Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

countries both by sea and by land. The rapid advance of the population towards the West however will ultimately incline the balance to the American side: consequently to gain time is to gain all. Moreover, the eastern half of the United States is much to be preferred to the western beyond the Mississippi, in regard to fertility, navigation, and ease of cultivation.* The Rocky mountains present incomparably greater obstacles than the Alleghanies; many streams are not navigable or are destitute of water a great part of the year; large tracts without wood, fertile soil, or water, remind one of the deserts of Africa; trees are found for the most part only on the banks of rivers, and on the immense Platte river there are none at all. Lastly, a very large part of the better quality of land has already been assigned to the Indians as their new abode.

With the question of the Oregon territory there is closely connected another: viz. whether a great war between England and the United States is not likely, or rather certain, to occur sooner or later on account of Canada. To this it may be replied:

1st. The entire circumstances and inclinations of the Americans are averse to military conquest.

2dly. So long as the English do not close the St. Lawrence to American trade, but greatly favor it, as by the present corn-laws, the United States have no reason for attempting to get the outlet of that river into their hands. Besides, this has been rendered of less importance by the construction of the Erie canal, and the improved navigation of the Mississippi.

3dly. The idea that England wishes to obtain territory from the Americans by war, is so wild and absurd as to need no refutation. More worthy of notice is the assertion made by many judicious men, that Canada is a burden to the mother country, canses her useless expense, limits her trade (especially that in lumber), embarrasses the government, &c.-But to this it is answered, that the trade of England with Canada employs far more ships and sailors than that with the United States. It would be a serious misfortune to be deprived of this trade, and with it to lose the excellent school for seamen which it affords, as well as the oppor

Mr. Greenhow's History of Oregon and California gives a thorough as well as clear and calm statement of all the bearings of this question. That President Polk should distinctly express the American view concerning the Oregon territory, was as natural under the existing circumstances, as that the English should do the same. At the beginning of a controversy, each party believes itself in the right; yet it can and must be settled by mutual accommodation, to which Mr. Polk's words, unjustly kept out of view, expressly point: viz. that "every obligation imposed on the United States with regard to Oregon, by treaty or conventional stipulations, should be sacredly respected." But in consequence of its increasing population, the country has need of civil institutions: it cannot be regarded as without an owner or as subject both to English and American dominion. New regulations are indispensably necessary, and consequently will not be long delayed.

tunities for emigration so beneficial to the mother-country. But apart from these and similar reasons, and taking into consideration the practice of the world and its ideas respecting honor, it is not to be presumed that England will voluntarily relinquish Canada or surrender it to another.

4thly. Hence there remains only the most important question of all viz. whether the Canadians themselves will not demand a separation from England, assert their independence, and annex themselves to the United States. If it be true, as some observers assert, that law and order are better maintained in Canada than in the United States, and that every body there is contented, why then there is nothing to fear. The more recent history of Canada however by no means confirms this statement, but goes no further towards it than this, that there are two parties in the country-a French and an English one, which are so nearly balanced as to prevent any harmonious measures.

The French in Canada are a cheerful, amiable, and contented race; they exhibit all the commendable and agreeable qualities ascribed to them in the time of Louis XIV. But they have since undergone no change in morals, views, or occupations; they are wholly disinclined to every change, every bold undertaking, and all that is called progress: whereas the other inhabitants of Canada of the Anglo-Germanic stock exhibit, together with greater seriousness (e. g. with respect to keeping Sunday), a restless striving after new settlements, acquisitions, and pursuits; and though they enjoy less quiet happiness, they surpass their French neighbors in every other respect. The task of appeasing and reconciling these two great elements of the population has been a very difficult one for the government. It has never tyrannized over Canada, has removed many grievances, and granted many favors both commercial and pecuniary; still various complaints and grievances remained behind, of which we will here mention a few.

First. The separation of Upper from Lower Canada and the establishment of a twofold government in the year 1791, was designed to secure to each part all that was desired, and to prevent all unpleasant collision; but the variety of complicated interests and rights thus produced gave rise to double difficulties and contradictions.

Secondly. It was objected that the upper house was appointed by the governor,* and consequently was entirely dependent upon him; that he, a military officer unacquainted with the peculiar duties of administration, alone appointed the executive council; that the right of suffrage was not distributed in proportion to the

* M'Gregor, ii. 357.

population; that the lower house was allowed no control over the revenues of the crown; and that the established church, comprising about the one and twentieth part of the population, claimed for itself alone one seventh of the unsold land (about 2,588,000 acres). These and other grievances, which led to an open insurrection, produced in July, 1840, the union of the two Canadas, and the establishment of a new constitution in common for the two. The Legislative Council, appointed by the governor with the Queen's sanction, consists of at least twenty members, who hold their places for life. For the House of Assembly, Upper and Lower Canada choose an equal number of representatives.* A new election takes place every four years. Every member must possess a clear income of five hundred pounds from real estate, &c.

Undoubtedly, the constitution (which differs essentially from those of the United States) and the administration (especially the war department) are far more expensive than in the neighboring republic. Whether the Canadians will on that account long for the American system, may for the present be left undecided; certainly the people of the great republic can never regard the Canadian constitution and administration in the light of a model for them to imitate.

Finally, the result is here as often elsewhere exhibited, that two countries whose political condition is very different, may externally make equal progress. Thus Canada had,

In the year 1676,

8,500 inhabitants

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

of whom by far the greater portion were French and Catholics.f The above condensed view of the relations of the United States to other powers, demonstrates that from no quarter is there any considerable danger to be apprehended. Neither Mexico, nor Canada, nor England can ever take any thing from this great, populous, and freedom loving country, as long as it avoids the dangers of disunion, and remains true to itself.

*Raumer's England, iii. 67.

The population of the British possessions in America, in the year 1843, is said to have been, in

Lower Canada,

Upper Canada,

New Brunswick,·

Nova Scotia,

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTER XXXVII.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND PUBLIC LIFE.

Europe and America-American Political System - New Constitution — The President-Presidential Election-Conventions-Presidents and Kings-Europe and America-Re-election of the President.

I HAVE already given in Chapter VIII. a summary view of the American Constitution; but it seemed to me that a consideration of its value and practical working, as well as of public life in general, could not properly be entered upon, until a number of other important topics had first been discussed. But even now that this has been done, the formation of a proper estimate is difficult, leads to repetitions, and can by no means be expected to meet with general acquiescence. For besides that I hold it quite impossible to transplant to Europe much that is excellent in America, my praise of the latter will not please even those who are dissatisfied with their own home. European liberalism is usually no more than a partial principle, directed against the monarchical heads; while it retains its own peculiar element, which it tends, cherishes, and fondles in every possible way. The military, the officeholders, the clergy, and the learned, regard the circle of their monopolies as too sacred to be invaded; and are loud in their denunciations of the Americans, for having desecrated all their sanctuaries, declared their gods to be idols, and their faith superstition. Nevertheless, true Americanism consists in this very totality of their social, ecclesiastical, and political organization; and not in this or that particular clause of their constitutions, or in solitary traits of manners and customs.

Another ground of false judgments already noticed by me is, that most observers retain the European point of view, and apply every thing to the European standard; so that of course every thing appears distorted and not reducible to rule. Thus, when the sovereignty of the people is spoken of, they have no idea of a well organized system, such as exists in the United States, but of the popular commotions in some European capitals; they forget that, if the political forms of America were as defective as they assert, the wise conduct of the American people under a bad constitution would be doubly deserving of admiration. In rebutting

such one-sided imputations, the Americans naturally assert: "It is only in the United States that a genuine representation exists. What we see in the most enlightened states of Europe is but a feeble approximation. The legislative bodies there, though respectable in point of talent, are, properly speaking, but a kind of drags or encumbrances, hung on the machine of monarchy to equalise its motions. A great number of European governments are founded only on force (as in Poland, Italy, and Ireland); and hence the dread or the impossibility of granting greater freedom. America, on the contrary, seeks no aid from superstition, supports no gainful impostures, and uses none of that disgusting cant with which the old governments varnish over the degradation of the people. When travellers say (and the Quarterly emphatically repeats and enlarges upon it), that all the freedom in America which exceeds the English measure goes only to the profit of the disorderly at the expense of the friends of order, we can and must ask in reply, Who are the disorderly in America; or are there here more mobs, paupers, beggars, and grumblers than in England?"*

Another class of observers and critics measure the worth and practical utility of republican institutions by the unfortunate attempts of the French Revolution;-which is as fair and as proper, as if the character of monarchy were to be estimated by the times of the Roman Emperors. Although some resemblances may be traced between the French and American revolutions, the differences and contrasts are much greater, and the diversity of their origin and progress has led to totally different results. Had the French people before the revolution possessed more rights and greater political experience, fewer abominations would have been practised and tolerated. Much that was new was not true, and vice versa; hence so many contradictions, such clinging to antiquated usages, or excessive commendation of novelties. If the American revolution, which produced a really new social existence, is to be designated as a failure, in what respect were the French more successful? What admirable courage was possessed by Jefferson, not to despair at the very time when the frightful experience of France deterred the rest of Europe for many years even from the most needful improvements! recognised the essential difference between the two nations, distinguished the true from the false, use from abuse, and the possible from the impossible.

He

That timid historians are frightened out of their wits at particular occurrences in modern French history, is quite comprehensible, and may be overlooked or commiserated; but what

* Encyclopædia Americana, art. United States, pp. 452, 454. Hinton, ii. 422.

« ZurückWeiter »