« AnteriorContinuar »
Jackson and Mr. Adams. What is it? That Gen. Jackson was consulted before the presentation of the treaty to Don Onis for his signature, and that he approved the Sabine as the boundary. General Jackson has denied emphatically all remembrance of the alleged call of Mr. Adams on him, or himself on Mr. Adams, and also, that he ever received the treaty. or returned it, as stated by Mr. Adams, with his approbation of that particular boundary. This issue was made many years ago. In the course of the past year Mr. Adams revived it, and General Jackson met it, in his letter of October 220, 1844, in the following language:
“I say, in advance of the review I shall take of this extraordinary production, thus heralded before the public on the eve of the Presidential election, that the assertion of my haying advised the treaty of 1819, is a barefaced falsehood, without the shadow of proof to sustain it.” &c.
Now, is it not evident, from this ready and unequivocal denial made by General Jackson himself, that the onus probandi fell upon Mr. Adams? Why, then, was it necessary for such an automaton as John P. Kennedy to reiterate it? The friends of General Jackson call for the proof now, while he is living, and Mr. Kennedy, with the aid of his quandam friend, Samuel S. Governeur, must produce it. They think, that the correspondence, alleged to have taken place between General Jackson and Mr. Monroe, will put the issue between General Jackson and Mr. Adams forever at rest; but they may rest assured that the friends of General Jackson will allow no misstatements of the issue Mr. Adams has averred, viz: a previous consultation, and, a previous approbalion of that particular boundary; and to the support of this averment, General Jackson and his: friends will doubtless hold Mr. Adams and his friends, in all their attempts to escape from the “unfortunate dilemma,” in which he has involved himself, and I shall wait for the promised publication of General Jackson's letters. I can readily imagine how it should be, that Mr. Monroe (long after the sig. nature of the treaty, and when Spain was still hanging out against its ratification, and when there was considerable opposition to it here at home) writing to General Jackson of all the
hennep as that . Gorzenie
might well receive responses from him approbatory of what he had done, under all the circumstaces of the case; but this would not aid, in the slightest degree, Mr. Adams, in averring that he had held a personal consultation with General Jackson, and secured his previous approbation of the treaty before it was ratified. The points at issue are, that General Jackson denies positively having been consulted personally by Mr. Adams, in relation to the terms of the treaty; and that he never gave his previous approbation to it. Here is the issue, and Mr. Adams and his friends, with the aid of his diary, must sustain it, or the world will award to them an unenviable position in the history of their country. General Jackson has never de. nied having had a correspondence and consultation with Mr. Monroe, but he denies positively, having had one upon the subject with Mr. Adams. This is the dispute, and Mr. Adams is bound to prove his assertion, with corroborative testimony to sustain his diary, which has never been exhibited to the public gaze. But when did General Jackson ever say or write, that he was dissatisfied with the Florida treaty ab initio? Who pretends that he ever complained of it, or of Mr. Adams' negotiation of it, until he received the communication of Mr. Erving in 1829 ? That communication contained a statement of facts never before known to General Jackson until its reception. In his letter of 1843, to Mr. A. V. Brown, he expressly says—“I was filled with astonishment !" At what was he astonished? At the disclosures made to him in the communication of Mr. Erving? Now, here is the starting point, as far as I have any knowledge of the subject, of General Jackson's opposition to the Florida treaty. Before that, he had learned, no doubt, from Mr. Monroe, the general course of the negotiation, and the difficulties which attended it, and he might have thought that Mr. Monroe had done all that was in his power to get a favorable treaty, and, therefore, may have expressed his approbation to him. But how vast the difference in many cases, between recommending the making of a treaty“ beforehand,” and “acquiescing” in one after it had been done, and could not be altered. The case of the late treaty with Great Britain, in relation to our North-eastern boundary, is an apt treaty after it had been made, who would never have made it themselves ? But after Mr. Erving's statements were made, General Jackson found that Spain had given express authority to her Minister to surrender as far as the Colorado, or even the Rio Del Norte. He saw, in the face of this express authority, that Mr. Adams had accepted the Sabine, and he was filled “with astonishment,” to use his own emphatic language, at such a dereliction of public duty. Now, it settles nothing between these gentlemen to produce General Jackson's letters to Mr. Monroe, or any body else, written after the treaty, and before Mr. Erving's communication. Within these periods, for aught I know, General Jackson may have approved what had been done. I have had no communication with him on the subject, and only judge of this controversy from what I have seen of it in the public newspapers, and from facts concomitant with the great question upon which it originated,
But if he ever had so approved its consummation, it was for the want of that information which never was communicated to the Senate or the public, but which General Jackson, for the first time, learned from Mr. Erving, our Minister to Spain. It is now well established by the correspondence printed by the order of the House of Representatives, that many parts of the most important communications of Mr. Erving to Mr. Adams were suppressed by him and never went to the Senate at all. Hence, they were never known to the public, and only came to the knowledge of Gen. Jackson, through Mr. Erving's statement. I repeat, therefore, that letters from Gen. Jackson, approving directly or inferentially the Florida treaty, written after the treaty was made and before the communication of Mr. Erving to General Jackson in 1829, can prove nothing on the issues now pending between the parties, nor show anything inconsistent with the publications of Gen. Jackson on the subject.-The letter of Mr. Monroe to Gen. Jackson, and his reply, published in the Globe of the 21st January, does not, in the least sustain Mr, Adams in his assertion, that General Jackson approved of the Treaty before its ratification, which is the question in controversy. This letter is precisely as I anticipated, settling nothing at all of the controversy between General Jackson previous consultation or approbation of the Treaty by General Jackson. On the contrary, it entirely negatives, such an idea. Would Mr. Monroe have gone into all the details appertaining thereto, in order to explain the circumstances which governed his action on the Treaty, if General Jackson had been previously consulted and apprised of all the circumstances, as asserted by Mr. Adams ? Such an idea is preposterous, and he may refer in vain to his diary to sustain him in his present position before the country on this subject. Mr. Monroe's letter was dated long after the Treaty. Spain had failed to ratify it, and the subject was lying over for the future and farther action of the Spanish Cortes. In the mean time, many persons, ( Mr. Clay and others,) were insisting on our taking armed possession of Florida and Texas, without farther waiting on the action of Spain. Under these circumstances, Mr. Monroe says to General Jackson, (among may other things,) that he had been decidedly of opinion that we ought to be content with Florida for the present, and until public opinion in that quarter, (the North,) shall be reconciled to any farther change. Why did Mr. Monroe so express himself to General Jackson, if he had been consulted by Mr. Adams before the adoption of the treaty ? Every thing in connection with this subject, taken together, is entirely against Mr. Adams and his diary. Mr. Monroe also alleged to General Jackson, as another reason, why we ought to be satisfied, of the then raging of the Missouri question, and other difficulties by which he was surrounded, to justify his action and conclusions. Now, General Jackson in reply to such a letter says: “ The view you have taken of the conduct of our Government relative to South AMERICA, (not Spain,) in my opinion has been both just and proper, and will be approved by nine-tenths of the nation. It is true, it has been attempted to be wielded by certain demagogues to the injury of the Administration, but, like all other base attempts, has recoiled on its author, and I am clearly of opinion, that for the present we ought to be content with the Floridas.” Does this, in the least, sustain Mr. Adams ? Certainly not, because Mr. Monroe was particular in enumerating the difficulties by which he was surrounded to secure General Jackson's approbaAdams before the treaty was ratified, have been an act of supererogation on the part of Mr. Monroe. The inference to be drawn from this correspondence is, that General Jackson did not know any thing of the particulars of the treaty as stated by Mr. Adams, and that Mr. Monroe's object was to secure his support, by pointing out the difficulties by which he was surrounded, to the treaty which had been negotiated by Mr. Adams and de Onis. Here, then, is the long threatened disclosure that was to settle the issue between General Jackson and Mr. Adams! This, too, is that new work of fiction, (not Horseshoe Robinson,) promised by Mr. John P. Kennedy, in his speech on the Annexation of Texas. If this is all they have to bolster up their tottering reputations and their anti-American feelings, General Jackson need say no more-his friends may rest in ease, and Mr. Adams may continue to gnaw the file of his malignity to the last.