REVIEW
OF
DR. CHANNING'S LETTER
то
HON. HENRY CLAY.
BY A CITIZEN OF MASSACHUSETTS.
BOSTON:
WILLIAM D. TICKNOR.
1837.
MARDEN & KIMBALL, PRINTERS,
No. 3 School Street.
REVIEW.
THIS is a powerful and eloquent treatise on a
question of the highest importance, not only to
the people of the United States, but to the civil-
ized world. The question is simply, whether the
government of this Union shall procure a new
market for the surplus slavery of the south, by the
annexation of a territory almost as large, in super-
ficial extent, as the kingdom of France. The
venerable and gifted author has treated this sub-
ject with great ability, directness, and perspicuity.
He argues against the project of incorporating
Texas with the United States, from the following
positions 1st, That the revolt of the Texans is
unjustifiable and criminal, mainly effected by ad-
venturers from the States, whose movements, if
not connived at, have not been repressed by the au-
thorities of this country. 2d, That the proposed
annexation will lead the United States into a ca-
reer of encroachment, war, and crime, the extent
and consequences of which, no human foresight
can avert or control. 3d, That it will extend and
perpetuate slavery. This topic is dealt upon with
great earnestness, and illustrated in the author's.
4
most effective and elevated style of reasoning.
After remarking that some of the slave States at
present have embarked in the business of slave
breeding, for the domestic slave trade, and regard it
as an important source of wealth, the author pro-
ceeds
"Nor is the worst told. As I have before intimated, and it can-
not be too often repeated, we shall not only quicken the domestic
slave trade; we shall give a new impulse to the foreign. This in-
deed we have pronounced in our laws to be felony; but we make
our laws cobwebs, when we offer to rapacious men strong motives
for their violation. Open a market for slaves in an unsettled coun-
try, with a sweep of seacoast, and at such a distance from the seat
of government that laws may be evaded with impunity, and how
can you exclude slaves from Africa?
It is well known that cargoes
have been landed in Louisiana. What is to drive them from Texas?
In incorporating this region with the Union to make it a slave coun-
try, we send the kidnapper to prowl among the jungles, and to dart,
like a beast of prey, on the defenceless villages of Africa. We
chain the helpless despairing victims; crowd them into the fetid,
pestilential slave ship; expose them to the unutterable cruelties of
the middle passage, and, if they survive it, crush them with per-
petual bondage.
I now ask, whether, as a people, we are prepared to seize on a
neighboring territory for the end of extending slavery? I ask,
whether, as a people, we can stand forth in the sight of God, in the
sight of the nations, aud adopt this atrocious policy? Sooner
perish! Sooner be our name blotted out from the records of
nations!
4th, That the incorporation of Texas with the
United States will justify and eventually demand
a dissolution of the Union. Lastly, that this mea-
sure will exert a disastrous influence on the moral
sentiments and principles of this country, by sanc-
tioning plunder, by inflaming cupidity, by encour-
10
5
aging lawless speculation, by bringing into the con-
federacy a community whose whole history and
circumstances are adverse to moral and wholesome
restraint, by violating national faith, by proposing
immoral and inhuman ends, by placing us as a
people in opposition to the efforts of philanthropy
and the advancing movements of the civilized
world.
It is not our purpose to follow our author through
the wide field of domestic and foreign policy,
which he has opened to the discussion of this
question; much less shall we attempt to add any-
thing to his masterly argument, which displays
the sagacity of the statesman, and the elevated
honesty and purity of the Christian. We hope
this letter will be extensively read, not only in the
east, but in the west and south. The apathy of
the public is truly astonishing, concerning a project
of such vast and universal importance, and can
only be accounted for on the supposition that there
is no danger of its being accomplished. On this
subject we wish to offer a few considerations,
and subjoin some reflections on the probable con-
sequences of the success of this fearful enter-
prise.
Is there any rational probability that the annex-
ation of Texas to the United States will be ef-
fected? This, in our opinion, depends on three
contingencies,-1st, Whether the occupants of that
territory shall succeed in their revolt against Mex-
ico; - 2d, Whether they shall, in that case, desire
1*
6
to be annexed;- and lastly, whether the slave
States shall insist on receiving them.
Of
Should all
these premises be secured in favor of incorporating
this new region with the United States, we believe
the consummation of this measure to be as certain
as almost any future event in the political world.
The friends of annexation will say that two of the
three contingent pre-requisites, have already been
attained. Texas is severed from Mexico, and her
inhabitants wish to be adopted into our Union.
the third, those who reflect on the course of events
since the adoption of our constitution, can enter-
tain but a faint doubt. What measure has the
south hitherto insisted on with earnestness and
unanimity, that she has not carried? And where
slavery is the subject, when has the south not been
earnest and unanimous? The admission of Mis-
souri as a slave State is a monument of southern
influence in the national councils, which can never
be forgotten. Our treatment of St. Domingo since
its emancipation, the non-acknowledgement of its
independence, even after it had been acknowl-
edged by all Europe, the restraints or prohibition
of our commercial intercourse with her, which for
many years disgraced our foreign policy, can be
attributed only to the prevalence of southern feel-
ings in our legislation. The holders of slaves
could not think of holding intercourse with a na-
tion of emancipated negroes. The recent attempt
to deprive our citizens of the right of petition will
owe its defeat if it should be defeated - to the
7
want of unanimity amongst the southern members,
Mr. Pinkney and a few others seceding, who
have, however, been denounced as traitors to the
cause of slavery. The alacrity of the last Con-
gress to acknowledge the independence of Texas,
to establish diplomatic intercourse with a band of
our own citizens, who had unlawfully invaded that
country, and founded scarcely the skeleton of a gov-
ernment, evinces at once the predominance of the
southern States, in any question on which they
choose to put forth their power, and the ineffi-
ciency of the disjointed northern materials to
counteract them. Whenever, therefore, the slave-
holding States shall see fit to demand, with united
voice, the admission of Texas into our Union, we
shall only deceive ourselves if we anticipate any
effectual resistance from the free States. All the
moral energies of the delegation from these States
would melt away before the heat of southern ve-
hemence and clamor, or the appliances of specula-
tors and demagogues at home. Already has the
virus of land speculation insinuated itself through
the north and west, and predisposed some of our
leading presses and politicians to second the views.
of the south in regard to Texas. And means exist
to an indefinite extent, to interest the wishes of
those who give direction to public opinion, in favor
of the magnificent and wealth-giving project-a
project, we are told, which is to secure liberty to
Texas-through the medium, doubtless, of negro
slavery.
8
But it may be asked, will the slave States com-
bine in favor of the annexation of Texas? That
this is not probable, may be inferred by some,
from the fact that Mr. McDuffie, when governor of
South Carolina, took occasion to denounce the pro-
ject in strong terms. This would indeed be re-
garded as a favorable omen, if it had been re-
sponded to by the people in that quarter of the
Union. So far, however, from that being the case,
we believe the voice of Mr. McD. died without so
much as an echo from the surrounding public, or
was drowned by the clamor of opposing opinions.
It is not known that any public man or press in
any slave State, except Mr. McD., has expressed
an opinion adverse to the admission of Texas.
And Mr. Clay himself may turn a deaf ear to the
powerful argument and exalted pathos of his rev-
erend correspondent, and yield his great influence
to the project of public aggrandizement and do-
mestic slavery.
The conclusion then seems to us irresistible, that
the slave States will unite to a man in favor of
adopting Texas into the confederacy. This being
the case, the free States, as usual, will be divided
amongst themselves their leading men, if not
purchased by the direct application of Texan scrip,
will be paralyzed by the influence of speculators
and land-jobbers, whose interested clamor will be
able to divide or control the public voice-and
the few who have the honesty and courage to re-
sist the current, will be overwhelmed and borne
down by the rush of opposing elements.
9
To this unwelcome result we have arrived, after
long and painful reflection, and not without some
attention to the current of events during the agita-
tion of this momentous question. If our conclu-
sion is well founded, the sooner the people of the
free States make up their minds for it, the better.
If Texas must be incorporated with this Union, let
not the event come upon us by surprise; but, like
Brutus, 'let us reason with the worst that may
betide.'
We come now to consider the ulterior measures
which the annexation of Texas will bring in its
train. The first will undoubtedly be the making
of new States; and this will as certainly be fol-
Dr.
lowed by a separation of the old States.
Channing boldly contends (and we honor him for
this boldness) that a separation will be justified
and demanded by the multiplication of new slave-
holding States, whereby a permanent preponder-
ance of power shall be acquired by those States.
To this sentiment we trust the whole community
will respond. The slave States have now an
equal voice in the Senate; and they have shown a
determination, on several occasions, that this equal-
ity shall not be disturbed to their disadvantage.
If, by the acquisition of Texas, they undertake to
secure a perpetual ascendency in their favor, it is
not probable that the other States will long adhere
to a compact that has thus been essentially muti-
lated and undermined. Hitherto the south have
had the cry of 'dissolve the Union,' wholly to
10
themselves. The annexation of Texas will send
back the cry from the north and the east-and
not the cry alone, but the action suited to the
word. There should be but one voice and one
feeling throughout the free States.
The separation of the States has heretofore been
contemplated at the north as one of the greatest
calamities that could befall the nation.
In the
south very different feelings have been inculcated.
and extensively disseminated. More than one of
the slave States have claimed the right to withdraw
from the Union, at their own option, and one has
actually exercised that right, and has now a law in
force annulling such laws of the United States as
do not meet her approbation.* In most of the
slave States there is a large and organized party,
whose rallying word is the supreme right of the
State, and the subordinate right of the Union.
This party regards the federal government as a
foreign power, and bestows all its sympathy and
affection on the government and 'institutions' of
their State. Many causes combine to increase this
party, and to give it ultimately the ascendency.
When this comes to pass throughout the slave
States, and they follow the example of South Car-
olina, in setting aside such laws of Congress as
conflict with their views, the Union is virtually
dissolved.
* The Bloody Bill,' as Mr. Calhoun styled it, was immediately
nullified by the Legislature of South Carolina, and it still re-
mains so!
11
The growth of the nullification party would be
wonderfully quickened in the slave States if the
federal government should refuse to grant their de-
mand of Texas. Such an inviting territory on
their borders, proffered to them by those who, hav-
ing usurped its possession, claim the right to dispose
of it, would soon be regarded with more favor, and
esteemed of more value to the slave States, than
the continuance of the Union. It is not improba-
ble that the annexation of Texas is urged by many
at the south, chiefly with the view of breaking up
the Union, a consummation which they secretly
desire, and see no other means to effect. However
this may be, we may be fully assured that when-
ever such a prize as Texas shall be offered to
the south, she will not long hesitate between that
and her allegiance to the constitution of the Union,
that foreign yoke which already sets heavily upon
them. Should the free States interpose a barrier
to the enjoyment of that prize an occurrence
not very probable, as we have already shown — a
flame would be kindled throughout the slave-hold-
ing region which would speedily sunder the feeble
bonds which now attach it to the confederacy.
Thus it seems to us but too apparent that Texas
is destined to be the shoal on which the Union
will be foundered. If it should be annexed, the
free States will be obliged to withdraw; if its an-
nexation should be denied, the slave States will
hold themselves justified in seceding.
It remains to consider briefly the mode of sepa-
12
ration, in case it should become inevitable, and the
line of demarkation between the new republics.
That the separation ought be amicably adjusted,
either by Congress, subject to the ratification of
the States, or by a convention of delegates from
all the States, no one we presume, will deny.
The law that admits Texas to the Union, should
provide this peaceable antidote to so great a calam-
ity, by calling a national convention to sanction
the annexation, and to authorize such a dissolution
of the confederacy at the option of the several
States. In this convention the division of the
public lands, the navigation of the rivers, and the
details of an alliance as independent nations, would
be adjusted. To determine the divisional line be-
tween the future republics, would be of little diffi-
culty, as it is already traced by the ineffaceable
landmarks of freedom and slavery. If the people
bordering on the north of the Potomac and west
of the Alleghanies wish that those natural monu-
ments should be the frontier, their wishes would
undoubtedly be consulted; as neither subdivision
could think of retaining any State or part of a
State against the will of its inhabitants. If there-
fore the people of western Virginia, or of Dela-
ware and Maryland should choose to adhere to the
free States, their right to do so would be unques-
tioned by any party. It seems, therefore, that the
difficulty of an amicable adjustment of a separa-
tion would be quite inconsiderable. And it can
scarcely be necessary to contemplate the exigency
13
of a forcible separation, by a segment of the na-
tion without the consent of the residue.
The people of the free States have cherished so
intense an attachment to the Union, that they have,
till recently, regarded its rupture as the greatest of
calamities. This sentiment, so creditable to their
patriotism, would be productive of great good, if
it was reciprocated by the south. Unfortunately,
however, instead of being reciprocated, the South
has taken advantage of this deep-rooted sentiment
to play upon the fears of the free States, and by
threats of disunion, to secure an ascendency in the
national councils. These threats have been the
standing topic, the staple ingredient of southern
argument, for these last twenty years. If Missouri
were denied the privilege of slavery, 'we will dis-
solve the Union!'-if internal improvements or
the protecting system is persisted in, 'we will dis-
solve the Union!'—if you discuss the subject of
slavery at the north, we will dissolve the Union!'
To such extravagant height had this temper at-
tained, that they last year undertook to reverse the
solemn decision of the Supreme Court of Massa-
chusetts the terrors of disunion were denounced
against it for adjudging that no person could be
held as a slave in this Commonwealth. And such
proclivity is there at the north to yield to southern
dictation, that this denunciation of our judiciary
was re-echoed and applauded by some of the lead-
ing presses in the free States, while those that
sustained the adjudication did it with feebleness
2
6
14
and hesitation. If our attachment to the confed-
eracy excites in the south a disposition to domineer
or encroach on our rights; or if it begets tempo-
rising and servility amongst ourselves, it ceases
to be enlightened or patriotic, and should be essen-
tially tempered or modified. And it is time that
the slave States should be informed that however
much we prize the Union, there are certain other
things we esteem more amongst which are per-
sonal liberty, the independence of our judiciary,
and the right of free discussion. The tone which
they have assumed of late, if submitted to and
carried into action, would leave us at the north
very little of liberty to boast of over their own
blacks. They have denied the right of petition,
they have attempted to dictate to our legislatures
laws subversive to the freedom of the press, and
as if to try experiments on the depth of our obe-
dience, they have claimed to have the persons of
our citizens delivered into their hands, to be pun-
ished by their laws for acts done here! Nothing
could exceed the absurdity of this claim but its
arrogance. But absurd and preposterous as it was,
there were not wanting men and presses* at the
north profligate enough to justify and defend it.
Let us reverse the case, and suppose that the gov-
ernor of New-York or Massachusetts should de-
*The New-York Courier and Enquirer leads off on every oc-
casion, in the career of servility to the south. That paper zealously
sustained the claim of the south to have our citizens delivered up;
the same paper now advocates the annexation of Texas.
15
mand the bodies of certain citizens of South Car-
olina, to have them brought to New-York or Bos-
ton, to be tried for acts done at Charleston. How
do you think such a demand would be met by
Carolina? would it be answered with all the gen-
tleness and meekness which the demand expe-
rienced at the north?
We wish that the preceding remarks should not
be misunderstood. We are strongly attached to
the Union of the States, and we cherish a sincere
friendship for the south, and all the slave-holding
States. We have dwelt amongst them and wit-
nessed the practical operations of their "peculiar
institutions." We cordially concur in the whole
of Dr. Channing's eulogy of the southern charac-
ter. But we cannot allow their private virtues to
blind us to their faults. What is it to us that they
are frank and hospitable, generous and honorable,
if they encroach on our rights, or attempt to con-
trol our independence? It is our friendship for
the south (as well as for the north,) that induces
us to attempt to apprise them of their true position
in the confederacy. They should feel and know
beyond all question, that the Union is incompar-
ably more important to them than to the free
States. Separated from the residue of the Union,
with almost half their population in bondage, they
would be the most feeble and defenceless nation
that the world ever beheld. Without the material
for an army or a navy, without commerce or man-
ufactures with a long and defenceless seaboard-
16
with a territory intersected by numerous navigable
bays and rivers with an internal frontier inca-
pable of military defence; what could the slave-
holding States promise themselves, but to lie at
the mercy of foreign aggression, with all the hor-
rors of a servile war in their own bosom. Even
the Cumanche Indians, with their 30,000 warriors,
would be a dangerous enemy if they should cross
the Mississippi and proclaim freedom to the ne-
groes, and promise revenge to their brethren of the
Cherokees, the Choctaws, and Seminoles. With
all the aid of our army, they have not been able to
suppress a portion of the Florida indians, after two
years of conflict. When left to their own strength,
or rather weakness, what could they look forward
to but an interminable contest with all the Indians,
which Texas and Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, and
Florida should bring into a joint stock of hostility?
Is it possible that southern statesmen can contem-
plate a separation of the States with complacency,
while Mexico hangs on their border, enraged at
the loss of an important province, ready to set the
powerful tribes of Indians in hostile array, and in-
vited to raise up a powerful domestic ally by offer-
ing the boon of freedom to their slaves? And if
to Mexico, the Indians, and the negroes, we add
any foreign power, however inconsiderable, which
may choose to find or make a quarrel, what could
prevent the slave-holding States from subjugation,
but the friendly interference of the free States?
Almost surrounded by the free States, when the
17
south should invoke their protection, it could be
speedily accorded. But can the high-spirited pol-
iticians of the slave States prefer the nominal inde-
pendence of a weak and protected ally, to a union
that gives them strength, and power, and character
in foreign lands?
Such is an imperfect sketch of the effects of a
separation of the States in regard to the slave
States. Let us now see how it will affect the free
portion of the confederacy. It will hardly be pre-
tended that these States will be any more exposed
to foreign aggression than they now are; nor with
all the materials for a navy and an army, with a
flourishing commerce, agriculture, and manufac-
tures, that they would be rendered less able to repel
aggression, by the dismemberment of the slave
territory. On the other hand, we should greatly
gain in compactness of territory and defensibility
of frontier we should retain our army within
our confines, and not as at present, quarter it in
southern cities and plantations to repel the Indians
or keep down the negroes. We should have o
own resources to ourselves, and our interests being
similar, we should not be exposed to local jeal-
ousies or threats of insurrection or disunion. And
furthermore, we should wash our hands of slavery.
By dissolving the present copartnership with the
slave States, we should be freed from the guaran-
tee to perpetuate slavery in those States, and from
the repugnant obligation to aid and assist in catch-
ing runaway slaves, and restoring them to their
masters.
our
Our courts would no longer exhibit the
18
·
painful and abhorrent spectacle of slave-dealers
seizing a human being, by order of the judge, and
hurrying him on ship-board for perpetual bondage.
Our judges and executive officers would not there-
after be made the instruments of human bondage,
at the requirement of any and every speculator in
the muscles and bones of his fellow-beings. Eve-
ry negro that should cross Mason and Dixon's line
would be irrevocably lost to the peculiar institu-
tions of the South. This emancipation of the free
States from being the allies and sustainers of slave-
ry, would, in the opinion of many, be worth all we
should lose by the division of the States. The fast
accumulating odium of slavery would be transfer-
red from the free States to those who ought to bear
it; and Europe would learn to discriminate between.
those who adhered to slavery, and those who had
ceased to participate in it.
We forbear to speculate on the commercial and
industrial effects of a separation of the States.
Nothing, we are persuaded, can permanently injure
the prosperity of the free States, that does not de-
prive them of their habits of industry, their enter-
prize and freedom; and on the other hand, nothing
can essentially benefit the slave states, while the
incubus of bondage preys upon their vital energies.
It is cheering to believe that so great a calamity
as we regard the dissolution of the Union, would
be attended with some circumstances to mitigate
the evil. It often happens in the dispensations of
Providence, that events, apparently the most ad-
verse, are productive of consequences directly op-
19
posite to what was anticipated. When the Duke
of York, a devoted Catholic, ascended to the Brit-
ish throne as James II, it was regarded as a most
happy event by the Catholics, and as an omen full
of danger by the Protestants and yet to that
event may be attributed the entire ascendency of
the Protestant church in England, and the prostra-
tion of Catholicism for the next century. So the
annexation of Texas, and the dissolution of the
Union, may operate very differently on the perpe-
tuity of slavery from what Dr. Channing and the
world in general apprehend.
Instead of filling
Texas with slaves, as the present object and de-
sign unquestionably is, it may be the means of put-
ting a period to slavery in the south and west.
Suppose the slave States involved. in a war with
Mexico, the Indians and their own negroes, assisted
possibly by Hayti, they would naturally apply for
aid to the free States or to England. If the aver-
sion to slavery continues to increase, as it has hith-
erto done, the more it is discussed and reflected
upon, there is no doubt that this aid would only
be granted on condition of the slave States con-
senting to mitigate slavery, and take measures for
its ultimate extermination. So if they should be
involved in a contest with any foreign state, that
state would arm their slaves against them, by the
promise of emancipation; and on making peace,
would stipulate for that important boon. It is not
for us to penetrate the dark mazes of the future,
nor to anticipate the manner in which untoward
events are to be overruled for the good of the hu-
20
man race. But we may devoutly trust that the
cause of freedom is now and will be ever progres-
sive, and will ultimately prevail, however it may
seem to be retarded by the success of any unhal-
lowed project against it.
There is so much to approve and admire in the
work before us, that it is with reluctance that we
dissent from any part of it. The following pas-
sage, however, contains sentiments which appear
to us novel, and not well founded.
"It is an undeniable fact, that, in consequence of these and other
symptoms, [mobs, &c.] the confidence of many reflecting men in
our free institutions, is very much impaired. That main pillar of
public liberty, mutual trust among citizens, is shaken.
That we
must seek security for property and life in a stronger government, is
a spreading conviction. Men, who in public talk of the stability of
our institutions, whisper their doubts (perhaps their scorn) in pri-
vate. So common are these apprehensions, that the knowledge of
them has reached Europe. Not long ago, I received a letter from
an enlightened and fervent friend of liberty, in Great Britain, be-
seeching me to inform him how far he was to rely on the representa-
tions of one of his countrymen just returned from the United States,
who had reported to him, that, in the most respectable society, he
had again and again been told that the experiment of freedom here
was a failure, and that faith in our institutions was gone. That the
traveller misinterpreted in a measure what he heard, we shall all ac-
knowledge. But is the old enthusiasm of liberty unchilled among
us ? Is the old jealousy of power as keen and uncompromising?
Do not parties more unscrupulously encroach on the constitution and
on the rights of minorities? In one respect we must all admit a
change. When you and I grew up, what a deep interest pervaded
this country in the success of free institutions abroad! With what
throbbing hearts did we follow the struggles of the oppressed!
How many among us were ready to lay down their lives for the
cause of liberty on the earth! And now who cares for free institu-
tutions abroad? How seldom does the topic pass men's lips! Mul-
titudes, discouraged by the licentiousness at home, doubt the value
of popular institutions, especially in less enlightened countries;
whilst greater numbers, locked up in gain, can spare no thought on
21
the struggles of liberty, and, provided they can drive a prosperous
trade with foreign nations, care little whether they are bond or free."
The tone of evil-boding and half despondency,
which our excellent author here indulges, is little
congenial to the American character. Nor is it jus-
tified by the facts. It is too true that our country
has been disgraced by mobs and riots within the
last few years, beyond any former period. The
spirit of outrage and violence seems to have broken
out suddenly and simultaneously throughout the
Union. But there are one or two circumstances
that ought to be known before we charge these
outbreaks to the nature of our institutions or to the
character of our population. In the first place,
most of these riots have been connected with the
discussion of the slavery question, and their object
has been to suppress the freedom of speech and of
the press. They are the natural offspring of that
servility to the south which so much pervades what
are sometimes called the 'better classes' at the
north. Nor is this all. It has not been unusual to
hear persons of influence and wealth deprecate the
discussion of slavery, because it would interfere
with our gainful commerce with the slave States.
And when such motives were found not sufficient
to check the growing sympathy for the slaves, the
the same class of citizens secretly encourage the
recourse to mobs and violence, and openly refused
to aid the civil authorities to suppress them.
and outrage seem to have been resorted to by these
tender-hearted friends of the south, to propitiate
the slave-holders and to show how much we prize
Riot
22
their 'peculiar institutions,' and abhor abolitionism.
It was thought that our character was at stake at
the south, and the only way to establish it beyond
suspicion of taint, was to get up mobs against the
abolitionsts. Let Dr. Channing inquire into the
history of all the mobs that have occurred in New-
England these last four years, and find out their
prime movers and secret abetters, and he will find
that they furnish him no cause to distrust the 'sta-
bility of our institutions.' He will find that the
laboring classes are not chargeable with these dis-
graceful proceedings, but that they acted, if at all,
from an impulse received from certain putters-on
amongst that "most respectable class" to which
our author refers. If these things should induce
Dr. C., or any one else, to invoke a stronger gov-
ernment, let it be with a distinct understanding
that it is rendered necessary in order to restrain the
rich and 'respectable classes,' and to compel magis-
trates to do their duty, when the laws are violated.
Our author himself makes a remark which, if
followed out, would dispel all the misgivings which
he or others may entertain for these popular erup-
tions. "Whosoever studies modern history," he
observes, "with any care, must discover in it a
steady growing movement towards one most inter-
esting result, I mean towards the elevation of the
laboring class of society." This is true even in
the most despotic governments, where the whole
pressure of political and religious tyranny repressed
the struggles of that class for improvement. And
it may be added, that there is no instance of retro-
23
grade movement. What the people have gained
they have not relinquished; but they have still
kept moving on, although thwarted and trodden
down by the combined powers of the aristocracy
and the priesthood. France and Germany, even
Spain and Italy, during the last century or two, il-
lustrate the truth of this observation. If this is
so in the old world, under all the disadvantages of
their position, can it be believed by any intelligent
person, that the laboring classes of this country
will prove an exception to the whole civilized
world; and lightly surrender those glorious insti-
tutions which their own right hand has estab-
lished? While our institutions rest on such a
broad basis, they are like a table standing on a
thousand legs, bracing it on every side, that cannot
be upset. If the sordid and the wealthy, 'locked
up in gain,' as our author expresses it, rendered
timid and selfish by their possessions-if they
were the main supports of our institutions, we
might well doubt their stability. If our indepen-
dence of Great Britain had depended on this class
mainly, it would never have been achieved.
But we doubt exceedingly the existence of any
general feeling of distrust in regard to the perma-
nence or the excellence of our institutions, amongst
any class of American citizens. Individuals there
may be who, from habits of retirement, or from a
melancholy temperament, or from affectation and a
disposition to ape foreign manners and to cherish
foreign feelings, may think and speak disparagingly
of our institutions and who may inculcate on
3
24
foreign travellers the notion that the people of
America are not capable of self-government. But
such sporadic cases, few and far between, tend
nothing to prove the existence of an epidemic.
Those few unhappy persons, who pay court to
foreign tourists by misrepresenting their native
country, may be greedily quoted by foreign jour-
nals, but they will not be able to impose upon the
European public, for any length of time, so im-
probable a fable as that our republican institutions.
are growing out of favor in America, or that the
American ladies are generally addicted to intem-
perance.
It is very possible, as our author suggests, that
there is in our community less enthusiasm for free-
dom in foreign countries, than when he and Mr.
Clay were young men; which, we take it, was
during the hurricane of the French revolution.
Nor is this to be regretted. There is still remain-
ing, however, full enough of sympathy, and en-
thusiasm too, amongst us in favor of every strug-
gle for liberty abroad, however remote it may be.
What a lively interest was felt for the Greeks, for
the French after the restoration, for the Spanish,
the Portuguese, the Belgians, and the Poles.
We cannot take leave of this work without ten-
dering our sincere thanks to the venerable author,
for thus seasonably stepping forward to warn his
fellow-citizens against an impending calamity, of
of stupendous magnitude, and inscrutable conse-
quences.