Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHARACTER OF THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR. 271

of a reprehensible policy, directed by sectional spirit. The stronger this conviction became, the more decided was their reaction. Thus they themselves constantly gave the struggle a more marked sectional character. They fought the fight not as a national party, but as an isolated geographical section, the well-being of which depended upon commerce and the opposition of which was therefore a struggle against ruin, because the rest of the Union systematically, and perhaps, indeed, on principle, made war upon this interest. On this account they did not limit themselves to making representations and presenting protests as states, but they tried to form a formal league with each other which would have made them a union within the Union. And all these steps were not justified by the iron law of necessity, but were put on the ground of a positive constitutional right. The threat of revolution was not made, but acting on the principle of the sovereignty of the states, an ultimatum was reserved in the utterances of the founders of the opposition party and of the originators of its confession of faith.

In these last sentences I have condensed the true meaning of the strife which reached its culmination in the Hartford convention and came to a sudden end by the conclusion of peace with England. The convention consisted of delegates from three state legislatures and the state legislatures represented not only legally, but actually, the majority of the population of the states, for the latter had had repeated opportunities to choose men of other opinions. And a very strong minority in several other states entertained the same or similar views. It is therefore laughable folly to consider the convention as a gathering of brainsick conspirators, although it must be admitted that the leaders of the party formed its radical wing. But the programme of the convention was always a party programme, and this party programme adopted, on the fundamental constitutional question, the position first chosen by the

radical wing of the opposite party. Ultra-Federalists and ultra-Republicans met on a principle of constitutional law, the logical result of which was the dependence of the-existence of the Union upon the free will of every single state. If the practical application of this principle in a way which would have seriously endangered the existence of the Union was attempted, at the moment, in neither of the two cases, this was only of secondary importance. The one or the other party could sooner or later hold that the time had come for such an attempt, and neither the one nor the other could oppose the attempt on the ground of positive right, without putting itself into contradiction with its own past.

THE TREATY OF GHENT.

273

CHAPTER VII.

HISTORY OF THE SLAVERY QUESTION TO 1787. THE COMPROMISES OF THE CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERY.

The news that the treaty of peace had been signed at Ghent was received with loud jubilation. Jay had been denounced as a British hireling and a traitor, while the contents of the treaty negotiated by him were still kept secret. The same party now boasted of a magnificent triumph, before it knew the stipulations of the peace concluded by its ambassadors. This over-hasty joy was the best proof in what straits the administration found itself and how weary of war the whole nation was.

The extraordinary capacity of political parties to forget at the demand of the moment, stood the Democrats in good stead. If the declaration of war had been delayed only a short time, the United States would have heard that the orders in council already mentioned had been recalled. From the beginning of the war, the so-called pressing of alleged British subjects found on American ships was the only one of the officially stated causes of the declaration of war which remained in existence.' The report made to the house of representatives, June 3, 1812, by the committee on foreign affairs, declared that "it is impossible for the United States to consider themselves an independent nation" as long as this mischievous practice was not put an end to.2 In the course of hostilities, it was reiterated by the executive as well as sharply declared by congress, that a prime object of the war was to force England

Am. State Papers, VIII., p. 125.

Ibid, VIII., p. 159.

to give up this pretended right.1 Even the conclusion of a truce was made dependent upon England's abandonment of this practice. Monroe, in his instructions of April 13, 1813, to the plenipotentiaries who were charged with the negotiations for peace, declared that "a submission to it by the United States would be the abandonment, in favor of Great Britain, of all claim to neutral rights and of all other rights on the ocean." But on June 27, 1814, he communicated to the peace commissioners, by order of the president, the advice that they should conclude the treaty without any stipulation on this point, if it should appear to be an impassable obstacle. It so happened that in the treaty of peace not a word was said on either this point, or the whole question of neutral rights.5

Under these circumstances it needed a bold front to begin the message, in which the president announced to congress the conclusion of peace, with the words: "I congratulate you and our constituents upon an event which is highly honorable to the nation, and terminates with peculiar felicity a campaign signalized by the most brilliant successes."6 The Federalists naturally did not fail to point out with biting mockery the contrast between the facts and this presumptuous assertion. But the people by no means always see events in a new light on account of their results. The nation wished peace if it did not have to be bought in a precisely shameful way, and had feared for some time lest it should perhaps cost some unbearable

2

3

'Am. State Papers, VIII., pp. 333, 425, 560.

Ibid, VIII., pp. 318, 336, 345.

Ibid, VIII., p. 567. There are two differently paged editions of the State Papers. In the other edition, this reference would be: Amer State Papers, Foreign Relations, III., p. 695.

• Ibid, VIII., pp. 593-4.

* Statutes at Large, III., pp. 218-223.

American State Papers, VIII., p. 653. Statesman's Manual, I., p. 325. In the latter the message is erroneously dated on the 20th instead of the 18th of February.

DEATH OF THE FEDERALIST PARTY.

275

sacrifice. It was not difficult, then, for it to persuade itself, with the help of the national pride, that the restoration of the status ante was "highly honorable." The picture, seen "through the smoke of Jackson's victory," was fair enough to look upon. It happened, moreover, that the state of things in Europe promised a long peace, and so there was practically little ground for the fear that England would soon again have occasion to attempt a violation of neutral rights or the impressment of sailors. And her inclination to risk such an attempt must decrease every day with the powerful growth of the United States in population as well as in wealth.

Despite the mockery and the blame, thoroughly justified in certain respects, which the Federalists lavished upon the Democratic party, the latter came out of the war strengthened, while all was now over with the Federalists. Holmes had warned them that they were driving on to the "shipwreck of their party." Now that the sufferings of the war and of the whole "policy of restriction" were over and, thanks to the great prosperity of the country, were quickly forgotten, men only remembered how tardily the Federalists had discharged their duty to the Union in its hour of need. The latter could not free themselves from the suspicion that they had been willing to wholly withdraw their aid from the country, or even to turn against it, for a convincing proof against such a suspicion can not be brought forward when a man will not be convinced. The positive assertions of their opponents left a shadow upon them, and the mass of the party was well contented to let itself be considered as innocently led astray. All the blame lavished upon the Federalists on account of their conduct during the war was ever more and more summed up in the one expression "Hartford convention," and the inexpiable guilt which was conveyed by these words rested

See the whole speech in Niles' Reg., VI., Sup., pp.180-184.

« AnteriorContinuar »