| 1132 from 'subduing' and 'going ahead,' to the extent of his inclination and ability?
To this Mr. Adams has his answer-
"There is the difference between the British claim and ours; we claim Oregon that we may improve the country and make its desert to blossom as the rose. We claim it that we may establish laws, till the ground: that we may 'subdue the earth,' as has been commanded by God Almighty. She claims to keep it open as a hunting ground-that she may hunt wild beasts in it; she claims it of course, for the benefit of the wild beasts [a laugh] as well as the savage nations who roam over it.'
Now in the first place, there is not the slightest evidence, on the face of the earth, of any intention of Great Britain to keep the Oregon territory in a state of perpetual barbarism. On the contrary her surplus population is immense, while we have none and her necessities demand large territories and wide scope, which our broad republic, for an hundred years, will have no need of. And, second, what proof is there of our disposition to make the wilderness blossom as the rose? Does any one pretend to say that we want Oregon, for the sake of Oregon, and not for our sakes? Have we been behind hand with England, in hunting the wild beasts-aye and the wild men too, whenever we have had an opportunity? Have we not room enough within our borders, to exercise all our civilizing and 'subduing' propensities for a century? Can the honorable member from Massachusetts have forgotten the millions of acres conceded to be ours-lying within the limits of our recognised [recognized] states and territories-which are as far removed from roses and blossoming as the wildest sands in the great Sahara? Can he believe that without 'subduing' or tilling the bountiful lands that God has given us-without replenishing the half of that portion of the earth in which we dwell-we have an indefeasible 'right' to emigrate where we please-drive out aboriginal inhabitants from all the fat places of the earth-appropriate to ourselves its pleasantness, every where-make land and sea our bloody battle grounds in the support of such a 'right'-and then heal and make whole our iniquities, by quoting a chapter of Genesis? If blossoming and roses and horticultural inclinations, generally, be the only justification necessary for the appropriation of territory to ourselves why have we not a right to march into all the untilled and the 'unsubdued' parts of the whole earth? Why should we not march into Canada-capture Mexico-annex Cuba, and publish our claim 'to the whole or none' of South America generally? Surely if we are to bless the earth with our dominion there is no reason for our preferring the savages of Oregon to the people of other countries, whose inferior state of blossoming entitles them to that blessing. Above all, why should we not announce to the Russian Autocrat that our title extends over what he calls his own, and the part of Oregon which we now concede to be his shall be retained for hunting and the peltry trade no longer? Why should we not nail our flag to the north pole itself, in order that the 'unborn infants,' whom Mr. Allen spoke of in his speech, may rejoice under its star-spangled folds, when they wake up 'from the lap of the past?' If our rule is a good one it works well throughout, and it is neither logical nor honest to make 'fish' of one nation and 'fowl' of the other. If we sincerely believe ourselves the most 'subduing' nation in the world, consistency requires us to go forth, at once, to replenish the countries that please us, and vouch Moses for our title! Such doctrines are comfortable in the highest degree, and they have the sanction of the remotest antiquity. From Sesostrics to Gen. Houston, all the great annexers of territory-including Alexander, Genghiskan, and Attila the Hun-have preached or practiced just such things. History, it is true, has called some of them by hard names-and some rude spoken men have said that their principles were the essence of heathenism and rapacity. Perhaps Mr. Adams' speech may have the effect of changing the world's opinion, and convincing it that
"Things are not what they seem."
It is to be feared, however, that plain people-hearing the book of our faith appealed to, in support of doctrines, to all appearance so abominable-may remember that there is in the Bible, also, something called the Decalogue, and that not to murder, nor steal, nor covet our neighbor's goods, are commands, which explain more fully the divine intention, as to nations no less than individuals.
But Mr. Adams finds still further support in Biblical quotation, which he ostensibly applies to the Papal claim of dominion over savage lands-but which was, evidently, meant to fortify the pretensions which he formed for us upon Genesis:
"I will ask the clerk to read another short extract from that same book; he will please to read the 8th verse of the second Psalm."
[The clerk here read as follows: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."]
Mr. A. "Will the clerk read one or two verses which precede that passage-showing to whom it refers."
(page 1132) |
