Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

“A question of such serious importance ought now to be put at rest. If the United States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy of England annually casts upon their shores—if, by the benign influences of their government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all civil rights—if all this may be done, (and all this is done, under the countenance and encouragement of England herself,) is it not high time, my lord, that, yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent with the present state of society, and especially with the intercourse and relations subsisting between the old world and the new, England should, at length, formally disclaim all right to the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct ?"

As a consequence of this doctrine all countries may rightfully encourage immigration from foreign States, by giving lands to settlers, or selling them cheaply, and receiving all exiles from abroad. The two latter modes are adopted by the United States from a sound policy as well as humanity. It is agreeable to nature that overpopulated countries should pour their surplus people into sparsely populated regions, and by this process the industrial power and wealth of the latter will be greatly augmented without injury to any nation. In pursuance of this policy our republic encouraged the opponents of our independence to remain in the country at the close of the revolution. By the treaty of peace of 1783, the United States waved all future confiscations and prosecutions against American Tories. Our rapid progress and unparalleled prosperity show that we have followed the laws of nature.

Ferdinand, of Arragon, was honored by the Pope with the name of Catholic, for conquering the Moors and expelling most of them from Spain at the commencement of the sixteenth century. His successors completed the exile of the unhappy Moors. This cruel and atrocious act, and the banishment of the Jews by Ferdinand, banished from Spain a numerous, industrious and wealthy class of citizens, and gave a death blow to the prosperity of that fine country. The Mexican Republic, in 1829, by a decree of Congress, drove most of the Spaniards out of the Mexican territory. This proceeding, cruel, inhuman and unwise, seems like a retribution of Divine Providence upon Spain for her wicked example under Ferdinand and his successors, and it has produced the same evil in Mexico as in the mother country. France and England have at times lost population and wealth by exiling Huguenots, Puritans and others.

SECTION EIGHTH.

OF COLONIZATION.

Another mode by which nations have sought to extend their territorial limits and jurisdiction is by colonization. The ancient Phænicians, a commercial and enterprising people, planted colonies in Greece, at Carthage, and on various islands of the Mediterranean Rome sent colonies to Africa and other conquered provinces, and Greece colonized Asia Minor and the shores of the Mediterra. nean and Euxine seas. On the discovery of America several European nations sent out expeditions to discover and appropriate the new continent and adjacent islands. A first discovery, and the erection of the flag of a nation, were claimed to give title as against all other Europeans. This chimerical and absurd pretension gave way to the more rational doctrine that prior actual settlement and colonization perfected the title of the colonizing nation. The indefinite extent of these colonies and their conflicting claims led to long and bloody wars, involving the colonies and mother countries. England and France were long rivals in North America, which terminated by the ascendancy of British power at the close of the French war and

capture of Quebec. Spain, under Cortez and Pizarro planted her colonies on the ruins of native cities, and on a soil flowing with Indian blood. This cruel devastation of Mexico and Peru was one of the greatest atrocities recorded in history. Other nations planted colonies in the Western World, some with and some without a proper respect for native rights.

As the earth belongs to the whole family of man in common, no part of it can become private property except by actual occupation and appropriation. In Mexico and Peru the natives were truly in the occupation of the country, living in cities and villages, and cultivating the earth. They had organized governments, claiming and exercising jurisdiction over those regions. No other nations upon the settled principles of natural law had a right to colonize Mexico or Peru, much less to invade and conquer them. That part of North America within the present limits of the United States at the commencement of the seventeenth century, was a most wild, uncultivated country, with aboriginal tribes scattered sparsely over it. In such a country Europeans might rightfully colonize with or without the consent of the natives, provided all actual Indian settlements were respected. But the Pilgrim Fathers, with true Christian benevolence, bought off the Indian

[ocr errors]

title to Plymouth colony, an example which has been steadily followed at a cost of many millions of dollars paid to extinguish aboriginal title.

SECTION NINTH.

OF THE TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF A

NATION.

All lands included within the boundaries of a nation are exempt from foreign colonization on the ground of appropriation, and belong either to individuals, to the nation or to states composing it. By our treaty with Great Britain, at the close of the revolutionary war, all the rights of that nation to the soil and jurisdiction of the United States passed to our National and State governments. The thirteen original States became thereby seized of the ungranted lands within their respective limits, subject to the possessory title of the natives, and the United States became seized of the residue with the same qualification. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the celebrated case of Fletcher against Peck, affirm this doctrine. The American ministers at the treaty of Ghent maintained the same ground and refused to treat with the British negotiators with reference to the Indian tribes within the territory of our Republic. By the 9th Article the parties mutually granted an amnesity to the Indians merely. In pursuance

« VorigeDoorgaan »