[By John L. O’Sullivan]
It is now time for the opposition to the Annexation of Texas
to cease, all further agitation of the waters of bitterness and strife, at
least in connexion with this question, – even though it may perhaps be required
of us as a necessary condition of the freedom of our institutions, that we must
live on for ever in a state of unpausing struggle and excitement upon some
subject of party division or other. But, in regard to Texas, enough has now
been given to party. It is time for the common duty of Patriotism to the
Country to succeed; – or if this claim will not be recognized, it is at least
time for common sense to acquiesce with decent grace in the inevitable and the
irrevocable.
Texas is now ours. Already, before these words are written,
her Convention has undoubtedly ratified the acceptance, by her Congress, of our
proffered invitation into the Union; and made the requisite changes in her
already republican form of constitution to adapt it to its future federal
relations. Her star and her stripe may already be said to have taken their
place in the glorious blazon of our common nationality; and the sweep of our
eagle’s wing already includes within its circuit the wide extent of her fair
and fertile land. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space – a certain
combination of coast, plain, mountain, valley, forest and stream. She is no
longer to us a mere country on the map. She comes within the dear and sacred
designation of Our Country; no longer a “pays,” she is a part of “la
patrie;” and that which is at once a sentiment and a virtue,
Patriotism, already begins to thrill for her too within the national heart. It
is time then that all should cease to treat her as alien, and even adverse – cease
to denounce and vilify all and everything connected with her accession – cease
to thwart and oppose the remaining steps for its consummation; or where such
efforts are felt to be unavailing, at least to embitter the hour of reception
by all the most ungracious frowns of aversion and words of unwelcome. There has
been enough of all this. It has had its fitting day during the period when, in
common with every other possible question of practical policy that can arise,
it unfortunately became one of the leading topics of party division, of
presidential electioneering. But that period has passed, and with it let its
prejudices and its passions, its discords and its denunciations, pass away too.
The next session of Congress will see the representatives of the new young
State in their places in both our halls of national legislation, side by side
with those of the old Thirteen. Let their reception into “the family” be frank,
kindly, and cheerful, as befits such an occasion, as comports not less with our
own self-respect than patriotic duty towards them. Ill betide those foul birds
that delight to file their own nest, and disgust the ear with perpetual
discord of ill-omened croak.
Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor of now elevating
this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region
of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad
nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which
other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the
proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for
the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our
greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread
the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly
multiplying millions. This we have seen done by England, our old rival and
enemy; and by France, strangely coupled with her against us, under the influence
of the Anglicism strongly tinging the policy of her present prime minister,
Guizot. The zealous activity with which this effort to defeat us was pushed by
the representatives of those governments, together with the character of
intrigue accompanying it, fully constituted that case of foreign interference,
which Mr. Clay himself declared should, and would unite us all in maintaining
the common cause of our country against foreigner and the foe. We are only
astonished that this effect has not been more fully and strongly
produced, and that the burst of indignation against this unauthorized, insolent
and hostile interference against us, has not been more general even among the
party before opposed to Annexation, and has not rallied the national spirit and
national pride unanimously upon that policy. We are very sure that if Mr. Clay
himself were now to add another letter to his former Texas correspondence, he
would express this sentiment, and carry out the idea already strongly stated in
one of them, in a manner which would tax all the powers of blushing belonging
to some of his party adherents.
It is wholly untrue, and unjust to ourselves, the pretence
that the Annexation has been a measure of spoliation, unrightful and
unrighteous – of military conquest under forms of peace and law – of
territorial aggrandizement at the expense of justice, and justice due by a
double sanctity to the weak. This view of the question is wholly unfounded, and
has been before so amply refuted in these pages, as well as in a thousand other
modes, that we shall not again dwell upon it. The independence of Texas was
complete and absolute. It was an independence, not only in fact, but of right.
No obligation of duty towards Mexico tended in the least degree to restrain our
right to effect the desired recovery of the fair province once our own –
whatever motives of policy might have prompted a more deferential consideration
of her feelings and her pride, as involved in the question. If Texas became
peopled with an American population; it was by no contrivance of our
government, but on the express invitation of that of Mexico herself;
accompanied with such guaranties of State independence, and the maintenance of
a federal system analogous to our own, as constituted a compact fully justifying
the strongest measures of redress on the part of those afterwards deceived in
this guaranty, and sought to be enslaved under the yoke imposed by its
violation. She was released, rightfully and absolutely released, from all
Mexican allegiance, or duty of cohesion to the Mexican political body, by the
acts and fault of Mexico herself, and Mexico alone. There never was a clearer
case. It was not revolution; it was resistance to revolution: and resistance
under such circumstances as left independence the necessary resulting state,
caused by the abandonment of those with whom her former federal association had
existed. What then can be more preposterous than all this clamor by Mexico and
the Mexican interest, against Annexation, as a violation of any rights of hers,
any duties of ours?
We would not be understood as approving in all its
features the expediency or propriety of the mode in which the measure, rightful
and wise as it is in itself, has been carried into effect. Its history has been
a sad tissue of diplomatic blundering. How much better it might have been
managed--how much more smoothly, satisfactorily, and successfully! Instead of
our present relations with Mexico--instead of the serious risks which have been
run, and those plausibilities of opprobrium which we have had to combat, not
without great difficulty, nor with entire success--instead of the difficulties
which now throng the path to a satisfactory settlement of all our unsettled
questions with Mexico--Texas might, by a more judicious and conciliatory
diplomacy, have been as securely in the Union as she is now--her
boundaries defined--California probably ours--and Mexico and ourselves united
by closer ties than ever; of mutual friendship and mutual support in resistance
to the intrusion of European interference in the affairs of the American
republics. All this might have been, we little doubt, already secured, had
counsels less violent, less rude, less one-sided, less eager in
precipitation from motives widely foreign to the national question, presided
over the earlier stages of its history. We cannot too deeply regret the
mismanagement which has disfigured the history of this question; and especially
the neglect of the means which would have been so easy of satisfying even the
unreasonable pretensions and the excited pride and passion of Mexico. The
singular result has been produced, that while our neighbor has, in truth, no
real right to blame or complain--when all the wrong is on her side, and there
has been on ours a degree of delay and forbearance, in deference to her
pretensions, which is to be paralleled by few precedents in the history of
other nations--we have yet laid ourselves open to a great deal of denunciation
hard to repel, and impossible to silence; and all history will carry it down as
a certain fact, that Mexico would have declared war against us, and would have
waged it seriously, if she had not been prevented by that very weakness which
should have constituted her best defence.
We plead guilty to a degree of sensitive annoyance – for the
sake of the honor of our country, and its estimation in the public opinion of
the world – which does not find even in satisfied conscience full consolation
for the very necessity of seeking consolation there. And it is for this state
of things that we hold responsible that gratuitous mismanagement – wholly apart
from the main substantial rights and merits of the question, to which alone it
is to be ascribed; and which had its origin in its earlier stages, before the
accession of Mr. Calhoun to the department of State.
Nor is there any just foundation for the charge that
Annexation is a great pro-slavery measure – calculated to increase and
perpetuate that institution. Slavery had
nothing to do with it. Opinions were and
are greatly divided, both at the North and South, as to the influence to be
exerted by it on Slavery and the Slave States.
That it will tend to facilitate and hasten the disappearance of Slavery
from all the northern tier of the present Slave States, cannot surely admit of
serious question. The greater value in
Texas of the slave labor now employed in those States, must soon produce the
effect of draining off that labor southwardly, by the same unvarying law that
bids water descend the slope that invites it.
Every new Slave State in Texas will make at least one Free State from
among those in which that institution now exists – to say nothing of those
portions of Texas on which slavery cannot spring and grow – to say nothing of
the far more rapid growth of the new States in the free West and Northwest, as
these fine regions are overspread by the emigration fast flowing over them from
Europe, as well as from the Northern and Eastern States of the Union as it
exists. On the other hand, it is
undeniably much gained for the cause of the eventual voluntary abolition of
slavery, that it should have been thus drained off towards the only outlets
which appeared to furnish much probability of the ultimate disappearance of the
negro race from our borders. The
Spanish-Indian-American populations of Mexico, Central America and South
America absorbing that race whenever we shall be prepared to slough it off – to
emancipate it from slavery, and (simultaneously necessary) to remove it from
the midst of our own. Themselves already
of mixed and confused blood, and free from the “prejudices” which among us so
insuperably forbid the social amalgamation which can alone elevate the
degradation even though legally free, the regions occupied by those populations
must strongly attract the black race in that direction; and as soon as the
destined hour of emancipation shall arrive, will relieve the question of one of
its worst difficulties, if not absolutely the greatest.
No – Mr. Clay was right when he declared that Annexation was
a question with which slavery had nothing to do. The country which was the subject of
Annexation in this case, from its geographical position and relations, happens
to be – or rather the portion of it now actually settled, happens to be – a slave
country. But a similar process might
have taken place in proximity to a different section of our Union; and indeed
there is a great deal of Annexation yet to take place, within the life of the
present generation, along the whole line of our northern border. Texas has been absorbed into the Union in the
inevitable fulfilment of general law which is rolling our population westward;
the connexion of which with that ratio of growth in population which is
destined within a hundred years to swell our numbers to the enormous population
of two hundred and fifty millions (if
not more), is too evident to leave us in doubt of the manifest design of
Providence in regard to the occupation of this continent. It was disintegrated from Mexico in the
natural course of events, by a process perfectly legitimate on its own part,
blameless on ours; and in which all the censures due to wrong, perfidy and folly,
rest on Mexico alone. And possessed as
it was by a population which was in truth but a colonial detachment from our
own, and which was still bound by myriad ties of the very heart-strings to its
old relations, domestic and political, their incorporation into the Union was
not only inevitable, but the most natural, right and proper thing in the world –
and it is only astonishing that there should be any among ourselves to say it
nay.
In respect to the institution of slavery itself, we have not
designed, in what has been said above, to express any judgment of its merits or
demerits, pro or con. National in its
character and aims, this Review abstains from the discussion of a topic pregnant
with embarrassment and danger – intricate and double-sided – exciting and
embittering – and necessarily excluded from a work circulating equality in the
South as in the North. It is
unquestionably one of the most difficult of the various social problems which
at the present day so deeply agitate the thoughts of the civilized world. Is the negro race, or is it not, of equal
attributes and capacities with our own?
Can they, on a large scale, coexist side by side in the same country on
a footing of civil and social equality with the white race? In a free competition of labor with the
latter, will they or will they not be ground down to a degradation and misery
worse than slavery? When we view the
condition of the operative masses of the population in England and other
European countries, and feel all the difficulties of the great problem, of the
distribution of the fruits of production between capital, skill and labor, can
our confidence be undoubting that in the present condition of society, the conferring
of sudden freedom upon our negro race would be a boon to be grateful for? Is it certain that competitive wages are very
much better, for a race so situated, than guarantied support and
protection? Until a still deeper problem
shall shave been solved than that of slavery, the slavery of an inferior to a
superior race – a relation reciprocal in certain important duties and
obligations – is it certain that the cause of true wisdom and philanthropy is
not rather, for the present to aim to meliorate that institution as it exists,
to guard against its abuses, to mitigate its evils, to modify it when it may
contravene sacred principles and rights of humanity, by prohibiting the
separation of families, excessive severities, subjection to the licentiousness
of the mastership, &c.? Great as may
be its present evils, it is certain that we would not plunge the unhappy Helot
race which has been entailed upon us, into still greater ones, by surrendering
their fate into the rash hands of those fanatic zealots of a single idea, who
claim to be their special friends and champions? Many of the most ardent social reformers of
the present day are looking towards the idea of Associated Industry as containing the germ of such a regeneration
of society as will relieve its masses from the hideous weight of evil which now
depresses and degrades them to a condition which these reformers often describe
as no improvement upon any form of legal slavery – is it certain, then, that
the institution in question - as a mode
of society, as a relation between the two races, and between capital and labor,
– does not contain some dim undeveloped germ of that very principle of reform
thus aimed at, out of which proceeds some compensation at least for its other
evils, making it the duty of true reform to cultivate and develop the good and
remove the evils?
To all these, and the similar questions which spring out of
any intelligent reflection on the subject, we attempt no answer. Strong as are our sympathies in behalf of
liberty, universal liberty, in all applications of the principle not forbidden
by great and manifest evils, we confess ourselves not prepared with any satisfactory
solution to the great problem of which these questions present various
aspects. Far from us to say that either
of the antagonist fanaticisms to be found on either side of the Potomac is right. Profoundly embarrassed amidst the conflicting
elements entering into the question, much and anxious reflection upon it brings
us as yet to no other conclusion than to the duty of a liberal tolerance of the
honest differences of both sides; together with the certainty that whatever
good is to be done in the case is to be done by the adoption of very different
modes of action, prompted by a very different spirit, from those which have
thus far, among us, characterized the labors of most of those who claim the
peculiar title of “friends of the slave” and “champions of the rights of man.” With no friendship for slavery, though
unprepared to excommunicate to eternal damnation, with bell, book and candle,
those who are, we see nothing in the bearing of the annexation of Texas on that
institution to awaken a doubt of the wisdom of that measure, or a compunction
for the humble part contributed by us towards its consummation.
California will probably, next fall away from the loose
adhesion which, in such a country as Mexico, holds a remote province in a
slight equivocal kind of dependence on the metropolis. Imbecile and distracted,
Mexico never can exert any real governmental authority over such a country. The
impotence of the one and the distance of the other, must make the relation one
of virtual independence; unless, by stunting the province of all natural
growth, and forbidding that immigration which can alone develop its
capabilities and fulfil the purposes of its creation, tyranny may retain a
military dominion, which is no government in the legitimate sense of the term.
In the case of California this is now impossible. The Anglo-Saxon foot is
already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of
Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it, armed with the plough
and the rifle, and marking its trail with schools and colleges, courts and
representative halls, mills and meeting-houses. A population will soon be in
actual occupation of California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream
of dominion. They will necessarily become independent. All this without agency
of our government, without responsibility of our people – in the natural flow
of events, the spontaneous working of principles, and the adaptation of the
tendencies and wants of the human race to the elemental circumstances in the
midst of which they find themselves placed. And they will have a right to
independence – to self-government – to the possession of the homes conquered
from the wilderness by their own labors and dangers, sufferings and sacrifices –
a better and a truer right than the artificial tide of sovereignty in Mexico, a
thousand miles distant, inheriting from Spain a title good only against those
who have none better. Their right to independence will be the natural right of
self-government belonging to any community strong enough to maintain it – distinct
in position, origin and character, and free from any mutual obligations of
membership of a common political body, binding it to others by the duty of
loyalty and compact of public faith. This will be their title to independence;
and by this title, there can be no doubt that the population now fast streaming
down upon California will both assert and maintain that independence. Whether
they will then attach themselves to our Union or not, is not to be predicted
with any certainty. Unless the projected railroad across the continent to the
Pacific be carried into effect, perhaps they may not; though even in that case,
the day is not distant when the Empires of the Atlantic and Pacific would again
flow together into one, as soon as their inland border should approach each
other. But that great work, colossal as appears the plan on its first
suggestion, cannot remain long unbuilt. Its necessity for this very purpose of
binding and holding together in its iron clasp our fast-settling Pacific region
with that of the Mississippi valley – the natural facility of the route – the
ease with which any amount of labor for the construction can be drawn in from
the overcrowded populations of Europe, to be paid in the lands made valuable by
the progress of the work itself – and its immense utility to the commerce of
the world with the whole eastern Asia, alone almost sufficient for the support
of such a road – these considerations give assurance that the day cannot be
distant which shall witness the conveyance of the representatives from Oregon
and California to Washington within less time than a few years ago was devoted
to a similar journey by those from Ohio; while the magnetic telegraph will
enable the editors of the "San Francisco Union," the "Astoria
Evening Post," or the "Nootka Morning News," to set up in type
the first half of the President's Inaugural before the echoes of the latter
half shall have died away beneath the lofty porch of the Capitol, as spoken
from his lips.
Away, then, with all idle French talk of balances of
power on the American Continent. There is no growth in Spanish America!
Whatever progress of population there may be in the British Canadas, is only
for their own early severance of their present colonial relation to the little
island three thousand miles across the Atlantic; soon to be followed by Annexation,
and destined to swell the still accumulating momentum of our progress. And
whosoever may hold the balance, though they should cast into the opposite scale
all the bayonets and cannon, not only of France and England, but of Europe
entire, how would it kick the beam against the simple, solid weight of the two
hundred and fifty, or three hundred millions – and American millions – destined
to gather beneath the flutter of the stripes and stars, in the fast hastening
year of the Lord 1945!
Published in United
States Magazine and Democratic Review, Volume 17, no.1
(July-August 1845), p. 5-10
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first use "Manifest Destiny."
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first use "Manifest Destiny."
