F 2534 .R43 Copy 1 REI>LY TO THE AUTHOR OF THE LETTER ON - ; i v ' ' SOUTH AMERICA AND MEXICO, BY AY AMERICAN, ADDRESSED TO Mr. JAMES MUJVROE, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, r o • J J » Printed at Washington, in this present year, 1817. PHILADELPHIA : Printed by J. F. HURTRL, No. 124, South Second street, 1817. s i* H-.2piafc REPLY Philadelphia, Nov. 6th. 18 If. SIR, As you suppress your name in your letter, and as the title page in the printed copy which is now in circula- tion, only bears the national epithet " American," I cannot address you in any other manner* The concern you take in the cause of the people of South America and Mexico, in rebellion against the ty- ranny of the Spanish government, is certainly very lau- dable. Being well informed of the justice with which they aspire to independence and liberty, and of the im- portance of this event, you propose what ought to be the conduct of the government of these States, towards those which have been produced by the revolution of the Spanish colonies in the new world. I return you my thanks for your defence of the Columbians and their cause ; I, as one of them, and as one of the greatest admirers of their emancipation and liberty ought to set a high value upon every thing that is valuable in your letter. The whole of it would be so to me, if it did not disapprove of the revolution of one of the provinces of Brazil in America ; and if the course of conduct it pro- poses to the President of the United States were not so 4 mean. You will not be displeased at my express- ing my sell thus in a country in which shines the free-* dont of thought, reasoning, and the publishing of one's opinions, and when we are agreed on all the rest. You are sorry that the revolution of Pernambuco shoulu have been applauded in the news papers of the United States, confounding it with the struggle of the Pa- triots in the Spanish colonies, whose situation and cause were really different. Whatever may be the form of the Brazilian government, that part of South America has already obtained the object for which the other Ameri- cans are contending, <*to wit. a government within them- selves." These are the words of your letter, adding that in the case of the Pernambucans, it was nothing but the revolt of an adjoining province. This discourse of yours supposes that the right of re- sistance against despotism is given only to nations go- verned cohnially, or by a power removed from their center : that is to say, however oppressed a people may be by a central or domestic government, it cannot take the alarm to escape from oppression. This is as much as to advance that societies have not the common light of rising against the arbitrary power of their rulers : therefore, if the case were to happen, that the executive authority of these United States should abuse the confi- dence placed in his hands, by attacking their constitu- tional principles, or prevailing upon their Congress, they could not turn against the ruler who should thus traninle on their rights : they ought patiently to suffer this abuse of now er, and be contented with having shak- en off the European dependence since the year 1776, In following the opinion of your letter with respect to Pernambuco, it would be necessary to tell the citizens who should rise against their despotic president, & seek the assistance of some other power, the same that you bring against the Fernambucans : « whatever may be your form of government, we can neither assist you, nor approve your insurrection, because you have already ob- tained the great object of the one which you undertook in 1774, to wit, an independence of the British government, and you have in your bosom an administration which was formerly in Europe, " If such a proposition as this were advanced by one of those who call themselves politicians in the monarchy of Spain, or in any other equally despotic and absolute, I should not wonder at it ; but its being uttered in a country constituted in a free manner, and diametrically opposed to despotism, is, to me, very unexpected intel- ligence. Formerly it would also have been looked upon as a blasphemy in Spain, when the constitutions abolish- ed by the Austrian kings were in full force. In that of Arragon, the right of resistance was sanctioned as one of its cardinal articles. In the English constitution this point is established from its most remote antiquity : hut the sanction which the right of insurrection received from the British parliament is very remarkable, when, by this means, the reigning dynasty of G. Britain as- cended the throne, to the exclusion of that of James the Second. I should never have done, were I to under- take to relate all the occasions in which the nations of the world have made use of this right against their in- ternal administration : it is as ancient as society, or 6 despotism. Scarcely had this hydra raised its head ere those who were tyrannized also iv.se against it, using the common right of resistance, engraved on the heart of man by the Creator's own hand. Foreign con- quests were yet unknown, and the colonial system of Europe was still very distant, when man, already unit- ed every where in society, had on numberless occasions made use of the right which you deny the Americans of Pernambuco, and in them, to every free and inde- pendent nation. This is nothing less than denying a power granted to all men by the Author of nature, ac- cording to the tradition of all ages, and the Holy Scrip- tures. In all these places it is evident that resistance against the arbitrary power of a central and domestic adminis- tration is laudable ; but, to resist a just and moderate government, is a crime deserving the censure which you unjustly let fall on the insurrection of Pernambuco. This Province has not conspired against an equitable and humane government, but against an arbitrary mo- narchy which neither acknowledges nor wishes to ac- knowledge any other constitution than the whims and caprices of ,a single person. And, where is the natural or divine precept which obliges a man to remain sub- ject to the will and humour of a single individual ? Do you not know, then, that to depend on the good will of a single person is what constitutes slavery ? And what proofs can you produce to show that a people consist- ing of men, created according to God's image and like- ness, should be obliged to enter into this slavery, or never to come out of it when they once suffered tho yoke to he put on them, or found it fastened on their fathers ? It is impossible to give legitimate proofs against the sentiments of nature, the light of reason, and the testi- mony of the i -oly Scriptures. It is unbecoming the high dignity of man to wish to subject himself to the abso- lute will of a person from whom he has not received his beins;. Tt is the same as confounding him with the cat- tle belonging to an individual, if this proprietor is to be able, on pretence of being a monarch, to dispose of the person and property of his subject, as he disposes of his beasts of burden, or of the quadrupeds shut up in a park. Such are, in your opinion, the natives of Pernambuco, when you want them to remain under the arbitrary power of the house of Braganza, since it is no longer in Lisbon, but at the court of Brazil. I am amazed, astonished and surprised to find the pen of an Ameri- can politician bringing forth such a proposition as this. It appears, that when you wrote your disapproba- tion of the proceeding of Pernambuco, you gave up the recollection of the annals of those nations, who have acted like this province against internal despo- tism. In your opinion, the Romans were criminal, who, led on by Julius Brutus, conspired against their king Tarquin the Proud, abolished his monarchy, and erected a republic in its stead : the Swiss who, being in a state of rebellion against the House of Austria, overturned its government, and constituted a democra- tical one : the English, who have so often made use of the common right of insurrection against their kings and internal government: the Portuguese, themselves, 8 revolutionized against the crown of Castile, which was on the same continent, and within the limits of the same peninsula. It would be a fine thing, indeed, that all these nations should be told : " Whatever may be " your form of government, you cannot conspire against H it, since it is within yourselves, or very near, on your <•' own continent, washed by the same waters, and not " separuted by oceans or inaccessible mountains" Such a government, as that of Brazil, is so repug- nant to the will of God, that he highly disapproved of the conduct of the Israelites when they aspired through Samuel to an absolute monarchy. Such was the one they wanted ; and its description is made with the ut- most exactness in the very speech of the Prophet. That now 7 existing in Rio Janeiro is a copy of it. God was not displeased with the Hebrews for wishing a king, but, that this king should be unconstitutional, and as arbitrary and despotic as the one in Brazil. Had they demanded such # king as is described in the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy, their petition would have been granted ; because the one mentioned in this chapter was not absolute and capricious like that of the House of Braganza, but constitutional and moderate. And, if God is offended at the pretension of a monarchial and absolute government, can he be pleased that the Pernambucans and all Brazil should forever continue in subjection to the will of its actual arbitrary monarch ? So then, because he removed from the Tagus to Rio Janeiro, are the Brazilians al- ready bound forever to obey the will of this despot, in preference to the will of God ? 9 According to this new political maxim, the sangui- nary contest of the Americans of the Spanish colonies "Will be at an end, as soon as Ferdinand the seventh re- moves thither whith all his train of tyranny, all his pomp of superstition, and his supreme council of inqui- sitors. Then the provinces of Spain will have a rignt to rise, because the focus of despotism has retired front them. As long as he resides in Madrid, Navarre, Gal- licia and Catalonia are unable to rise ; and. therefore, the generals Mina, Porher, and Lacy are criminals. All these are necessary consequences of the new system of politics announced by your letter, when it censures the conduct of Pernambuco. And, for the same reason, David was a criminal when he rose against Saul, and maintained himself at the head of a body of insurgents of six hundred n en. By the sane rule, you ought to condemn the ten tribes of Israel, who rebelled against Rehoboam, and founded another independent kingdom. They were liable to the same argument which you make use of to censure the proceeding of Pernambuco : an argument which should have made the B Estonians lay down their arms, if George the third had come to reside among them, although the British Parliament had insisted on depriving these legislatures of the right of imposing and fixing their contributions. In the event of remo- val of the government of London to these provinces, the complaint of the citizens would have been at an end, although the other causes of insurrection, mentioned in their declaration of independence, might have subsisted. Intent on decrying what has happened in this province, you also object that it is only a partial revolution. But do you forget, that this is the condition of almost .all national tumults ? The movement of all the parts of a nation is very seldom simultaneous. A single per- 10 son is the first who is wont to give the first cry of alarm against oppressive prwer ; a city, a department, or a village uses to be the first who raises the standard of insurrection. The remaining districts are accustomed to follow slowly, or with more or less celerity. But this renders not the person or party criminal Mho open- ed the vyay of the revolution. In the one which took place in these United States, Boston was the first to give the signal of alarm to all the rest, when its popu- lation was not equal to that of Pernambuco. And, had Boston been left to itself in its glorious enterprise, or had it been so unfortunate as to sink under it, would it therefore have been called criminal or unworthy of being assisted ? All the revolted provinces would, perhaps, have re- turned to their former dependence, if they had not ob- tained the protection of France, Spain, and Holland. And would it, in such case, be said, that they were all of them criminal and unworthy of foreign assistance ? Should Washington and Franklin be placed on the list of malefactors, or on that of heroes ? I know that in the opinion of oppressors, the issue is what denominates such undertakings good or bad. But their judgment is neither impartial nor right. In the balance of jus- tire, success is not what determines the goodness or wickedness of human actions : uprightness of intention, and the just or unjust motives of the actors, are the ba- sis of impartial expression. He who rises against a just and well constituted government, will be a traitor : hut he who takes the alarm against the arbitrary power of his country, or of his fellow creatures, will be a hero, a man of virtue and worthy of praise. If men, at the time they agreed to Jive in society, had executed a 11 compact of eternal toleration in favor of despotism, your proposition would, perhaps, appear tolerable; but, the contract of the members being the reverse, 1 know not whence you can bring arguments to maintain your opinion respecting Pernambuco. On the other hand, it is well known, that if even the first associates had agreed to such a compact, it would be unquestion- bly void. The rights of man are too sacred to be sus- ceptible of a conventional degradation, such as is en- deavored to be represented in your hypothesis. The contracting parties should be supposed mad ; and, being unfit to stipulate and promise the spoliation of their natural dignity, all their engagements would be null. Many others are so which are performed by the stupid, the frantic, and children, although the matter of the contract be infinitely inferior to liberty, and the other imprescriptible rights which compose the great fund of society. You cannot be ignorant that, in Brazil, there is no constitution, no representative government, nor law de- serving this holy name. All the Brazilians are slaves, because they all depend on the will of an individual, . which can never have any claim to the respectable cha- racter of a law. That which is properly called law, is the expression of the general will. The people of Pernambuco have no share in the formation of those acts which are honored by Despotism with the appella- tion of Law. In a word, the Brazilians are deprived of the exercise of their rights : the forced duty »of blind obedience is the only right which, under this deceitful denomination is acknowledged in the provinces of Bra- zil, by their oppressor. And, yet, will you have it be a crime to undertake the reformation of this abuse, by 13 meaus of an insurrection. ...the only way to obtain it from a tyrant who considers as high treason the at- tempt of setting constitutional impediments to his ar- bitrary power ? When I see in your letter that, affecting not to no- tice the sovereignty of the people, you exclusively be- stow this attribute on the house of Braganza, I am not astonished that you should also deny the Pemambu- cans, and all the Americans of Brazil, the common right of insurrection against their arbitrary govern- ment. Nothing of this will surprise any one who shall observe the new rule which you introduce to qualify revolutions as just or unjust. Until now, this innate principle in the hearts of all men, and of ail nations, did not at all depend on the mathematics and other arts and sciences foreign to sound policy; but, in your letter, you subject it in such a manner to geography, as to make the value of distances be that which is to decide with precision on the value or nullity of insur- rectional movements, of their justice and injustice. And, although experience shows that the weight of tyranny is oftentimes heavier and more painful to those who live in its center, than to those on the circumfe- rence ; to the subjects nearer the tyrant than to those who are more distant; the maxim invented by you should, notwithstanding, remain unalterable when the question is about the liberty of Brazil, or the one mil- lion and one hundred thousand souls which inhabit the province of Pernambuco. I read in the great book of nature, in the practice of all nations, and in the Holy Scriptures, the duty of saving from their anguish and danger those who are led to death, or suffer unjustly. I see that this duty is more obligatory among persons j 18 r t of the same family, of the same community, people, or nation. I find, in many places, the urgency of this duty in those persons who, by their valor and other virtues, are more fit for the purpose. In the same > manner as they have received ■ more gifts from nature, they have also received from her the especial precept of employing them for the benefit of their oppressed fellow creatures, though at the risk of life. If this obligation, then, has been imposed on every one, will it be lessened by the bonds of society ? You yourself confess, and with reason, that as man was not created to live by himself in solitude, so nations were not formed to exist in a solitary state. We are not horn for ourselves only, but to support, serve, and mu- tually help each other. By the social contract, this duty, far from being relaxed, is more concluding and strait. Why then disapprove the completion of it in the patriots of Pernaoibuco ? and why deny other pow- ^ erfui nations the right or obligation of protecting them? What would have been the issue of the glorious un- dertaking of these illustrious citizens, if, by such argu- ments as those contained in your letter, France, Spain * and Holland had abstained from affording them Ueir % t - protection? Would you wish that I had then addressed to the governments of those nations a discourse pro- portionate to the one made by you to the President against the revolution of Pernambuco ? The natural precept of wishing and not wishing to others, v\ hat wc wish or wish not lor ourselves, binds each aud every individual of our species. And, bow do you apply it in the cause of Pernambuco ? Will you be able to say wito any evidence, f iiat the Pernumbucans, oj the Americans of all the provinces of Brazil conducted 14 themselves towards these United States in their revo- lution, as the king of Portugal ? Are you, by chance, ignorant, that this despot shut his ports against iheir commerce and accused them of being rebels, traitors, and criminals ? Why then so great a regard for him in your letter, and none at all for those patriots who subscribed not to the sentiments of the court of Lisbon at that time, and who, on the 6th March, 1817, fhorght themselves very honorable in imitating the Bostonians of 17741 You confess, in your letter, that, during the late war, the house of Braganza, by the nature of its rela- tions with England, leaned rather to the side of our enemy ; and. do you believe, that this inclination, and its former conduct in the war for independence are ^ J % purged away by .its having, through the influence of -^^ja^^^'its minister Aurajo, named as Ambassador near the s^ government of the United States, a Person, who had made this country his choice , who was on terms of friendship with many of our most distinguished fellow citizens , who was supposed to be too much a republican f y ^ fotl Europe ? I should rather believe, that since the WfyZUZ^f Chevalier Aurajo had caused the appointment to fall on ^ an Abbe who is a republican by principle, and unjustly persecuted hy the inquisition, he would not be displeas- ed with the proceeding at Pernambuco. I should have considered that minister as possessing no small share of republicanism when I read the treaty which, in the name of Portugal, he executed with the Executive Di- rectory of the French TSepuhlic, on the 10th August, 1797. But, I do not believe the tyrant of Brazil to be purified, but by means of the course undertaken in the province of Pernambuco, and the aid which it claims from these United States. 15 You admit the right in the remaining powers to co- operate with any other one in repressing its rebellious subjects. I suppose you speak in the case of an un- just rebellion; because, if it be a just one, co-operating against the insurgents will n