صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

turb the balance of power in the Union, and finally hasten its dissolution.

These are all grave objections, and deserve a considerate examination. The first two will be considered together.

The founders of the republic did not apprehend evil from the extension of the territorial limits of the Union. While they were preparing for the contest, they addressed themselves to the inhabitants of Canada, and invoked them to elect their delegates to Congress, and attach themselves to the common cause of North-America. Letters of a similar style, and tending to the same object, were addressed to the colonies of St. Johns, Nova Scotia, and the Floridas. Upon the debate of the resolution for declaring independence, the bold and confident character of those immortal patriots is conspicuous in this point of view. On the one side, it is objected, "that we had little reason to expect an alliance with those to whom alone, as yet, we had turned our eyes: that France and Spain had reason to be jealous of that rising power, which would one day certainly strip them of all their American possessions: that it was more likely they should form a connection with the British court," etc. etc. On the other, it is replied, "that though France and Spain may be jealous of our rising power, they must think it will be much more formidable with the addition of Great Britain." In the treaty of alliance with France, in 1778, provisions were made for the division of the conquests which should be made of Great Britain during the war. All the conquests on the continent are allotted to the United States. In the articles of confederation, it was agreed that Canada might be admitted into the Union, and other colonies, upon the vote of nine States. In the negotiations for the settlement of the terms of peace in 1783, abundant evidence will be found of the anxiety of the American statesmen to limit the power of Great Britain on this continent. The ingenuity and tact of Dr. Franklin were engaged to withdraw the Canadas from her control, or to reduce their limits; while Mr. Livingston, in the most urgent manner, insists to Dr. Franklin, that the interests of France and the United States "conspire to keep Great Britain from any territory on this continent beyond the bounds of Canada." This spirit did not falter among the framers of the Constitution. The history of that measure will place the answers to these objections on immovable foundations.

The proposition first submitted to the Convention on the subject of admitting new States, was in the shape of a resolution by Gov. Randolph. This resolution was:

"That provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices less than the whole."

The fourteenth article of Mr. Pinckney's plan provides, that the Legislature shall have power to admit new States into the Union, on the same terms with the original States, provided two-thirds of the members present concur. The committee of detail, to whom these propositions were referred, with the other portions of the plans submitted, reported an article of the Constitution in these words:

"New States, lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the United States, may be admitted by the Legislature into this government; but to such admission the consent of two-thirds of the members present in each house shall be necessary. If a new State shall arise within the limits of the present States, the consent of the Legislatures of such States shall be also necessary to its admission. If the admission be consented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States. But the Legislature may make conditions with the new States, concerning the public debt which shall be then subsisting."

Upon the motion of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, this section was stricken out, and substitutes introduced corresponding with those that are now contained in the Constitution. The following extract from a letter of Mr. Morris, will reflect some light upon the views of the framers of the Constitution. The letter bears date 25th November, 1803, and is directed to Henry W. Livingston:

"I am very certain," he says, "that I had it not in contemplation to insert a decree de coercendo imperio in the Constitution of America. Without examining whether a limitation of territory be or be not essential to the preservation of republican government, I am certain that the country between the Mississippi and the Atlantic exceeds, by far, the limits which prudence would assign, if, in effect, any limitation be required. Another reason of equal weight must have prevented me from thinking of such a clause. I knew as well then, as I do now, that all North-America must at length be annexed to us. Happy, indeed, if the lust of dominion stop there. It would, therefore, have been perfectly Utopian to oppose a paper restriction to the violence of popular sentiment in a popular government."

[blocks in formation]

The clause of the Constitution was then suffered to remain in these words:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union, but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."

The limitations upon the powers of Congress to erect new States within the limits of the United States, alone were stricken from the report. The power to admit new States is conferred, without any limitation whatever in regard to territory. In certain cases only, a preliminary consent to their erection is required.

These sentiments continued to prevail among the statesmen who ruled the republic during the first years of its existence. The reader of the early history of the Union, will recollect the anxiety which was felt at the condition of the South-Western frontier, and the control that a foreign government, by means of its possession of Louisiana, exercised over the interests of the country. The acquisition of Louisiana by France, in 1800, created the utmost uneasiness in the American councils, and awakened the apprehensions of the people. The debates upon the interruption of our right to the navigation of the Mississippi, by the Spanish intendant, disclose the views that were then entertained upon the prospects before the nation from the presence of such a neighbor as France, and the duties of the federal government in strengthening our frontiers and fortifying the defences of freedom. The views are broad, capacious, and eminently national, making a striking contrast with the narrow, sectional and partisan spirit manifested in the debates at the late session of the Senate. The speech of Mr. Gouverneur Morris deserves especial attention. The consequences to each section of the country, and to the country as a whole, from the possession of Louisiana by France, he separately

considers:

"The general consequences," he says, "are those which affect our commerce, our revenue, our defence, and, what is of more importance than these, our Union. Your commerce will suffer, because you will no longer hold the means of supplying the West-India Islands subject to your single control, and because all export from New-Orleans being of course in French bottoms, your navigation will be proportionably diminished. Your revenue will suffer as much as your com

merce. The extensive boundary of more than two thousand miles, will be stocked with goods for the purpose of contraband. You must therefore multiply your revenue officers and their assistants, and while your receipt diminishes, the expense of collection will be increased. As to what regards your defence, it is evident that the decrease of your navigation and revenue must narrow your means of defence. *

*

*

*

"There will be a constant struggle in Congress as to the kind of public force which ought to be maintained. The one part will claim an army, the other a navy. The unyielding spirit of party will perhaps prevent the support of either: leaving the nation completely defenceless, and thereby increasing the power of those who may influence or command our destinies. For let it be remembered, that a nation without public force is not an independent nation."

The effects upon the different sections of the Union are strikingly portrayed. We have space but for two short extracts. In alluding to the Southern States:

"Besides," he says, "what is the population of the Southern States? Do you not tremble when you look at it? Have we not, within these few days, passed a law to prevent the importation of certain dangerous characters? What will hinder them from arriving in the Floridas, and what can guard the approach from thence to our Southern frontier? These pernicious emissaries may stimulate, with the prospect of freedom, the miserable men who now toil without hope. They may excite them to imitate a fatal example, and to act over those scenes which fill our minds with horror. When the train shall be laid, when the conspiracy shall be ripe, when the armies of France shall have reached your frontier, the firing of the first musket will be a signal for general carnage and conflagration. If you will not see your danger now, the time must arrive when you shall feel it. The Southern States being exposed to such imminent danger, their representatives may be made to know, that a vote given in Congress shall realize the worst apprehensions. You will then feel their danger even on this floor."

This appeal to the Eastern States will come home to every American bosom. The statesmen of those times were men of forecast and wisdom, worthy to preside over the councils of a growing republic:

"To the Eastern States," he says, "separately considered, this may appear a matter of less moment than to the other great divisions of our country; but they will perceive it in the loss of their navigation: they will see the theatre of their industrious exertions contracted: they will feel the loss of the productions of that Western world in the mass of their commercial operations: and above all, they will feel the loss of an ample resource for their children. These Western regions are peculiarly their heritage. It is the property of the fathers of America, which they hold in trust for their children. The exuberant population of the Eastern States flows in a steady stream to the

Western world, and if that be rendered useless, or pass under the dominion of a foreign power, the fairest hope of posterity is destroyed.” Within two months after this speech was delivered, the treaty of Paris, by which Louisiana was ceded, with the Rio Bravo for the western boundary, was concluded. That treaty was ratified in the Senate, by a vote of twenty-four to seven. Immediately, negotiations were opened for the acquisition of the Floridas.

It was some years after this, that the acquisition of Louisiana began to excite jealousy and discontent in the country. In 1811, on the admission of Louisiana to the Union, Mr. Quincy declared, that "the act itself would be a dissolution of the Union." Some year or two after, the Hartford Convention proposed amendments to the Constitution. Among which we find a restriction upon Congress, from admitting new States without the consent of two-thirds,the withdrawal of the representation allowed to the slaveholding States, based upon the slave population,-the exclusion of aliens from office and from the privileges of citizenship, except after a residence of twenty-one years,—the limitation of the eligibility of the President to one term, and that he should not come twice in succession from the same State. These amendments were proposed by the Legislature of Connecticut to the other States of the Union. We have the reports of the Legislatures of New-Jersey and Pennsylvania upon them. In both, they were peremptorily rejected, and we infer that they met with favor no where. The Legislature of Massachusetts, about the same time, denounced the admission of Louisiana to the Union, and instructed their senators and representatives to procure a repeal of the law. Contemporaneous with these explosions of ill temper from the internal foes of the country, the enemy abroad was neither silent nor inactive. Great Britain made a protest against the occupation of the country between the Iberville and the Perdido, which was claimed by us under the Louisiana treaty; and, in 1813, the treaty of Louisiana was itself denounced by the Prince Regent, in a public declaration, and the British negotiators at Ghent presumed to impute "the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States to a spirit of aggrandizement, and as not necessary to their security." The battle of New-Orleans consecrated the soil of Louisiana, and the few who resisted her claims to admission to the Union were forever silenced.

« السابقةمتابعة »