Chapter 16

“America remains neutral, prosperous, and at peace. America, with a wisdom, prudence, and magnanimity which we have disdained, thrives at this moment in a state of envied tranquillity, andis hourly clearing the paths to unbounded opulence. America has monopolized the commerce and the advantages which we have abandoned. Oh! turn your eyes to her; view her situation, her happiness, her content; observe her trade and her manufactures, adding daily to her general credit, to her private enjoyments, and to her public resources,—her name and government rising above the nations of Europe with a simple, but commanding dignity, that wins at once the respect, the confidence, and the affection of the world.”[612]

Here are true respect and sympathy for our country, with a forecast of increasing prosperity, and an image of her attitude among the nations. It is pleasant to enroll the admired author of “The Rivals” and “The School for Scandal” in this catalogue.

In quoting from Charles James Fox, the statesman, minister, and orator, I need add nothing, except that he was born 24th January, 1749, and died 13th September, 1806, and that he was an early friend of our country.

Many words of his, especially during our Revolution, might be introduced here; but I content myself with a single passage, of later date, which, besides its expression of good-will, is a prophecy of our power. It is found in a speech in the House of Commons, on his motion for putting an end to war with France, 30th May, 1794.

“It was impossible to dissemble that we had a serious dispute with America, and although we might be confident that the wisest and best man of his age, who presided in the government of that country, would do everything that became him to avert a war, it was impossible to foresee the issue. America had no fleet, no army; but in case of war she would find various means to harass and annoy us. Against her we could not strike a blow that would not be as severely felt in London as in America, so identified were the two countries by commercial intercourse.To a contest with such an adversary he looked as the greatest possible misfortune.If we commenced another crusade against her, we might destroy her trade, and check the progress of her agriculture, but we must also equally injure ourselves. Desperate, therefore, indeed, must be that war in which each wound inflicted on our enemy would at the same time inflict one upon ourselves. He hoped to God that such an event as a war with America would not happen.”[613]

All good men on both sides of the ocean must join with Fox, who thus early deprecated war between the United States and England, and portrayed the fearful consequences. Time, which has enlarged and multiplied the relations between the two countries, makes his words more applicable now than when first uttered.

Henri Grégoire, of France, Curate, Deputy to the States General, Constitutional Bishop, Member of the Convention, also of the Council of Five Hundred, and Senator, sometimes called Bishop, more frequently Abbé, was born 4th December, 1750, and died 28th April, 1831. To these titles add Abolitionist and Republican.

His character and career were unique, being in France what Clarkson and Wilberforce were in England, and much more, for he was not only an Abolitionist. In all history no hero of humanity stands forth more conspicuous for instinctive sympathy with the Rights of Man and constancy in their support. As early as 1788 he signalized himself by an essay, crowned by the Academy of Metz, upholding tolerance for the Jews.[614]His public life began, while yet a curate, as a representative of the clergy of Lorraine in the States General, but his sympathies with the people were at once manifest. In the engraving by which the oath in the Tennis Court is commemorated he appears in the foreground. His votes were always for the enfranchisement of the people and the improvement of their condition, his hope being “to Christianizethe Revolution.”[615]In the night session of 4th August, 1789, he declared for the abolition of privileges. He was the first to give adhesion to the civil constitution of the clergy, and himself became a constitutional bishop. The decree abolishing royalty was drawn by him, and he avows that for many days thereafter the excess of joy took from him appetite and sleep. In the discussion on the execution of the King he called for the suppression of the punishment of death. At his instance the Convention abolished African slavery. With similar energy he sustained public libraries, botanical gardens, and experimental farms. He was a founder of the Bureau of Longitudes, theConservatoire des Arts et Métiers, and of the National Institute. More than any other person he contributed to prevent the destruction of public monuments, and was the first to call this crime “Vandalism,”—an excellent term, since adopted in all European languages. With similar vigor he said, in words often quoted, “Kings are in the moral order what monsters are in the physical order”; and, “The history of kings is the martyrology of nations.” He denounced “the oligarchs of all countries and all the crowned brigands who pressed down the people,” and, according to his own boast, “spat upon” duellists. “Better a loss to deplore than an injustice to reproach ourselves with,” was his lofty solace as he turned from the warning that the Colonies might be endangered by the rights he demanded.

Such a man could not reconcile himself to the Empireor to Napoleon; nor could he expect consideration under the Restoration. But he was constant always to his original sentiments. In 1826 he wrote a work with the expressive title, “The Nobility of the Skin, or the Prejudice of Whites against the Color of Africans and that of their Black and Mixed Descendants.”[616]His life was prolonged to witness the Revolution of 1830, and shortly after his remains were borne to the cemetery of Mont Parnasse by young men, who took the horses from the hearse.[617]

This brief account of one little known is an introduction to signal prophecies concerning America.

As early as 8th January, 1791, in a document addressed to citizens of color and free negroes of the French islands, he boldly said:—

“A day will come when deputies of color will traverse the ocean to come and sit in the national diet, and to swear with us to live and die under our laws. A day will come when the sun will not shine among you except upon freemen,—when the rays of the light-spreading orb will no longer fall upon irons and slaves.… It is according to the irresistible march of events and the progress of intelligence, that all people dispossessed of the domain of Liberty will at last recover this indefeasible property.”[618]

These strong and confident words, so early in date, were followed by others more remarkable. At the conclusion of his admirable work “De la Littératuredes Nègres,” first published in 1808, where, with equal knowledge and feeling, homage is done to a people wronged and degraded by man, he cites his prediction with regard to the sun shining only upon freemen, and then, elevated by the vision, declares that “this American Continent, asylum of Liberty, is on its way towards an order of things which will be common to the Antilles, andthe course of which all the powers combined will not be able to arrest.”[619]This vigorous language is crowned by a prophecy of singular extent and precision, where, after dwelling on the influences at work to accelerate progress, he foretells the eminence of our country:—

“When an energetic and powerful nation, to which everything presages high destinies, stretching its arms over the two oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific, shall dispatch its vessels from one to the otherby a shortened route,—whether by cutting the Isthmus of Panama, or by forming a canal of communication, as has been proposed, by the River St. John and the Lake of Nicaragua,—it will change the face of the commercial world and the face of empires. Who knows if America will not then avenge the outrages she has received, and if our old Europe, placed in the rank of a subaltern power, will not become a colony of the New World?”[620]

Thus resting on the two oceans with a canal between, so that the early “secret of the strait” shall no longer exist, the American Republic will change the face of the world, and perhaps make Europe subaltern. Such was the vision of the French Abolitionist, lifted by devotion to Humanity.

Small preface is needed for the testimony of Jefferson, whose life belongs to the history of his country. He was born 2d April, 1743, and died 4th July, 1826.

Contemporary and rival of Adams, the author of the Declaration of Independence surpassed the other in sympathetic comprehension of the Rights of Man, as the other surpassed him in the prophetic spirit. Jefferson’s words picturing Slavery were unequalled in the prolonged discussion of that terrible subject, and his two Inaugural Addresses are masterpieces of political truth. But with clearer eye Adams foresaw the future grandeur of the Republic, and dwelt on its ravishing light and glory. The vision of our country coextensive and coincident with the North American Continent was never beheld by Jefferson. While recognizing that our principles of government, traversing the Rocky Mountains, would smile upon the Pacific coast, his sight did not embrace the distant communities there as parts of a common country. This is apparent in a letter to John Jacob Astor, 24th May, 1812, where, referring to the commencement of a settlement by the latter on Columbia River, and declaring the gratification with which he looked forward to the time when its descendants should have spread through the whole length of that coast, he adds, “covering it with free and independent Americans,unconnected with us but by the ties of blood and interest, and employing, like us, the rights of self-government.”[621]In another letter to Mr. Astor, 9th November, 1813, he characterizes the settlement as “the germ of a great, free, andindependent empire on that side of our continent,”[622]thus carefully announcing political dissociation.

But Jefferson has not been alone in blindness to the mighty capabilities of the Republic, inspired by his own Declaration of Independence. Daniel Webster, in a speech at Faneuil Hall, as late as 7th November, 1845, pronounced that the Pacific coast could not be governed from Europe, or from the Atlantic side of the Continent; and he pressed the absurdity of anything different:—

“Where is Oregon? On the shores of the Pacific, three thousand miles from us, and twice as far from England. Who is to settle it? Americans mainly; some settlers undoubtedly from England; but all Anglo-Saxons; all, men educated in notions of independent government, and all self-dependent. And now let me ask if there be any sensible man in the whole United States who will say for a moment, that, when fifty or a hundred thousand persons of this description shall find themselves on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, they will long consent to be under the rule either of the American Congress or the British Parliament. They will raise a standard for themselves, and they ought to do it.”[623]

Such a precise and strenuous protest from such a quarter mitigates the distrust of Jefferson. But after the acquisition of California the orator said, “I willingly admit, my apprehensions have not been realized.”[624]

On the permanence of the National Union, and its influence throughout the world, Jefferson prophesied thus, in a letter to Lafayette, 14th February, 1815:—

“The cement of this Union is in the heart-blood of every American. I do not believe there is on earth a government established on so immovable a basis. Let them in any State, even in Massachusetts itself, raise the standard of separation, and its citizens will rise in mass and do justice themselves on their own incendiaries.”[625]

Unhappily the Rebellion shows that he counted too much on the patriotism of the States against “their own incendiaries.” In the same hopeful spirit he wrote to Edward Livingston, the eminent jurist, 4th April, 1824:—

“You have many years yet to come of vigorous activity, and I confidently trust they will be employed in cherishing every measure which may foster our brotherly union and perpetuate a constitution of governmentdestined to be the primitive and precious model of what is to change the condition of man over the globe.”[626]

In these latter words he takes his place on the platform of John Adams, and sees the world changed by our example. But again he is anxious about the Union. In another letter to Livingston, 25th March, 1825, after saying of the National Constitution, that “it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it and to require its observance,” he prophesies:—

“However strong the cord of compact may be, there is a point of tension at which it will break.”[627]

Thus, in venerable years, while watching with anxiety the fortunes of the Union, the patriarch did not fail to see the new order of ages instituted by the American Government.

George Canning was a successor of Fox, in the House of Commons, as statesman, minister, and orator. He was born 11th April, 1770, and died 8th August, 1827, in the beautiful villa of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, where Fox had died before. Unlike Fox in sentiment for our country, he is nevertheless associated with a leading event of our history, and is the author of prophetic words.

The Monroe Doctrine, as now familiarly called, proceeded from Canning. He was its inventor, promoter, and champion, at least so far as it bears against European intervention in American affairs. Earnestly engaged in counteracting the designs of the Holy Alliance for the restoration of the Spanish colonies to Spain, he sought to enlist the United States in the same policy; and when Mr. Rush, our minister at London, replied, that any interference with European politics was contrary to the traditions of the American Government, he argued, that, however just such a policy might have been formerly, it was no longer applicable,—that the question was new and complicated,—that it was “full as much American as European, to say no more,”—that “it concerned the United States under aspects and interests as immediate and commanding as it did or could any of the States of Europe,”—that “they were the first power established on that continent, and now confessedly the leading power”; and he then asked: “Was it possible that they could see with indifference their fate decided upon by Europe?… Had not a new epoch arrived in the relative position of the United States towards Europe, which Europe must acknowledge?Were the great political and commercial interestswhich hung upon the destinies of the new continent to be canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere, without the coöperation, or even knowledge, of the United States?”[628]With mingled ardor and importunity the British Minister pressed his case. At last, after much discussion in the Cabinet at Washington, President Monroe, accepting the lead of Mr. Canning, and with the counsel of John Quincy Adams, put forth his famous declaration, where, after referring to the radical difference between the political systems of Europe and America, he says, that “we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere asdangerous to our peace and safety,” and that, where governments have been recognized by us as independent, “we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than asthe manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.”[629]

The message of President Monroe was received in England with enthusiastic congratulations. It was upon all tongues; the press was full of it; the securities of Spanish America rose in the market; the agents of Spanish America were happy.[630]Brougham exclaimed in Parliament, that “no event had ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freemen inEurope.”[631]Mackintosh rejoiced in the coincidence of England and the United States, “the two great English commonwealths,—for so he delighted to call them; and he heartily prayed that they might be forever united in the cause of justice and liberty.”[632]The Holy Alliance abandoned their purposes on this continent, and the independence of Spanish America was established. Some time afterwards, on the occasion of assistance to Portugal, when Mr. Canning felt called to review and vindicate his foreign policy, he assumed the following lofty strain: this was in the House of Commons, 12th December, 1826:—

“It would be disingenuous not to admit that the entry of the French army into Spain was, in a certain sense, a disparagement, an affront to the pride, a blow to the feelings of England.… But I deny, that, questionable or censurable as the act might be, it was one which necessarily called for our direct and hostile opposition. Was nothing, then, to be done?… If France occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade Cadiz? No. I looked another way. I sought materials of compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain, such as our ancestors had known her, I resolved, that, if France had Spain, it should not be Spain ‘with the Indies.’I called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old.”[633]

If the republics of Spanish America, thus summoned into independent existence, have not contributed the weight thus vaunted, the growing power of the UnitedStates is ample to compensate deficiencies on this continent. There is no balance of power it cannot redress.

With De Tocqueville we come among contemporaries removed by death. He was born at Paris, 29th July, 1805, and died at Cannes, 16th April, 1859. Having known him personally, and seen him at his castle-home in Normandy, I cannot fail to recognize the man in his writings, which on this account have a double charm.

He was the younger son of noble parents, his father being of ancient Norman descent, and his mother granddaughter of Malesherbes, the venerated defender of Louis the Sixteenth; but his aristocratic birth had no influence to check the generous sympathies with which his heart always palpitated. In 1831 he came to America as a commissioner from the French Government to examine our prisons, but with a larger commission from his own soul to study republican institutions. His conscientious application, rare probity, penetrating thought, and refinement of style all appeared in his work, “De la Démocratie en Amérique,” first published in 1835, whose peculiar success is marked by the fourteenth French edition now before me, and the translations into other languages. At once he was famous, and his work classical. The Academy opened its gates. Since Montesquieu there had been no equal success in the same department, and he was constantly likened to the illustrious author of “The Spirit of Laws.” Less epigrammatic, less artful, and less French than his prototype, he was more simple, truthful, and prophetic. A secondpublication in 1840, with the same title, the fruit of mature studies, presented American institutions in another aspect, exhibiting his unimpaired faith in Democracy, which with him was Equality as “first principle and symbol.”[634]

Entering the French Chambers, he became eminent for character, discussing chiefly those measures in which civilization is most concerned,—the reform of prisons, the abolition of slavery, penal colonies, and the pretensions of socialism. His work, “L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution,” awakens admiration, while his correspondence is among the most charming in literature, exciting love as well as delight.

His honest and practical insight made him philosopher and prophet, which he was always. A speech in the Chambers, 27th January, 1848, was memorable as predicting the Revolution which occurred one month later. But his foresight with regard to America brings him into our procession.

His clearness of vision appears in the distinctness with which he recognized the peril from Slavery and from the pretensions of the States. And in Slavery he saw also the prolonged and diversified indignity to the African race. This was his statement:—

“The most formidable of all the evils which menace the future of the United States springs fromthe presence of the blacks on their soil. When we seek the cause of the present embarrassments and of the future dangers of the Union, from whatever point we set out, we almost always come upon this primary fact.”[635]

Then with consummate power he depicts the lot of the unhappy African, even when free: oppressed, but with whites for judges; shut out from the jury; his son excluded from the school which receives the descendant of the European; unable with gold to buy a place at the theatre “by the side of him who was his master”; in hospitals separated from the rest; permitted to worship the same God as the whites, but not to pray at the same altar; and when life is passed, the difference of condition prevailing still even over the equality of the grave.[636]

Impressed by the menace from Slavery, he further pictures the Union succumbing to the States:—

“Either I strangely deceive myself, or the Federal Government of the United States is tending every day to grow weaker. It is withdrawing gradually from affairs; it is contracting more and more the circle of its action. Naturally feeble, it is abandoning even the appearance of force.”[637]

Such was the condition when De Tocqueville wrote; and so it continued until the Rebellion broke forth, and the country rose to save the Union. Foreseeing this peril, he did not despair of the Republic, which, in his judgment, was “the natural state of the Americans,”[638]with roots more profound than the Union.

In describing the future he becomes a prophet. Accepting the conclusion that the number of inhabitants doubles in twenty-two years, and not recognizing any causes to arrest this progressive movement, he foresees the colossal empire:—

“The Americans of the United States, whatever they do, will become one of the greatest people of the world; theywill cover with their offshoots almost all North America. The continent which they inhabit is their domain; it cannot escape them.”[639]

Then, declaring that the “English race,” not stopping within the limits of the Union, will advance much beyond towards the Northeast,—that at the Northwest they will encounter only Russian settlements without importance,—that at the Southwest the vast solitudes of Mexican territory will be appropriated,—and dwelling on the fortunate geographical position of “the English of America,” with their climate, their interior seas, their great rivers, and the fertility of their soil, he is ready to say:—

“So, in the midst of the uncertainty of the future, there is at least one event which is certain. At an epoch which we can call near, since the question here is of the life of a people, the Anglo-Americans alone will cover all the immense space comprised between the polar ice and the tropics; they will spread from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean even to the coasts of the South Sea.”[640]

Then, declaring that the territory destined to the Anglo-American race equals three fourths of Europe, that many centuries will pass before the different offshoots of this race will cease to present a common physiognomy, that no epoch can be foreseen when in the New World there will be any permanent inequality of conditions, and that there are processes of association and of knowledge by which the people are assimilated with each other and with the rest of the world, the prophet speaks:—

“There will then come a time when there will be seen in North America one hundred and fifty millions of men, equal among themselves, who will all belong to the same family, who will have the same point of departure, the same civilization, the same language, the same religion, the same habits, the same manners, and among whom thought will circulate in the same form and paint itself in the same colors. All else is doubtful, but this is certain. Now here is a fact entirely new in the world, of which imagination itself cannot grasp the import.”[641]

No American can fail to be strengthened in the future of the Republic by the testimony of De Tocqueville. Honor and gratitude to his memory!

Coming yet nearer to our own day, we meet a familiar name, now consecrated by death,—Richard Cobden, born 3d June, 1804, and died 2d April, 1865. In proportion as truth prevails among men, his character will shine with increasing glory until he is recognized as the first Englishman of his time. Though thoroughly English, he was not insular. He served mankind as well as England.

His masterly faculties and his real goodness made him a prophet always. He saw the future, and strove to hasten its promises. The elevation and happiness of the human family were his daily thought. He knew how to build as well as to destroy. Through him disabilities upon trade and oppressive taxes were overturned; also a new treaty was negotiated with France, quickening commerce and intercourse. He was never so truly eminent as when bringing his practical senseand enlarged experience to commend the cause of Permanent Peace in the world by the establishment of a refined system of International Justice, and the disarming of the nations. To this great consummation all his later labors tended. I have before me a long letter, dated at London, 7th November, 1849, where he says much on this absorbing question, from which, by an easy transition, he passes to speak of the proposed annexation of Canada to the United States. As what he says on the latter topic concerns America, and is a prophetic voice, I have obtained permission to copy it for this collection.

“Race, religion, language, traditions, are becoming bonds of union, and not the parchment title-deeds of sovereigns. These instincts may be thwarted for the day, but they are too deeply rooted in Nature and in usefulness not to prevail in the end. I look with less interest to these struggles of races to live apart for what they want to undo than for what they will prevent being done in future.They will warn rulers that henceforth the acquisition of fresh territory by force of arms will only bring embarrassments and civil war, instead of that increased strength which in ancient times, when people were passed, like flocks of sheep, from one king to another, always accompanied the incorporation of new territorial conquests.“This is the secret of the admitted doctrine, that we shall have no more wars of conquest or ambition. In this respectyouare differently situated, having vast tracts of unpeopled territory to tempt that cupidity which, in respect of landed property, always disposes individuals and nations, however rich in acres, to desire more. This brings me to the subject of Canada, to which you refer in your letters.“I agree with you, thatNature has decided that Canada and the United States must become one, for all purposes offree intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in the same federal government must depend upon the two parties to the union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of the policy of 1776, on our part, to prevent our North American colonies from pursuing their interest in their own way. If the people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever the very slight thread which now binds them to this country, I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be observed, it should not be done amicably. I think it would be far more likely to be accomplished peaceably,if the subject of annexation were left as a distinct question. I am quite sure thatweshould be gainers, to the amount of about a million sterling annually, if our North American colonists would set up in life for themselves and maintain their own establishments; and I see no reason to doubt that they also might be gainers by being thrown upon their own resources.“The less your countrymen mingle in the controversy, the better. It will only be an additional obstacle in the path of those in this country who see the ultimate necessity of a separation, but who have still some ignorance and prejudice to contend against, which, if used as political capital by designing politicians, may complicate seriously a very difficult piece of statesmanship. It is for you and such as you, who love peace, to guide your countrymen aright in this matter. You have made the most noble contributions of any modern writer to the cause of Peace; and as a public man I hope you will exert all your influence to induce Americans to hold a dignified attitude and observe a ‘masterly inactivity’ in the controversy which is rapidly advancing to a solution between the mother country and her American colonies.”

“This is the secret of the admitted doctrine, that we shall have no more wars of conquest or ambition. In this respectyouare differently situated, having vast tracts of unpeopled territory to tempt that cupidity which, in respect of landed property, always disposes individuals and nations, however rich in acres, to desire more. This brings me to the subject of Canada, to which you refer in your letters.

“I agree with you, thatNature has decided that Canada and the United States must become one, for all purposes offree intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in the same federal government must depend upon the two parties to the union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of the policy of 1776, on our part, to prevent our North American colonies from pursuing their interest in their own way. If the people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever the very slight thread which now binds them to this country, I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be observed, it should not be done amicably. I think it would be far more likely to be accomplished peaceably,if the subject of annexation were left as a distinct question. I am quite sure thatweshould be gainers, to the amount of about a million sterling annually, if our North American colonists would set up in life for themselves and maintain their own establishments; and I see no reason to doubt that they also might be gainers by being thrown upon their own resources.

“The less your countrymen mingle in the controversy, the better. It will only be an additional obstacle in the path of those in this country who see the ultimate necessity of a separation, but who have still some ignorance and prejudice to contend against, which, if used as political capital by designing politicians, may complicate seriously a very difficult piece of statesmanship. It is for you and such as you, who love peace, to guide your countrymen aright in this matter. You have made the most noble contributions of any modern writer to the cause of Peace; and as a public man I hope you will exert all your influence to induce Americans to hold a dignified attitude and observe a ‘masterly inactivity’ in the controversy which is rapidly advancing to a solution between the mother country and her American colonies.”

A prudent patriotism among us will appreciate the wisdom of this counsel, more needed now than whenwritten. The controversy which Cobden foresaw “between the mother country and her American colonies” is yet undetermined. The recent creation of what is somewhat grandly called “The Dominion of Canada” marks one stage in its progress.

From Canada I pass to Mexico, and close this list with Lucas Alaman, the Mexican statesman and historian, who has left on record a most pathetic prophecy with regard to his own country, intensely interesting to us at this moment.

Alaman was born in the latter part of the last century, and died June 2, 1855. He was a prominent leader of the monarchical party, and Minister of Foreign Affairs under Presidents Bustamente and Santa Aña. In this capacity he inspired the respect of foreign diplomatists. One of these, who had occasion to know him officially, says of him, in answer to my inquiries, that he “was the greatest statesman Mexico has produced since her independence.”[642]He was one of the few in any country who have been able to unite literature with public life, and obtain honors in each.

His first work was “Dissertations on the History of the Mexican Republic,”[643]in three volumes, published at Mexico, 1844-49. In these he considers the original conquest by Cortés, its consequences, the conqueror and his family, the propagation of the Christian religion in New Spain, the formation of the city of Mexico, thehistory of Spain and the House of Bourbon. All these topics are treated somewhat copiously. Then followed the “History of Mexico, from the First Movements which prepared its Independence in 1808 to the Present Epoch,”[644]in five volumes, published at Mexico, the first bearing date 1849, and the fifth 1852. From the Preface to the first volume it appears that the author was born in Guanajuato, and witnessed there the beginning of the Mexican Revolution in 1810, under Don Miguel Hidalgo, the curate of Dolores; that he was personally acquainted with the curate, and with many who had a principal part in the successes of that time; that he was experienced in public affairs, as Deputy and as member of the Cabinet; and that he had known directly the persons and things of which he wrote. His last volume embraces the government of Iturbide as Emperor, and also his unfortunate death, ending with the establishment of the Mexican Federal Republic, in 1824. The work is careful and well considered. The eminent diplomatist already mentioned, who had known the author officially, writes that “no one was better acquainted with the history and causes of the incessant revolutions in his unfortunate country, and that his work on this subject is considered by all respectable men in Mexico achef-d’œuvrefor purity of sentiments and patriotic convictions.”

It is on account of the valedictory words of this History that I introduce the name of Alaman, and nothing more striking appears in this gallery. Behold!—

“Mexico will be, without doubt, a land of prosperity from its natural advantages,but it will not be so for theraces which now inhabit it. As it seemed the destiny of the peoples who established themselves therein at different and remote epochs to perish from the face of it, leaving hardly a memory of their existence; even as the nation which built the edifices of Palenque, and those which we admire in the peninsula of Yucatan, was destroyed without its being known what it was or how it disappeared;even as the Toltecs perished by the hands of barbarous tribes coming from the North, no record of them remaining but the pyramids of Cholula and Teotihuacan; and, finally, even as the ancient Mexicans fell beneath the power of the Spaniards,the country gaining infinitely by this change of dominion, but its ancient masters being overthrown;—so likewise its present inhabitants shall be ruined and hardly obtain the compassion they have merited, and the Mexican nation of our days shall have applied to it what a celebrated Latin poet said of one of the most famous personages of Roman history, STAT MAGNI NOMINIS UMBRA,[645]—Nothing more remains than the shadow of a name illustrious in another time.“May the Almighty, in whose hands is the fate of nations, and who by ways hidden from our sight abases or exalts them according to the designs of His providence, be pleased to grant unto ours the protection by which He has so often deigned to preserve it from the dangers to which it has been exposed!”[646]

“May the Almighty, in whose hands is the fate of nations, and who by ways hidden from our sight abases or exalts them according to the designs of His providence, be pleased to grant unto ours the protection by which He has so often deigned to preserve it from the dangers to which it has been exposed!”[646]

Most affecting words of prophecy! Considering the character of the author as statesman and historian, it could have been only with inconceivable anguish that he made this terrible record for the land whose child and servant he was. Born and reared in Mexico, honored by its important trusts, and writing the historyof its independence, it was his country, having for him all that makes country dear; and yet thus calmly he consigns the present people to oblivion, while another enters into those happy places where Nature is so bountiful. And so a Mexican leaves the door open to the foreigner.

Such are prophetic voices, differing in character and importance, but all having one augury, and opening one vista, illimitable in extent and vastness. Farewell to the narrow thought of Montesquieu, that a republic can exist only in a small territory![647]Through representation and federation a continent is not too much for practical dominion, nor is it beyond expectation. Well did Webster say, “The prophecies and the poets are with us”; and then again, “In regard to this country there is no poetry like the poetry of events, and all the prophecies lag behind their fulfilment.”[648]But my purpose is not with the fulfilment, except as it stands forth visible to all.

Ancient prophecy foretold another world beyond the ocean, which in the mind of Christopher Columbus was nothing less than the Orient with its inexhaustible treasures. The continent was hardly known when the prophets began: poets like Chapman, Drayton, Daniel, Herbert, Cowley; economists like Child and Davenant; New-Englanders like Morrell, Ward, and Sewall; and, mingling with these, that rare genius, Sir Thomas Browne, who, in the reign of Charles the Second, whilethe settlements were in infancy, predicted their growth in power and civilization; and then that rarest character, Bishop Berkeley, who, in the reign of George the First, while the settlements were still feeble and undeveloped, heralded a Western empire as “Time’s noblest offspring.”

These voices are general. Others more precise followed. Turgot, the philosopher and minister, saw in youth, with the vision of genius, that all colonies must at their maturity drop from the parent stem, like ripe fruit. John Adams, one of the chiefs of our own history, in a youth illumined as that of Turgot, saw the predominance of the Colonies in population and power, followed by the transfer of empire to America; then the glory of Independence, and its joyous celebration by grateful generations; then the triumph of our language; and, finally, the establishment of our republican institutions over all North America. Then came the Abbé Galiani, the Neapolitan Frenchman, who, writing from Naples while our struggle was still undecided, gayly predicts the total downfall of Europe, the transmigration to America, and the consummation of the greatest revolution of the globe by establishing the reign of America over Europe. There is also Adam Smith, the illustrious philosopher, who quietly carries the seat of government across the Atlantic. Meanwhile Pownall, once a Colonial governor and then a member of Parliament, in successive works of great detail, foreshadows independence, naval supremacy, commercial prosperity, immigration from the Old World, and a new national life, destined to supersede the systems of Europe and arouse the “curses” of royal ministers. Hartley, also a member of Parliament, andthe British negotiator who signed the definitive treaty of Independence, bravely announces in Parliament that the New World is before the Colonists, and that liberty is theirs; and afterwards, as diplomatist, instructs his Government, that, through the attraction of our public lands, immigration will be quickened beyond precedent, and the national debt cease to be a burden. Aranda, the Spanish statesman and diplomatist, predicts to his king that the United States, though born a “pygmy,” will some day be a “colossus,” under whose influence Spain will lose all her American possessions except only Cuba and Porto Rico. Paley, the philosopher, hails our successful revolution as destined to accelerate the fall of Slavery, which he denounces as an “abominable tyranny.” Burns, the truthful poet, who loved mankind, looks forward a hundred years, and beholds our people rejoicing in the centenary of their independence. Sheridan pictures our increasing prosperity, and the national dignity winning the respect, confidence, and affection of the world. Fox, the liberal statesman, foresees the increasing might and various relations of the United States, so that a blow aimed at them must have a rebound as destructive as itself. The Abbé Grégoire, devoted to the slave, whose freedom he predicts, describes the power and glory of the American Republic, resting on the two great oceans, and swaying the world. Tardily, Jefferson appears with anxiety for the National Union, and yet announcing our government as the primitive and precious model to change the condition of mankind. Canning, the brilliant orator, in a much-admired flight of eloquence, discerns the New World, with its republics just called into being, redressing the balance of the Old. De Tocqueville, whileclearly foreseeing the peril from Slavery, proclaims the future grandeur of the Republic, covering “almost all North America,” and making the continent its domain, with a population, equal in rights, counted by the hundred million. Cobden, whose fame will be second only to that of Adam Smith among all in this catalogue, calmly predicts the separation of Canada from the mother country by peaceable means. Alaman, the Mexican statesman and historian, announces that Mexico, which has already known so many successive races; will hereafter be ruled by yet another people, taking the place of the present possessors; and with these prophetic words, the patriot draws a pall over his country.

All these various voices, of different times and lands, mingle and intertwine in representing the great future of our Republic, which from small beginnings has already become great. It was at first only a grain of mustard-seed, “which, indeed, is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” Better still, it was only a little leaven, but it is fast leavening the whole continent. Nearly all who have prophesied speak of “America” or “North America,” and not of any limited circle, colony, or state. It was so, at the beginning, with Sir Thomas Browne, and especially with Berkeley. During our Revolution, the Colonies struggling for independence were always described by this continental designation. They were already “America,” or “North America,” (and such was the language of Washington,) thus incidentally foreshadowing that coming time when the whole continent, with all its various states, shall be a Plural Unit, with one Constitution, one Liberty, andone Destiny. The theme was also taken up by the poet, and popularized in the often quoted lines,—

Back to Index Next