Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Union, and thus be able to control the political character of the whole. If their counsels had prevailed, the wild beasts of the forests would have roamed, and the savage ruled, nearly the whole West; and those who succeeded in preparing productions for market would have been at the mercy of another government in reaching it.

When the bill to admit Louisiana as a State was before Congress, Josiah Quincy, a leading member from Massachusetts, declared in the House, that the passage of the bill "would justify a revolution in this country." On another occasion he said: "I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to propose definitely for a separation-amicably if they can, violently if they must."

This is but one of a large number of similar expressions emanating from Federal members, all tending to prove that the Federal party at the East preferred severing and destroying the Union, to aiding in the growth and expansion of the great valley of the Mississippi. The people of the great West have to thank Mr. Jefferson for his energy and influence, and the ascendency of the Democratic party and its principles, for a course of policy which has extended protection to their persons and property, and for being permitted to pursue happiness in their own way.

13.-PIRATES AND THE FREEDOM OF THE SEA.

For years before Mr. Jefferson became President, the pirates of the north coast of Africa, on the Mediterranean, compelled the civilized nations of Europe, and our own, to pay them tribute for the privilege of navigating that inland sea. While minister in France, Mr. Jefferson sought to combine those interested against this outrage and disgrace, to break it up, but without sucDuring Mr. Adams's administration he followed the custom of some other nations, and made presents to the Barbary pirates to an amount not far from two millions of dollars. When, in 1800, Bainbridge carried out the annual tribute, the Dey

cess.

of Algiers compelled him to carry an ambassador and some presents to the Sultan at Constantinople. Instead of paying tribute to this den of pirates, and submitting to the resulting national degradation, Mr. Jefferson resolved, by sending out a fleet of five vessels, under Commodore Dale, to put an end to their depredations. It was in this war where such men as Decatur, Morris, and others, won for themselves such high honors, and elevated our national character. In the end, after some delay, our navy triumphed, and the pirates were permanently put down, and our sailors have been as free to navigate the Mediterranean as any other sea. The difference in the conflicting principles of the two parties is here clearly seen. The anti-Democratic party voted appropriations and consented to pay tribute for leave to navigate an inland sea. Mr. Jefferson and the Democratic party refused to vote or pay tribute for that purpose, but crushed out the powers that had received and continued to demand tribute. In doing this, the Democracy performed what was needful to protect our citizens in their persons when pursuing their lawful business, and thus securing them in their pursuit of happiness.

14.-NEW ENGLAND CLERGYMEN PREACHING ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

PRINCIPLES.

Mr. Jefferson having been popular as the American minister at Paris during a portion of the political, social, and religious tornado that swept over France, it was assumed by divers political and religious teachers in this country that he was an infidel, or some sort of an anti-Christian. His being the author of the statutes for religious freedom in Virginia, served to strengthen this belief. It is extraordinary that these imputations came only from the anti-Democrats, while there was as much piety and true religion among the Democrats as among their opponents. The Federal politicians shouted the false imputation, and a large portion of the clergy in New England, and many elsewhere, echoed and reëchoed this unfounded political cry. Instead of preaching Christ and Him crucified, they preached anti-democracy, and prayed for the political crucifixion of Mr. Jefferson. Instead of instructing their hearers in the truths of Christianity and moral

and religious duties, they engaged warmly in the political contests of the day, and especially against Mr. Jefferson, concerning whom and his religious principles they personally knew nothing. Men attending church to worship God freely, according to the dictates of their own consciences, found themselves in a political forum where democratic principles and the great representative of them were condemned and denounced. This was an open invasion of the rights of their hearers, and a bold desertion and dereliction of their own duties. Democratic principles teach that a man's religion and religious faith, and his mode and manner of worship, are questions between him and his Maker, and that he seeks from religious teachers only that kind of knowledge which may the best enable him to know how to perform these duties. These clergymen, by overacting the part assigned, or assumed by them, by attempting to dictate political action and belief as the commands of God, lessened their own influence and damaged the cause they sought to sustain. Few would accept bold assumptions for fixed facts, and when they were called upon for tangible proofs they were never furnished, and their listeners lost confidence in them. If they had sought for truth, they would have found abundance of evidence in his private life, and in his public acts and documents, disproving their oft-repeated charges. It was then known that Mr. Jefferson, as one of a committee to prepare a device for a national seal, had proposed for one side, "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night," an unmistakable recognition of the existence of God and His protection of His chosen people. Subsequently, in attempting to combine his colleagues' views with his own, he retained that concerning the children of Israel, etc., and surrounded it by the motto, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." In seven addresses and messages he recognizes the Supreme Diety, one of which commences thus: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His Providence, and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose good

ness I ask you to join with me in supplications," etc. No one using such language can be truly called an infidel. Partisanship originated the charge, and a desire to secure the success of antidemocratic principles alone gave it currency. The object was to prevent men acting independently and carrying out their political principles, and to cheat them into the support of those which they disapproved and condemned.

It is deeply to be regretted that history shows that this great error and wrong has been oft repeated since, by the same partisans in the same quarter and elsewhere.

15. SECESSION PROPOSED BY THE ANTI-DEMOCRATS OF NEW ENGLAND.

Formerly, wars in Europe were nearly synonymous with aggressions upon the commerce of neutrals. Between British orders in council and French decrees, our commerce suffered severely. The anti-Democrats advocated a war with France as the rightful remedy. France advised a war with Great Britain, as a cure for the evils of which we complained. France thought we ought to hate and punish Great Britain; and the latter, with the Federalists, assumed that we ought to hate France and punish her. The Democracy held that neither their position nor their inclination required them to determine upon the right or duty of either belligerent in their controversies, and that the true policy of our country was to take sides with neither, and, if their aggressions became too severe to be borne, to cut off all commercial communication with both. Both were to blame; but with our scanty means and inconsiderable navy, and a heavy balance of our Revolutionary debt upon our shoulders, it would have been madness to declare war against both. Jefferson recommended, and Congress imposed an embargo. This was deemed an ineffectual remedy, though it was generally acquiesced in. But at that time the commercial and shipping interests of New England were deemed far more important than her agricultural and manufacturing. The embargo bore harder upon the former than the latter. Dissatisfaction sprang up and was industriously spread by the anti-Democratic party against the authors of the embargo and those who sustained

it. Instead of being considered as the means of protecting our commerce from foreign aggression, this measure was denounced as a criminal assault upon the shipping interests of New England, and every effort was made to overthrow those engaged in imposing and sustaining it. Finding the Democracy immovable, from a deep conviction that they were right, the Federalists set about finding a remedy which they could apply to their own case, if other States should fail to be convinced by their arguments, and join them in their proposed means of redress. This remedy they proposed to find in secession, by which they could shake off the whole authority of the national Government, wielded by Democrats, who were carrying out democratic principles. The remedy, by embargo, it is true, was a severe one for us, but was worse for France and England. They lost both transportation and market, and the opportunity to purchase of us many things of indispensable necessity. England suffered most, because she manufactured most, and, having no market with us, her manufacturing establishments were compelled to close. Starvation followed. A faithful observance of the law for a short time longer would have brought all to a sense of justice. France yielded, but England held out, being encouraged by leading Federal politicians among us. These partisans in New England openly violated the embargo-law, and engaged largely in smuggling, thus defeating its objects. It became manifest to all observing minds, that the embargo laws must be strictly and effectually enforced, or war with Great Britain must follow. This did not change the tone of the anti-Democrats. Laws were passed to facilitate the execution of the embargo; but this only increased the violence of its adversaries. New England newspapers appeared in mourning. Mr. Jefferson was declared to be worse than George III., and that he was gratifying his fell and inextinguishable hate against the prosperity of New England, and that he was cringing to the French emperor. Resistance and disunion were called for in the newspapers and by the votes of numerous town-meetings.

Hillhouse, a United States Senator from Connecticut, declared, when the Enforcing Bill was before the Senate, "that people were not bound to submit, and he did not believe they would submit!"

« ПретходнаНастави »