CHAPTER XXX V I.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

Relations with Europe-The Indians-Texas-The Oregon Territory-Canada. BEFORE We take once more a summary view of the internal, especially the political relations of the United States, and attempt to exhibit them in their workings and final results, we must first cast a glance at their external relations. They are undoubtedly in a simpler and consequently in a happier state, than those of nearly all the kingdoms of Europe. First of all, since the time of Washington and Jefferson, it has been a well established and strictly observed principle of the United States, not to become entangled in the labyrinth of European diplomacy and in the misery of its wars; in no way to transgress the principles of public law and constitutional forms, for the sake of bringing about or preventing particular results; and to make no offerings on that altar of Moloch-vain military glory. Accordingly, with the inland powers of Europe the United States cannot come into serious or dangerous collision; but this will be unavoidable, whenever the European maritime powers shall engage in war, and enforce their old principles which are destructive to all neutral trade.

*

If on the other hand, neutrals in time of war could carry on all sorts of trade under their own flags, undisturbed and free from search, the belligerents would be deprived of a principal means of injuring their opponents and compelling them to sue for peace. The stronger naval power would lose by this means almost the entire advantage of its superior strength; while the weaker one would assert and extol for its own benefit the freedom of the seas. The controversies respecting this point are of the utmost consequence during a naval war, but lose all their importance on the reeurrence of peace; consequently they were left wholly unsettled by the Treaty of Ghent. In the event of another European naval war, the belligerents, it is to be hoped, will not again adopt the tyrannical proceedings which prevailed at the time of the French Revolution. Should this however occur, the United States, whose trade has become so immense, could not take refuge in the suicidal expedient of submitting to an embargo or of breaking off Tyler's Message of 1842.

its trade with both parties; but must oppose that one which declines to enter into reasonable arrangements. There is however more reason than ever to hope that the weight and influence of America will deter other states from injustice, and that the peace of the United States will be permanent, while the powers of Europe destroy one another after the old accustomed fashion, and fancy that this is the road to real glory!

Let us now see what danger, if any, threatens the United States from their neighbors on the American continent. In the first place, as regards the Indians, who now live beyond the Mississippi in close proximity to one another, and are advancing, it is to be hoped, in civilization, it may be asserted that on that account they will become more dangerous than before. To this we may reply, that progress in civilization will make the Indians more peaceful, and prevent the folly of taking up arms against the United States. But should they perchance be seduced to do so by others, they would be more easily and speedily overcome than before, when they were scattered about and difficult to find.

If we turn our attention to the new republic of Texas, we find the most opposite opinions maintained with regard to it. Its violent assailants, both in America and in Europe, assert that it owes its origin to a most unrighteous insurrection, is inhabited by a worthless rabble of every sort, and polluted by the curse of slavery. What says history?* The Spaniards founded their claims on the discovery of some points of this large unknown territory; but for centuries they did absolutely nothing of consequence to acquire a knowledge of it and to settle it, and it was not till quite recent times that the government treated with people who wished to emigrate thither from the United States. Plans of this kind were interrupted by the revolt of Mexico from the mother country, and Texas declared herself ready to enter as a separate state into the new great confederation. This condition was at first accepted, but afterwards declined; and thus, instead of being governed by a genuine federal constitution, it was alternately the prey of military and priestly tyranny or of wild anarchy. Worthless persons did certainly take advantage of these times of confusion to make their way into Texas; but it would be great injustice thus to designate all the inhabitants of Texas, or to maintain that the revolt of Mexico from Spain was glorious, but that that of Texas was execrable. A country said to be three times as large as Great Britain and Ireland, and in fact without a master, a perfect res nullius, had forsooth no right to a separate existence, and was condemned to be an appurtenance of Mexico, or rather of her soldiery, for all time to come! "Independence," says a thoroughly

* Kennedy's Texas, vol. ii.

well informed man," produced in Mexico an intoxication of freedom, which caused the people to seek their liberty in the most unbounded licentiousness, their sovereignty in contempt of law and morality and in impunity for crime; each one thought he had a right to do and to leave undone whatever he saw fit, and not only to utter his opinions, but to carry them out by violence." Mexico has indeed adopted many of the public institutions of the United States, and also a similar constitutional law as far as its letter is concerned; but through the overpowering influence of the priests or the army, it rarely comes into play; besides, there is no such thing as an immediate free choice of representatives, and public trials by jury or legal toleration in religious matters are never thought of.*

Texas very naturally would not allow its fate to be determined by such a people; the Saxo-Germanic element of American civilization came again into conflict with the Romance stock; and it conquered as it had done before in Canada, Louisiana, and Florida. On the 21st of April, 1836, the Texans under Houston defeated the Mexican president Santa Anna at San Jacinto, took him prisoner, dispersed his entire army, and captured all his warlike stores. This determined the independence of Texas; Jackson acknowledged it on the last day of his presidency, and the powers of Europe followed the example.

These victors of San Jacinto were far from being a rabble which by accident once shows a warlike spirit, but men who felt the value both of civil order and of public right, and who strove to found a genuine republic. In their Declaration of Independence of the 2d of March, 1836, they complain-and justly—that the confederate state of Mexico had changed into a military tyranny; that the power of the soldiery was alone cherished and provided for; that the free exercise of religion was prohibited; and the people were ordered to be disarmed, for the purpose of plunging them headlong into Mexican anarchy. On the 17th of March, 1836, the new state adopted a new constitution fashioned after the American model. The President is elected for three years, but is ineligible for the next three. The number of representatives, until the population exceeds 100,000, shall not be under twenty-four or over forty. They are chosen annually, and every freeman who is twenty-one years old and has resided in the country six months is entitled to vote. The number of senators, also chosen by election for three years, amounts to from one third to one half that of the representatives. Clergymen are excluded from any share in the constitution or administration. Every free father of a family is entitled to a league of land, and every single man to one third of a league. Slavehold

Mühlenpfordt, i. 372.

ing is permitted, but not the importation of slaves from Africa. Congress cannot manumit slaves without the consent of the owners; nor can the owners without the consent of Congress, unless the freedmen emigrate. No free negro or colored person is tolerated in Texas without the consent of Congress. Slavery was retained, because most of the colonists held slaves, and the slaveholding portion of the United States favored the new republic, while the free northern states declared against it ;* another reason was the great want of men and capital in the country.

With the exception of this dark feature, there are adopted into the constitution of the young republic of Texas all the great principles of American freedom, which in Europe are for the most part rejected or not reduced to practice: such as that all power comes from the people; absolute freedom of the press and of religion; no search-warrants without the strongest grounds; trial by jury; the right to bear arms; a general militia; no monopolies or prerogatives; no right of primogeniture, &c. An ample quantity of land has been appropriated for schools and universities. Bible societies, temperance societies, and Sundayschools are in operation; and laws have been passed against gambling and drunkenness.

Notwithstanding the universal though vague and unproved charges of the immorality of its inhabitants, Texas has made astonishing progress since its declaration of independence; and has kept free from the tyranny and anarchy of Mexico, to which shallow theorists and the envious would gladly chain her. Many very naturally adopted the conviction, that a union of Texas with the United States would prove equally advantageous to the peace, power, wealth, development, and legal condition of the country. Such a union however was declined, chiefly through the influence of the northern half of the confederacy: partly because (in contradiction to the peculiar history of America) the right of the Texans to an independent existence was denied; and partly because the Northerners were offended at the existence of slavery, and were opposed to increasing the number of the slaveholding states of the Union and of the defenders of free trade as opposed to a protective tariff. This refusal of course was ill received in Texas, and caused the inhabitants of that country to consider, whether it was not in fact more advisable for the young republic (which without doubt was gradually gaining strength) to keep itself entirely independent. Every alliance, it was said, limited and confined a state; while it must be an object to keep their trade entirely free, to avoid the errors of the United States, and to found still more perfect civil institutions.

Notwithstanding all the obstacles and grounds of opposition, * Kennedy, ii. 382.

in the year 1844 a formal treaty was concluded between the United States and Texas for its admission into the great Union, and laid by President Tyler before the Senate for its confirmation. This gave rise to lively and interesting discussions both in and out of the Senate. I will therefore lay before the reader with the greatest possible brevity the views and reasonings of both parties. The opponents of annexation said, that President Tyler had undertaken the whole matter in order to form a party for himself at the next presidential election; and that he had conducted it in a manner contrary to the forms of the Constitution. It was said that, instead of coming forward with a treaty ready made, and taking Congress and the public by surprise, he should have furnished opportunity by means of a message for considering and debating the question, and should have given the people time and opportunity for coming to a well grounded opinion on this novel and highly important topic. By pursuing this course, it would at once have appeared, that according to the Constitution, there existed no power, no authority whatever, that could decide on the adoption of foreign states into the Union and give consent to the same. Supposing however that Congress actually possessed such a right of decision, it must still refuse annexation on numberless grounds. It must do so, in the first place, because Mexico had not relinquished her right to Texas; and consequently its incorporation into the Union must lead to a war that would be both unjust and dangerous. For though the land force of Mexico might be beaten off, yet at sea privateers would destroy the American trade; and the interference of European powers, especially England, could not be avoided. The United States possess already, say the objectors, too much land; every enlargement of the Union must diminish its strength, embarrass the government, and bring forward new conflicting interests and objects attended with the most injurious results. And after all, we do not even know how much land we are to get; since the greater part of it (out of which it is proposed to pay the state debts) is already squandered away, and the western boundary is wholly undetermined. At all events, the United States need no rounding off beyond their present circumference, either for military or for commercial purposes. It is far more natural, more peaceful, and more salutary, that Texas should remain independent on the South, like Canada on the North. The assertion that Texas would then sink into an English colony, is without foundation; and as to any smuggling that may be carried on there, it is much less extensive and dangerous than that on the Canadian border. Just as little weight is due to the sentimental declaration, that our American brethren and countrymen who have emigrated to Texas must be re-admitted, in compliance