course will operate upon the public mind, how the honest farmer, on reading such furious denunciations of what he is accustomed to think his natural enemy, and of her rapacity, can have his feelings wrought up under the idea that his country is the object of English aggression and overbearance. I much fear that this is the surest way of accounting for the strong popular ferment in relation to this question. . The arguments of the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts (J. Q. Adams) breathe a fierce and energetic war spirit. Truly and well did he himself depict the whole character of this movement, when he illustrated it by citing a celebrated event in history, exclaiming with very great emphasis, 'This is the military way of doing business.'

In a continuation of the debate, on February 6, 1846, Mr. Jefferson Davis, in the course of his speech, said:

He knew not whether he more regretted the time at which this discussion has been introduced, or the manner in which it has been conducted. We were engaged in delicate and highly important negotiations with Mexico, the end of which, he had hoped, would be an adjustment of our boundary on terms the vast advantages of which it would be difficult to estimate. If, sir, by this exciting discussion we shall hereafter find that we have lost the key to the commerce of the Pacific, none who hears me will live long enough to cease from his regrets for the injury our country has sustained. Again, sir, a long peace has served to extend the bonds of commerce throughout the civilised world, drawing nations from remote quarters of the globe into friendly alliance, and that mutual dependence which promised a lasting peace and unshackled commerce. In the East there appeared a rainbow which promised that the waters of national jealousy and proscription were about to recede from the earth, and the spirit of free trade to move over the face thereof. But this, sir, is a hope not so universally cherished in this House as I could desire. We have even been told that one of the advantages to result from war will be emancipation from the manufacturers of Manchester and Birmingham.

I hope, sir, the day is far distant when measures of peace or

war will be prompted by sectional or class interests. War, sir, is a dread alternative, and should be the last resort; but when demanded for the maintenance of the honour of the country, or for the security and protection of our citizens against outrage by other governments, I trust we will not sit here for weeks to discuss the propriety, to dwell upon the losses, or paint the horrors of war.

Mr. Chairman, it has been asserted that the people demand action, and we must advance. Whilst, sir, I admit the propriety of looking to and reflecting public opinion, especially upon a question which is viewed as deciding between peace or war, I cannot respond to the opinion, nor consent to govern my conduct by the idea, that the public man who attempts to stem the current of a war excitement must be borne down, sacrificed on the altar of public indignation. Sir, may the day never come when there will be so little of public virtue and patriotic devotion among the representatives of the people that any demagogue who chooses to make violent and unfounded appeals to raise a war clamour in the country will be allowed, unopposed, to mislead the people as to the true questions at issue, and to rule their representatives through their love of place and political timidity!

On the occasion of this Oregon controversy, both parties in the North, the Whig and the Democratic, emulated each other in the race to attain popularity by humiliating England and forcing her to abandon her pretensions. It required the whole strength of the South to keep the country from drifting into a war. Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, headed the extreme party in opposition to the claims of England in the House of Representatives, and speaking before that body advocated the exclusion of European governments from the continent of America, in a manner strikingly in accord with the spirit of his Puritan ancestors, who held 'that the earth was the inheritance of the saints, and that they were the saints.' He had the Holy Scriptures

read by the clerk of the House, to prove that God had decreed man to multiply and replenish the earth, and that to His chosen people He had given the heathen for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession. This-he argued with a blasphemous application of the Word of God to the purposes of politics, which has never found toleration or imitation outside of New England-this was the title by which the United States might rightfully claim the disputed tract in Oregon. On February 9, 1846, he added:

That same Pope at that time (1493) was in the custom of giving away not only barbarous nations but civilised nations. He dethroned sovereigns, put them under interdict, and excommunicated them from intercourse with all other Christians, and it was submitted to. And now, sir, the Government of Great Britain the nation of Great Britain-holds the island of Ireland on no other title. Three hundred years before that time, Pope Adrian of Rome gave, by that same power, to Henry I. of England, the island of Ireland, and England has held it from that day to this under that title, and no other. That is, no other, unless by conquest (for it has been in a continued state of rebellion ever since), and Great Britain has been obliged to conquer it half a dozen times since; and now the question is, whether Ireland shall ever become an independent kingdom. If we come to a war with Great Britain, she will find enough to do to maintain that island. * * * * I want the country (Oregon) for our Western pioneers.

About the same time General Lewis Cass, of Michigan, the acknowledged leader of the Democratic party of the North, as ex-President Adams was of the Whigs, thundered forth in the Senate threats of war and conquest against Great Britain. On March 29, 1846, he said:

***

Let us have no red lines on the map of Oregon, and if war comes, be it so. England might as well attempt to blow up the Rock of Gibraltar with a squib as to attempt to subdue

us. Why the honourable senator from South Carolina fixes upon ten years for the duration of the war, I know not; long before the expiration of that period, if we are not utterly unworthy of our name and our birthright, we should sweep the British power

from the continent of North America.

The blustering' in reference to the San Juan affair a few years ago was also confined to the North. The difficulty was promptly settled by a Southern Administration.

The charge has likewise been made in some of the AngloYankee newspapers that Mr. Mason, the accredited representative of the Confederate States to Great Britain, had hitherto belonged to the 'blustering party.' This assertion is easily disproved. Mr. Mason was not a member of Congress at the time of any of the disputes with England, and had, of course, no opportunity of taking part in the debates. The records of the Federal Legislature, however, prove that he held anything but hostile feelings towards this country; as an evidence of this, the case of the Resolute' may be cited. The following is an extract from the official report of the proceedings in that matter:

United States Senate, June 10, 1856. Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee on commerce be instructed to enquire into the expediency of authorising the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a register to the British-built bark Resolute,' found derelict near Cumberland inlet, in the Arctic Ocean by the officers and crew of the American whaling ship 'George Henry,' of New London, Connecticut, and by said salvors brought into the port of New London, where she is now lying -all claim to said vessel by the British Government having been relinquished to the salvors.

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, in requesting the honourable senator from Connecticut to withdraw his resolution, spoke as follows:

Mr. President,-I saw, as did the whole American people, the fact announced of the recovery of this vessel, and her being brought successfully, and after much danger and peril, within our waters. It occurred to me at the time-and I have been more strongly impressed with it in thinking over the subject since that the proper disposition of that vessel would be for the Government of the United States to purchase her, and refit her in a proper manner, and send her back to England. She was the property of the English Government, and was one of their public ships, abandoned in an enterprise of discovery in which we have largely participated with them-abandoned from necessity, and accidentally recovered by one of our merchant ships. I had thought that such high national courtesy, which I am gratified to say marks our country certainly with as much distinction as any other in the great family of nations--that national courtesy which does more to preserve the peace of the world even than armed ships themselves-would suggest that, on a suitable occasion, this ship should become the property of the Government, if it can be done on fair and equitable terms, and should be sent back to England in the name of the American people. I would, therefore, suggest to the honourable senator from Connecticut, learning that she has not changed hands, that, unless there be some immediate occasion for this resolution, it would be as well, perhaps, to let it lie over until we can confer on the subject.

Mr. Mason, subsequently, on June 24, 1856, offered a resolution to provide for the purchase and fitting out of the ship and her return to Great Britain, making an appropriation for the expense. His resolution passed the Senate without opposition.

The slavery dispute, although so prominent in American politics, was not the real cause of the dissolution of the Union. The North was desirous of having control of the territories, in order to form them into States, and thus obtain the balance of power in the Federal Congress, so as to impose protective tariffs, against which the South justly