Weekly National Intelligencer

WASHINGTON.

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1852.

ISSUES BEFORE THE PEOPLE.—No. III.

INTERVENTION.

First in immediate consequence, of these issues is the attempt on the part of certain Democratic leaders, backed by a host of younger aspirants—many of them "tired of the dull pursuits of civil life," and ready to abandon them for any exciting enterprise that may offer itself—to seduce this People from the great American Republican policy of Peace and Amity with all the Foreign World, into a policy of INTERVENTION in the affairs of the Nations of Europe generally, and in their relations with one another. Against this novel and dangerous doctrine, the Whig National Convention, with a probity and good faith which do the highest honor to its character, unanimously protested as follows:

"That, while struggling freedom everywhere 'enlists the warmest sympathy of the Whig party, we still adhere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced in his Farewell Address, of keeping ourselves free from all entangling alliances with foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand on foreign ground. That our mission as a Republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on other countries our form of government by artifice or force, but to teach by example, and show by our success, moderation, and justice, the blessings of self-government and the advantages of free institutions."

Directly the reverse of this policy, though not introduced into the creed of the Democratic Convention—they justly fearing public opinion too much to hazard their party interests upon that plank—is the doctrine of the Democratic party. The doctrine of Intervention, though carefully excluded from the "platform" of the Democracy, is proclaimed, with others equally obnoxious, by the travelling orators of the party, as it had before been by the same individuals in the Legislative Halls.

This doctrine of the policy and the duty of interference in the affairs of European nations is, as every reader knows, of foreign origin. The seed of the pest was brought to this country by one who was redeemed from captivity by a humane impulse of this Government, and, being scattered about the country, has produced a crop of the most baneful weeds that ever sprung up in a fruitful soil. We should not designate the individual here alluded to—whose name, so far as it is connected with his crusade against the pacific policy of the United States and the institutions which are adapted to it, is even now hardly remembered but as it serves "to point a moral or adorn a tale"—were it not necessary to show the foreign origin as well as the anti-Republican features of this doctrine.

It was in a Speech made by M. KOSSUTH, in the city of Albany, a few weeks before the assembling of the Democratic National Convention, that he expressed himself in the following terms:

"I am informed about what the great political parties consider for the issue of the next Administration, in regard to interior affairs, but I must say—and take it for prophecy if you please, or but for a knowledge of facts—I must say that the great issue of the next Administration is not to be found in those comparatively small internal questions, but in the question of foreign policy. Such are the circumstances of the world that the question of foreign policy will undoubtedly outweigh, in importance and in results, all domestic questions. There is the real difficulty of the next Administration; it will have to meet uncommon circumstances, requiring the utmost energy, and a resolution of activity which it will in vain strive to find—in vain it will strive to rise to the level of circumstances, if the question of foreign policy does not positively enter into the platform, upon which the contending parties settle the character of their intended administration."

Notwithstanding this earnest direct appeal to the Democratic sympathizers, and perhaps in consequence of it, the Convention did not, as we have said, venture to introduce "the exotic doctrines of M. KOSSUTH into "the platform" of its party. The leaders of that party are, however, propagating that and other yet more odious doctrines, with a conformity and a perseverance that leave no doubt of a common purpose on their part to involve this country in schemes, which, in the name and under color of favoring liberty, would not only make our country the reproach and the abhorrence of the civilized world, but would re-act most ruinously upon ourselves.*

Let no man deceive himself into the belief that there is no danger in all this; that the schemes of these agitators are too visionary to be feared, and the partners in them too few and feeble to excite any apprehension. Such a belief would be but the weakness of virtue, confiding too much in the same quality in others. There is danger. Desperate fortunes make men dangerous. Disappointed ambition in individuals, under the cloak of devotion to liberty, and the leniency and inefficiency of our laws in regard to offences against national law, tempt men of ardent spirits to combine, under one pretence or other, for the perpetration of flagrant moral as well as political wrongs. And to prepare the minds of the People to look with composure, and even approbation, on such wrongs, for example, as Intervention by this Government in the political jealousies and conflicts of European Powers; as a career of conquest and plunder of neighboring nations and territories; as a toleration of Filibusterism in general, is the direct tendency of the most applauded harangues of the most popular of the Democratic orators, reports of which are daily reaching us from almost every point of the compass. Willingly would we persuade ourselves that, in pursuing this course, the orators of the Democracy underrate the intelligence and discernment of the great body of the People; that respect enough yet remains among them for the precepts and the morality of the Bible, and for the example of those great ancestors of theirs who built up this Government on those foundations, to enable them to resist the wiles of the tempter, whether he present himself in the shape of a foreign emissary or in that of a native demagogue.

But let us not relax our efforts to defeat the conspiracy against Republican principles, which is proved by the consentaneous action of the most conspicuous Democrats, who are verifying, with all their might, the prediction of the Hungarian, that this foreign element would enter so largely into the canvass for the Presidency as to throw into the shade all questions of domestic interest, and be in fact the pivot on which the election will turn. The expediency of a change in the character of the Foreign Relations of the United States is indeed the ground upon which, more than any other, the election of the Democratic candidate is claimed by his most active supporters.

Among the orators who have lately come forward in popular assemblies to advocate a radical change in the foreign policy of this country, it has really grieved us to find that estimable gentleman, Mr. Senator Cass, whose venerable age and long experience, one would have thought, would by this time have tamed in him the spirit of revolution, the ardor of propagandism, and the avidity for conquest. Seeing, however, demonstration of the contrary, in a speech of his, delivered since the adjournment of Congress, at Tammany Hall, in New York, we are moved to a suspicion that his object must have been to show that he is neither so antiquated in years, nor so conservative in his principles, as the "Democratic Review," some months before the meeting of the Baltimore Nominating Convention, reproached him for being. If this was his purpose, he has certainly succeeded. We shall never again find the "Review" upon his track, especially as in the same speech he expressly declared that he should never again be found in the position of a candidate for the Presidency.

But to come to the extract from his Speech in the Hall of St. Tammany to which we desire to direct the attention of our readers:

"I come," said Gen. Cass, "to the great question of acquisition of territory. We have acquired Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and a part of Mexico. We have quintupled the extent of our dominion. Is there a man in this assembly who does not know that from beginning to end, jeremiad on jeremiad was pronounced, as if the downfall of the Government was certain? The cry was, 'woe, woe to Jerusalem;' but, thank God, Jerusalem is yet a fair city on the hill; shining out a blessed example to all the other nations of the world." [Great applause.] "There is another difference between us, and that is 'intervention.' Look to the Whig papers, and they will tell you that 'intervention' is interfering in the concerns of other nations. If the Emperor of Austria, or the Emperor of Russia, or the Emperor of Hayti, undertake to violate the great principles of public law, and carry into effect their projects, we have the same right to declare that they shall not do so. Are we to stand still and see the laws of nations violated by the strong arm of despotism?" [Cries of 'no, no.'] "I am glad to hear that response of 'no' from true-hearted Americans. You must not stand still and see the feeble oppressed and the strong triumphant. I do not advocate going to war—going to war now; but the time will come, and the time is coming, when the voice of this nation will be potential throughout the world." [Enthusiastic cheers.] "I trust the time will soon come when not a hostile drum shall roll, and not a hostile cannon be fired throughout the world, if we say 'your cause is not a just one.'" [Loud cheers.] "And a glorious consummation that will be for the establishment of true Democratic principles!"

A marvellous change, truly, has come over the spirit of the Democratic party since the subject of a proposed Congress of American Nations at Panama was agitated in the two Houses of Congress, composed at that day of highly distinguished citizens of both parties. Principles have not changed, but the composition of the party has. A number of the statesmen who graced the ranks of the Democratic party during the Administration of the second Adams still survive; but they are, almost without exception, off the stage of public life. The stern opponents of the principle of Intervention, when it was only suspected to lie perdu, so far as the American Nations were concerned, in the Panama project, have gone the way of all flesh, or have yielded the control of the party to a younger brood of statesmen, of more ambitious aspirations, who, instead of being of all things anxious, as their fathers were, to preserve unspotted the fair repute of their country for moderation and strict justice in the conduct of its foreign relations, are for rushing headlong into conflicts not only defensive, but offensive, all over the surface of the globe; and in cases, too, in which their own country has not even a contingent interest. Instead of the venerable Democrats Macon, Tazewell, Livingston, and Drayton and Forsyth, there is now in Congress, of the same party, a different order of men, amongst whom, could the ghosts of those of them who are departed be permitted to revisit earth, and wander among the columns of the Legislative Halls in the Capitol, they might hear, with an astonishment which (had they the gift of speech) they would not be able to express, strange doctrines concerning our international rights and duties, such as are openly avowed now-a-days, not on the hustings and from the scaffoldings of party conventions only, but within the sanctified walls of the Senate itself.

It is refreshing to turn to the recorded judgments of the Democracy of that day, and draw from them copious evidence of that wisdom and clear honesty, in regard to our Foreign Relations, of which the Resolution of the Whig National Convention is a pure and perfect abstract. It is grateful to the senses to be able to quote from the Senate committee's report on the proposed Panama Convention, (from the pen of Mr. Tazewell, sanctioned by Mr. Macon among others,) such truly American sentiments as are to be found in the subjoined expressions of the sentiment of the entire Democratic party, in its controversy with the then Administration. That the Opposition to that Administration was essentially a factious one does not at all detract from the truth of the abstract doctrines which it then announced, and which we are about to cite as a conclusive verdict against the innovations now advocated by Senator Cass, and most of his political associates, in the established policy of this Government.

We turn, first, to the Report of the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, presented to that body by its Chairman, Mr. Macon, on the 16th of January, 1826, and extract from it the following sound and truly conservative sentiments:

"The first question which suggested itself to the committee, at the very threshold of their investigation, was, what cogent reasons now existed for adopting this new and untried measure, [the Panama mission,] so much in conflict with the whole course of policy, uniformly and happily pursued by the United States from almost the very era-tion of this Government to the present hour? By the principles of this policy, inculcated by our wisest statesmen in former days, and approved by the experience of all subsequent time, the true interest of the United States was supposed to be promoted by avoiding all entangling connexions with any other nation whatsoever. Steadily pursuing this course, while they have been desirous to manifest the most cordial good will to all nations, and to maintain with each relations of perfect amity and of commerce, regulated and adjusted by rules of the most fair, equal, and just reciprocity, the United States have hitherto sedulously abstained from ASSOCIATING THEMSELVES IN ANY OTHER WAY, even with those nations for whose welfare the most lively sensibility has been at all times felt, and otherwise manifested."

"During the conflict for freedom and independence, in which these new States of America were so long engaged with their former sovereign, although every heart in the United States beat high in sympathy with them, and fervent aspirations were hourly put up for their success, and although the relations then existing with Spain were well calculated to excite strong irritation and resentment on our part, yet the Government of the United States, convinced of the propriety of a strict adherence to the principles it had ever proclaimed as the rule of its conduct in relation to other nations, forbore to take any part in this struggle, and maintained the most exact neutrality between these belligerents. Nor would it ever recognize the independence of these new Republics until they had become independent in fact, and the situation of their ancient sovereign in relation to them was such as to manifest that he ought no longer to be held responsible for their acts."

"In the opinion of this committee, there is no proposition concerning which the people of the United States are now and ever have been more unanimous than that which denies, not merely the EXPEDIENCY, but the RIGHT of intermeddling with the internal affairs of other States; and especially of seeking to alter any provision they may have thought proper to adopt as a fundamental law, or may have incorporated with their political constitutions."