The quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, March, 1900Oregon Historical Society
History
The quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, March, 1900
Oregon Historical Society
Oregon -- History -- Periodicals
There were other objections which seemed far more weighty than those of
material inexpediency. The principle of colonization which would be
forced upon the United States was regarded as a menace. “Should this
principle now be recognized, it may hereafter be quoted as a precedent
for measures which will change the condition and nature of the
government, an event to be intimately associated with its destruction,
or at least with the prostration of that liberty for the protection of
which alone we can wish the government to exist.” Although it was shown
that the probabilities were that the territory would become an integral
part of the United States, yet the champions of the west were undaunted
in defending colonization if it should come to that. Again it was the
representative from Massachusetts who replied: “Was Great Britain more
powerful, wealthy and happy before she began to colonize than now?
Notwithstanding all her exhausting wars, all the drain of her colonial
emigration, she was never more populous, more wealthy or more powerful
than she is at this present day. Colonization does not impair the
strength or diminish the wealth of nations. Some now within these walls
may in after times cherish delightful recollections of this day when
America, almost shrinking from the shadow of coming events, first placed
her feet upon untrodden ground, scarcely daring to anticipate the
grandeur which awaited her.”[8]
Equally great was the fear of entanglements with foreign nations, and
particularly war with England because of a violation of the treaty, an
objection which, perhaps, weighed most heavily in defeating the bill.
Nor was this objection ungrounded considering the newness of the nation
and the necessity of a period of peace for knitting together the
internal fibres of strength. For this there was, of course, no
demonstration, nor could it be opposed by proof, and yet there was
courage in the answer: “Arguments founded on what may happen would go
equally to prove the futility of establishing a navy which may be
captured by an adversary. If a measure is right in itself it is unwise
to reject it because its beneficial effects may be defeated by a war.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account