Chapter XIII: Front Matter (13)

With the success of the American Revolution prophecy entered other spheres, and here we welcome a remarkable writer, the Rev. William Paley, an English divine, who was born July, 1743, and died 25th May, 1805. He is known for various works of great contemporary repute, all commended by a style of singular transparency, and admirably adapted to the level of opinion at the time. If they are gradually vanishing from sight, it is because other works, especially in philosophy, are more satisfactory and touch higher chords.

His earliest considerable work, and for a long period a popular text-book of education, was the well-known “Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy,” which first appeared in 1785. Here, with grave errors and a reprehensible laxity on certain topics, he did much for truth. The clear vision with which he saw the enormity of Slavery was not disturbed by any prevailing interest at home, and he constantly testified against it. American Independence furnished occasion for a prophetic aspiration of more than common value, because embodied in a work of morals especially for the young:--

“The great revolution which seems preparing in the Western
World may probably conduce (and who knows but that it is
designed?) _to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny_:
and when this contest, and the passions that attend it, are
no more, there will succeed a season for reflecting whether
a legislature which had so long lent its assistance to the
support of an institution replete with human misery was fit to
be trusted with an empire the most extensive that ever obtained
in any age or quarter of the world.”[603]

In thus associating Emancipation with American Independence, the philosopher became an unconscious associate of Lafayette, who, on the consummation of peace, invited Washington to this beneficent enterprise,[604]--alas! in vain.

Paley did not confine his testimony to the pages of philosophy, but openly united with the Abolitionists of the day. To help the movement against the slave-trade, he encountered the _claim of pecuniary compensation_ for the partakers in the traffic, by a brief essay, in 1789, entitled “Arguments against the Unjust Pretensions of Slave Dealers and Holders to be indemnified by Pecuniary Allowances at the Public Expense, in Case the Slave Trade should be abolished.”[605] This was sent to the Abolition Committee, by whom the substance was presented to the public; but unhappily the essay was lost or mislaid.

His honorable interest in the cause was attested by a speech at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Carlisle, over which he presided, 9th February, 1792. Here he denounced the slave-trade as “this diabolical traffic,” and by a plain similitude, as applicable to slavery as to the trade in slaves, held it up to judgment:--

“None will surely plead in favor of scalping. But suppose
scalps should become of request in Europe, and a trade in them
be carried on with the American Indians; might it not be
justly said, that the Europeans, by their trade in scalps, did
all they could to perpetuate amongst the natives of America the
inhuman practice of scalping?”[606]

Strange that the philosopher who extenuated Duelling should have been so true and lofty against Slavery! For this, at least, he deserves our grateful praise.

ROBERT BURNS, 1788.

From Count Aranda to Robert Burns,--from the rich and titled minister, faring sumptuously in the best house of Paris, to the poor ploughboy poet, struggling in a cottage,--what a contrast! And there is contrast also between him and the philosopher nestling in the English Church. Of the poet I say nothing, except that he was born 25th January, 1759, and died 21st July, 1796, in the thirty-eighth year of his age.

There is only a slender thread of Burns to be woven into this web, and yet, coming from him, it must not be neglected. In a letter dated 8th November, 1788, after a friendly word for the unfortunate House of Stuart, he prophetically alludes to American Independence:--

“I will not, I cannot, enter into the merits of the case, but
I dare say the American Congress in 1776 will be allowed to be
as able and as enlightened as the English Convention was in
1688, _and that their posterity will celebrate the centenary
of their deliverance from us as duly and sincerely as we do
ours from the oppressive measures of the wrong-headed House of
Stuart_.”[607]

The year 1788, when these words were written, was a year of commemoration, being the hundredth from the famous Revolution by which the Stuarts were excluded from the throne of England. The “centenary” of our Independence is not yet completed; but long ago the commemoration began. On the coming of that hundredth anniversary, the prophecy of Burns will be more than fulfilled.

This aspiration is in harmony with the address to George the Third in the “Dream,” after the loss of the Colonies:--

“Your royal nest, beneath your wing,
Is e’en right reft and clouted,”[608]--

meaning broken and patched; also with the obnoxious toast he gave at a supper, “May our success in the present war be equal to the justice of our cause”;[609] and also with an “Ode on the American War,” beginning,--

“No Spartan tube, no Attic shell,
No lyre Eolian I awake;
’Tis Liberty’s bold note I swell;
Thy harp, Columbia, let me take.”[610]

How natural for the great poet who had pictured the sublime brotherhood of man!--

“Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will for a’ that,
…
That man to man, the warld o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.”[611]

RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN, 1794.

Sheridan was a genius who united the palm of eloquence in Parliament with that other palm won at the Theatre. His speeches and his plays excited equal applause. The House of Commons and Drury Lane were the scenes of his famous labors, while society enjoyed his graceful wit. He was born in Dublin, September, 1751, and died in London, July 7th, 1816.

I quote now from a speech in the House of Commons, 21st January, 1794.

“America remains neutral, prosperous, and at peace. America,
with a wisdom, prudence, and magnanimity which we have
disdained, thrives at this moment in a state of envied
tranquillity, and _is hourly clearing the paths to unbounded
opulence_. America has monopolized the commerce and the
advantages which we have abandoned. Oh! turn your eyes to her;
view her situation, her happiness, her content; observe her
trade and her manufactures, adding daily to her general credit,
to her private enjoyments, and to her public resources,--_her
name and government rising above the nations of Europe with a
simple, but commanding dignity, that wins at once the respect,
the confidence, and the affection of the world_.”[612]

Here are true respect and sympathy for our country, with a forecast of increasing prosperity, and an image of her attitude among the nations. It is pleasant to enroll the admired author of “The Rivals” and “The School for Scandal” in this catalogue.

CHARLES JAMES FOX, 1794.

In quoting from Charles James Fox, the statesman, minister, and orator, I need add nothing, except that he was born 24th January, 1749, and died 13th September, 1806, and that he was an early friend of our country.

Many words of his, especially during our Revolution, might be introduced here; but I content myself with a single passage, of later date, which, besides its expression of good-will, is a prophecy of our power. It is found in a speech in the House of Commons, on his motion for putting an end to war with France, 30th May, 1794.

“It was impossible to dissemble that we had a serious dispute
with America, and although we might be confident that the
wisest and best man of his age, who presided in the government
of that country, would do everything that became him to avert
a war, it was impossible to foresee the issue. America had no
fleet, no army; but in case of war she would find various means
to harass and annoy us. Against her we could not strike a blow
that would not be as severely felt in London as in America, so
identified were the two countries by commercial intercourse.
_To a contest with such an adversary he looked as the greatest
possible misfortune._ If we commenced another crusade against
her, we might destroy her trade, and check the progress of
her agriculture, but we must also equally injure ourselves.
Desperate, therefore, indeed, must be that war in which each
wound inflicted on our enemy would at the same time inflict one
upon ourselves. He hoped to God that such an event as a war
with America would not happen.”[613]

All good men on both sides of the ocean must join with Fox, who thus early deprecated war between the United States and England, and portrayed the fearful consequences. Time, which has enlarged and multiplied the relations between the two countries, makes his words more applicable now than when first uttered.

ABBÉ GRÉGOIRE, 1808.

Henri Grégoire, of France, Curate, Deputy to the States General, Constitutional Bishop, Member of the Convention, also of the Council of Five Hundred, and Senator, sometimes called Bishop, more frequently Abbé, was born 4th December, 1750, and died 28th April, 1831. To these titles add Abolitionist and Republican.

His character and career were unique, being in France what Clarkson and Wilberforce were in England, and much more, for he was not only an Abolitionist. In all history no hero of humanity stands forth more conspicuous for instinctive sympathy with the Rights of Man and constancy in their support. As early as 1788 he signalized himself by an essay, crowned by the Academy of Metz, upholding tolerance for the Jews.[614] His public life began, while yet a curate, as a representative of the clergy of Lorraine in the States General, but his sympathies with the people were at once manifest. In the engraving by which the oath in the Tennis Court is commemorated he appears in the foreground. His votes were always for the enfranchisement of the people and the improvement of their condition, his hope being “to Christianize the Revolution.”[615] In the night session of 4th August, 1789, he declared for the abolition of privileges. He was the first to give adhesion to the civil constitution of the clergy, and himself became a constitutional bishop. The decree abolishing royalty was drawn by him, and he avows that for many days thereafter the excess of joy took from him appetite and sleep. In the discussion on the execution of the King he called for the suppression of the punishment of death. At his instance the Convention abolished African slavery. With similar energy he sustained public libraries, botanical gardens, and experimental farms. He was a founder of the Bureau of Longitudes, the _Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers_, and of the National Institute. More than any other person he contributed to prevent the destruction of public monuments, and was the first to call this crime “Vandalism,”--an excellent term, since adopted in all European languages. With similar vigor he said, in words often quoted, “Kings are in the moral order what monsters are in the physical order”; and, “The history of kings is the martyrology of nations.” He denounced “the oligarchs of all countries and all the crowned brigands who pressed down the people,” and, according to his own boast, “spat upon” duellists. “Better a loss to deplore than an injustice to reproach ourselves with,” was his lofty solace as he turned from the warning that the Colonies might be endangered by the rights he demanded.

Such a man could not reconcile himself to the Empire or to Napoleon; nor could he expect consideration under the Restoration. But he was constant always to his original sentiments. In 1826 he wrote a work with the expressive title, “The Nobility of the Skin, or the Prejudice of Whites against the Color of Africans and that of their Black and Mixed Descendants.”[616] His life was prolonged to witness the Revolution of 1830, and shortly after his remains were borne to the cemetery of Mont Parnasse by young men, who took the horses from the hearse.[617]

This brief account of one little known is an introduction to signal prophecies concerning America.

As early as 8th January, 1791, in a document addressed to citizens of color and free negroes of the French islands, he boldly said:--

“A day will come when deputies of color will traverse the ocean
to come and sit in the national diet, and to swear with us
to live and die under our laws. A day will come when the sun
will not shine among you except upon freemen,--when the rays
of the light-spreading orb will no longer fall upon irons and
slaves.… It is according to the irresistible march of events
and the progress of intelligence, that all people dispossessed
of the domain of Liberty will at last recover this indefeasible
property.”[618]

These strong and confident words, so early in date, were followed by others more remarkable. At the conclusion of his admirable work “De la Littérature des Nègres,” first published in 1808, where, with equal knowledge and feeling, homage is done to a people wronged and degraded by man, he cites his prediction with regard to the sun shining only upon freemen, and then, elevated by the vision, declares that “this American Continent, asylum of Liberty, is on its way towards an order of things which will be common to the Antilles, and _the course of which all the powers combined will not be able to arrest_.”[619] This vigorous language is crowned by a prophecy of singular extent and precision, where, after dwelling on the influences at work to accelerate progress, he foretells the eminence of our country:--

“When an energetic and powerful nation, to which everything
presages high destinies, stretching its arms over the two
oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific, shall dispatch its vessels
from one to the other _by a shortened route,--whether by
cutting the Isthmus of Panama, or by forming a canal of
communication, as has been proposed, by the River St. John
and the Lake of Nicaragua,--it will change the face of the
commercial world and the face of empires_. Who knows if America
will not then avenge the outrages she has received, and if our
old Europe, placed in the rank of a subaltern power, will not
become a colony of the New World?”[620]

Thus resting on the two oceans with a canal between, so that the early “secret of the strait” shall no longer exist, the American Republic will change the face of the world, and perhaps make Europe subaltern. Such was the vision of the French Abolitionist, lifted by devotion to Humanity.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1824.

Small preface is needed for the testimony of Jefferson, whose life belongs to the history of his country. He was born 2d April, 1743, and died 4th July, 1826.

Contemporary and rival of Adams, the author of the Declaration of Independence surpassed the other in sympathetic comprehension of the Rights of Man, as the other surpassed him in the prophetic spirit. Jefferson’s words picturing Slavery were unequalled in the prolonged discussion of that terrible subject, and his two Inaugural Addresses are masterpieces of political truth. But with clearer eye Adams foresaw the future grandeur of the Republic, and dwelt on its ravishing light and glory. The vision of our country coextensive and coincident with the North American Continent was never beheld by Jefferson. While recognizing that our principles of government, traversing the Rocky Mountains, would smile upon the Pacific coast, his sight did not embrace the distant communities there as parts of a common country. This is apparent in a letter to John Jacob Astor, 24th May, 1812, where, referring to the commencement of a settlement by the latter on Columbia River, and declaring the gratification with which he looked forward to the time when its descendants should have spread through the whole length of that coast, he adds, “covering it with free and independent Americans, _unconnected with us but by the ties of blood and interest_, and employing, like us, the rights of self-government.”[621] In another letter to Mr. Astor, 9th November, 1813, he characterizes the settlement as “the germ of a great, free, and _independent empire on that side of our continent_,”[622] thus carefully announcing political dissociation.

But Jefferson has not been alone in blindness to the mighty capabilities of the Republic, inspired by his own Declaration of Independence. Daniel Webster, in a speech at Faneuil Hall, as late as 7th November, 1845, pronounced that the Pacific coast could not be governed from Europe, or from the Atlantic side of the Continent; and he pressed the absurdity of anything different:--

“Where is Oregon? On the shores of the Pacific, three thousand
miles from us, and twice as far from England. Who is to
settle it? Americans mainly; some settlers undoubtedly from
England; but all Anglo-Saxons; all, men educated in notions of
independent government, and all self-dependent. And now let me
ask if there be any sensible man in the whole United States who
will say for a moment, that, when fifty or a hundred thousand
persons of this description shall find themselves on the shores
of the Pacific Ocean, they will long consent to be under the
rule either of the American Congress or the British Parliament.
They will raise a standard for themselves, and they ought to do
it.”[623]

Such a precise and strenuous protest from such a quarter mitigates the distrust of Jefferson. But after the acquisition of California the orator said, “I willingly admit, my apprehensions have not been realized.”[624]

On the permanence of the National Union, and its influence throughout the world, Jefferson prophesied thus, in a letter to Lafayette, 14th February, 1815:--

“The cement of this Union is in the heart-blood of every
American. I do not believe there is on earth a government
established on so immovable a basis. Let them in any State,
even in Massachusetts itself, raise the standard of separation,
and its citizens will rise in mass and do justice themselves on
their own incendiaries.”[625]

Unhappily the Rebellion shows that he counted too much on the patriotism of the States against “their own incendiaries.” In the same hopeful spirit he wrote to Edward Livingston, the eminent jurist, 4th April, 1824:--

“You have many years yet to come of vigorous activity, and I
confidently trust they will be employed in cherishing every
measure which may foster our brotherly union and perpetuate a
constitution of government _destined to be the primitive and
precious model of what is to change the condition of man over
the globe_.”[626]

In these latter words he takes his place on the platform of John Adams, and sees the world changed by our example. But again he is anxious about the Union. In another letter to Livingston, 25th March, 1825, after saying of the National Constitution, that “it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it and to require its observance,” he prophesies:--

“However strong the cord of compact may be, there is a point of
tension at which it will break.”[627]

Thus, in venerable years, while watching with anxiety the fortunes of the Union, the patriarch did not fail to see the new order of ages instituted by the American Government.

GEORGE CANNING, 1826.

George Canning was a successor of Fox, in the House of Commons, as statesman, minister, and orator. He was born 11th April, 1770, and died 8th August, 1827, in the beautiful villa of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, where Fox had died before. Unlike Fox in sentiment for our country, he is nevertheless associated with a leading event of our history, and is the author of prophetic words.

The Monroe Doctrine, as now familiarly called, proceeded from Canning. He was its inventor, promoter, and champion, at least so far as it bears against European intervention in American affairs. Earnestly engaged in counteracting the designs of the Holy Alliance for the restoration of the Spanish colonies to Spain, he sought to enlist the United States in the same policy; and when Mr. Rush, our minister at London, replied, that any interference with European politics was contrary to the traditions of the American Government, he argued, that, however just such a policy might have been formerly, it was no longer applicable,--that the question was new and complicated,--that it was “full as much American as European, to say no more,”--that “it concerned the United States under aspects and interests as immediate and commanding as it did or could any of the States of Europe,”--that “they were the first power established on that continent, and now confessedly the leading power”; and he then asked: “Was it possible that they could see with indifference their fate decided upon by Europe?… Had not a new epoch arrived in the relative position of the United States towards Europe, which Europe must acknowledge? _Were the great political and commercial interests_ which hung upon the destinies of the new continent to be canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere, without the coöperation, or even knowledge, of the United States?”[628] With mingled ardor and importunity the British Minister pressed his case. At last, after much discussion in the Cabinet at Washington, President Monroe, accepting the lead of Mr. Canning, and with the counsel of John Quincy Adams, put forth his famous declaration, where, after referring to the radical difference between the political systems of Europe and America, he says, that “we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as _dangerous to our peace and safety_,” and that, where governments have been recognized by us as independent, “we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as _the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States_.”[629]

The message of President Monroe was received in England with enthusiastic congratulations. It was upon all tongues; the press was full of it; the securities of Spanish America rose in the market; the agents of Spanish America were happy.[630] Brougham exclaimed in Parliament, that “no event had ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freemen in Europe.”[631] Mackintosh rejoiced in the coincidence of England and the United States, “the two great English commonwealths,--for so he delighted to call them; and he heartily prayed that they might be forever united in the cause of justice and liberty.”[632] The Holy Alliance abandoned their purposes on this continent, and the independence of Spanish America was established. Some time afterwards, on the occasion of assistance to Portugal, when Mr. Canning felt called to review and vindicate his foreign policy, he assumed the following lofty strain: this was in the House of Commons, 12th December, 1826:--

“It would be disingenuous not to admit that the entry of
the French army into Spain was, in a certain sense, a
disparagement, an affront to the pride, a blow to the feelings
of England.… But I deny, that, questionable or censurable as
the act might be, it was one which necessarily called for
our direct and hostile opposition. Was nothing, then, to be
done?… If France occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order
to avoid the consequences of that occupation, that we should
blockade Cadiz? No. I looked another way. I sought materials of
compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain, such
as our ancestors had known her, I resolved, that, if France
had Spain, it should not be Spain ‘with the Indies.’ _I called
the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the
Old._”[633]

If the republics of Spanish America, thus summoned into independent existence, have not contributed the weight thus vaunted, the growing power of the United States is ample to compensate deficiencies on this continent. There is no balance of power it cannot redress.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, 1835.

With De Tocqueville we come among contemporaries removed by death. He was born at Paris, 29th July, 1805, and died at Cannes, 16th April, 1859. Having known him personally, and seen him at his castle-home in Normandy, I cannot fail to recognize the man in his writings, which on this account have a double charm.

He was the younger son of noble parents, his father being of ancient Norman descent, and his mother granddaughter of Malesherbes, the venerated defender of Louis the Sixteenth; but his aristocratic birth had no influence to check the generous sympathies with which his heart always palpitated. In 1831 he came to America as a commissioner from the French Government to examine our prisons, but with a larger commission from his own soul to study republican institutions. His conscientious application, rare probity, penetrating thought, and refinement of style all appeared in his work, “De la Démocratie en Amérique,” first published in 1835, whose peculiar success is marked by the fourteenth French edition now before me, and the translations into other languages. At once he was famous, and his work classical. The Academy opened its gates. Since Montesquieu there had been no equal success in the same department, and he was constantly likened to the illustrious author of “The Spirit of Laws.” Less epigrammatic, less artful, and less French than his prototype, he was more simple, truthful, and prophetic. A second publication in 1840, with the same title, the fruit of mature studies, presented American institutions in another aspect, exhibiting his unimpaired faith in Democracy, which with him was Equality as “first principle and symbol.”[634]

Entering the French Chambers, he became eminent for character, discussing chiefly those measures in which civilization is most concerned,--the reform of prisons, the abolition of slavery, penal colonies, and the pretensions of socialism. His work, “L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution,” awakens admiration, while his correspondence is among the most charming in literature, exciting love as well as delight.

His honest and practical insight made him philosopher and prophet, which he was always. A speech in the Chambers, 27th January, 1848, was memorable as predicting the Revolution which occurred one month later. But his foresight with regard to America brings him into our procession.

His clearness of vision appears in the distinctness with which he recognized the peril from Slavery and from the pretensions of the States. And in Slavery he saw also the prolonged and diversified indignity to the African race. This was his statement:--

“The most formidable of all the evils which menace the future
of the United States springs from _the presence of the
blacks on their soil_. When we seek the cause of the present
embarrassments and of the future dangers of the Union, from
whatever point we set out, we almost always come upon this
primary fact.”[635]

Then with consummate power he depicts the lot of the unhappy African, even when free: oppressed, but with whites for judges; shut out from the jury; his son excluded from the school which receives the descendant of the European; unable with gold to buy a place at the theatre “by the side of him who was his master”; in hospitals separated from the rest; permitted to worship the same God as the whites, but not to pray at the same altar; and when life is passed, the difference of condition prevailing still even over the equality of the grave.[636]

Impressed by the menace from Slavery, he further pictures the Union succumbing to the States:--

“Either I strangely deceive myself, or the Federal Government
of the United States is tending every day to grow weaker. It
is withdrawing gradually from affairs; it is contracting more
and more the circle of its action. Naturally feeble, it is
abandoning even the appearance of force.”[637]

Such was the condition when De Tocqueville wrote; and so it continued until the Rebellion broke forth, and the country rose to save the Union. Foreseeing this peril, he did not despair of the Republic, which, in his judgment, was “the natural state of the Americans,”[638] with roots more profound than the Union.

In describing the future he becomes a prophet. Accepting the conclusion that the number of inhabitants doubles in twenty-two years, and not recognizing any causes to arrest this progressive movement, he foresees the colossal empire:--

“The Americans of the United States, whatever they do, will
become one of the greatest people of the world; they will
cover with their offshoots almost all North America. The
continent which they inhabit is their domain; it cannot escape
them.”[639]

Then, declaring that the “English race,” not stopping within the limits of the Union, will advance much beyond towards the Northeast,--that at the Northwest they will encounter only Russian settlements without importance,--that at the Southwest the vast solitudes of Mexican territory will be appropriated,--and dwelling on the fortunate geographical position of “the English of America,” with their climate, their interior seas, their great rivers, and the fertility of their soil, he is ready to say:--

“So, in the midst of the uncertainty of the future, there is
at least one event which is certain. At an epoch which we can
call near, since the question here is of the life of a people,
the Anglo-Americans alone will cover all the immense space
comprised between the polar ice and the tropics; they will
spread from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean even to the coasts
of the South Sea.”[640]

Then, declaring that the territory destined to the Anglo-American race equals three fourths of Europe, that many centuries will pass before the different offshoots of this race will cease to present a common physiognomy, that no epoch can be foreseen when in the New World there will be any permanent inequality of conditions, and that there are processes of association and of knowledge by which the people are assimilated with each other and with the rest of the world, the prophet speaks:--

“There will then come a time when there will be seen in North
America one hundred and fifty millions of men, equal among
themselves, who will all belong to the same family, who will
have the same point of departure, the same civilization, the
same language, the same religion, the same habits, the same
manners, and among whom thought will circulate in the same form
and paint itself in the same colors. All else is doubtful, but
this is certain. Now here is a fact entirely new in the world,
of which imagination itself cannot grasp the import.”[641]

No American can fail to be strengthened in the future of the Republic by the testimony of De Tocqueville. Honor and gratitude to his memory!

RICHARD COBDEN, 1849.

Coming yet nearer to our own day, we meet a familiar name, now consecrated by death,--Richard Cobden, born 3d June, 1804, and died 2d April, 1865. In proportion as truth prevails among men, his character will shine with increasing glory until he is recognized as the first Englishman of his time. Though thoroughly English, he was not insular. He served mankind as well as England.

His masterly faculties and his real goodness made him a prophet always. He saw the future, and strove to hasten its promises. The elevation and happiness of the human family were his daily thought. He knew how to build as well as to destroy. Through him disabilities upon trade and oppressive taxes were overturned; also a new treaty was negotiated with France, quickening commerce and intercourse. He was never so truly eminent as when bringing his practical sense and enlarged experience to commend the cause of Permanent Peace in the world by the establishment of a refined system of International Justice, and the disarming of the nations. To this great consummation all his later labors tended. I have before me a long letter, dated at London, 7th November, 1849, where he says much on this absorbing question, from which, by an easy transition, he passes to speak of the proposed annexation of Canada to the United States. As what he says on the latter topic concerns America, and is a prophetic voice, I have obtained permission to copy it for this collection.

“Race, religion, language, traditions, are becoming bonds
of union, and not the parchment title-deeds of sovereigns.
These instincts may be thwarted for the day, but they are too
deeply rooted in Nature and in usefulness not to prevail in
the end. I look with less interest to these struggles of races
to live apart for what they want to undo than for what they
will prevent being done in future. _They will warn rulers that
henceforth the acquisition of fresh territory by force of arms
will only bring embarrassments and civil war_, instead of that
increased strength which in ancient times, when people were
passed, like flocks of sheep, from one king to another, always
accompanied the incorporation of new territorial conquests.

“This is the secret of the admitted doctrine, that we shall
have no more wars of conquest or ambition. In this respect
_you_ are differently situated, having vast tracts of unpeopled
territory to tempt that cupidity which, in respect of landed
property, always disposes individuals and nations, however rich
in acres, to desire more. This brings me to the subject of
Canada, to which you refer in your letters.

“I agree with you, that _Nature has decided that Canada and
the United States must become one, for all purposes of free
intercommunication_. Whether they also shall be united in the
same federal government must depend upon the two parties to the
union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of
the policy of 1776, on our part, to prevent our North American
colonies from pursuing their interest in their own way. If the
people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever
the very slight thread which now binds them to this country,
I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be
observed, it should not be done amicably. I think it would be
far more likely to be accomplished peaceably, _if the subject
of annexation were left as a distinct question_. I am quite
sure that _we_ should be gainers, to the amount of about a
million sterling annually, if our North American colonists
would set up in life for themselves and maintain their own
establishments; and I see no reason to doubt that they also
might be gainers by being thrown upon their own resources.

“The less your countrymen mingle in the controversy, the
better. It will only be an additional obstacle in the path
of those in this country who see the ultimate necessity of a
separation, but who have still some ignorance and prejudice
to contend against, which, if used as political capital
by designing politicians, may complicate seriously a very
difficult piece of statesmanship. It is for you and such as
you, who love peace, to guide your countrymen aright in this
matter. You have made the most noble contributions of any
modern writer to the cause of Peace; and as a public man I hope
you will exert all your influence to induce Americans to hold a
dignified attitude and observe a ‘masterly inactivity’ in the
controversy which is rapidly advancing to a solution between
the mother country and her American colonies.”

A prudent patriotism among us will appreciate the wisdom of this counsel, more needed now than when written. The controversy which Cobden foresaw “between the mother country and her American colonies” is yet undetermined. The recent creation of what is somewhat grandly called “The Dominion of Canada” marks one stage in its progress.

LUCAS ALAMAN, 1852.

From Canada I pass to Mexico, and close this list with Lucas Alaman, the Mexican statesman and historian, who has left on record a most pathetic prophecy with regard to his own country, intensely interesting to us at this moment.

Alaman was born in the latter part of the last century, and died June 2, 1855. He was a prominent leader of the monarchical party, and Minister of Foreign Affairs under Presidents Bustamente and Santa Aña. In this capacity he inspired the respect of foreign diplomatists. One of these, who had occasion to know him officially, says of him, in answer to my inquiries, that he “was the greatest statesman Mexico has produced since her independence.”[642] He was one of the few in any country who have been able to unite literature with public life, and obtain honors in each.

His first work was “Dissertations on the History of the Mexican Republic,”[643] in three volumes, published at Mexico, 1844-49. In these he considers the original conquest by Cortés, its consequences, the conqueror and his family, the propagation of the Christian religion in New Spain, the formation of the city of Mexico, the history of Spain and the House of Bourbon. All these topics are treated somewhat copiously. Then followed the “History of Mexico, from the First Movements which prepared its Independence in 1808 to the Present Epoch,”[644] in five volumes, published at Mexico, the first bearing date 1849, and the fifth 1852. From the Preface to the first volume it appears that the author was born in Guanajuato, and witnessed there the beginning of the Mexican Revolution in 1810, under Don Miguel Hidalgo, the curate of Dolores; that he was personally acquainted with the curate, and with many who had a principal part in the successes of that time; that he was experienced in public affairs, as Deputy and as member of the Cabinet; and that he had known directly the persons and things of which he wrote. His last volume embraces the government of Iturbide as Emperor, and also his unfortunate death, ending with the establishment of the Mexican Federal Republic, in 1824. The work is careful and well considered. The eminent diplomatist already mentioned, who had known the author officially, writes that “no one was better acquainted with the history and causes of the incessant revolutions in his unfortunate country, and that his work on this subject is considered by all respectable men in Mexico a _chef-d’œuvre_ for purity of sentiments and patriotic convictions.”

It is on account of the valedictory words of this History that I introduce the name of Alaman, and nothing more striking appears in this gallery. Behold!--

“Mexico will be, without doubt, a land of prosperity from its
natural advantages, _but it will not be so for the races which
now inhabit it_. As it seemed the destiny of the peoples who
established themselves therein at different and remote epochs
to perish from the face of it, leaving hardly a memory of
their existence; even as the nation which built the edifices
of Palenque, and those which we admire in the peninsula of
Yucatan, was destroyed without its being known what it was or
how it disappeared; _even as the Toltecs perished by the hands
of barbarous tribes coming from the North_, no record of them
remaining but the pyramids of Cholula and Teotihuacan; and,
finally, even as the ancient Mexicans fell beneath the power of
the Spaniards, _the country gaining infinitely by this change
of dominion, but its ancient masters being overthrown_;--so
likewise its present inhabitants shall be ruined and hardly
obtain the compassion they have merited, and the Mexican
nation of our days shall have applied to it what a celebrated
Latin poet said of one of the most famous personages of Roman
history, STAT MAGNI NOMINIS UMBRA,[645]--Nothing more remains
than the shadow of a name illustrious in another time.

“May the Almighty, in whose hands is the fate of nations,
and who by ways hidden from our sight abases or exalts them
according to the designs of His providence, be pleased to grant
unto ours the protection by which He has so often deigned to
preserve it from the dangers to which it has been exposed!”[646]

Most affecting words of prophecy! Considering the character of the author as statesman and historian, it could have been only with inconceivable anguish that he made this terrible record for the land whose child and servant he was. Born and reared in Mexico, honored by its important trusts, and writing the history of its independence, it was his country, having for him all that makes country dear; and yet thus calmly he consigns the present people to oblivion, while another enters into those happy places where Nature is so bountiful. And so a Mexican leaves the door open to the foreigner.