Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Speech of Gerrit Smith, on Mexican treaty and "Monroe Doctrine" : in...

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 488

SPEECH

OF

GERRIT SMITH

on

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE."

IN CONGRESS, JUNE 27, 1854

The bill to enable the President to fulfil the third article of the Treaty between the United States and the Mexican Republic, being under consideration,

Mr. SMITH said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Until yesterday, when I heard the distinguished gentlemen from Missouri and Virginia, [Mr. BENTON and Mr. BAYLY.] I had not intended to say one word on the subject before the Committee. I listened with great interest to their noble speeches, and was instructed by them. Nevertheless, my own views did not entirely harmonize with the course of argument pursued by I either of those gentlemen. I am happy. Mr. Chairman, in the opportunity, which you have now kindly afforded me, to express these views, in the light of which the vote, which I am to give, will be judged.

"The papers!" - "the papers have been, more or less, the burden of some of the speeches, which we have heard. Now, I do not sympathize with this concern, nor join in this call for the papers. I do not see, that we have any right to them, or anything to do with them. Had we undertaken to impeach the President for his connection with this treaty, then our interest in the papers respecting it would be pertinent. But that is what we have not, as yet, undertaken.

This treaty, when approvingly and fully acted upon by the competent Mexican authorities and the President and Senate of the United States, (and, for the sake of the argument, I will assume, that it has already been so acted upon,) becomes, by the admission of the Constitution itself, a "supreme law of the land," binding upon our nation, and capable of being enforced against our nation by Mexico. It is equally such, whether it has our approbation, or disapprobation. Our approbation cannot give it legality. Our disapprobation cannot take away its legality. The treaty is not a law, upon condition, that the assent to it. It is, already, a law - an uncondition-

[page 1, col. 2]

al, absolute law. All, that we have to do with the treaty, is either to obey its call upon us to vote money to Mexico; or to disobey the call, and incur the great and fearful responsibility of treaty breakers - of law breakers. For one, I hold, that we may incur such responsibility, provided the amount of the money is grossly excessive - say several times is much, as it should be. Before I close, I will express me opinion on this reasonableness of the amount. Commanding as his a treaty between nations - solemn as is a "supreme law of the land," it may, nevertheless, be possible, that it is our duty to disobey this treaty, and to break this law. For we can suppose a case, in which it would be right to disobey, and set at nought, the most imposing and solemn enactment. I will suppose an extreme case - since it is, after all, an extreme case, which best serves the purpose of establishing the fact, that there may be exceptions to the general rule. What, if there were a congressional statute, which, rivalling the wickedness of the memorable decree of Herod, requires all the children in his District, two years old and under, to be slain? Must the President obey, and enforce, it? - No! All admit, that, notwithstanding he is a co-ordinate branch of the law-making power, he must not obey, and enforce, it. Commanding, as is the source of this statute, and perfect as are ita forms, he must refuse to honor it. High and authoritative, as is the statute, humanity is infinitely higher and more authoritative: and, hence, i he has to trample either one, or the other, under foot, it must be the statute, and not humanity.

I said, that the treaty calls on us to vote money to Mexico. Now, I am not of the number of those, who hold, that we are to disobey the call, because the President had not apprised us of it, before the treaty was concluded. The Constitution does not require such previous notice. Moreover, such previous notice might be the means of publicity and thereby of defeat, to the negotiations. Nor would I disobey the call, because of the provision

2 [col. 1]

in the Constitution, which requires all bills for raising revenue, to originate in the House. For I do not believe, that this provision was intended to restrict, or qualify, the treaty-making power, lodged by the Constitution in the President and Senate. To understand our duty, we must see what we get in exchange for the money we vote. If we find, that we get the worth of our money, or anywhere near the worth of our money, we are not to hesitate to vote the money.

There are but two material things, that we get. One of these is our release from the eleventh article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - the article which, although so lightly spoken of by the honorable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] does, nevertheless, make us liable, in some sense, and in some degree, for Indian depredations upon the Mexicans. It is said, that our liabilities in this article are too indefinite to create any obligations upon us. But I hold, that the more indefinite they are, the worse they are, and the more eager should we be to escape from them. To say, that they create no obligations whatever upon its, strikes the as very extravagant. For one, I should be willing, ay glad, to see our Government pay a considerable, though not an unreasonable, sum to liberate us from the obligations of this article, whatever those obligations are.

The other material thing, that we get by this treaty, is territory. This territory is valuable to us, because it is essential to the best railroad route from the southern portion of our country to the Pacific. But though I would have our Government do what it reasonably call to provide the South, as well as the centre, and the North, with the best railroad route to the Pacific, which the Maker of the earth has afforded, I must, nevertheless, insist, that Mexico, so far as she can furnish the ground, should be glad to furnish it, without price, if others will build the roads.

But this territory is much more than we need for the routes of railroads. The more, however, the worse, said the honorable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON;] and by a good story, told in his own happy way of telling his good stories, he illustrated his position, that there are lands so poor, that to own them is to be impoverished, rather than enriched. But, with all deference to that distinguished gentleman, who is even more full of learning and experience than he is of years, I am willing to admit, that the more land we get from Mexico, (by righteous means,) the better. I would, that the treaty gave us whole provinces; yes, and even all Mexico.

Poor Mexico needs to be brought under radically transforming influences. Indeed, she is perishing for the lack of them. It is for her life, that she cease to be an independent nation; and not only so, but, also, that she become a part of our nation. For, say what we will of its faults and crimes, (and I look with very great sadness of heart upon some of them,) our nation is the mightiest of all the civilizing and renovating agencies, that are at work in the world.

And, again, is there not some danger, that Mexico, if not annexed to us, will pass under the wing

2 [col. 2]

of Spain. or of some other European nation? But, gentlemen will tell us, that the "Monroe doctrine" is an effectual shield from that danger.

Suppose, Mr. Chairman, since we have, thus incidentally, stumbled upon the "Monroe doctrine," that we spend a few minutes upon it, and, therefore, a few minutes less upon the treaty.

I am well aware, sir, in what admiration this doctrine is held. It is glorified in this House, and glorified throughout the land. There is no greater political heresy than to doubt its soundness. It is commended to us by the authority of the greatest name. Nevertheless, it is not authority that I would bow; but to truth; and, as I look upon the Monroe doctrine, it is utterly empty of truth, and full of arrogance and bravado. This doctrine is very palatable to our patriotism, inasmuch as it arrogates a very exalted place and mission for our nation. It invests us with the right of regulating the relations between the people of this hemisphere and the people of the other. It makes us, in a word, dictator of the whole earth.

This doctrine is brave and defiant; and it, therefore, gratifies our conceit of our courage and power.

And, yet, sir, warmly as this doctrine is cherished by it seems to me, that we should be the last people on earth to admit the truth of any such doctrine. This doctrine is at fatal war with our corner-stone doctrine, that every people is at liberty to choose its own form of Government. For its to set up "the Monroe doctrine," is to turn our back upon the Declaration of Independence. It is to deny; to live down; to lie down; our own fundamental principles. For us to refuse to other peoples and nations the right to separate from each other, as they please; or unite with each other, as they please; or change their forms of Government, as they please; is to be guilty of repealing the principles, on which our own nation deliberately founded itself. For us to restrict other Governments, as "the Monroe doctrine" would restrict them, is, virtually, to ignore and deny the foundation and legitimacy of our own Government.

But, sir, we are either ignorant of ourselves, or insincere. We would not approve - nay, we would not abide - "the Monroe doctrine," were it applied to ourselves. Suppose our nation should, for any reasons whatever, wish to blend itself with Great Britain, would it be restrained from doing so by its committal to "the Monroe doctrine?" Oh, no! And yet, that wish would be directly in the face of "the Monroe doctrine." Suppose Mexico and Brazil, hearing of this wish, should put their veto upon its indulgence. How quick would we scout the veto, and bid them mind their own business, whilst we minded ours? But, if they have no right to forbid our fusion with Great Britain, pray, what right should we have to forbid the proposition of Hayti to join France, or Chili to join China, or, (most terrific of all terrific things, in the eyes of an American filibuster!) Cuba to join England?

The truth is, that our rapid progress in population, wealth, and power, has made us forgetful of the equal rights of the nations of the earth.

3 [col. 1]

We are disposed to measure our rights by our prosperity; and to disparage the rights of others, in the degree, that their prosperity falls short of our own. In our boundless self-conceit, our might, either already is, or is very soon to be, boundless. And, as is to be expected in such a case, we are already acting on, if not in terms avowing, the maxim, that might makes right.

It was in the proud and arrogant spirit of our country - it was under the influence of the extravagant pretensions, with which she is bloated, that the Squier treaty was so much condemned; and the Hise treaty so much extolled, in the other wing of the Capitol, a year or two since. The Squier treaty admitted, that other nations of the earth might participate with ours in controlling the ship-canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific. But the Hise treaty claimed, that our nation, alone, is worthy of controlling it; that the nation, whose office is sole dictator of the whole earth, should be the sole keeper of that great gateway of all the nations, and should deride when, and on what terms, the ships of those nations might pass through it. It was, of course, taken for granted, that all the nations of the earth would be tame enough to acquiesce promptly in this, as well as all other claims of our assumed dictatorship.

"I fix the chain to great Olympus height,

And the vast world hangs trembling in my sight,"

are words quite too swollen for a nation - for any collection of mere men to use - however fitted they may be to the lips of a God.

"The pride of thy heart," saith the prophet, 'hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the 'clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; 'that saith in his heart, 'who shall bring me 'down to the ground?' Though thou exalt 'thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy 'nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee, 'down, saith the Lord."

Is not such the pride, that we are nurturing? - the "pride," may we not fear, that "goeth before I destruction"? - the "haughty spirit before a fall?''

Never has there been so self-deceived it nation, as our own. That we are a nation for liberty is among our wildest conceits. We are not a nation for liberty. I refer not, now, to the terrible blot of slavery upon our country. I refer to our pride. No proud man is for liberty. No proud! nation is for liberty. Liberty - precious boon of Heaven - is meek and reasonable. She admits, that she belongs to all - to the high and the low; the rich and the poor; the black and the white and, that she belongs to them all equally. The liberty, for which a proud man contends, is a spurious liberty; and such is the liberty, for which a proud nation contends. It is tyranny; for it invades and strikes down equal rights. But true liberty acknowledges and defends the equal rights of all men, and all nations. There is not time for me to expatiate upon the merits of true liberty. They will be known to all, who bow themselves, gratefully and lovingly, to her claims. There is not time for me to prove, that it is her true character, which I have given to true liberty.

3 [col. 2]

Suffice it to say, that all will see it to be such, who are so happy, as to escape from the hard dominion of passion and prejudice, to the welcome control of reason and religion.

If this nation is to prosper, it must be by adhering to the great and precious principles avowed at its birth. One of these principles is, that every people may choose its own form of government and vary it, its it pleases. We chose ours; and we write "hypocrite," with our own finger, upon our own foreheads, if we deny to the Haytiens or Cubans, or any other people, the liberty to choose theirs. If Cuba proposes to remain a part of Spain, or to become a part of France, or England, we cannot condemn the proposition, but at the expense of condemning our own, deliberately adopted and solemnly uttered, principles.

It is not for this nation to deny the right of one people to blend themselves - with another people; nor the right of any people to break up their existing national relations. In other words, it is not for this nation to deny the right either of annexation or secession. I claim the right of the British provinces, north of us, to annex themselves to our nation, if we are willing to receive them; and that, too, whether England does, or does not consent to it. I claim the right of those provinces in New England to form a nation by themselves; and that, too, whether with or without the approbation of the English and American Governments. I hold, that the Northern States have the right to go off into a nation by themselves; and the Western States; and the Southern States. If they will go, let them go; and we, though loving the Union, and every part of it, and willing to lose no part of it, will let them go in peace, and will follow them with our blessing, and with our warm prayer, that they may return to us; and with our firm belief, that they will return to us, after they shall have spent a few miserable years, or perhaps, no more than a few miserable months, in their miserable experiment of separating themselves from their brethren. Of course, I cannot forgot, that many - alas that they are so many! - would prefer following the seceders with curses and guns. Oh, how slow are men to emerge from the brutehood, into which their passions and their false education have sunk them I say brutehood; for rage and violence and war belong to it, while love and gentleness and peace are the adornments of true manhood.

I trust, that I shall not be regarded as holding, that a single State in our Union may set up for itself. It may not any more than a single county. Such an imperium in imperio would be too full of inconvenience and objection to entitle itself to the approbation of any reasonable man. My doctrine of annexation and secession is not to be stretched over every folly, that may lay claim to countenance from the doctrine. I spoke of the right of the British Provinces to annex themselves to our nation. I hope, that, in due time, the right will be exercised; and that England will feel, that she cannot justly resist the exercise of it. But, I hope, for more than such annexation. I hope for the annexation to us of every other part of North America. To

4 [col. 1]

bring the various peoples of North America into a nation with ourselves, would be to bring them. under a rapid process of enlightenment, civilization, and homegeneousness with each other and with us. I trust, that we shall be a better people, by that day. But bad, as we now are, even in that case, few of our neighbors would become worse, and most of them would become better, by, becoming like us. Were all North America to become one nation, it might not long remain such. But the various nations, into which I would divide, would be more intelligent, useful, and happy, than it they had never constitute one nation.

Let Cuba come to us, if she wishes to come. She belongs to us, by force of her geographical position. Let her come, even if she shall not previously abolish her slavery. I am willing to risk the subjection of her slavery to a common fate with our own. Slavery must be a short-lived thing in this land. Under our laws, rightly interpreted, and under the various mighty influences at work for liberty in this land, slavery is to come to a speedy termination. God grant, that it may, be a peaceful one!

I would not force Cuba into our nation, nor pay $250,000,000 for her, nor $200,000,000 - no, nor even $100,000,000. But when she wishes to come, I would have her come; and that I may, be more clearly understood on this point, I add, that I would not have her wait, always, for the consent of the Spanish Government. Now, if this is filibusterism, then all I have to say is "make the most of it!" [Great laughter.]

I do not subscribe to the doctrine, that the people are the slaves and property of their Government. I believe, that Government is for the use of the people, and not the people for the use of Government. Moreover, I do not acknowledge, that any nation, or province, or people, is amenable to any other human Government than that, which they have themselves chosen.

But, to return from my filibustering [laughter] to the treaty. The treaty calls on its to vote money to Mexico, in exchange for what we get from her. Is the sum no greater than it should be? Then, I must cheerfully vote it. Nay, it may be even much greater than it should be, and my obligation to vote it remain unbroken. For. I must not, for any slight cause, disobey the law "the supreme law of the land." But, if I believe the sum to be several times greater than it should be, then it is better, that I disobey than obey the law. I do thus believe; and, therefore, I elect to disobey the law. I refuse to vote the required sum. I am conscious of my responsibilities for the refusal. I confess myself to be a law-breaker; and I appeal to common sense and the public conscience for my justification. Start not at my admission, that I am a law-breaker. Even you, who believe with me, that this treaty is a law, would consent to break it on the same principle, that I do. That is, you would consent to break it, if you thought, as I think, that the sum demanded by the treaty is several times as great, as it should be.

The truth is, that our statesmen have, under the influence of the vast resources of our nation,

4 [col. 2]

and of the overflowing Treasury, which is the consequence of our tariff system, become mad on the subject of figures. With them millions are but little more than thousands. Were our Treasury well nigh empty, its it always should be; and were our statesmen to study the value of money, in the light of the toils of the poor, who earn it, these statesmen would not, make so light of immense sums, as they now do.

Ten millions for what this treaty gives us! In my esteem, it is not only a very excessive, but all outrageously excessive, remuneration. I do not say, that I would not vote five millions. Perhaps, I would, but not because I would believe five millions to be no more than a reasonable sum. It would, in my judgement, be much too large a sum.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine (interrupting.) If I understand the gentleman correctly, he said, a short time since, that he considered this House under absolute, unquestionable obligation to vote this money. Or he stated, rather, that the treaty was perfect in its obligation, without the action of this House, that it, was the law of the land, absolute and complete in its obligation. But I understand the gentleman to say, now, that he will exercise his discretion, and that he will not vote the ten millions. Also, that he will not call for the information, because the President is not bound to give any information in relation to the treaty. I ask him whether, if he should call upon the President for the information necessary to enlighten him upon the subject, in this exercise of his discretion, which he now claims the right to use, he might not see therein, reasons why he should not vote for the ten millions?

Mr. SMITH. I need no such enlightenment. It has been intimated, that corruption attends the treaty. I know not, and, for present purposes, care not, whether this is so. The question of corruption is not before us, and for what else could I wish to see "the papers?" The actual provisions of the treaty constitute all, that is legitimately before us: and the only question for us to decide, in governing our votes on this occasion, is whether $10,000,000 is not so excessively large a sum, that we had better disobey the treaty, and break a "supreme law of the land," than vote it. As I have already said, I think it our duty to break the law; or, to use the less startling phrase of the day, to render the law, at this ten million point, "inoperative and void." [Laughter.]

Happily, I shall not need to regard as criminals, those, whose votes, on this occasion, shall differ from my own. The difference between us may be but an honest difference of judgment. Happily, too, it is only money, that we lose by voting too large a sum to Mexico. Whereas, should there be war between us and her, in consequence of leaving unsettled what this treaty settles, the logs to both nations would be infinitely greater than a loss of money. I had rather we should make an absolute gift of ten millions to Mexico than that we should fire one gull at her - and even, too, if that one gun should hit nobody.

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.