Слике страница
PDF
ePub

ceived in the different cities through which he passes, with triumphs and every demonstration of public admiration? This man is SAN MARTIN, the liberator of Chili. When to his good fortune and talents, he adds the character of a virtuous man, is it reasonable to suppose that he will not be looked to as the first man of the republic? What has been related to me of this man, leads me almost to believe that South America, too, has her Washington. When SAN MARTIN restored Chili to liberty and independence, he was tendered the supreme directorship by the cabildo, but this he magnanimously declined, declaring that his business was completed, that he was about to leave them to form a government for themselves! To avoid the honors which were preparing for him at St. Jago, he stole out unobserved on his return to Buenos Ayres, but was overtaken by a deputation, requesting him, at least, to accept the sum of twenty thousand dollars, for the purpose of bearing his expenses. This he positively refused. On his approach to Buenos Ayres, every preparation was made by the inhabitants to receive him in the most distinguished manner; twenty thousand people waited on the road at which he was to enter! The Chilians in one of the first acts of their government, voted a sum of money to repay the republic of La Plata, the expense of the expedition, and then by consent of the latter took the army into their own service; San Martin returned to assume the command, and the manner in which he was received by the grateful inhabitants of Santiago, has been detailed, in our newspapers. It was not un like the reception given to our own Washington in Philadelphia. It is only in popular governments, that a real triumph can ever take place; it only here that this genuine and highest of all earthly rewards; can await the virtuous and the brave.-The independent republic of La Plata and Chili, through San Martin, have, in all probability, by this time, given liberty and independence to their brethren of Peru.

Although the sentiment in favor of the patriots, through the United States, is almost universal, and seems to become each day more earnest, yet there are a few who pretend to advocate a cold indifference, and even speak of the patriots in the same terms that our enemies, during our revolutionary war, used to speak of us. The patriots are called rebels, insurgents, and we are gravely advised to hold them in contempt. I would ask how long is it since

we have got up a little in the world, that we should thus look down upon our poor relations? Can we bestow epithets upon these men, without, at the same time, casting the severest reproach upon ourselves? No-they are now, as we once were, nobly contending against oppressors or invaders, in a cause sanctified by justice, in a cause more just than ours-for where we had one reason to complain, they have ten thousand.* This cold blooded indifference to the fate of our fellow men, is unworthy of us. We sympathised with the Spaniards, when lawlessly invaded by France, we sympathised with Russia, we now sympathise with France, and have we no feeling for our brethren of the South? Those who inculcate this apathy, tell us that since we are happy and con

I have refrained from entering into the question of the right of the colonies to declare themselves independent of Spain. Never was there a cause more easily supported. On the side of Spain there is nothing but lawless force. On an attentive examination of the English writers against our right to declare ourselves independent of the British government, I find these things distinctly admitted by them as incontrovertible: That the relative condition of the colony to the colonizing state, is not the same as that of a mere province, partakes more of that of allies, and having distinct interests from the mother country, may lawfully throw off its authority, which a province, under no circumstances can. "As the colonies were not conveyed to distant countries in order to be made slaves, or to be subjected to the peevishness or oppression of the parent state, if they thought themselves exposed to such treatment they might renounce their allegiance, claim independence and apply to any foreign commonwealth for aid." These are the very words of one of the ablest and most strenuous advocates for Great Britain. It entered the head of no one, at the time, to argue, that nothing would justify the revolt of the colony. Our declaration of independence begins with laying down principles which were universally agreed to as self-evident. From the nature of the case, the colony must be permitted to judge whether it has been abused or not: it would be ridiculous to allow nothing more than an appeal to the oppressor. When all hope of redress has vanished they may lawfully take up arms, and any nation, according to Vatel, may lawfully assist them, although it would not be lawful to assist a revolted province: the colony may "appeal to the world for the rectitude of its intentions." It would be insulting to any man of common sense to attempt to prove that the American colonies have not had ample cause of complaint. It has never been denied, Spain has never condescended to say more than that these are her subjects, her slaves, and that she has a right to oppress or murder them according to her pleasure. It was also admitted that when the parent state could not protect itself, but was obliged to abandon the colonies to themselves for a time, it could never regain its authority without the consent of the colonies. Never was there a more complete dereliction than that of the Spanish colonies for at least three years. The existing governments were every where mere usurpations, for the source from which their power was derived, had been dried up, and their responsibility had entirely ceased.

tented, we ought to be indifferent to all the rest of the human race! If this sentiment is really serious, and not a mere concealment of enmity to the patriots, it is despicable, it is unworthy of any one who wears the form of man. According to these, a wise nation ought to stifle all the finer feelings of human nature, it ought to have no charity but for itself; base selfishness should be every thing; and generosity, patriotism, liberty, independence, empty and ridiculous words. Such sentiments may become the wretch who will not spare from his superabundant store, a mite to prevent his neighbor from perishing; but there are but few Americans, I believe, who harbor meanness like this. It does not follow that because these sentiments are indulged, we must become quixotic, and involve ourselves in war, on account of mere religious or political opinions. I am no advocate of French fraternization, but I am not, therefore, to condemn every generous feeling that glows in the bosoms of those who wish well to the patriot cause. I would wish to see our conquests, the conquests of reason and benevolence, and not of arms. There is nothing to forbid our feeling a generous sympathy with the patriots of South America; a contemptuous indifference on our part, would be regarded by them as reproachful to our national character, and would lay the foundation of lasting hatred.

It does not follow, however, that we should make a common cause with them, and go to war with Spain on their account; this might injure us both. Although I should not fear the result, it might be more prudent to leave the colonies to contend with Spain, without interference, and I am convinced no European nation will interfere in her favor. This country has no reason to be afraid of a war, but at the same time none to desire it. Peace is our true policy, though not carried so far as to render our steps timid and cowardly. We ought not to be prevented from doing what may be agreeable to us, and to our interest, by apprehension of unjust and unlawful violence from the universe; we are now strong enough to pursue any just and reasonable deportment, as respects ourselves and others, without dread of consequences. What then ought we to do? I say at once, to establish official relations with the republics of La Plata and Chili,* No nation

• The nature of these relations, must depend on circumstances. Our right to establish them arises from our right to trade with them, which we have distinctly

will have any just right to be offended with this. Our own practice as well as the practice of every other country, considers the existence of a government, de facto, as sufficient for all purposes of official communications. We never hesitated to establish relations with the revolutionary governments of France, neither did any of the European powers. In the great commonwealth of nations, each one has a right to choose the government or governments, with which to establish such relations; other nations have no more right to take offence at this, than one citizen has with another for the choice of his associate. The recognition of the republic of La Plata, does not imply that we must make war against Spain, or aid the republic in case it should be invaded. It is not inconsistent with the strictest neutrality; most certainly it is no act of hostility. There is not the least danger that Spain will seriously consider it a cause of war; she may bluster, but she holds too deep a stake, to think of striking the first blow; as long as she possesses colonies in America, if there is ever a war between us, it must commence on our side.

It is, as respects ourselves, that we should have any hesitation in acknowledging the independence of La Plata, and not because we should infringe any rights of Spain. There is nothing in the laws of nations to forbid it; and she can lay but poor claim to our friendship. The question we should ask in this affair, are these: are the republics just mentioned, of such a character as that we should let ourselves down by a treaty of amity with them? What is the extent of their territory, the number of their population, the nature of their governments? Are they capable of defending themselves? Is Spain in possession of any part of their territory? These, and other questions, might be put to satisfy ourselves, before we venture to take them by the hands as friends. This course will be found to accord perfectly with our principles and practice. What, for instance, was our conduct to Spain herself? Where there happens to be at the same time, in the same empire, two or more governments, we may treat with all, or any one, or none; but this is a matter which concerns only ourselves. To treat with all would subject us to great inconvenience, to treat with any one would have the appearance of partiality; for our own sake, there

asserted. It does not follow that we should send or receive a minister; consuls or consul generals might be sent and received.

fore, the best course would be to acknowledge none of them. Thus, when the whole Spanish monarchy was actually split into three parts, king Joseph on the throne, the cortez endeavoring to expel him, and the colonies setting up for themselves, our government declined acknowledging any of these parties. When the cortez prevailed, we received the minister of Ferdinand, and acknowledged the government, de facto; but we declined receiving the minister of the colonies for two reasons; first, because the contest was not yet properly at an end, therefore from motives of prudence, we could not think of forming a compact which might prove to be ineffectual; secondly, because the existing governments might not have been of such respectability as that we could place ourselves on a footing with them, consistently with the respect due to ourselves. But when these causes ceased, the reason for our not establishing relations would cease also, if we should regard them as not disreputable to us. The different provinces of South America have not made a common cause, and from their distance, it is impossible they could act together. Mexico, Grenada, Venezuela, La Plata, Chili, have all declared themselves, in the most formal manner, separate and independent governments; should any of them, therefore, succeed in expelling the Spanish authorities, and in establishing governments, de facto, in pursuance of our own practice and principles, we may venture to establish relations with them, provided we are satisfied that there is a sufficient character and stability to justify us in doing so consistently with prudence. A revolted province notoriously incapable of maintaining itself, ought not to be treated with, but an independent nation notoriously capable of maintaining itself, ought to be respected. Yet we have a right to receive and hear the mission even of a revolted province, without violating the laws of nations. What more common than for the revolted subjects, or the deposed prince of one nation, to fly to another and to be openly and publickly received? Who ever heard of a sovereign forbidding all nations from holding any intercourse with his revolted subjects, on pain of violating the laws of nations? The strictest neutrality is not violated by affording shelter and protection, much less by the exchange of civilities, or the establishment of official relations, for the convenience of commercial intercourse. Is all intercourse or relation forbidden, or some particular kind only? For instance, no one ever VOL. I.

46

« ПретходнаНастави »