Chapter X: Front Matter (10)

That the principles of equality were one great cause of the indiscriminate distribution of those marks of distinction by the highest quarters in the Union, and of the facility of obtaining letters of recommendation from them there is no doubt; but the principal and still existing causes, are the extended and domineering power of the press, and the high state of excitement of the political parties. Those in power are positively afraid to refuse literary men, or those who have assisted them in their political career; they have not the moral courage to do so, however undeserving the parties may really be. But, as is generally the case, they really do not know the parties; it is sufficient that the favour, considered trifling, is demanded, and it is instantly granted. Now, as at the accession of General Jackson, and the subsequent raising of Mr Van Buren to the presidency, the democratical, or Loco Foco party came into power, it is to their friends and supporters, the least respectable portion of the American community, to whom these favours have been granted; which of course has not assisted the claims of the Americans to respectability. An instance of this sort occurred to me after I had been a few months in America. One of the most gentleman-like and well-informed men in New York, requested that I would give a letter of introduction to a friend of his who was going to England. Taking it for granted that such a request would not be made without the party deserving the recommendation, I immediately assented. The party who obtained my letters (an editor of a paper, as I afterwards discovered), on his arrival in England, considering that he was not treated with that attention to which, in his own vain-gloriousness, he thought himself entitled, actually sent a hostile letter to one of the gentlemen to whom he had been introduced, and otherwise proved himself by his conduct to be a most improper person. I was informed of this by letters from England; and immediately went to the gentleman who had requested the introduction from me, and stated the conduct of the party. "I really am very sorry," said he, "but _I_ knew nothing of him." "Knew nothing of him?" replied I. "No, indeed; but my friend Mr C, of Philadelphia, introduced him by letter, and requested me to ask for introductions for him." "Then you will oblige me by writing to your friend Mr C, and ask him why he did so, as I find myself very much compromised by this affair." He wrote to Mr C, of Philadelphia, who replied that he was very sorry, but that really _he_ knew nothing of him. He had been introduced to him by letter, by Mr O, and that he was a _staunch supporter_ of their party. Now, how many grades this person had climbed up by letters of introduction it is impossible to say, but this is sufficient to prove that letters of introduction which are, you may say, _demanded_, and not refused from the fear of offending a political agent or penny-a-liner, must ever be received with due caution; and it is equally certain, that those from the President himself are the most easy to be obtained.

I have entered freely into this question, as it is important that it should be known, not only to the English, but to the Americans themselves. A letter of introduction from a gentleman of Carolina, Virginia, or Boston, I should be infinitely more induced to take notice of than from the President of the United States, unless the President stated that he was personally acquainted with the party who delivered it; and I make this statement in _justice_ to the American gentlemen, and not with the slightest wish to check that intercourse which will every day increase, and, I trust, to the advantage of both nations. See note 4.

Indeed, now that such rapid communication has taken place between the two countries, since the Atlantic has been traversed by steam, it becomes more imperative that these facts should be known. Every fortnight a hundred and sixty passengers will arrive by the Great Western, or some other steamer. Most of them are American citizens, armed with their letters of recommendation, and the situation of the American minister has become one of peculiar difficulty.

By one steam-packet alone he has had seventy-five people, or families, with letters of introduction to him, mostly obtained by the means which I have described; and there is not one of these parties who does not expect as much attention as if the American minister had nothing else to do but to be at his command. They leave their cards with him; if the cards are not returned in two or three days, they send a letter to know why he has not called upon them? and if the visit is returned, send a letter to know whether the minister called _in person_, or _not_? With a stipend from his own government, quite inadequate to the purpose, he is expected, to the great detriment of his private fortune, to receive and entertain all these people. I have it from the best authority, that some of these parties have called and inquired whether the minister was at home; being answered in the negative, they have gone into a room, taken a chair, and declared their determination not to leave the house until they had seen him. Most of them expect him to obtain admittance for them into the Houses of Lords and Commons, and to present them at Court. In some instances, when the minister has stated the necessity of a _Court dress_, they have remonstrated, thinking it an expense wholly unnecessary. "They were American _citizens_, and would be introduced as such; they had nothing to do with Court dresses, and all that nonsense." And thus, since the steam-vessels have increased the communication between the two countries, has the American minister been in a state of annoyance, to which it is impossible that he, or any other who may be appointed in his place, can possibly submit.

Let the Americans understand, that those only go to Court in this country who have claims, as the nobility, the oldest commoners, people in office, the army and navy, and other liberal professions. There are thousands of families in England, by descent, fortune, and education, very superior to those of America, who never think of going to Court, being aware that such is not their sphere; and yet every American who comes over here with four or five introductions in his pocket must, forsooth, be presented. If the minister refuses, why then there is an attack upon him in the American prints, and his name and his supposed misdemeanors are bandied about from one end of the Union to the other. It is hardly credible to what a state of slavery they would reduce the American representative. One man says, "I understand I can have a Court dress at a Jew's." "Yes, you can, I believe." "Well, now, suppose we step down together; you may _cheapen_ it a bit for me, may be." These facts are known to the respectable and gentleman-like Americans, who, after the samples which have come over, and have obtained admission into society and gone to Court, will not shew themselves, but prefer to stay at home.

All this is wrong, and a remedy must soon be found, as the evil increases every day. The Americans cannot take the English Court by storm, or force us to acknowledge their equality in this country. There are but certain classes in this country who have any pretension to be received at Court; and unless the Americans can prove that they are by their situation, or descent, of a sufficient rank to qualify them to be admitted, they must be content to be excluded, as the major portion of our countrymen are. Even an American being a member of Congress does not qualify him, although being a member of the Senate certainly _should_. The members of the American Congress are not in the mass equal by any means in respectability to the members of the English House of Commons; and there have been many members of the English House of Commons, since the passing of the Reform Bill, who could not, and cannot, gain admittance into society.

If the harmony and good feeling between the two countries is to continue uninterrupted, and our intercourse to be extended, as there is every probability that it will be, it appears to me that there is more importance to be attached to this question than at the first view of it might be supposed. The Americans are more ambitious of birth and aristocracy than any other nation, which is very natural, if it were only from the simple fact that we always most desire what is out of our reach. Since the Americans have come over in such numbers to this country, our Herald's Office has actually been _besieged_ by them, in their anxiety to take out the arms and achievements of their presumed forefathers; this is also very natural and very proper, although it may be at variance with their institutions. The determination to have an aristocracy in America gains head every day: a conflict must ensue, when the increase of wealth in the country adds sufficiently to the strength of the party. But some line must be drawn in this country, as to the admission of Americans to the English Court, or, if not drawn, it will end in a total, and therefore unjust exclusion. As but few of the Americans can claim any right to aristocracy in their own country from acknowledged descent, I should not be surprised if in a few years, now that the two countries are becoming so intimately connected, a reception at the English Court of this country be considered as an establishment of their claim. If so, it will be a curious anomaly in the history of a republic, that, fifty years after it was established, the republicans should apply to the mother country whose institutions they had abjured, to obtain from her a patent of superiority, so as to raise themselves above that hated equality which, by their own institutions, they profess.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. English Capital Invested.--It is but _fair_ to give the English who have invested their money in American securities, some idea of what their chance of receiving their principal or receiving their interest may be. As _long_ as it depends upon the faith of those who have contracted the debt, their money is safe, but as soon as the power is taken out of their hands, and vested in the majority, they may consider their money as gone. I will explain this--at present the English have vested their capital in canals, railroads, and other public improvements. The returns of these undertakings are at present honourably employed in paying interest to the lenders of the capital, and if the returns are not sufficient, more money is borrowed to meet the demands of the creditor; but there is a certain point at which credit fails, and at which no more money can be borrowed; if then no more money can be borrowed, and the returns of their railroads, canals, and other securities fail off, where is the deficiency to be made good? In this country it would be made good by a tax being imposed upon the population to meet the deficiency, and support the credit of the nation. Here is the question:--will the majority in America consent to be taxed? I say, No--if they do, I shall be surprised, and be most happy to recant, but it is my opinion that they will not, and if so the English capital will be lost; and if the reader will call to mind what I have pointed out as to the probable effect of the power of America working to the westward, and the direct importation which in a few years must take place, he will see that there is every prospect of a rapid decrease in the value of all their securities, and that the only ultimate chance of their recovering the money is by this country compelling payment of it by the Federal Government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. "At the time of the first settlement of the English in Virginia, when land was to be had for little or nothing, some provident persons having obtained large grants of it, and being desirous of maintaining the splendour of their families, entailed their property upon their descendants. The transmission of these estates from generation to generation, to men who bore the same name, had the effect of raising up a distinct class of families, who, possessing by law the privilege of perpetuating their wealth, formed by these means a sort of patrician order, distinguished by the grandeur and luxury of their establishments. From this order it was that the king usually chose his councillors of state.

"In the United States, the principal clauses of the English law respecting descent have been universally rejected. The first rule that we follow, says Mr Kent, touching inheritance, is the following:--If a man dies intestate, his property goes to his heirs in a direct line. If he has but one heir or heiress, he or she succeeds to the whole. If there are several heirs of the same degree, they divide the inheritance equally amongst them, without distinction of sex.

"This rule was prescribed for the first time in the State of New York by a statute of the 23rd of February, 1786. (_See Revised Statutes_, volume III, _Appendix_, page 48.) It has since then been adopted in the revised statutes of the same State. At the present day this law holds good throughout the whole of the United States, with the exception of the State of Vermont, where the male heir inherits a double portion: Kent's Commentaries, volume IV, page 370. Mr Kent, in the same work, volume IV, pages 1-22, gives an historical account of American legislation on the subject of entail; by this we learn that previous to the revolution the colonies followed the English law of entail. Estates tail were abolished in Virginia in 1776, on a motion of Mr Jefferson. They were suppressed in New York in 1786; and have since been abolished in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. In Vermont, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisiana, entail was never introduced. Those States which thought proper to preserve the English law of entail, modified it in such a way as to deprive it of its most aristocratic tendencies. `Our general principles on the subject of government,' says Mr Kent, `tend to favour the free circulation of property.'

"It cannot fail to strike the French reader who studies the law of inheritance, that on these questions the French legislation is infinitely more democratic even than the American.

"The American law makes an equal division of the father's property, but only in the case of his will not being known; `for every man,' says the law, `in the State of New York, (_Revised Statutes_, volume III, _Appendix_, page 51), has entire liberty, power, and authority, to dispose of his property by will, to leave it entire, or divided in favour of any persons he choses as his heirs, provided he do not leave it to a political body or any corporation.' The French law obliges the testator to divide his property equally, or nearly so, among his heirs.

"Most of the American republics still admit of entails, under certain restrictions; but the French law prohibits entail in all cases.

"If the social condition of the Americans is more democratic than that of the French, the laws of the latter are the most democratic of the two. This may be explained more easily than at first appears to be the case. In France, democracy is still occupied in the work of destruction; in America, it reigns quietly over the ruins it has made."--_Democracy in America, by A De Tocqueville_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 3. In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they are rarely subjected to further division.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 4. It may also be here observed, that the Americans have little opportunity of judging favourably of the English by the usual _importations_ to their country. They all call themselves English _Gentlemen_, and are too often supposed to be, and are received as such. I have often been told that I should meet with an English gentleman or an English merchant, and the parties mostly proved to be nothing but travellers, bagsmen, or even worse. If the sterling Americans stay at home, and send the bad ones to us, and we do the same, neither party will be likely to form a very favourable opinion of the other for some time to come.

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER SEVEN.

GOVERNMENT.

It is not my intention to enter into a lengthened examination of the American form of government. I have said that, as a government, "with all its imperfections, it is the best suited to _the present condition of America_, in _so far as_ it is the one under which the country has made, and will continue to make, the most rapid strides;" but I have not said that it was a better form of government than others. Its very weakness is favourable to the advance of the country; it may be compared to a vessel which, from her masts not being wedged, and her timbers being loose, sails faster than one more securely fastened. Considered merely as governments for the preservation of order and the equalisation of pressure upon the people, I believe that few governments are bad, as there are always some correcting influences, moral or otherwise, which strengthen those portions which are the weakest. A despot, for instance, although his power is acknowledged and submitted to, will not exercise tyranny too far, from the fear of assassination.

I have inserted in an Appendix the Form of the American Constitution, and if my readers wish to examine more closely into it, I must refer them to M. Tocqueville's excellent work. The first point which must strike the reader who examines into it is, that it is extremely complicated. It is, and it is not. It is so far complicated that a variety of wheels are at work; but it is not complicated, from the circumstance that the _same principle_ prevails throughout, from the Township to the Federal Head, and that it is put in motion by one great and universal propelling power. It may be compared to a cotton-thread manufactory, in which thousands and thousands of reels and spindles are all at work, the labour of so many smaller reels turned over to larger, which in their turn yield up their produce, until the whole is collected into one mass. The principle of the American Government is good; the power that puts it in motion is enormous, and therefore, like the complicated machinery I have compared it to, it requires constant attention, and proper regulation of the propelling power, that it may not become out of order. The propelling power is the sovereignty of the people, otherwise the will of the majority. The motion of all propelling powers must be regulated by a fly-wheel, or corrective check, if not, the motion will gradually accelerate, until the machinery is destroyed by the increase of friction. But there are other causes by which the machinery may be deranged; as, although the smaller portions of the machine, if defective, may at any time be taken out and repaired without its being necessary for the machine to stop; yet if the larger wheels are by any chance thrown out of their equilibrium, the machinery may be destroyed just as it would be by a too rapid motion, occasioned by the excess of propelling power. Further, there are external causes which may endanger it: any machine may be thrown out of its level by a convulsion, or shock, which will cause it to cease working, if even it does not break it into fragments.

Now, the dangers which _threaten_ the United States are, the Federal Government being still weaker than it is at present, or its becoming, as it may from circumstances, too powerful.

The _present_ situation of the American Government is that the fly-wheel, or regulator of the propelling power (that is to say the aristocracy, or power of the senate,) has been nearly destroyed, and the consequences are that the motion is at this moment too much accelerated, and threatens in a few years to increase its rapidity, at the risk of the destruction of the whole machinery.

But, although it will be necessary to point out the weakness of the Federal Government, when opposed to the States or the majority, inasmuch as the morality of the people is seriously affected by this weakness, my object is not to enter into the merits of the government of the United States as a _working_ government, but to inquire how far the Americans are correct in their boast of its being a model for other countries.

Let us consider what is the best form of government. Certainly that which most contributes to security of life and property, and renders those happy and moral who are submitted to it. This I believe will be generally acknowledged, and it is upon these grounds that the government of the United States must be tested. They abjured our monarchy, and left their country for a distant land, to obtain _freedom_. They railed at the vices and imperfections of continental rule, and proposed to themselves a government which should be perfect, under which every man should have his due weight in the representation, and prove to the world that a people could govern themselves. Disgusted with the immorality of the age and the disregard to religion, they anticipated an amendment in the state of society. This new, and supposed perfect, machinery has been working for upwards of sixty years, and let us now examine how far the theory has been supported and borne out by the practical result.

I must first remind the reader that I have already shewn the weakness of the Federal Government upon one most important point, which is, that there is not sufficient security for person and property. When such is the case, there cannot be that adequate punishment for vice so necessary to uphold the morals of a people. I will now proceed to prove the weakness of the Federal Government whenever it has to combat with the several States, or with the will of the majority.

It will be perceived, by an examination into the Constitution of the United States, that the States have reserved for themselves all the real power, and that the Federal Union exists but upon their sufferance. Each State still insists upon its right to withdraw itself from the Union whenever it pleases, and the consequence of this right is, that in every conflict with a State, the Federal Government has invariably to succumb. M. Tocqueville observes, "If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle with that of the States, at the present day, its defeat may be confidently predicted; and it is not probable that such a struggle would be seriously undertaken. As often as a steady resistance is offered to the Federal Government, it will be found to yield. Experience has hitherto shewn that whenever a State has demanded any thing with perseverance and resolution, it has invariably succeeded; and that if a separate government has distinctly refused to act, it was left to do as it thought fit. See Note 1.

"But even if the government of the Union had any strength inherent in itself, the physical situation of the country would render the excise of that strength very difficult. [See Note 2.] The United States cover an immense territory; they were separated from each other by great distances; and the population is disseminated over the surface of a country which is still half a wilderness. If the Union were to undertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate States by military means, it would be in a position very analagous to that of England at the time of the War of Independence."

The Federal Government never displayed more weakness than in the question of the tariff put upon English goods to support the manufacturers of the Northern States. The Southern States, as producers and exporters, complained of this as prejudicial to their interests. South Carolina, one of the smallest States, led the van, and the storm rose. This State passed an act by convention, _annulling_ the Federal Act of the tariff, armed her militia, and prepared for war. The consequence was that the Federal Government abandoned the principle of the tariff, but at the same time, to save the disgrace of its defeat, it passed an act warranting the President to _put down resistance by force_, or, in other words, making the Union _compulsory_. South Carolina _annulled_ this law of the Federal Government, but as the State gained its point by the Federal Government having abandoned the principle of the tariff, the matter ended.

Another instance in which the Federal Government showed its weakness when opposed to a State, was in its conflict with Georgia. The Federal Government had entered into a solemn, and what ought to have been an inviolable treaty, with the Cherokee Indians, securing to them the remnant of their lands in the State of Georgia. The seventh Article of that treaty says, "The United States _solemnly_ guarantee to the Cherokee nation all their lands not hitherto ceded." The State of Georgia, when its population increased, did not like the Indians to remain, and insisted upon their removal. What was the result?--that the Federal Government, in violation of a solemn treaty and the national honour, submitted to the dictation of Georgia, and the Indians were removed to the other side of the Mississippi.

These instances are sufficient to prove the weakness of the Federal Government when opposed to the States; it is still weaker when opposed to the will of the majority. I have already quoted many instances of the exercise of this uncontrolled will. I do not refer to Lynch law, or the reckless murders in the Southern States, but to the riots in the most civilised cities, such as Boston, New York, and Baltimore, in which outrages and murders have been committed without the Government ever presuming to punish the perpetrators; but the strongest evidence of the helplessness of the Government, when opposed to the majority, has been in the late Canadian troubles, which, I fear, have only for the season subsided. If many have doubts of the sincerity of the President of the United States in his attempts to prevent the interference of the Americans, there can be no doubt but that General Scott, Major Worth, and the other American officers sent to the frontiers, did their utmost to prevent the excesses which were committed, and to allay the excitement; and every one is aware how unavailing were their efforts. The magazines were broken open, the field-pieces and muskets taken possession of; large subscriptions of money poured in from every quarter; farmers sent waggon-loads of pigs, corn, and buffalos, to support the insurgents. No one would, indeed no one could, act against the will of the majority, and these officers found themselves left to their individual and useless exertions.

The militia at Detroit were ordered out: they could not refuse to obey the summons, as they were individually liable to fine and imprisonment; but as they said, very truly, "You may call us out, but when we come into action we will point our muskets in which direction we please." Indeed, they did assist the insurgents and fire at our people; and when the insurgents were defeated, one of the drums which they had with them, and which was captured by our troops, was marked with the name of the militia corps which had been called out to repel them.

When the people are thus above the law, it is of very little consequence whether the law is more or less weak; at present the Federal Government is a mere cypher when opposed by the majority. Have, then, the Americans improved upon us in this point? It is generally admitted that a strong and vigorous government, which can act when it is necessary to restrain the passions of men under excitement, is most favourable to social order and happiness; but, on the contrary, when the dormant power of the executive should be brought into action, all that the Federal Government can do is to become a passive spectator or a disregarded suppliant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. See the conduct of the Northern States in the war of 1812. "During that war," says Jefferson in a letter to General Lafayette, "four of the Eastern States were only attached to the Union, like so many inanimate bodies to living men."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for a standing army; and without a standing army a Government is not prepared to profit by a favourable opportunity to conquer resistance, and take the sovereign power by surprise.

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER EIGHT.

The next question to be examined into is, has this government of the United States set an example of honour, good faith, and moral principle, to those who are subjected to it?--has it, by so behaving, acted favourably upon the morals of the people, and corrected the vices and errors of the monarchical institutions which the Americans hold up to such detestation?

The Americans may be said to have had, till within the last twenty years, little or no relation with other countries. They have had few treaties to make, and very little diplomatic arrangements with the old Continent. But even if they had had, they must not be judged by them; a certain degree of national honour is necessary to every nation, if they would have the respect of others, and a dread of the consequences would always compel them to adhere to any treaty made with great and powerful countries. The question is, has the Federal Government adhered to its treaties and promises made with and to those who have been too weak to defend themselves? Has it not repeatedly, in the short period of their existence as a nation, violated the national honour whenever without being in fear of retaliation or exposure it has been able to do so. Let this question be answered by an examination into their conduct towards the unhappy Indians, _who_, to use their own expression, are "now melting away like snow before the white men." We are not to estimate the morality of a government by its strict adherence to its compacts with the powerful, but by its strict moral sense of justice towards the weak and defenceless; and it should be borne in mind, that one example of a breach of faith on the part of a democratic government, is more injurious to the morals of the people tinder that government than a thousand instances of breach of faith which may occur in society; for a people who have no aristocracy to set the example, must naturally look to the conduct of their rulers and to their decisions, as a standard for their guidance. To enumerate the multiplied breaches of faith towards the Indians would swell out this work to an extra volume. It was a bitter sarcasm of the Seminole chief, who, referring to the terms used in the treaties, told the Indian agents that the white man's "_for ever_" did not _last long enough_. Even in its payment of the trifling sums for the lands sold by the Indians and resold at an enormous profit, the American Government has not been willing to adhere to its agreement; and two years ago, when the Indians came for their money, the American Government told them, like an Israelite dealer, that they must take half money and half goods. The Indians remonstrated; the chiefs replied, "Our young men have purchased upon credit, as they are wont to do; they require the dollars, to pay honestly what they owe."

"Is our great father so poor?" said one chief to the Indian agent; "I will lend him some money;" and he ordered several thousand dollars to be brought, and offered them to the agent.

In the Florida war, to which I shall again refer, the same want of faith has been exercised. Unable to drive the Indians out of their swamps and morasses, they have persuaded them to come into a council, under a flag of truce. This flag of truce has been violated, and the Indians have been thrown into prison until they could be sent away to the Far West, that is, if they survived their captivity, which the gallant Osceola could not. Let it not be supposed that the officers employed are the parties to blame in these acts; it is, generally speaking, the Indian agents who are employed in these nefarious transactions. Among these agents there are many honourable men, but a corrupt government will always find people corrupt enough to do anything it may wish. But any language that I can use as to the conduct of the American Government towards the Indians would be light, compared to the comments made in my presence by the _officers_ and other American _gentlemen_ upon this subject. Indeed, the indignation expressed is so general, that it proves there is less morality in the Government than there is in the nation.

With the exception of the Florida war, which still continues, the last contest which the American Government had with the Indians was with the Sacs and Foxes, commanded by the celebrated chief, Black Hawk. The Sacs and Foxes at that period held a large tract of land on Rock river, in the territory of Ioway, on the east side of the Mississippi, which the Government wished, perforce, to take from them. The following is Black Hawk's account of the means by which this land was obtained. The war was occasioned by Black Hawk disowning the treaty and attempting to repossess the territory.

"Some moons after this young chief (Lieutenant Pike) descended the Mississippi, one of our people killed an American, and was confined in the prison at St Louis for the offence. We held a council at our village to see what could be done for him, which determined that Quash-qua-me, Pa-she-pa-ho, Ou-che-qua-ha, and Ha-she-quar-hi-qua, should go down to St Louis, and see our American father, and do all they could to have our friend released; by paying for the person killed, thus covering the blood and satisfying the relations of the man murdered! This being the only means with us of saving a person who had killed another, and we _then_ thought it was the same way with the whites.

"The party started with the good wishes of the whole nation, hoping they would accomplish the object of their mission. The relations of the prisoner blacked their faces and fasted, hoping the Great Spirit would take pity on them, and return the husband and the father to his wife and children.

"Quash-qua-me and party remained a long time absent. They at length returned, and encamped a short distance below the village, but did not come up that day, nor did any person approach their camp. They appeared to be dressed in fine coats and had medals. From these circumstances, we were in hopes they had brought us good news. Early the next morning, the council lodge was crowded; Quash-qua-me and party came up, and gave us the following account of their mission:--

"On their arrival at St Louis, they met their American father, and explained to him their business, and urged the release of their friend. The American chief told them he wanted land, and they agreed to give him some on the west side of the Mississippi, and some on the Illinois side, opposite the Jeffreon. When the business was all arranged, they expected to have their friend released to come home with them. But about the time they were ready to start, their friend, who was led out of prison, ran a short distance, and was _shot dead_. This is all they could recollect of what was said and done. They had _been drunk_ the greater part of the time they were in St Louis.

"This is all myself or nation knew of the _treaty of_ 1804. It has been explained to me since. I find by that treaty, all our country east of the Mississippi, and south of the Jeffreon, was ceded to the United States for one thousand dollars a year! I will leave it to the people of the United States to say, whether our nation was properly represented in this treaty? or whether we received a fair compensation for the extent of country ceded by those four individuals. I could say much mere about this treaty, but I will not at this time. It has been the origin of all our difficulties."

Indeed, I have reason to believe that the major portion of the land obtained from the Indians has been ceded by parties who had no power to sell it, and the treaties with these parties have been enforced by the Federal Government.

In a Report for the protection of the Western Frontier, submitted to Congress by the Secretary of War, we have a very fair expose of the conduct and intentions of the American Government towards the Indians. Although the Indians continue to style the President of the United States as their Great Father, yet, in this report, the Indian feeling which really exists towards the American people is honestly avowed; it says in its preamble--

"As yet no community of feeling, except of _deep and lasting hatred_ to the white man, and particularly to the _Anglo-Americans_, exists among them, and, unless they coalesce, no serious difficulty need be apprehended from them. Not so, however, should they be induced to unite for purposes offensive and defensive; their strength would then become apparent, create confidence, and in all probability induce them to give vent to their long-suppressed desire to _revenge past wrongs_, which is restrained, as they openly and freely confess, by fear alone."

And speaking of the feuds between the tribes, as in the case of the Sioux and Chippeways, which, as I have observed in my Journal, the American Government _pretended_ to be anxious to make up; it appears that this anxiety is not so very great, for the Report says--

"Should it however prove otherwise, the United States will, whenever they choose, be able to bring the whole of the Sioux force (the hereditary and irreclaimable enemy to every other Indian) to bear against the hostiles; or _vice versa_, should our difficulty be with the Sioux nation. And the suggestion is made, whether prudence does not require, that _those hereditary feelings_ should not rather be _maintained_ than destroyed by efforts to cultivate a closer reunion between them."

This Report also very delicately points out, when speaking of the necessity of a larger force on the frontier, that, "it is merely adverted to in connexion with the heavy obligations which rest upon the Government, and which have been probably contracted from time to time without any _very nice calculation_ of the means which would be necessary to a _faithful discharge_ of them."

I doubt whether this Report would have been presented by Congress had there been any idea of its finding its way to the Old Country. By-and-by I shall refer to it again. I have made these few extracts merely to shew that expediency, and not moral feeling, is the principle alone which guides the Federal Government of the United States.

The next instance which I shall bring forward to prove the want of principle of the Federal Government is its permitting, and it may be said tacitly acquiescing, in the seizure of the province of Texas, and allowing it to be ravished from the Mexican Government, with whom they were on terms of amity, but who was unfortunately too weak to help herself. In this instance the American Government had no excuse, as it actually had an army on the frontier, and could have compelled the insurgents to go back; but no; it perceived that the Texas, if in its hands, or if independent of Mexico, would become a mart for their extra slave population, that it was the finest country in the world for producing cotton, and that it would be an immense addition of valuable territory. Dr Channing's letter to Mr Clay is so forcible on this question, enters so fully into the merits of the case, and points out so clearly the nefariousness of the transaction, that I shall now quote a few passages from this best of American authority. Indeed, I consider that this letter of Dr Channing is the principal cause why the American Government have not as yet admitted Texas into the Union. The efforts of the Northern States would not have prevented it, but it has actually been shamed by Dr Channing, who says--

"The United States have not been just to Mexico. Our citizens did not steal singly, silently, in disguise, into that land. Their purpose of dismembering Mexico, and attaching her distant province to this country, was not wrapt in mystery. It was proclaimed in our public prints. Expeditions were openly fitted out within our borders for the Texan war. Troops were organised, equipped, and marched for the scene of action. Advertisements for volunteers, to be enrolled and conducted to Texas at the expense of that territory, were inserted in our newspapers. The Government, indeed, issued its proclamation, forbidding these hostile preparations; but this was a dead letter. Military companies, with officers and standards, in defiance of proclamations, and in the face of day, directed their steps to the revolted province. We had, indeed, an army near the frontiers of Mexico. Did it turn back these invaders of a land with which we were at peace? On the contrary, did not its presence give confidence to the revolters? After this, what construction of our conduct shall we force on the world, if we proceed, especially at this moment, to receive into our Union the territory, which, through our neglect, has fallen a prey to lawless invasion? Are we willing to take our place among robber-states? As a people have we no self-respect? Have we no reverence for national morality? Have we no feeling of responsibility to other nations, and to Him by whom the fates of nations are disposed?"

Dr Channing then proceeds:--

"Some crimes by their magnitude have a touch of the sublime; and to this dignity the seizure of Texas by our citizens is entitled. Modern times furnish no example of individual rapine on so grand a scale. It is nothing less than the robbery of a realm. The pirate seizes a ship. The colonists and their coadjutors can satisfy themselves with nothing short of an empire. They have left their Anglo-Saxon ancestors behind them. Those barbarians conformed to the maxims of their age, to the rude code of nations in time of thickest heathen darkness. They invaded England under their sovereigns, and with the sanction of the gloomy religion of the North. But it is in a civilised age, and amidst refinements of manners; it is amidst the lights of science and the teachings of Christianity; amidst expositions of the law of nations and enforcements of the law of universal love; amidst institutions of religion, learning, and humanity, that the robbery of Texas has found its instruments. It is from a free, well-ordered, enlightened Christian country, that hordes have gone forth in open day, to perpetrate _this mighty wrong_."

I shall conclude my remarks upon this point with one more extract from the same writer.

"A nation, provoking war by cupidity, by encroachment, and, above all, by efforts to propagate the curse of slavery, is alike false to itself, to God, and to the human race."

Having now shewn how far the Federal Government may be considered as upholding the purity of its institutions by the example of its conduct towards others, let us examine whether in its domestic management it sets a proper example to the nation. It cries out against the bribery and corruption of England. Is it itself free from this imputation?

The author of a `Voice from America' observes, "In such an unauthorised, unconstitutional, and loose state of things, millions of the public money may be appropriated to electioneering and party purposes, and to buy up friends of the administration, without being open to proof or liable to account. It is a simple _matter of fact_, that all the public funds lost in this way, have actually gone to buy up friends to the government, whether the defalcations were matters of understanding between the powers at Washington and these parties, or not. The money is gone, and is going; and it goes to friends. So much is true, whatever else is false. And what has already been used up in this way, according to official report, is sufficient to buy the votes of a large fraction of the population of the United States,--that is to say, sufficient to produce an influence adequate to secure them. On the 17th of January, 1838, the United States treasurer reported to Congress _sixty-three_ defalcators (individuals), in all to the amount of upwards of a _million_ of dollars, without touching the vast amounts lost in the local banks,--a mere beginning of the end."

As I have before observed, when Mr Adams was President, a Mr B Walker was thrown into prison for being a defaulter to the extent of eighteen thousand dollars. Why are none of these defaulters to the amount of upwards a million of dollars punished? If the government thinks proper to allow them to remain at liberty, does it not virtually wink at their dishonesty. Neither the defaulters nor their securities are touched. It would appear as if it were an understood arrangement; the government telling these parties, who have assisted them, "we cannot actually pay you money down for your services; but we will put money under your control, and you may, if you please, _help_ yourself." What has been the result of this conduct upon society?--that as the government does not consider a breach of faith as deserving of punishment, society does not think so either; and thus are the people demoralised, not only by the example of government in its foreign relations, but by its leniency towards those individuals who are as regardless of faith as the government has proved to be itself.

Indeed, it may be boldly asserted, that in every measure taken by the Federal Government, the moral effect of that measure upon the people has never been thought worthy of a moment's consideration.

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER NINE.

We must now examine into one or two other points. The Americans consider that they are the only people on earth who govern themselves. They assert that _we_ have not a free and perfect representation. We will not dispute that point; the question is, not what the case in England may be, but what America may have gained. This is certain, that if they have not a free impartial representation, they do _not_, as they suppose, govern themselves. Have they, with universal suffrage, obtained a representation free from bribery and corruption? If they have, they certainly have gained their point; if they have not, they have sacrificed much, and have obtained nothing.

By a calculation which I made at the time I was in the United States of all the various elections which took place annually, biennially, and at longer dates, including those for the Federal Government, the separate governments of each State, and many other elective offices, there are about two thousand five hundred elections of different descriptions every year; and if I were to add the civic elections, which are equally political, I do not know what amount they would arrive at. In this country we have on an average about two hundred elections per annum, so that, in America, for thirteen millions, they have two thousand five hundred elections, and in England for twenty-seven millions, two hundred, on the average, during the year.

It must, however, be admitted, that the major portion of these elections in the United States pass off quietly, probably from the comparative want of interest excited by them, and the continual repetition which takes place; but when the important elections are in progress the case is very different; the excitement then becomes universal; the coming election is the theme of every tongue, the all-engrossing topic, and nothing else is listened or paid attention to.

It must be remembered, that the struggle in America is for place, not for principle; for whichever party obtains power, their principle of acting is much the same. Occasionally a question of moment will come forward and nearly convulse the Union, but this is very rare; the general course of legislation is in a very narrow compass, and is seldom more than a mere routine of business. With the majority, who lead a party, (particularly the one at present in power), the contest is not, therefore, for principle, but, it may almost be said, for bread; and this is one great cause of the virulence accompanying their election struggles. The election of the President is of course the most important. M. Tocqueville has well described it, "For a long while before the appointed time is at hand, the election becomes the most important and the all-engrossing topic of discussion. The ardour of faction is redoubled; and all the artificial passions which the imagination can create in the bosom of a happy and peaceful land are and brought to light. The President, on the other hand, is absorbed by the cares of self-defence. He no longer governs for the interest of the State, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands him to do, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favourite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of the public papers, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every action, the sole interest of the present."

Of course the elections in the large cities are those which next occupy the public attention. I have before stated, that at the last election in New York the committees of the opposite party were bought over by the Whigs, and that by this bribery the election was gained; but I will now quote from the Americans themselves, and let the reader then decide in which country, England or America, there is most purity of election.

"On the 9th, 10th, and 11th instant, a local election for mayor and charter-offices was held in this city. It resulted in the defeat of the Whig party. The Loco-focos had a majority of about one thousand and fifty for their mayor. Last April the Whigs had a majority of about five hundred. There are seventeen wards, and seventeen polls were opened. The out, or suburb, wards presented _the most disgraceful scenes of riot, fraud, corruption, and perjury_, that were ever witnessed in this or any other country on a similar occasion. The whole number of votes polled was forty-one thousand three hundred. It is a notorious fact, that there are not forty thousand legal voters residing in the city. In the abstract this election is but of little importance. Its moral influence on other sections of the country remains to be seen. Generally, the effect of such a triumph is unfavourable to the defeated party in other places; and it would be so in the present instance, if the contest had been an ordinary contest, but the circumstances to which I have referred of fraud, corruption, and perjury, may, or may not, re-act upon the alleged authors of these shameless proceedings."