Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

perished? What shall we say of the magnitude of an evil so vast, that its increase seems to make it nothing more, its decrease, nothing less? If the slave trade be an object to excite the abhorrence of the civilized world, where shall men, when they shall awake to behold the enormity of the practice of settling national differences by the mangling of human bodies, and the shedding of human blood, where, shall they find language, to express their unmingled horrour? The Congress of Vienna, composed of the representatives of the great powers of Europe, exhibited a sublime moral spectacle, when they declared in the face of Europe, and of the world, that the African slave trade had been regarded by just and en ightened mer, in all ages, as repugnant to the principles of humanity, and of universal morality, and that the public voice, in all civilized countries, demanded that it should be suppressed. How much more sublime will be the spectacle, when the nations of Europe and America, deeply penetrated with the atrocity of deciding national differences by an arbitrament of blood and slaughter, shall solemnly declare, in the face of Europe and of the world, that it is a practice repugnant to the principles of humanity and of universal morality, and how loudly and unceasingly will the public voice demand that it shall be suppressed! The enterprise is indeed great, the theme inspiring. What greater curse than war; what greater good than peace? Peace seems to have been chosen as the term fittest to denote the blessings of Christianity, both in their beginning, and in their fulness; its first announcement was made by proclaiming peace on earth, and its final triumph is designated as the reign of peace.

But however great may be the enterprise, it is often asserted to be utterly impracticable. That independent nations, having no common umpire, must in case of difference, resort to the sword, is a remark so commonly and so frequently made, that it seems to have worn upon the mind, an impression of its truth, by the mere force of repetition. It is, however, founded in ignorance of the ultimate principles on which tribunals of law,

reason, and equity, are based. Why, we might ask, do not individuals settle their differences sword in hand, instead of submitting them to the decision of a court? Because, it will be replied, there is a law which takes such cases out of the hands of individuals, and provides for their reference to a court. But what gives force to that law? The arm of the magistrate, will be the answer. But what makes the arm of the magistrate so strong that it can give force to a law over thousands and millions of men, each of whom has an arm as strong as the magistrate himself? What magic is there in the black headed staff of the constable, that the stoutest and most resolute offenders against the law, flee before it, rather than attempt resistance? What secret charm in the voice of the sheriff, that when opposed, he can call for aid, and the posse comitatus will rally around him, and men with powder and ball, and bristling bayonets, stand ready to enforce his orders? Oh! it will be said, it is the law, it is the law which does all this. But what is this law, which is so omnipotent? What gives such power to a silent letter on the statute book, or to a rule existing no where but in the minds of men, or in the reported decisions of the courts. We answer, what but the universal conviction, that the law once prostrate, violence will prevail, and society become a scene of universal anarchy? This it is which makes men rally around the law. The combined will, the common sentiment of the people, is what gives force to law. Every offender knows that if one man, by his single arm, is unable to execute her mandate, another will come to his aid, and another, and another, until enough are collected to compel obedience. Force may be sometimes necessary; but behind this force lies the collected will of the nation; once let this will be broken, society dissolves into its original elements, and primeval darkness returns to brood over the wildest chaos.

Thus it appears that the mode of adjusting differences between individuals in civil society, derives its efficacy from a universal, abiding conviction of the necessity of such a mode in order to prevent universal ruin. When the nations shall be

come fully awake to the nature of war as a mode of deciding national differences, and shall be fully and permanently convinced what benefits will be derived from administering international law, through the medium of tribunals analgous to those which administer it between man and man, what shall hinder that law from being guarded by sanctions as efficient as those which give force to the laws of states, and violence between nations from being reprobated equally with violence between citizens?

There is another topic sometimes insisted on in discouragement of efforts in behalf of peace, which, although we have dwelt upon it at length in former articles, we are unwilling to pass over, without remark; and the more unwilling, since recent occurrences shed upon it the light of a living comment. We refer to the necessity of war. When the French government refused to pay the indemnity due us by treaty, it was loudly proclaimed that the honour of our country, and justice to the claimants of the money, demanded the most decided measures, and those of a warlike character. It was not to be endured, it was said, that we should have been negotiating with France for a quarter of a century, and have been unable to obtain the payment. On this subject it is not our design to enlarge. We have called the attention of our readers to it merely for the purpose of laying before them a single fact, which sets the whole matter in a clearer light than any words of ours could do.

"Towards the close of the last century, the United States and France being in amity, while Europe was engaged in a general war, our merchants availed themselves of their neutral position to make large shipments, principally of provisions for the belligerents. This they were entitled to do, not only by the general law of nations, but also by the special stipulations of our treaties with France. But the war soon assumed a character in which all rules of intercourse were disregarded; the laws of nations and the obligations of treaties, were openly violated, and, by a series of outrages unparalleled in the history of modern times, both the belligerents, and especially France,

nearly destroyed our commerce, and ruined those who were engaged in it. Our merchants complained, and our government remonstrated, but without effect. It is no doubt the duty or every government to protect its citizens, and if possible procure redress for injuries done to them. In performance of this duty, the government of the United States invited its citizens to confide their claims to its management, and undertook to do every thing in its power to obtain satisfaction. They did so, and left the matter to their government, in the confidence that justice would be done. Our ministers were instructed to demand of France, indemnity for those injuries; and, at last, a special mission was sent to insist upon redress. The French government did not deny the justice of the demand; but they had claims upon the government of the United States, which they insisted upon taking into consideration, and they refused to enter into any agreement unless those claims were provided for. The negotiation on these points was protracted for a long time, and finally, the United States agreed not merely to abandon, but to release the claims of our merchants to indemnity, on condition that France would relinquish her claims upon us. This agreement was completed by the Convention of the 30th of September, 1800, and the just claims of our merchants upon the government of France, were exchanged by our government, for a national object, which was deemed a full equivalent. Under these circumstances, the individuals, whose rights were thus bartered, ask of our government some compensation for their property, which has thus been used for the public good; on the principle that they alone ought not to bear the whole loss of what was given to France as an equivalent for an object of great national importance."*

The facts of this statement are abundantly proved by authentic documents; they are within the recollection of many; and upon the minds of some, indelibly impressed. The amount of the claims was estimated at fifteen millions of dollars, and our government in assuming them in discharge of claims of a

*See American Quarterly Review-Art. French Spoliations prior to 1800President's Message of May 20th, 1836, and sundry Reports of Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives.

like amount, made by the French government, showed its own sense of their value. Immediately after the Convention of 1800, the claimants petitioned Congress for payment, and they have continued to do so up to the present hour. And what has been the result? Not a solitary cent have they obtained. The sense of justice and the generous sympathies so easily aroused by the delay of France, for a quarter of a century, to discharge a similar claim, have slumbered over this debt of our own government for the period of thirty-six years. Committee after commiitee have reported in favour of the claimants; four out of five committees, since the year 1826, have done so; and still justice is withheld.

Now we have adduced these facts simply because they illustrate, in reference to a single case, that of the non-payment of a debt, the nature of the necessity of war. The ultimate refusal of France to pay the indemnity, it was supposed would make a resort to war necessary. It was not to be endured that we should have been negotiating about the payment, a quarter of a century, and not have been able to obtain it. With equal propriety might our citizens, adopting similar language, declare, it is not to be endured that we should have been petitioning the government for thirty-six years, and have yet been unable to obtain payment. And who can say that they could not have made out a case of equal necessity, both in order to satisfy their injured honour and their injured purses, of rushing sword in hand, to make reprisals upon the public property of the nation? We say nothing of the madness and the guilt of such an act; we simply say that it was equally as necessary as would have been the making of reprisals on the property of French subjects, or of the French government. With what show of propriety, the President of the United States, in his message, could complain of the injustice of France to our citizens, in withholding from them five millions of dollars for a period of twenty-five years, without assuming a tone equally decided in regard to the injustice of our own government in withholding from them

« ZurückWeiter »