« ForrigeFortsett »
sufferers in this country by the failure of banks and federal governments in America, there is attached to the subject much painful feeling. But in the United States the distress has been universal, and there is scarcely an individual there, however humble, who has not been injured in his circumstances and comfort by the great financial revolution. This being assumed, it is therefore against every principle of human nature to assert, that the people themselves deliberatelyplanned and executed their own ruin!
The fact of the matter appears to be, that in the system of banks and speculative enterprises in the United States, the principle of Democracy—that is, every person, or a great number of persons, having an interest in the establishment—does not exist: and, as the aristocratic principle flourishes in as much vigour in America, though not possessed of political power, as it does under a monarchical government, it is the exclusive or irresponsible system which has caused the financial ruin of the United States, and discredited them throughout the money-markets of Europe. What establishment in that country set the example of insolvency, and commenced the ruin? We believe it was the United States Bank, considered the national concern. Now, there was no democratic influence allowed to operate there, but the whole concern was managed on the most exclusive or aristocratic principle, and the financial Cataline of the establishment conducted the conspiracy against the public.
It will be the duty of the future historian to investigate the dark transactions of the financial revolutions of the United States, and the result will be that the democratic principle was sacrificed by the cunning and selfishness of aristocracies of banks, of joint-stock speculations, and of the legislatures of some particular states.
A blessing to mankind will be derived from the downbreak of the national credit of the United States. Communities and nations will be compelled to husband their resources, and raise within the year the funds necessary for their government, and it will not henceforth be tolerated, that the living generation shall mortgage the resources of future generations for objects of a temporary or ambitious nature.
In support of the position taken, that the discreditable financial transactions in the United States, did not proceed from the democratic principle, and indeed had nothing to do with it, the following evidence is adduced. The first is from a little work entitled " The Present Age," by the late Doctor Channing, than whom a more enlightened and independent witness could not be produced. In alluding to the financial and commercial embarrassments of his country, he says—" Let not the poor bear the burden of the rich. At this moment, we are groaning over the depressed and dishonoured state of our country? and who, let me ask, have shaken its credit, and made so many of its institutions bankrupt? The poor—or the rich: Whence is it, that the incomes of the widow, the orphan, the aged, have been narrowed, and multitudes on both sides of the ocean brought to the brink of want? Is it from an outbreak of popular fury? Is it from gangs of thieves sprung from the mob?—We know the truth ; and it shows us where the great danger to property lies. Communities fall by the vices of the great, not the small.'' *
The next is from a letter by the "Genevese Traveller," published in the London " Times" of 1st November, 1842.
"In no form or shape has the Federal government, or any of its functionaries, at any time given countenance to the fraudulent and demoralizing doctrine of repudiation— and by repudiation I mean a declaration, that a State is not most solemnly bound to pay all debts contracted by the State or its agents." ....
* " The Present Age, by W. E. Channing: 1841."
"Whatever indiscreet, and perhaps in some instances unprincipled, individuals may have proposed or contemplated, it is a fact, that no legislature of any one of the twenty-six States has passed any law, or done any act, indicating a disposition to sustain and carry out the doctrine of repudiation; nor has any governor, or other high official character (with one exception) suggested such a measure as expedient or proper. It is true, in some instances, the equity of the claims against particular States has been denied, and this has been the pretext for refusing payment So far, and no farther, have the several States gone." . .
"The American people, as a people, consider anything like repudiation profligate and dishonest; and never, until they shall have been tenfold more vicious than they now are, and their whole character shall have changed, will they become the advocates of such an unprincipled measure."*
* Times, 1st Nov. 1842.
ARISTOCRACY AND COLONIZATION.
THE ARISTOCRATIC PRINCIPLE DISPLAYED IN SCHEMES OF COLONIZATION PROM EUROPE SINCE THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.—THE RESULT HAS BEEN EITHER BARBARISM OR REVOLUTION, IN THE COLONIES PLANTED.*
As contrasts to the beneficent plans of the legislators of the ancient Jews and Romans in their Agrarian laws, a few cases in which the British people have a deep interest, will be adduced.
At the end of seven hundred and seventy years, the power of this country, the laws of it, the condition of its inhabitants as respects their subsistence, their moral and religious education, their civil and political liberties—all are yet affected by the measures of William of Normandy. The people of this country, with all their intelligence, their industry, and indefatigable perseverance, have not worked themselves out of the baneful influence arising from the division of the lands by that conqueror. Most of the lands of England were portioned in the most reckless manner to his favourite followers. One military follower received for his share of the spoliation, between seven and eight hundred manors. The county of Norfolk, containing about a million and three hundred thousand acres, was divided among sixty-six proprietors: one man received a grant of the whole palatinate of Chester, and in this proportion the soil of England was wrenched from the natives, and bestowed on a few barbarous warriors.
*British America is an instance of civilized and successful revolution
Spanish America has succeeded in throwing off the yoke of Spain, but for want of wise regulations for the division and assignment of the waste lands, the inhabitants are retrograding to semibarbarism.
The case of Saint Domingo presents a terrible example of the vengeance taken by the population, in the general slaughter of the governing party of another race.
The Brazils, with a territory of great fertility, and almost boundless resources, lie under the Upas tree of aristocratic and sacerdotal growth.
This is a matter of history long since past, and people may exclaim, what use can it be to bring it forward to the present generation! But it is of great use to refer to such passages of our history, in order to remind every individual at present living, that a similar principle pervades British law, and that in the British plans of colonization, put in execution within the present century, grants of waste lands have been As lavishly bestowed on the followers of a minister of the crown, as those which William granted to his subordinates.
The discovery of America interested the whole human race; and where is the man in Europe, at this day, who has not some direct or remote interest in that country?
The Pope, the Head of the Christian Church in the fifteenth century—in the plenitude of his power, and from the vast stores of his geographical knowledge—made a grant to the King of Spain of all the countries discovered by Columbus. His power was acknowledged and obeyed by the nations of Europe at that period; but as Galileo had not yet been born, to enlighten mankind, and to bewilder the Pope with a knowledge of this earth and its relation to the sun, it so happened that His Holiness was anything but precise touching degrees of latitude; and as respected the meridian of the countries granted, it was found afterwards, that the Bull of assignment was nearly