Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

something of the cordiality of kindred, and something of the bitterness of family quarrels. The relation of the two countries to each other, as the two first commercial and naval powers, has a tendency, in a time of general war, to bring them into collision; a tendency increased by community of language, and other circumstances of external resemblance. Our geographical situation as neighbors, has given rise to serious controversies, as we shall have occasion to show more particularly in the progress of the present article ;-controversies, some of which we are not likely to have with any other foreign power, none of which we can have with any European power; but which are already of a grave, not to say a portentous character.

Whether we advert to these matters of present fact, or look back upon our whole past history, the struggle of the colonies, as such, with the mother country, the revolutionary war, the near approach to a renewal of hostilities, prior to the treaty of 1794, the collisions which resulted in the war of 1812, and the controversies which have since sprung up ;-it must be owned, that our relations with Great Britain ought to be a great, a prominent point of attention with the American statesman. That they must be so, would follow a priori, from the general state of the political system of the world. Nothing it is true, is wholly indifferent to us, which essentially changes the condition of any member of that family of nations to which we belong. The passage of the Russians across the Pruth, nay, the petty movements in the Morea before they crossed it, have been felt in our markets; but towards England, we stand in a relation of action and reaction so strong, so comprehensive, so intense, that it can never for a moment be lost sight of.

These considerations make the subject, at all times, a proper one for a journal devoted to the interests of America. It is a subject, which is pertinent to the character of our Review, in every connexion but that of the party politics of the day, and from them we wish and intend to borrow no light. It is, of course, easy on almost any topic, so vast and various, to find ground of plausible cavil. We may be sure of this, if we will look into parliamentary history, and find (on matters, of which the lapse of time has made us unprejudiced judges) what gross injustice wise and good men have done each other, by indiscriminately denouncing the measures of their political opponents. While this rests within the limits of domestic politics, it is an

evil which may be borne; or at any rate, it is one that cannot be helped. Parties must subsist in free states; and where there are parties, they must be unjust to each other. But it is possible, we think, to take the foreign relations of the country out of the grasp of ordinary party politics. There are at least some great points in the foreign policy of the country, on which it is absolutely necessary, that all parties should unite. These points are indubitably our relations with Great Britain. This country cannot do itself justice, unless it present an united front toward that government. Her preponderating naval power seeks only a pretence to traverse us; she puts forward as essential to the maintenance of that power, pretensions irreconcilable with our honor and interest. She has, from the extremity of the Windward Islands to Halifax, a perfect line of military stations in front of our coast; while she plants her posts across the continent, and flanks us from Eastport to the mouth of the Columbia. The person, who thinks that a foreign power, thus intrenched on our borders,-in the command of all the resources of the British empire, and actuated by the spirit, which has so long governed her cabinet, can be met with divided councils, mistakes the first principles, which decide the political movements of powerful states. Parties may be assailed, prostrated, and rallied; and temporary advantages gained and lost; but every lesson in our history teaches to beware how we again permit our relations either with France or with England to become the pivot of our domestic politics. We have been particularly moved at this time to consider the subject, in consequence of some remarks upon it, in a late number of the British Quarterly Review. It is well known, that this Journal is to a certain degree semi-official, in its character. It almost without exception speaks the sense of the English government. Some persons connected with the administration of affairs, have the credit of being regular contributors to its pages. The public offices and archives of state are habitually opened, to furnish materials for articles contained in its numbers. It is also in itself a journal of circulation too wide, and influence too great, to be left uncontradicted in serious mistatements.

We know too well how periodical works are, of necessity, made up, to wage war with everything that may offend our taste, or injure the character of the country. An unlucky article may find its way into any journal, however discreet. But

for the general tone and tendency of a journal, somebody ought to be responsible. In a case like this, a spirit of gross misrepresentation, in a quarter where so great an influence is concentrated, ought not to pass unrebuked. Men possessing the ear of the British public, and of the readers of the English language throughout the world, ought not to be allowed by our American reviews, to persist, without correction, in serious, repeated, resolute attacks upon our character, government, and country. The tone of the Quarterly Review has fluctuated toward the United States. Never cordial, it has sometimes sunk into a kind of cold neutrality, and especially since it passed out of the hands of its original editor. There is, however, some unhappy spirit that haunts its pages; which is occasionally laid for a time, but after a space, comes back again with new devices of malice. This evil genius of England and America, for England has more to fear and deprecate than we have, in the growth of an embittered feeling between the two countries,-who long ago outraged the decent part of the British public, and all America, and all the friends of America, by the infamous libel, in the forty-first number of the Quarterly Review, has recently come again'; and in the number for last January, taking for his text the childish trash of Lieutenant De Roos, and an unhappy forgery, called The United States as they are, manufactured in Grub-street, has not only vamped up anew several of the old slanders, in which dignified and edifying labor we should not and shall not disturb him; but has undertaken, fantastically enough, to give an account of the character of our diplomatic intercourse in general, and of our relations with England in particular. The ignorance of the subjects treated is the least prominent feature, in this account, as we shall presently see; the spirit in which it is executed deserves a severer censure than respect for ourselves will allow us to give it. Before proceeding further, we must here make a considerable extract from the article in question.

'It is the obvious policy of the governing powers of a country like that we have been describing, to cultivate peace and amity with all the world; and this desire is always strongly professed, in the messages of the president. In their diplomatic intercourse with European states, however, (we make this remark with much pain and regret) they are generally prepared to start so many points of controversy, to put forward so many unfounded claims and extravagant pretensions, many of them so contrary to the es

tablished law of nations; their self-interest is so predominating a feature, and pursued with so much urgency and perseverance, without the least regard for mutual concession or mutual accommodation, that the word reciprocity would seem to be banished from their diplomatic code. Under an affectation of humility and republican simplicity, no absolute monarchy can be, in point of fact, more ostentatious and vainglorious, than the government of the United States. A cold, calculating tone of argumentation marks all their official intercourse with foreign nations. Perhaps it would be deemed inconsistent with stern republican simplicity, were the president or his ambassador guilty of any of those little acts of courtesy and mutual civility, which subsist, in the diplomatic intercourse, between the organs of the monarchical governments of Europe.'

6

[ocr errors]

Thus far is general. The things alleged are vague, and no facts are specified. The charges are even somewhat contradictory. It does not readily appear, how an affectation of humility' can consist with the abstinence from acts of courtesy and mutual civility,' without which, in their proper place, no appearance of humility could be kept up. It is the first time we have ever heard, that the President of the United States, at any period, would consider it a crime to practice the usual acts of courtesy and mutual civility toward foreign ministers. We are ourselves strongly inclined to think, that for one act of courtesy, which passes from any monarch in Europe toward any foreign minister, ten have been exercised by every president of the United States toward every foreign minister, accredited to this government. In fact, the intercourse of the President of the United States with the foreign ministers is like his intercourse with all other gentlemen (the only intercourse that becomes men of sense in any country), that of perfect equality, as of man with man. Can as much be said of the sovereigns of Europe? However, we need not waste more words on this part of the remarks of the writer in the Quarterly Review. It is enough to say, they have little meaning and no truth. It will be observed that the assertion of this reviewer covers the whole diplomatic intercourse of the United State with all nations. But as most of his subsequent specifications refer to matters now in controversy with England, and as the British press has manifested no little preposterous exultation on the subject of the fancied felicity of the negotiations of Mr Canning with Mr Gallatin, we think it not superfluous to subjoin the following remarks of Lord Dudley, in a letter to our minister of the first of October, 1827.

'The undersigned [Lord D.] takes pleasure in recognising in both these letters of Mr Gallatin, and especially in the inquiry which closes the second of them, the same spirit of good will and conciliation, which in the midst of discussions involving no small difference of opinion, has characterized Mr Gallatin's correspondence with the British Government.'

What a comment does this official admission of a British minister form upon the libellous statement of the anonymous writer, who undertakes to describe the style of the American diplomacy! We shall only add that we know that the British government was not less pleased with the temper of Mr Rush's correspondence, during the eight years of his mission.

We proceed with our quotation.

'England, more than any other power, has experienced this frigid and exacting temper on the part of the United States, ever since that precious treaty of Ghent, which gave to them all that they asked, and much more than they had a right to expect. Not contented with this, the republic has since put forth claims of the most unreasonable nature; and in the discussions that have taken place, evinced a litigious disposition on points, that can scarcely fail sooner or later to bring the two nations into collision. We mean such points as Great Britain never can concede, and which can have no other object, if persevered in, than to serve as so many pretexts to join the enemy against us, in any future war, as she did in the last. The following are a few, among the many subjects, to which we allude;

1. A new code of maritime law,

2. The settlement of a boundary line,

3. The claim to the Columbia river,

4. The free and uninterrupted navigation of the St Lawrence.' In attending sufficiently to the above remarks, to make the extract of them, we begin to find that we have to do with a person too little informed on the subjects, which he undertakes to treat, to deserve a refutation. In the treaty of Ghent (it seems) Great Britain yielded all that the United States asked! The only inference which can be made from this remark, is, that the writer knows nothing about the negotiation of the treaty of Ghent. That treaty, like most other treaties between powers standing on any footing of equality with each other, was a compromise. Each party proposed things, on which it did not insist; and receded from terms at first brought forward as essential.

But it seems the United states got all they asked by the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »