THE CONTINENTAL EIGHTS AND KELATIONS OF OUR COUNTRY. SPEECH OF A¥IELIAM PL SEWARD. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26, 1853. Mr. President : On the 23d day of February, 1848, John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, who had completed a circle of public service fillino- fifty years, beginning with an inferior diplomatic function, passing through the Chief Magistracy, and closing with the trust of a Representative in Congress, departed from the earth, certainly respected by mankind, and, if all posthumous honors are not insincere and false, deplored by his countrymen. On a fair and cloudless day in the month of June, 18.50, when the loud and deep voice of wailing had just died away in the land, the Senator from Michigan, of New England born, and by New England reared, the leader of a great party, not only here, but in the whole country, rose in the Senate Chamber, and after complaining that a member of the family of that great Statesman of the East, instead of going backwards with a garment to cover his infirmities, had revealed them by publishing portions of his private diary, himself proceeded to read the obnoxious extracts. They showed the author's strong opinions, that by the Fed- eral compact the siaveholding class had obtained, and that they had exercised, a controlling i4pifluence in the Government of the country. Placing these extracts by the side of passages taken from the Farewell Address of Washington, the Senator from Michigan said, "He is unworthy the name of ' an American vvho'does not feel at his heart's core the difference between the ' lofty patriotism and noble sentiments of o??,e of these documents, and ; but ' I will not say what the occasion would justify. I will only say, and that is ' enough, the other, for it is another''' " It cannot, nor will it, nor should it, ' escape the censure of an age like this." " Better that it had been entombed, ' like the ancient Egyptian records, till its language was lost, than thus to have ' been exposed to the light of day." The Senator then proceeded to set forth by contrast his own greater justice and generosity to the Southern States, and his own higher fidelity to the Union. This was in the Senate of the United States. And yet no one rose to vindicate the memory of John Quincy Adams, or to express an emotion even of surprise, or of regret, that it had been thought necessary thus to invade the sanctity of the honored grave where the illustrious statesman who had so recently passed the gates of death was sleeping. I was not of New England, by residence, education, or descent, and there were reasons enough, why I should then endure in silence a pain tliat I shared with so many of my countrymen. Bui I determined, that when the tempest of popular passion that was then raging in the country should have passed by, I would claim a hearing here — not to defend or vindicate the sentiments which the Senator from Michigan had thus severely censured, for Mr. Adams himself had referred them, together with all his actions and opinions concerning slavery — not to this tribunal, or even to the present time, but to that after age which gathers and records the impartial and ultimate judgment of man- kind — but to show how just and generous he had been in his public career towards all the members of this Confederacy, and how devoted to the Union of the States and to the aggrandizement of this Republic. I am thankful that the necessity for performing that duty has passed by, and that the Statesman of Quincy has, earlier Printed by Buoll & Blanchard, Washington, P. C. 1^ " than I hoped, received liis vindication, and has received it, too, at the hands of him from whom it was justly due — tlie accuser himself. I regret only this — that the vindication was not as generously as it v. as elfeclually made, There are two propositions arising- out of our interests in and avoijiid the Gulf of Mexico, which are admitted I)y all our statesmen. One of them 's, that the safety of the Southern States requires a watchful jealousy of the presence ^)!' Euro- pean Powers in the Southern portiotis of the North American continent: :.iid the other is that the tendency of commercial and political events invites the United States to assume and exercise a paramount influence in the affairs of the n itinns situated in this hemisphere; that is, to beconi'^ and remain a great Western C-.«nti- nental Power, balancitig itself agai^ist the possible combinations of Europe. The advance of the country towards that position constitutes what, in the language of many, is called "Progress:" and the position itself is what, by the same class, is called " Manifest Destiny." It is held by all who approve that progress and expect that destiny, to be necessary to prevent the re-colonization of this continent by the European States, and to save the island of Cuba from passing out of the pos- session of decayed Spain, into that of any one of the more vigorous maritime Powers of the Old World. In December, 1823, James D-Ionroe, President of the United States, in his annual message to Congress, proclaimed the first of the.vc two policies substan- tially as follows: "The American continents, by the free and indepetidont con- dition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power; and while existing rii^hts should be respected, the safety and interest of the United Slates require them to announce that no future colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established in any part of the North American continent." This is what is called, here and elsewhere, the Monroe Doctrine, so far as it involves re-colonization. John Quincy Adams and John C.Calhoun were then membeis, chief members, of Monroe's Administration. John Quincy Adains afterwards acknowledged that he was the author of that doctrine or policy; and John C. Calhoun, on the 15th of May, 1848, in the Senate, testified on that point fully. A Senator had related an alleged conversation, in which Mr. Adams was represented as having said that tl'ree memorable ])ropositions contained in that message, of which what I have quoted was one, had originated with himself. Mr. Calhoun replied, that Mr. Adams, if he liad so stated, must have referred to only the one proposition con- cerning re-colonization, (the one now in question,) atid then added as follows : "As respects that, his (Mr. Adams's) memory does not diHer from mine. * * * * It originated entirely with Mr. Adams." — App. Cong. Globe, 1847-8, j??. 631. Thus much for the origifi of the Monroe Doctrine on re-colonization. Now, let us turn to the tiosition of John Quincy Adams, concerning national jealousy of the designs of European Powers upon the island of Cuba. The recent revela- tions of our diplomacy on that subject begin with the period wheii that statesman presided in the Department of State. On the 17th of December, 1822, Mr. Adams informed Mr. Forsyth, then American Minister in Spain, that "the island of Cuba ha.'l excited much attention, and had become of deep interest to the American Union;" and, referring to reported rival designs of France and Great Britain upon that island, instructed him to make known to Spain "the sentiments of the United States, wliicli were favorable to (he continuance of Cuba in its con- nection with Spain." On the 28th of April, 1823, Mr. Adams thus instructed Mr. Nelson, the successor of Mr. Forsyth : "The islands of Cuba and Porto Rico still remain, nominally, and so far really depend- ent upon Spain, tiiat she yet possesses the power of transferring her own dominion over them to others. These islands, from their local position, are natural appendages to the North American continent ; and one of them, Cuba, almost in sij^ht of our shores, from a multitude of considerations, has become an object of transcendent importance to the commercial and political interests of onr Union. Its commanding position, with reference to the Gulf of Mexico and the West India seas; ihe charadcr of 7(s population/ its situa- tion midway betv^een our Southern coast ai?d the island of St. Domingo; its safe and capacious havbov of the Havana, fronting a long line of our shores destitute of the same advantage ; the nature of its productions and of its wanLs. furnishing the supplies and need ng the returns of a commerce immensely profitable and mutuaiiy beneficial — give it an importanco in the sum ot" our national interests with which that of no other foreign territ'u-v can be compared, and little inferior to that v.-hich binds the d.iFerent members of this Uuion together. Such, indeed, are, between the interests of that island and of this country-, the goographica!, commercial, moral, and political relations, foi mod by nature, gathcrmg in the process of time, and even now verging to maturity, that, in looking forward to the probable course of events, for the short period of half a century, it is scarcely possible to resist the conviction that the annexation of Cuba to our Federal Republic will be indispensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself. It is obvious, however, that for this event we are not yet prepared. Numerous and formidable objections to the extension of our territorial dominions beyond sea, present themselves to the firsc contemplation of the subject; obstacles to the system of policy by which alone that result can be -compassed and maintained, are to be fovcsern and surmounted, both from at home and abniad ; but there arc laws of political as well as of physical gravita- tion ; and if an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot choo.ic but fall to the ground. Cuba, forcibly disjoined frotn its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self-support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union which, by the same law of nature, cannot oast her off from its bosom. "It will bo among tha primary objects requiring your most earnest and unreniitfcing attent'on, to a=certain and report to us every movement of negotiation between Spain and Great Britain upon this subieet. **"*** So long as the constitutional Govern- ment may continue to be administered in the name of the King, your ofBcial intercourse will be with his minister.*, and to them you will repeat, what ilv'Ir. For-syth has been instructed to say, that the wishes of your Government are tiiat Cuba and Porco Rico may continue in connection with independent and constitutional Spain.''" / Thirty years afterwards, viz: on the 4th d.ay of January, 1853, the Senator from Michi^^an, [Mr. C.\ss,] without one word of acknowledgment of Mr. Adams's agency in instituting those measures of " progress " towards the " manifest des- tiTiy" of the country, submitted the resolutions which are under consideration, and which are in these words : ^'■Risolvcd h^j th; S-^nale and Hoii^s of Representative,'^ of the United States oj America in Congress assemldcd, That the United States do hereby declare that ' the American conti- nent^, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, arc henceforth not to be considered as subjects ftr future colonization by any European Power ;' and while 'existing rights should be respected,' and will be by the United States, they owe it to their own ' jrafety and interests' to announce, as they now do, ' that no future Euro- pean colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established on any p?.tt of .the North "American continent;' and should the attempt be made, they thus deliberately declare that it will be viewed as an act originating in motives regardless of their -interests and their safety.' and which will leave them free to adopt such measures as an independ- ent nation mav instiy alopt in defence of its rights and its honor. ••And I>e n farther resolved, That while the United States disclaim any designs upon the island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, they consider it due to the va-t importance of the sulject to make known, in this solemn man- ner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that island, which, as a naval or military position, might, under circumstances easy to bo foreseen, become dangerous to their Southern coast, tothe Gulf of Mexico, and to "the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts directed against them, to bo resisted by all the means in their power." In bringing lo^etiier these actions of John Qniiicy Adains in 1822, and of the Senator ftom^Michigan in 1853, and placing them in juxtaposition in the history of the Senate, I hav^e done all that the Senator from Michigan seems to have left undone, to vindicate the departed statesman from the censures heaped upon him by the living one in 1850. I proceed to consider the resolutions thus offered by the Senator from Michigan. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire offers an amendment, as a con- dition of his vote, in these words: '■•And be it further resolved. That while the United States in like manner disclaim any des'gns upon Canada, inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties to Great Britain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known, in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that province, which, as a naval or military 4 position, must, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their northern boundary and to the lakes, as unfriendly acts directed against them, to be resiated by all the means in their power.'' I will vote for that amendznent. It is not well expressed. But it implies the same policy in regard to Canada which the main resolutions assert concerning Cuba. The colonies, when they confederated in 1775, invited Canada to come in. Monttromerygave up his life in scaling the Heights of Abraham, in the same year, to bring her in. Scott, in 1814, poured out his blood at Chippewa to bring her in. If the proposition shall lail, I shall lament it as a repudiation by the Senate of a o-reater national interest than any other distinct one involved in this debate ; but I shall, nevertheless, vote for the resolutions of the Senator from Michigan. I shall do so, because — 1st. The reverence I cherish for the memory of John Quincy Adams, the illus- trious author of the policy which they embody, inclines me to support them. 2d. While I do not desire the immediate or early annexation of Cuba, nor see how I could vote for it at all until Slavery shall have ceased to counteract the work- ings of nature in that beautiful island, nor even then, unless it could come into the ' Union without injustice to Spain, without aggressive war, and without producing internal dissensions among ourselves, I nevertheless yield up my full assent to the convictions expressed by John Quincy Adams, that this nation can never safely allow the island of Cuba to pass under the dominion of any Power that is already, or can become, a formidable rival or enemy ; and cannot safely consent to the restoration of colonial relations between any portions of this continent and the Monarchies of Europe. The re-establishment of such relations would of course reproduce in a greater or less degree the commercial and political embarrassments of our relations with other American communities, and even with European nations, from which we obtained relief only through the war of 1812, and the subsequent emancipation of the Spanish colonies on this continent, and their organization as free and inde- pendent Republics. Sir, I am willing, on the demand of th^enator from Michi- gan, or of any other leader, and without any demand from any leader, to declare myself opposed — radically opposed — opposed at all times, now, henceforth, and forever — opposed, at the risk of all hazards and consequences, to any design of any State or States on this continent, or anywhere else, which may, by possibility, result in re-producing those evils — the greatest which could befall this country, short of that greatest of all, to which they would open the way — the subversion of our own hard-won independence, and the returning dominion of some European Power over ourselves. I shall therefore vote for these resolutions, if it shall please the Senate to come to decisive action upon them, aiid I shall vote for re-affirming and maintaining the principles of John Quincy Adams, as defined in the Monroe Doctrine, and in his policy in regard to Cuba, at all times, and under all circum- stances whatsoever. But while thus expressing my devotion to those principles, I cannot too strongly express myself against the manner in which they have been brought in issue here on this occasion. The issue is made at a time, and under circumstances, which render it inevitable that we must fail, signally fail, in maintaining the great prin- ciples which it involves. ' The issue is raised at a wrong time. We are more than halfway through a ses- sion constitutionally limited to ninety days, and engaged with vast and various sub- jects which cannot be disposed of without long and most discursive debate. I think the issue is raised in a wrong way. Practically, and by custom, the President of the United States holds the initiative of measures affecting Foreign Relations. The President now in the palace will go out in thirty days, and his sanction, even if w.e had it, would therefore be of no value. But even that san • • tion, such as it would be, is withheld — and, I must confess, rightly withheld. Tlie people have elected a new President, who is just ready to enter the palace, and upon whom the responsibilities of the conduct of Foreign Relations, for four yervrs at least, must rest. Not only do we not know what his opinions on this qneM.ion are, but our action would anticipate the publication of those opinions, and en'.bar- rass — is it too strong an expression to say, factiously embarrass? — the incoming Administration. Moreover, we are not only required to advance in this matter without the light that Executive exposition might throw upon our path, but we are recpiired to pro- ceed without the aid or advice of tlie Committee to whom the care of Foreign Relations has been confided by the Senate, and, as there is reason to believe, in opposition to their deliberate judgment. Ao-ain, it results iVom the very nature of the case that a majority for the resolu- tions cannot be obtained, either in the Senate, or in Congress, or in the country. The principles involved in the resolutions have become a tradition among the American People, and on acknowledged occasions they would act upon them as traditions vigorously and with unanimity. On the other hand, the Americans are a practical people, engrossed with actual business affairs, and they will not act upon abstract principles, however approved, unless there ,be a necessity, or at least an occasion. So it has happened with the Monroe Doctrine on re-colonization, and with the national policy concerning Cuba. They are thirty years old: they are o-ener;tIlv accepted; and yet, not only have they never been aflirmed by Congress, but Conoress has refused to affirm them, solely for the reason that there was no pressing necessity, no particular occasion, for such an affirmation. Whenever a necessity or an occasion arises, it produces a popular sentiment or passion. The Northern States are content now ; they do not fear re-colonization, and do not want Cuba. The Southern States are content; they do not now desire political excitement, and they are not prepared for anything that may involve the nation in war. It is not to be denied, also, that the recent unwise and unnecessary expo- sition of our diplomatic correspondence throughout a period of thirty years, con- cernino- the island of Cuba, is regarded as having created embarrassments which only the lapse of some time can remove. The Senator from Michigan seems to be aware of these difficulties, and there- fore he labors to show that there is a necessity, or at least an occasion, for action. But he fails altogether in showing any new occasion — which, to tlse apprehension of the Senate and the country, is equivalent to failing to show any necessity or occasion. What are his facls? 1st. In regard to Great Britain and re-coloni- zation. The grasping spirit shown by Great Britain in the Maine Border question, and in the Oregon question. The Monroe Doctrine, as expounded by Monroe himself, declared that existing rights were to be respected — Great Britain asserted that her claims in those cases were existing rights. Those questions have been settled, rightly or wrongly, and have passed away. What more ? The British claim on the Mosquito coast? That, also, is settled by treaty. The organization of the Bay of Islands as a distinct colony ? That, too, falls within the subject mat- ter of a treaty. In each of these cases Great Britain has violated treaty stipula- tions, or she has not. If she has not, then there is no cause for any action — if she has, then the remedy is not an affirmance of the Monroe Doctrine, but direct Protest or War. I give Great Britain small credit for moderation. I think she has just as much as we have, and no more. We are of the same stock, and have the common pas- sion of a common race for dominion. But the country will be unable to discover that the recent events show any aggressions on her part, which constitute an occa- sion for an affirmance of the Monroe Doctrine by Congress. And now, secondly, as to Cuba. What has Great Britain done? Nothing but just what we have done. She has sent armed ships to prevent invaders from revolutionizing the island, and so severing it from its ancient connection with Spain. We have done the same. She has also proposed to enter into an agreement with us, that neitheir will acquire Cuba, or suffer others to acquire it. We have declined. The natural conclusion would be, that she was more forbearing than we. But the Senator avoids this by charging that the proposition was insincerely and hypocritically made on her part. British writers were before him in making that charge against us, founded on our voluntary revelations of our own diplomacy in regard to Cuba. I am too Ameri- can to confess their charge to be just, and not enough American to fling it back upon Great Britain for mere retaliation. What has France done by way of re-colonization } Nothing. A French adven- 6 turer. Count Boulbon, has attempted to revolutionize the Mexic:in State of Sonera, and fVded. There is not a word of evidence to connect the French Government or People with that movement. And for all that French newspapers here or in Paris may say, we know iiill well, that just as fast as the Mexican Stales shall bn severed i'rom the Mexican stock, by whomsoever it may be eifected, they will seek annexation, not to France or to any other European Power, but to the United States. Nor has France interposed, in regard to Cub-i, otherwise than as we have ourselves interposed, to keep it in the possession of Spain. So much for the acts of European Powers on the subjects of Colonization and Cuba. What remains of th:^ Senator's case seems scarcely to merit grave consideration. It consists, first, of ominous articles in newspapers. But even we, the most news- paper-loving nation in the world, make our designs and policy known, not through the newspapers, but by public acts and official agents; and France and Great Brit- ain do the same. The Press speaks on all occasions, but for itself always. No wise and calm statesman in either country feels himself compromised by what the Press may assume to speak for or against him, much less does either Government acknowledge any necessity for avowing or disavowing what the Press may allege. The language of the Press of any country, therefore, even if it were general, would not warrant national action by any oiher Government — much less would that lan- guage warrant such action when it was spoken by only one out of a thousand or live thousand journals. Secondly, the Senator from Michigan invokes our attention to what Lord George Bentinck has said in the B/ilish Parliament. Well, sir, that is important, what an En