The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 2] Page: 1,401
[699], [lv] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1401
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
1402
March, 1822.
South American Governments.
H. op li-
lt is a clear and convincing argument, highly
honorable to the committee, and, as I entertain
great deference for their opinion, it is with reluc-
tance I differ with them in this particular. The
committee think it manifest, from the report of
the Committee of the Cortes, "that Spain had
' not only renounced the feelings of an enemy to-
' wards the colonies, but had been prepared, a year
1 ago, to consent to their independence, but for
'particular occurrences." They are led to this con-
clusion from the terms in which the committee
speak of " the measure demanded by the crisis, as
' one indicative of a new and glorious resolution;
'that it was demanded by America and by the
' true interests of the Peninsula ; that, from it
' Spain might reap advantages, which otherwise
' she could never expect; and that the ties of kin-
' dred and the uniformity of religion, with com-
' mercial relations and those emanating from free
' institutions, would be the surest pledge of mutual
' harmony and close union."
I agree with the committee, " that no measure
short of a full recognition of unconditional inde-
pendence could have deserved the character nor
been capable of producing the effects ascribed to
it." But, sir, what say the documents on your
table? The American deputies, disappointed in
their expectations, presented propositions, in sub-
stance, Mr. Brent tells us the same as those that
at first met the approbation of ministers, and which
would have been adopted, but for particular occur-
rences. These propositions contain no demand
for an acknowledgment of independence; but
merely for permission to establish an internal ad-
ministration, dependent upon the mother country,!
freedom of commerce and equal rights with Euro-
pean Spaniards. This was, in substance, the
measure first proposed by the committee of Cortes,
and which was subsequently rejected by the king,
"as a violation of the Constitution; that public
opinion was not prepared for it, that it was against
the interests of Spain and of America." Some-
thing less favorable must be intended by the king,
when he says that "his Government, urged by the
Cortes, to propose the measures they may think
most proper for their welfare, or a consideration
of the state of these countries, they will do so im-
mediately, and with the utmost generosity." No,
sir. The recognition of the independence of the
Spanish colonies would be opposed both by the
interests and by the prejudices of the Spanish na-
tion. Independently of the revenue derived by the
Crown from those countries—a revenue of more
than eight millions of dollars—the patronage they
afforded was immense. Places in Spanish America
were the reward of services and the means of cor-
ruption. The aristocracy, who profitted by those
places, and who regarded them as the means of
maintaining their splendid establishments in Eu-
rope, will abandon, with reluctance, the prospect
of wealth America presented. The clergy will
exert their influence to prevent it. America was
to them a source of ambition and of profit. The
possession of America extended their spiritual
dominion and augmented their temporal wealth.
The merchants, who, by a code of laws framed in
thespiritof restriction and oppression, monopolized
the trade of the colonies, will oppose their recog-
nition ; and the people generally will not consent
to relinquish, without a desperate struggle, the
dominion over the colonies, connected, as it is,
with their most pleasing recollections of national
honor and glory.
It is in vain to say that they are really indepen-
dent. The Spaniards will not abandon all hope
of recovering possession of them until they are
recognised by the Powers of Europe. It is well
known that there are many of the former inhabi-
tants of St. Domingo, now in France, who still
cherish the hope of being restored to their estates
in that island.
These motives will operate powerfully upon the
Spanish nation, and, it is to be feared, will not
only prevent their recognition of the independence
of these countries, but lead them to view this
measure, on our part, as an unfriendly, perhaps as
a hostile act. They certainly have no right to do
so according to the laws and usages of nations.
But the resentment of wounded pride is not always
restrained by considerations of national law.
But, sir, this risk, even if it were less remote,
ought not to deter us from adopting the resolutions
on your table. It is a measure called for both by
justice and policy. The conduct of the Govern-
ment, in relation to this contest, has given the
best evidence of our respect for the rights of Spain.
So long as that nation made an effort to recover
her dominion over her colonies, the United States
abstained from recognising their independence.
But now, when all opposition has ceased on the
part of Spain; now that those countries are free
from the intestine commotions which divided them
into factions, and rendered it difficult to distin-
guish which was the legitimate government, it
would be unjust to withhold it.
I hope, therefore, the Committee will adopt the
resolutions now under consideration. It is due to
the rights of the free and independent Govern-
ments that expect it at our hands, and due to our
own character and station.
Mr. Rhea and Mr. Nelson, of Virginia, de-
livered their sentiments, generally in favor of the
propositions before the House.
The Committee then rose, and reported to the
House their agreement to these resolutions.
The question being about to be put on agreeing
to the first resolution—
Mr. Tocker, of Virginia, objected to the phrase-
ology of the resolution, and proposed to substi-
tute the word " nations" for " provinces," where
it occurs.
Some other member mentioned the word " Gov-
ernments" as proper, and Mr. Tocker so varied
his motion.
Mr. Russell had no particular partiality, he
said, for the phraseology of the resolution, but he
objected to the word "Governments," because,
according to our system, the word " Government"
is different in meaning from the word "nation."
He would not himself acknowledge any nation to
have a free and independent government which
is not a government of the people.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 2], book, 1855; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30366/m1/79/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.