[22]. This allusion to Mr. Everett requires some explanation. On the 9th of March, 1826, he made a speech on the proposed Constitutional Amendment, in the course of which he said:
“I am not one of those citizens of the North who think it immoral and irreligious to join in putting down a servile insurrection at the South. I am no soldier, my habits and education are very un-military; but there is no cause in which I would sooner buckle a knapsack to my back, and put a musket on my shoulder, than that. I would cede the whole continent to any one who would take it—to England, to France, to Spain; I would see it sunk in the bottom of the ocean, before I would see any part of this fair America converted into a Continental Hayti, by that awful process of bloodshed and desolation, by which alone such a catastrophe could be brought on. The great relation of servitude, in some form or other, with greater or less departures from the theoretic equality of man, is inseparable from our nature. I know no way by which the form of this servitude shall be fixed, but by political institution. Domestic slavery, though, I confess, not that form of servitude which seems to be most beneficial to the master—certainly not that which is most beneficial to the servant—is not, in my judgment, to be set down as an immoral and irreligious relation. I cannot admit that Religion has but one voice to the slave, and that this voice is, ‘Rise against your master.’ No, Sir, the New Testament says, ‘Slaves obey your masters,’ and though I know full well that, in the benignant operations of Christianity, which gathered master and slave around the same communion table, this unfortunate institution disappeared in Europe, yet I cannot admit that, while it subsists, and where it subsists, its duties are not pre-supposed and sanctioned by religion. I certainly am not called upon to meet the charges brought against this institution, yet truth obliges me to say a word more on the subject. I know the condition of the working classes in other countries, and I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the slaves of this country are better clothed and fed, and less hardly worked, than the peasantry of some of the most prosperous States of the continent of Europe.”
[23]. Mr. Buchanan’s speech extended through two sessions of the Committee of the Whole. After some amendments by the Senate, the bill was finally passed, and was approved by the President May 19, 1828. The speech may be found in Gales & Seaton’s Register of Debates, Vol. IV, Part 2, page 2089, et seq.
[24]. Mr. Buchanan’s proposal was not adopted, and on the 2d of March, 1829, the President, Mr. Adams, approved “An act for the continuation of the Cumberland Road.” Mr. Buchanan voted against this bill, saying that he did so reluctantly, but that now the House had voted to keep the Cumberland Road in repair, by erecting toll-gates upon it under the authority of the Federal Government, and so long as this pretension continued to be set up, he would not vote for the construction of any road intended, after its completion, to be thus placed under the jurisdiction of the United States, as he believed it to be entirely unconstitutional.
[25]. This allusion to the Secretaryship of the Russian Mission was, of course, merely playful. George Buchanan had no thought of seeking this appointment, nor would his brother have asked for it.
[26]. Colonel Benton, writing to Mr. Randolph on the 26th of May, said: “Your nomination came up this morning, and was acted upon with great promptness. Tyler called it, but before it was called it was understood that the opposition would support it unanimously. This they did with some degree of empressement. Several voices from their side called for the question as soon as Tyler sat down, among them Louisiana Johnston, and Webster, were most audible. There were no yeas and nays, and nothing said by any person but Tyler, and only a few words by him, and those of course complimentary; the opposition evidently wishing to be observed as supporting it. Everybody is asking me whether you will accept. I tell them what surprises many, but not those who know you, that not a word between you and me had ever passed on such a subject.”
[27]. In this debate, it was charged that the President’s Message was written by Mr. Van Buren, the Secretary of State, and that General Jackson was incapable of writing his official papers. It is very probably true that he did not write some of them. His Proclamation against the Nullifiers is generally assumed to have been written by Edward Livingston. But that General Jackson was capable of writing well, there can be no doubt. I remember, however, that in my youth, during his Presidency, it was generally believed in New England among his political opponents that he was an entirely illiterate man, who could not write an English sentence grammatically, or spell correctly. This belief was too much encouraged by persons who knew better; and it was not until many years afterwards that I learned how unfounded it was. There now lie before me autograph letters of General Jackson, written wholly with his own hand, and written and punctuated with entire correctness, and with no small power of expression. Some of them have been already quoted. These have been, and others will be, printed without the slightest correction. The handwriting is sometimes rather better, for example, than Mr. Webster’s. There is not a single erasure in any one of the letters, and but one very trifling interlineation. The spelling is perfectly correct through-out. General Jackson wrote better English than Washington: and as to King George III, the General was an Addison, in comparison with his majesty.
When General Jackson visited New England as President, in the summer of 1833, the Degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him by Harvard College. This was much ridiculed at the time, in that neighborhood, on account of his supposed illiteracy.
[28]. Mr. Livingston became Secretary of State in May, 1831, in the place of Mr. Van Buren, who resigned in order to be made Minister to England, a post to which he was nominated by the President, but he was not confirmed by the Senate.
[29]. Mr. afterwards Sir William Brown, an eminent banker of extensive American connections.