if we were to pursue and adopt this policy which is suggested as our interest and as our manifest destinyif we were to assume that we were to become the possessors of Cuba, would it not be well to cast about us before we settled down upon the fact that such is our manifest destiny as a nation, and ascertain how we are going to acquire it? Are we to acquire that island by conquest or by treaty, or other peaceful arrangements? The consideration of these questions requires us to look at the policy the Government must adopt to accomplish the proposed object by either means.

The first is, is it the interest or the duty of this nation to pursue the course of policy recommended by and carried out in the administration of Washington, and the fathers of this country, and continued from the organization of this Government down to the present time; or are we to change that course of policy which has rendered us so prosperous as a nation, and launch our boat upon the wide and boundless ocean of annexation and conquest? We must adopt one or the other. Why, sir, what, in former times, was considered the republican, the democratic, the national doctrines and interests of this country? Was a peaceful administration of the Government repudiated? Were colonial possessions sought? Were entangling alliances with any nations recommended as the policy beneficial to the Republic? No, sir. The opposite policy was inculcated, and practically carried out by the framers of the Government; and in the pursuit of that policy, this nation has grown to be what it is, where every citizen is proud to be known as an American citizen, wherever he may be found. In whatever quarter of the world he may be, those stars and stripes, with their ample folds, protect him, and secure to him his rights. I say the advocates of this new doctrine must adopt one of these two courses of policy. If they are in favor of abandoning the policy of Washington, and of changing the entire policy of the country, and seek by conquest the extension of our territorial limits, and as a consequence withholding the necessary protection and promotion of the interests of our people at home, who have the first claims upon our Government and its sympathies, and who are already under our control,-if they are prepared to say they are in favor of changing the policy, and abandoning

Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell.

the doctrines of Washington and Jefferson, and Madison and Monroe, Adams and Jackson, I trust they will be willing to abandon also all claim to the name they have so proudly heretofore sought to be known by, whether it be Whig or of the old line Democrat.

Again, I would request of those persons who advocate this new policy, to look a little at the results and effects of that policy. Will Cuba be acquired and annexed, and form a part of this Government, without a war? No, sir; the correspondence between the Ministers of France, England, and the Government of the United States has already settled that. Suppose, then, that there were an attempt to acquire it by a war, that war would not be terminated in a month nor a year, when this Government shall be involved with Spain and two of the most powerful nations upon the European continent in such a war. And those Governments have already informed us, through their authorized agents, that they will never consent to the relinquishment or control and government of that island to or by any other nation than Spain. Suppose, however, that all could be accomplished which those visionary gentlemen imagine, would it be the true policy of this Government to acquire this island either by conquest or by peaceful negotia

tion?

To answer this question I need only refer you,|| sir, to those who live nearest, to those who appear to be the best informed, and residing in the southern States, to candid men, who say that they consider that the acquisition of Cuba, whether peaceably or by conquest, would be an injury and a curse to this Government. Have they not reason to suppose so? Would Cuba come into this Union as a slave State, or as a non-slaveholding State? And that, sir, brings up the great question, the agitation of which has heretofore endangered the perpetuity of this Union, as we have been told, and which we have no reason to doubt, considering the authority from which it comes, and considering the evidence which we have all around us. We cannot shut our eyes, nor can we close our ears to the evidence on all hands

which convinces us that the reagitation of similar questions must shake the nation to its center.

Why, sir, there is hardly any one who contemplates the subject, who looks at the latitude and location of that island, who knows the character of its inhabitants and their capacity, that would doubt for a moment, if it comes into this Union, that it would be a slaveholding territory, although it is urged here by many that we should acquire Cuba and seek to bring it under the control of this Government, because by that means we would have the power and the means of abolishing the slave trade.

That may answer as an excuse for some, with which to satisfy a portion of their constituents. But when I hear it urged by my honorable friend from North Carolina [Mr. VENABLE] as an argument to the South that they should go against the acquisition of Cuba, because, if that island should be acquired by the United States, the slave trade would be entirely abolished, and as a consequence, the means which they now have of keeping up their proportion of slave labor would cease, and slavery eventually be extinguished; and when I hear a directly opposite reason urged from honorable gentlemen from other portions of the country, I may well hold a doubt of the soundness of those suppositions or arguments, that if Cuba should be admitted, it would either be a free State or secure the abolition of the slave trade.

Mr. Chairman, I would not pretend to say but what the time may come when it may be necessary for this country to hold Cuba; and not only Cuba, but other islands of the ocean, and other countries. I do not know why we should have our attention so exclusively turned to the Island of Cuba. Why, sir, what is there in that island that should absorb our whole attention? If we could have her peaceably, and at our own option, and take her to-day, would it be a blessing to us? I think not. I am bold to declare that I believe that if we could have Cuba without war, with all the advantages and disadvantages to this Government, it would be a curse—an injury, and prejudicial to our institutions.

But, sir, I wish to read the opinions of a southern man, the editor of the Charleston Mercury,

HO. OF REPS.

as described in his own language, of his opposition to the acquisition of Cuba, even if it could be acquired peaceably. His language is as follows:

"Besides, in what condition would Cuba be to justify her admission into the Union? There is a white population, native to the island, or permanently settled, amounting to near six hundred thousand, (double that of the white population of South Carolina, in a territory little larger than our State,) not one of whom ever exercised a political franchise, or ever took a share in public affairs, other than to submit to the power and shout around the chariot wheels of established authority. We propose to drive out all those who have ever held rule; and of those who have heretofore only had experience of unquestioning submission, we propose to make a democratic republic, and this in the face of two hundred thousand free blacks, and four hundred thousand slaves, freshly imported from Africa. Among all the recent abortive attempts at free governments in Europe, was there a single one commenced under such desperate auspices as this? Is it not absolutely certain that to preserve order in such a community, an army would be necessary? And where there was an army for the purpose of domestic peace and civil rule, could there be a State? Would we admit into the Union a State which had no power of self government, but was in the hands of the United States Army and Navy?"

Here, Mr. Chairman, is the opinion of a southern man, who is well acquainted with the character, the condition, the habits, and the feelings of that people. He says that they are unfit to be attached to this Government, and that those who lay any claims to intelligence and information, are of that class who would be banished from the island, whenever it changed its government.

It is now proposed by the advocates of that measure, that we shall take that class of population, and make them a part and parcel of this country-a class of people worse than slaves, more vicious and less informed-and that is claimed by some to be democratic doctrine. What, attach a class of people, that so far as they have any knowledge, are antagonistic in their principles, their prejudices, and their feelings, to every principle of this republican Government! They come in as copartners! That, sir, may be the democracy of the present day, but it was not the doctrine of our forefathers.

But, sir, there is a country and there is a people competent for self-government, that are prepared to take upon themselves the responsibilities of freemen, and which we may find for our interest to receive among us-I mean peaceably-and allow them to become a part and parcel of this country, and I care not how soon. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the whole British possessions upon the north, containing an area of two millions two hundred and fifty-two thousand three hundred and ninetyfive square miles. There is something worth looking at. here are two millions six hundred and fifty-two thousand of people, bone, as it were, of our bone, flesh of our flesh, deriving their origin from the same Anglo-Saxon source, a large class of them disciplined in that school which is calculated to train them up as independent freemen, and all anxious and ready to come into the possession of the enjoyment of those great principles which we are now enjoying. I say it may be for our advantage to acquire that country and that people, if we can peaceably. They are near three millions, scattered over a large territory, sufficient in extent to make several States, and possessing as healthy a climate, and a large part of it as rich a soil as any in the world. Then, sir, by the accomplishment of that matter, and the attaching it as a part of this Union, you banish all the vast expense of maintaining fortifications upon your northern borders, and save the millions of dollars now thrown away in keeping up your custom-houses upon the borders of the North; you give to yourself the free navigation of that mighty stream of the North, the St. Lawrence. You give to yourself the sole control and command of that channel, and of that bay at its mouth, with the great chain of lakes or inland seas which nature has formed for a ready and direct communication and navigation for the commerce of this northern territory to the ocean; and you welcome near three millions of people, who are like brethren, into this family, to form a part and parcel of this Republic, thereby adding strength and vigor to the body-politic.

Here, sir, is something worth turning the attention of this nation to. Great Britain can have no object in holding the rule over these northern colonies, except national pride.

Meet this question fairly frankly, and say to

« PoprzedniaDalej »