10 you received an adequate equivalent, or exchanged their demands for an insufficient consideration. Nevertheless, let us pursue the objection. You say that however intrinsically just the claims may have been,'they were renounced because you could not collect them without resort to war. I reply, a just claim against a civilized State is never valueless. If the State is insolvent to-day, it may become able to pay to-morrow; if it refuses to be just to-day, it may become more just to-morrow. It is true that the United States were not bound to declare war for the claims, but it is equally true that they had no right to confiscate them without indemnity. Thus we have reached one of the main defences against these claims, viz : Fifthly. That the ancient treaties had become void as against the United States, and therefore the release of them by France'in 1800 was valueless. This argument involves two propositions : 1. That France flagrantly violated those compacts. 2. That the United States perfectly fulfilled them. 1. That France flagrantly violated those compacts. The chief object of the treaties of 1778 was the establishment of the Liberty, Sovereignty, and Independence of th$ United States, in the war of the Revolution, and for- . ever afterwards. France fulfilled her guarantee in the Revolution; But the merit of that fulfilment is denied. It was said by one of my predecessors, [Mr. Dix,] that France was not moved by generosity or sympathy in entering into the treaties, or in fulfilling them. Sir, a nation whose pride can condescend so far as to receive benefits, vindicates itself fully by the exercise of unquestioning and enduring gratitude. Sir, interest and ambition do indeed too often mingle with the purest and highest of human motives, not less of States than of individuals. But the character of motives must be determined by the character of the actions in which they result. Sir, in the strait of the Revolution, your agents applied for aid, not to the King of France only, but also to the Emperor of Germany, to the Kings of Spain and Prussia, and to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. From neither of them could they gain so much as a protest to discountenance the hire of mercenaries by the German Princes to the King of Great Britain, to be employed with savage Indian tribes against us. But France yielded money, volunteers, recognition, and armed alliance. Was there no merit in that ? It is true that in our oppressor France found a rival to humble and overthrow. But had Britain no other rival or enemy than France ? If there were others, why did we not win them to our side ? France did -indeed exact a guarantee from the United States in exchange for her own. But did we find any othef Power willing to enter into such an exchange ? Moreover, France conceded to us all the conquests which should be made by the allied armies, in the war of the Revolution, except such as would have been useless to us, and even including the Canadas, of which we had so recently assisted to deprive her; and she insisted on no remuneration after the war should end. Was there no magnanimity in that ? France was not actuated chiefly by ambition or revenge in making the engagements of 1778. The People and even the Court were filled with enthusiastic admiration of the United States and of their cause. Fenelon had already educated even Royalty in that cause, in the palace and under the eye of the Grand Monarque. The court, the army, the navy, the rulers and the people of France, had no standard of a hero but Washington, no model of a philosopher but Franklin, nor of a State but the United States. Seventeen years ago I traversed the now deserted and desolate chambers of the Bourbons of France. Never shall I forget the grateful pride I felt when I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=