CHAPTER IV.

1825–1826.

BITTER OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS—BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS—THE PANAMA MISSION—INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO SLAVERY.

The circumstances attending the election of Mr. Adams led to the formation of a most powerful opposition to his administration, as soon as he was inaugurated. The friends of General Jackson, a numerous and compact body of public men, representing a much larger number of the people of the Union than the friends of Mr. Adams could be said to represent, felt that he had been unfairly deprived of the votes of States in the House of Representatives which should have been given to him. Especially was this the case, they said, in regard to the State of Kentucky, whose Legislature had plainly indicated the wish of a majority of her people that her vote in the House should be given to General Jackson; and when it was announced that Mr. Adams, who had received the unanimous electoral vote of only six States, had obtained the votes of thirteen States in the House, while General Jackson had obtained but seven, and when Mr. Clay had been appointed by Mr. Adams Secretary of State, there was a bitterness of feeling among the supporters of General Jackson, which evinced at once a fixed determination to elect him President at the end of the ensuing four years.

In regard to the state of parties, viewed apart from the merely personal element of leadership and following, there was not much, in the beginning of Mr. Adams’s administration, to distinguish its supporters from its opponents. In the course, however, of that administration, those who defended it from the fierce assaults of the opposition, began to take the name of National Republicans, while the opponents of the administration began to call themselves Democrats. Included in the opposition were the political friends and followers of Mr. Calhoun, and the political friends and followers of General Jackson; the latter being distinctly known and classified as “Jackson men.” In the Senate there was a number of older men, who were not likely to form an active element of parliamentary opposition or defence; such as Mr. Silsbee of Massachusetts, Mr. Dickerson of New Jersey, Mr. Samuel Smith of Maryland, Mr. William Smith of South Carolina, Mr. Macon of Georgia, Mr. Rowan of Kentucky, and Mr. Hugh L. White of Tennessee. The opposition in the Senate was led by a younger class of men: Mr. Van Buren of New York, Mr. Woodbury of New Hampshire, Mr. Tazewell of Virginia, Mr. Hayne of South Carolina, Mr. Berrien of Georgia, and Mr. Benton of Missouri.[17] But it was not in the Senate that the great arena of debate between the assailants and the defenders of this administration was to be found during the first year or two of its term. In the House, at the opening of the 19th Congress, which began its session in December, 1825, there was an array of combatants—ardent, active and able debaters. Of these, composing the leaders of the opposition, were Mr. Buchanan, Samuel D. Ingham, William C. Rives, James K. Polk, John Forsyth, George McDuffie, Edward Livingston, William Drayton, William S. Archer, Andrew Stevenson, Mangum, Cambreleng, and Louis McLane. The eccentric John Randolph was also one of the leaders of the opposition. The leading friends of the administration were Webster, Sprague, Bartlett, John Davis, Edward Everett, Burgess, Taylor, Letcher, Wright, Vinton, and Henry L. Storrs.

Before the opposition had marshalled their forces for an attack upon the administration, a debate occurred in the House of Representatives upon a subject that did not involve party divisions. A bill was introduced by a Pennsylvania member for the relief of the surviving officers of the Revolution. It proposed an appropriation of only one million of dollars, and it was confined strictly to the cases of the Revolutionary officers to whom half-pay for life had been granted by Congress in 1780, who had afterwards accepted a commutation of five years’ full pay, in lieu of half-pay for life, and who were paid in certificates that were never worth more than one-fifth of their nominal value, and which were soon depreciated to about one-eighth. The passage of this measure depended upon the prudence and skill of those who favored it. The mover, Mr. Hemphill of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Dayton, had advocated the bill in speeches of much discretion, and there was a good prospect of its adoption. In this state of things, an untoward amendment was offered by a member from Massachusetts, which proposed to increase the appropriation. This had a manifest tendency to defeat the bill; and at this crisis Mr. Buchanan came forward to restate the case of the officers, and to replace the measure on its true footing. He said:

“It is with extreme reluctance I rise at this time to address you. I have made no preparation to speak, except that of carefully reading the documents which have been laid upon our tables; but a crisis seems to have arrived in this debate, when the friends of the bill, if ever, must come forward in its support. I do not consider that the claim of the officers of the Revolution rests upon gratitude alone. It is not an appeal to your generosity only, but to your justice. You owe them a debt, in the strictest sense of the word; and of a nature so meritorious, that, if you shall refuse to pay it, the nation will be disgraced. Formerly, when their claim was presented to Congress, we had, at least, an apology for rejecting it. The country was not then in a condition to discharge this debt without inconvenience. But now, after forty years have elapsed since its creation, with a treasury overflowing, and a national debt so diminished, that, with ordinary economy, it must, in a very few years, be discharged, these officers, the relics of that band which achieved your independence, again present themselves before you, and again ask you for justice. They do not ask you to be generous—they do not ask you to be grateful—but they ask you to pay the debt which was the price of your independence. I term it a debt; and it is one founded upon a most solemn contract, with which these officers have complied, both in its letter and in its spirit, whilst you have violated all its obligations.

“Let us spend a few moments in tracing the history of this claim. It arose out of the distresses of the Continental Army, during the Revolutionary War; and the utter inability of the government, at that time, to relieve them. What, sir, was the situation of that army, when it lay encamped at the Valley Forge? They were naked, and hungry, and barefoot. Pestilence and famine stalked abroad throughout the camp. The first blaze of patriotism which had animated the country, and furnished the army with its officers, had begun to die away. These officers perceived that the contest would be long, and bloody, and doubtful. They had felt, by sad experience, that the depreciated pay which they received, so far from enabling them to impart assistance to their wives and children, or hoard up anything for futurity, was not sufficient to supply their own absolute and immediate wants. Placed in this situation, they were daily sending in their resignations, and abandoning the cause of their country. In this alarming crisis, Washington earnestly recommended to Congress to grant the officers half-pay, to commence after the close of the contest, as the only remedy for these evils, within their power. The country was not then able to remunerate the officers for the immense and unequal sacrifices which they were making in its cause. All that it could then do was to present them a prospect of happier days to come, on which hope might rest. With this view, Congress, in May, 1778, adopted a resolution allowing the officers who should continue in service until the end of the war, half-pay for seven years. This resolution produced but a partial effect upon the army. The time of its continuance was to be but short; and there were conditions annexed to it, which, in many cases, would have rendered it entirely inoperative.

“In August, 1779, Congress again acted upon this subject, and resolved, ‘That it be recommended to the several States to grant half-pay for life to the officers who should continue in the service to the end of the war.’ This recommendation was disregarded by every State in the Union, with one exception; and I feel proud that Pennsylvania was that State. She not only granted half-pay for life to the officers of her own line, but she furnished them with clothing and with provisions. Thus, when the General Government became unable to discharge its duty to her officers and soldiers, she voluntarily interposed and relieved their distresses. General Washington, when urging upon Congress the necessity of granting to the officers half-pay for life, pointed to those of the Pennsylvania line as an example of the beneficial consequences which had resulted from that measure.[18]

“Congress at length became convinced of the necessity of granting to the Continental officers half-pay for life. Without pay and without clothing, they had become disheartened and were about abandoning the service. The darkest period of the Revolution had arrived, and there was but one ray of hope left to penetrate the impending gloom which hung over the army. The officers were willing still to endure privations and sufferings, if they could obtain an assurance that they would be remembered by their country, after it should be blessed with peace and independence. They well knew Congress could not relieve their present wants; all, therefore, they asked was the promise of a future provision. Congress, at length, in October, 1780, resolved, ‘That half-pay for life be granted to the officers in the army of the United States who shall continue in service to the end of the war.’

“Before the adoption of this resolution, so desperate had been our condition, that even Washington apprehended a dissolution of the army, and had begun to despair of the success of our cause. We have his authority for declaring that, immediately after its adoption, our prospects brightened and it produced the most happy effects. The state of the army was instantly changed. The officers became satisfied with their condition, and, under their command, the army marched to victory and independence. They faithfully and patriotically performed every obligation imposed upon them by the solemn contract into which they had entered with their country.

“How did you perform this contract on your part? No sooner had the dangers of war ceased to threaten our existence—no sooner had peace returned to bless our shores, than we forgot those benefactors to whom, under Providence, we owed our independence. We then began to discover that it was contrary to the genius of our Republican institutions to grant pensions for life. The jealousy of the people was roused, and their fears excited. They dreaded the creation of a privileged order. I do not mean to censure them for this feeling of ill-directed jealousy, because jealousy is the natural guardian of liberty.

“In this emergency, how did the Continental officers act? In such a manner as no other officers of a victorious army had ever acted before. For the purpose of allaying the apprehensions of their fellow-citizens, and complying with the wishes of Congress, they consented to accept five years’ full-pay in commutation for their half-pay for life. This commutation was to be paid in money, or securities were to be given on interest at six per cent., as Congress should find most convenient.

“Did the government ever perform this their second stipulation to the officers? I answer, no. The gentleman from Tennessee was entirely mistaken in the history of the times, when he asserted that the commutation certificates of the officers enabled them to purchase farms, or commence trade, upon leaving the army. Congress had not any funds to pledge for their redemption. They made requisitions upon the States, which shared the same fate with many others, and were entirely disregarded. The faith and the honor of the country, whilst they were intrusted to thirteen independent and jealous State sovereignties, were almost always forfeited. We then had a General Government which had not the power of enforcing its own edicts. The consequence was that, when the officers received their certificates, they were not worth more than about one-fifth of their nominal value, and they very soon fell to one-eighth of that amount.

“Let gentlemen for a moment realize what must then have been the situation and the feelings of these officers. They had spent their best days in the service of their country. They had endured hardships and privations without an example in history. Destitute of everything but patriotism, they had lived for years upon the mere promise of Congress. At the call of their country, they had relinquished half-pay for life, and accepted a new promise of five years’ full-pay. When they had confidently expected to receive this recompense, it vanished from their grasp. Instead of money, or securities equal to money, which would have enabled them to embark with advantage in civil employments, they obtained certificates which necessity compelled most of them to sell at the rate of eight for one. The government proved faithless, but they had, what we have not, the plea of necessity, to justify their conduct.

“In 1790, the provision which was made by law for the payment of the public debt, embraced these commutation certificates. They were funded, and the owner of each of them received three certificates; the first for two-thirds of the original amount, bearing an interest immediately of six per cent.; the second for the remaining third, but without interest for ten years; and the third for the interest which had accumulated, bearing an interest of only three per cent.

“What does this bill propose? Not to indemnify the officers of the Revolution for the loss which they sustained in consequence of the inability of the government, at the close of the war, to comply with its solemn contract. Not, after a lapse of more than forty years, to place them in the situation in which they would have been placed had the government been able to do them justice. It proposes to allow them even less than the difference between what the owners of the commutation certificates received under the funding system, and what these certificates when funded were worth upon their face. My colleague has clearly shown, by a fair calculation, that the allowance will fall considerably short of this difference. If the question now before the committee were to be decided by the people of the United States instead of their Representatives, could any man, for a moment, doubt what would be their determination?

“I hope my friend from Massachusetts will not urge the amendment he has proposed. Judging from past experience, I fear, if it should prevail, the bill will be defeated. Let other classes of persons who think themselves entitled to the bounty of their country present their claims to this House, and they will be fairly investigated. This is what the surviving officers of the Revolution have done. Their case has been thoroughly examined by a committee, who have reported in its favor; and all the information necessary to enable us to decide correctly is now in our possession. I trust their claim will be permitted to rest upon its own foundation. They are old, and for the most part in poverty; it is necessary, if we act at all, that we act speedily, and do them justice without delay. In my opinion, they have a better claim to what this bill contemplates giving them, than any of us have to our eight dollars per day. Gentlemen need apprehend no danger from the precedent; we shall never have another Revolutionary war for independence. We have no reason to apprehend we shall ever again be unable to pay our just debts. Even if that should again be our unfortunate condition, we shall never have another army so patient and so devoted as to sacrifice every selfish consideration for the glory, the happiness, and the independence of their country. I shall vote against the proposed amendment because I will do no act which may have a tendency to defeat this bill.”

Mr. Buchanan used to relate, in after years, that at this juncture, the friends of the bill were dismayed by the course of Mr. Everett, who was then a young member from Massachusetts, and who wished to make and insisted upon making a rhetorical speech. The friends of the bill remonstrated with him, that all had been said that needed to be said; and that the only thing to be done was to vote down the amendment, after which the bill was almost certain to be passed. But Mr. Everett persisted, and made his speech while the amendment was pending.[19] He “demanded” of the House to pass the bill, and by passing it as proposed to be amended by his colleague to give the survivors of the Revolution “all they ask and _more_ than they ask.” The consequence was that the appropriation was increased. Then a member from New York moved to extend its provisions to every militia-man who had served for a certain time. Then other amendments embraced widows and orphans, artificers and musicians, the troops who fought at Bunker Hill, the troops raised in Vermont, those of the battles of Saratoga and Bennington, and of the Southern battles. The enemies of the original measure promoted this method of dealing with it, and finally, when thus loaded down with provisions not at all germane to its real principle, it was recommitted to the Committee and was therefore lost.

The first important subject of contention on which the opposition put forth their strength against the administration of Mr. Adams related to what was called “The Panama Mission.” In his Message of December, 1825, the President made the following announcement:

“Among the measures which have been suggested to the Spanish-American Republics by the new relations with one another resulting from the recent changes of their condition, is that of assembling at the Isthmus of Panama, a Congress at which each of them should be represented, to deliberate upon objects important to the welfare of all. The republics of Colombia, of Mexico, and of Central America, have already deputed plenipotentiaries to such a meeting, and they have invited the United States to be also represented there by their ministers. The invitation has been accepted, and ministers on the part of the United States will be commissioned to attend at those deliberations, and to take part in them, so far as may be compatible with that neutrality from which it is neither our intention nor the desire of the other American States that we should depart.”

It was, beyond controversy, the constitutional prerogative of the President, as the organ of all intercourse with foreign nations, to accept this invitation, and to name Ministers to the proposed Congress. The Senate might or might not concur with him in this step, and might or might not confirm the nominations of the proposed Ministers. He sent to the Senate the names of John Sergeant of Philadelphia, and Richard C. Anderson of Kentucky, as the Ministers of the United States to the proposed Congress at Panama. The Senatorial opposition, led by Mr. Benton and Mr. Tazewell, after a long discussion in secret session, took a vote upon a resolution that it was inexpedient to send Ministers to Panama. This was rejected by a vote of 24 to 19; and the nominations were then confirmed by a vote of 27 to 17 in the case of Mr. Anderson, and by a vote of 26 to 18 in the case of Mr. Sergeant. The diplomatic department having thus fully acted upon and confirmed the proposed measure, it remained for the House of Representatives to initiate and pass the necessary appropriation. The turn that was given to the subject in the House gave rise to an animated debate on a very important constitutional topic, in which Mr. Buchanan, although opposed to the Mission, asserted it to be the duty of the House to make the appropriation, now that the Senate had confirmed the appointment of the Ministers. This debate began upon a resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, that “in the opinion of the House it is expedient to appropriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the United States to send Ministers to the Congress of Panama.” To this resolution, Mr. McLane of Delaware had moved an amendment, which, if it had been adopted, would have placed the House of Representatives in the anomalous attitude of annexing, as a condition of its grant, instructions as to the mode in which the diplomatic agents of the United States were to act in carrying out a foreign mission. Mr. Buchanan, who was in favor of the amendments, was also in favor of making the appropriation necessary to enable the President to send the Mission; and in support of this constitutional duty of the House, he made an argument on the 11th of April (1826) which drew from Mr. Webster the compliment that he had placed this part of the subject in a point of view which could not be improved.[20] Mr. Buchanan said:

“I know there are several gentlemen on this floor, who approve of the policy of the amendments proposed, and wish to express an opinion in their favor; and who yet feel reluctant to vote for them, because it is their intention finally to support the appropriation bill. They think, if the amendments should be rejected, consistency would require them to refuse any grant of money to carry this mission into effect. I shall, therefore, ask the attention of the committee, whilst I endeavor to prove that there would not, in any event, be the slightest inconsistency in this course.

“I assert it to be a position susceptible of the clearest proof, that the House of Representatives is morally bound, unless in extreme cases, to vote the salaries of Ministers who have been constitutionally created by the President and Senate. The expediency of establishing the mission was one question, which has already been decided by the competent authority; when the appropriation bill shall come before us, we will be called upon to decide another and a very different question. Richard C. Anderson and John Sergeant have been regularly nominated by the President of United States to be Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary ‘to the Assembly of American nations at Panama.’ The Senate, after long and solemn deliberation, have advised and consented to their appointment. These Ministers have been created—they have been called into existence under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. That venerated instrument declares, that the President ‘shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur: and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.’ What, then, will be the question upon the appropriation bill? In order to enable our Ministers to proceed upon their mission, the President has asked us to grant the necessary appropriation. Shall we incur the responsibility of refusing? Shall we thus defeat the mission which has already been established by the only competent constitutional authorities? This House has, without doubt, the physical power to refuse the appropriation, and it possesses the same power to withhold his salary from the President of the United States. The true question is, what is the nature of our constitutional obligation? Are we not morally bound to pay the salaries given by existing laws to every officer of the Government? By the act of the first May, 1810, the outfit and salary to be allowed by the President to Foreign Ministers are established. Such Ministers have been regularly appointed to attend the Congress at Panama. What right then have we to refuse to appropriate the salaries which they have a right to receive, under the existing laws of the land?

“I admit there may be extreme cases, in which this House would be justified in withholding such an appropriation. ‘The safety of the people is the supreme law.’ If, therefore, we should believe any mission to be dangerous, either to the existence or to the liberties of this country, necessity would justify us in breaking the letter to preserve the spirit of the Constitution. The same necessity would equally justify us in refusing to grant to the President his salary, in certain extreme cases, which might easily be imagined.

“But how far would your utmost power extend? Can you re-judge the determination of the President and Senate, and destroy the officers which they have created? Might not the President immediately send these Ministers to Panama; and, if he did, would not their acts be valid? It is certain, if they should go, they run the risk of never receiving a salary; but still they might act as Plenipotentiaries. By withholding the salary of the President, you cannot withhold from him the power; neither can you, by refusing to appropriate for this mission, deprive the Ministers of their authority. It is beyond your control to make them cease to be Ministers.

“The constitutional obligation to provide for a Minister, is equally strong as that to carry into effect a treaty. It is true, the evils which may flow from your refusal may be greater in the one case than the other. If you refuse to appropriate for a treaty, you violate the faith of the country to a foreign nation. You do no more, however, than omit to provide for the execution of an instrument which is declared by the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. In the case which will be presented to you by the appropriation bill, is the nature of your obligation different? I think not. The power to create the Minister is contained in the same clause of the Constitution with that to make the treaty. They are powers of the same nature. The one is absolutely necessary to carry the other into effect. You cannot negotiate treaties without Ministers. They are the means by which the treaty-making power is brought into action. You are, therefore, under the same moral obligation to appropriate money to discharge the salary of a Minister, that you would be to carry a treaty into effect.

“If you ask me for authority to establish these principles, I can refer you to the opinion of the first President of the United States—the immortal Father of his Country—who, in my humble judgment, possessed more practical wisdom, more political foresight, and more useful constitutional knowledge, than all his successors.

“I have thus, I think, established the position, that gentlemen who vote for the amendments now before the committee, even if they should not prevail, may, without inconsistency, give their support to the appropriation bill.”

Sound as this was, it is a little remarkable that Mr. Buchanan should not have considered that the duty of voting the necessary appropriation precluded the House of Representatives from dictating what subjects the Ministers were to discuss or not to discuss. Those who favored the proposed amendments founded themselves on the legal maxim that he who has the power to give may annex to the gift whatever condition he chooses. This was well answered by Mr. Webster, that in making appropriations for such purposes the House did not make gifts, but performed a duty. The amendments were rejected on the 21st of April, and on the following day the Panama Appropriation Bill was passed, Mr. Buchanan voting with the majority.[21]

Some of the topics incidentally touched upon in the discursive debate on this Panama Mission are of little interest now. But one may be referred to, because it related to the dangerous topic of slavery. An apprehension was felt by those who were opposed to this measure, and by Mr. Buchanan, among others, that the Spanish-American Republics, more particularly Mexico and Colombia, might concert measures at this proposed Congress to seize the West India Islands, and raise there the standard of emancipation and social revolution. Those who entertained this apprehension, therefore, did not wish to see the moral and political influence of this proposed Congress increased by the participation of the United States in its proceedings. It may have been an unfounded fear; but in truth, excepting in so far as the objects of this assembly were understood and explained by the American Administration itself, very little was known of the purposes entertained by its original projectors. It was certainly not unnatural, in the then condition of our own country, and of the West Indies, in regard to the matter of slavery, that public men in the United States should have been cautious in regard to this exciting topic. At all events, it was introduced incidentally, in the discussion on the proposed Mission, and Mr. Buchanan thus expressed himself upon it:

“Permit me here, for a moment, to speak upon a subject to which I have never before adverted upon this floor, and to which, I trust, I may never again have occasion to advert. I mean the subject of slavery. I believe it to be a great political and a great moral evil. I thank God, my lot has been cast in a State where it does not exist. But, while I entertain these opinions, I know it is an evil at present without a remedy. It has been a curse entailed upon us by that nation which now makes it a subject of reproach to our institutions. It is, however, one of those moral evils, from which it is impossible for us to escape, without the introduction of evils infinitely greater. There are portions of this Union, in which, if you emancipate your slaves, they will become masters. There can be no middle course. Is there any man in this Union who could, for a moment, indulge in the horrible idea of abolishing slavery by the massacre of the high-minded, and the chivalrous race of men in the South. I trust there is not one. For my own part I would, without hesitation, buckle on my knapsack, and march in company with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) in defence of their cause.”[22]

Footnote 17:

At a little later period, Mr. Webster was transferred from the House to the Senate, and became there one of the strongest and most conspicuous of the friends of the administration.

Footnote 18:

Joint Resolutions of 13th and 24th March, 1779. See Journals, pages 335, 336, 342. 1 Smith’s Laws, 487. Life of Joseph Reed, President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, Vol. II, p. 65.

Footnote 19:

The peroration of Mr. Everett’s speech was as follows:

“The present year completes the half century since the Declaration of Independence; and most devoutly do I hope, that, when the silver trumpet of our political jubilee sounds, it may be with a note of comfort and joy to the withered heart of the war-worn veteran of the Revolution. Our tardy provision will, indeed, come too late to help him through the hard journey of life; it will not come too late to alleviate the sorrows of age, and smooth the pillow of decline. It is the fiftieth year of our Independence. How much shall we read, how much shall we hear, how much, perhaps, we shall say this year, about the glorious exploits of our fathers, and the debt of gratitude we owe them. I do not wish this to be all talk. I want to do something. I want a substantial tribute to be paid them. Praise is sweet music, both to old and young; but I honestly confess that my mind relucts and revolts, by anticipation, at the thought of the compliments with which we are going to fill the ears of these poor veterans, while we leave their pockets empty, and their backs cold. If we cast out this bill, I do hope that some member of this House, possessing an influence to which I cannot aspire, will introduce another, to make it penal to say a word on the fourth of July, about the debt of gratitude which we owe to the heroes of the Revolution. Let the day and the topic pass in decent silence. I hate all gag-laws; but there is one thing I am willing to gag—the vaporing tongue of a bankrupt, who has grown rich, and talks sentiment, about the obligation he feels to his needy creditor, whom he paid off at 2s. 6d. in the pound.”

Footnote 20:

In the course of his speech on the 14th of April, Mr. Webster said: “The gentleman from Pennsylvania, with whom I have great pleasure in concurring on this part of the case, while I regret that I differ with him on others, has placed this question in a point of view which can not be improved. These officers do indeed already exist. They are public ministers. If they were to negotiate a treaty, and the Senate should ratify it, it would become a law of the land, whether we voted their salaries or not. This shows that the Constitution never contemplated that the House of Representatives should act a part in originating negotiations or concluding treaties.” Mr. Webster made further observations, in confirmation of the views expressed by Mr. Buchanan on the duty of making the appropriation. (_Works of Daniel Webster_, Vol. III, p. 181.)

Footnote 21:

The subsequent fate of this measure can be related very briefly. Mr. Anderson died at Carthagena, on his way to the isthmus of Panama. The “Congress” adjourned to meet at Tacuboya, a village near the city of Mexico. Mr. Poinsett was appointed in the place of Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Sargeant sailed for Vera Cruz on the 2d of December, 1826. He arrived in Mexico in January, 1827, and found a few fragments of the “Congress” floating about, without action or organization. Bolivar, who was supposed to have originated the project, had changed his mind. Mr. Sargeant remained for six months in Mexico, and in the summer of 1827 returned home.

Footnote 22:

This allusion to Mr. Everett requires some explanation. On the 9th of March, 1826, he made a speech on the proposed Constitutional Amendment, in the course of which he said:

“I am not one of those citizens of the North who think it immoral and irreligious to join in putting down a servile insurrection at the South. I am no soldier, my habits and education are very un-military; but there is no cause in which I would sooner buckle a knapsack to my back, and put a musket on my shoulder, than that. I would cede the whole continent to any one who would take it—to England, to France, to Spain; I would see it sunk in the bottom of the ocean, before I would see any part of this fair America converted into a Continental Hayti, by that awful process of bloodshed and desolation, by which alone such a catastrophe could be brought on. The great relation of servitude, in some form or other, with greater or less departures from the theoretic equality of man, is inseparable from our nature. I know no way by which the form of this servitude shall be fixed, but by political institution. Domestic slavery, though, I confess, not that form of servitude which seems to be most beneficial to the master—certainly not that which is most beneficial to the servant—is not, in my judgment, to be set down as an immoral and irreligious relation. I cannot admit that Religion has but one voice to the slave, and that this voice is, ‘Rise against your master.’ No, Sir, the New Testament says, ‘Slaves obey your masters,’ and though I know full well that, in the benignant operations of Christianity, which gathered master and slave around the same communion table, this unfortunate institution disappeared in Europe, yet I cannot admit that, while it subsists, and where it subsists, its duties are not pre-supposed and sanctioned by religion. I certainly am not called upon to meet the charges brought against this institution, yet truth obliges me to say a word more on the subject. I know the condition of the working classes in other countries, and I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the slaves of this country are better clothed and fed, and less hardly worked, than the peasantry of some of the most prosperous States of the continent of Europe.”