Chapter XI (4)

Why, then, it may be asked, have I expressed a hope, a belief, that this unfortunate controversy will be amicably terminated when the two nations are now directly at issue? I will tell you why. This has been called a mere question of etiquette; and such it is, so far as France is concerned. She has already received every explanation which the most jealous susceptibility ought to demand. These have been voluntarily tendered to her.

Since the date of the Duke de Broglie’s letter to Mr. Pageot of the 17th June, we have received from the President of the United States his general message at the commencement of the session, and his special message on French affairs. Both these documents disclaim, in the strongest terms, any intention to menace France, or to impute bad faith to the French government by the message of December, 1834. Viewing the subject in this light; considering that at the interview with Mr. Barton, the duke could not have anticipated what would be the tone of these documents, I now entertain a strong hope that the French government have already reconsidered their determination. If a mediation has been proposed and accepted, I cannot entertain a doubt as to what will be the opinion of the mediator. He ought to say to France, you have already received all the explanations, and these have been voluntarily accorded, which the United States can make without national degradation. With these you ought to be satisfied. With you, it is a mere question of etiquette. All the disclaimers which you ought to desire have already been made by the President of the United States. The only question with you now is not one of substance, but merely whether these explanations are in proper form. But in regard to the United States, the question is far different. What is with you mere etiquette, is a question of life and death to them. Let the President of the United States make the apology which you have dictated,—let him once admit the right of a foreign government to question his messages to Congress, and to demand explanations of any language at which they may choose to take offence, and their independent existence as a Government, to that extent, is virtually destroyed.

We must remember that France may yield with honor; _we_ never can, without disgrace. Will she yield? That is the question. I confess I should have entertained a stronger belief that she would, had she not published the duke’s letter to Mr. Pageot as an appeal to the American people. She must still believe that the people of this country are divided in opinion in regard to the firm maintenance of their rights. In this she will find herself entirely mistaken. But should Congress, at the present session, refuse to sustain the President by adopting measures of defence; should the precedent of the last session be followed for the present year, then I shall entertain the most gloomy forebodings. The Father of his country has informed us that the best mode of preserving peace is to be prepared for war. I firmly believe, therefore, that a unanimous vote of the Senate in favor of the resolutions now before them, to follow to Europe the acceptance of the mediation, would, almost to a certainty, render it successful. It would be an act of the soundest policy as well as of the highest patriotism. It would prove, not that we intend to menace France, because such an attempt would be ridiculous; but that the American people are unanimous in the assertion of their rights, and have resolved to prepare for the worst. A French fleet is now hovering upon our coasts; and shall we sit still, with an overflowing Treasury, and leave our country defenceless? This will never be said with truth of the American Congress.

If war should come, which God forbid,—if France should still persist in her effort to degrade the American people in the person of their Chief Magistrate,—we may appeal to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and look forward with confidence to victory from that Being in whose hands is the destiny of nations.

Previous to the delivery of this speech, the President had, on the 15th of January, recommended to Congress a partial non-intercourse with France. But in a short time the government of Great Britain made an offer of mediation, which was accepted, and the whole difficulty with France was amicably adjusted.

-----

Footnote 47:

General Jackson’s first term extended from March 4th, 1829, to March
4th, 1833. His second term ended March 4th, 1837.

Footnote 48:

Upon this vexed question of instruction there is perhaps no more
important distinction than that which was drawn by Mr. Webster in his
celebrated speech of March 7, 1850: namely, that where a State has an
interest of her own, not adverse to the general interest of the
country, a Senator is bound to follow the direction which he receives
from the legislature; but if the question be one which affects her
interests, and at the same time affects equally the interests of all
the other States, the Senator is not bound to obey the will of the
State, because he is in the position of an arbitrator or referee. The
first proposition seems evident enough, but of course it embraces none
but a limited class of questions. It is in the far more numerous cases
which fall under the second proposition that the difficulty inherent
in the doctrine of instruction arises. Mr. Buchanan, it will be seen
hereafter, consistently acted upon the view with which he began his
senatorial career.

Footnote 49:

General Jackson himself continued, during his Presidency and after his
retirement, in his correspondence to apply to his party the term
“Republican.”

Footnote 50:

John Sargent of Pennsylvania was the Whig candidate for the
Vice-Presidency along with Mr. Clay, and he received the same
electoral vote.

Footnote 51:

The secret history of such collisions between governments not
infrequently throws an unexpected light upon their public aspects.
When General Jackson was preparing his annual message of December,
1834, some of his friends in Washington were very anxious that it
should not be too peremptory on the subject of the French payment. At
their request, Mr. Justice Catron, of the Supreme Court, waited upon
the President, and advised a moderate tone. The President took from
his drawer an autograph letter from King Louis Philippe, and handed it
to the judge to read. In this letter the king represented that a war
between the United States and France would be especially disastrous to
the wine-growing districts, and that the interests of those provinces
could be relied upon to oppose it; but that it was necessary that the
alternative of war should be distinctly presented as certain to follow
a final refusal of the Chambers to make the payment demanded. The king
therefore urged General Jackson to adopt a very decided tone in his
message, being confident that, if he did so, the opposition would give
way and war would be avoided.

Another anecdote concerning this message was communicated to the
writer from an entirely authentic source. After the message had been
written, some of its expressions were softened by a member of the
Cabinet, before the MS. was sent to the printer, without the
President’s knowledge. When it was in type, the confidential
proof-reader of the _Globe_ office took the proof-sheets to the
President; and he afterwards, said that he never before knew what
profane swearing was. General Jackson promptly restored his own
language to the proof-sheets.

Footnote 52:

Mr. Ticknor, writing from Paris, February, 1836, said: “One thing,
however, has done us much honor. General Jackson’s message, as far as
France is concerned,—for they know nothing about the rest of it,—has
been applauded to the skies. The day it arrived I happened to dine
with the Russian minister here, in a party of about thirty persons,
and I assure you it seemed to me as if nine-and-twenty of them came up
to me with congratulations. I was really made to feel awkward at last;
but this has been the tone all over the Continent, where they have
been confoundedly afraid we might begin a war which would end no
prophecy could tell where.” (_Life, &c., of George Ticknor_, I. 480.)
Count Pozzo di Borgo’s company would not be likely to be composed of
persons sympathizing with the French opposition.

-----