shall could speak, for his personality was as strong and intense as that of any man who ever lived.

But his eloquent denunciation of this indignity offered to the House by the presentation of a petition which would involve, in the execution of its purpose, subornation of perjury and high treason, did not procure the passage of the resolutions of censure. On the contrary, Mr. Adams secured exactly what he wanted; an intense excitement, a storm of tempestuous feeling, an opportunity to speak for several days together on all the points he chose to make, with a final vote, after two weeks, simply to reject the petition, by 166 to 40. Immediately after this vote Mr. Adams rose and stated that he had two more petitions of the same tenor as the one rejected: one from New York and one from Pennsylvania, but in the present disposition of the House he would reserve them for some future occasion. He then proceeded to present all manner of Abolition petitions, some of which coming under the 21st Rule, were not received, and others having the question of reception raised on them, the question was laid on the table. "Mr. Adams in conclusion said that he had now got through with all his petitions with the exception of the two to dissolve the Union, and, as he had before observed, he would, in the present disposition of the House, preserve them for a future occasion.'""

Lord Morpeth, in a lecture delivered in England, in 1851, gave an account of Mr. Adams as a defender "of the right of petition-the right to petition against the continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia, with a majority of the House usually deciding against him, and a portion of it lashed into noise and storm. thought it was very near being, and to some extent it was, quite a sublime position, but it rather detracted from the grandeur of the effect, at least, that his own excitement was so great as to pitch his voice almost into

I

a screech, and to make him more disorderly than all the rest. He put one in mind of a fine old game cock, and occasionally showed great energy and power of sarcasm. I had certainly an opportunity of forming my opinion, as I sat through a speech of his that lasted three days, but then it is fair to mention that the actual sittings hardly lasted above three hours a day; about four, dinner is ready, and they all go away for the day, differing much herein from our practice; and on this occasion they frequently allowed Mr. Adams to sit down and rest. All the time I believe he was not himself for the discontinuance of slavery even in the District of Columbia, but he contended that the Constitution had acceded the free right of petition. One morning he presented a petition for the dissolution of the Union, which raised a great tempest. Mr. Marshall, a fine and graceful speaker, moved a vote of censure upon him. Another member,1 whom I need not name, who was the ablest and fiercest champion whom I heard on the Southern or slaveholder's side, made a most savage onslaught on Mr. Adams; then, up got that 'old man eloquent,' and no one could have reproached him with not understanding how to speak even daggers. His brave, but somewhat troublous spirit, has passed from the scenes upon which he played so conspicuous a part, but he has left behind him some words, the sparks of which are not extinct. Nothing came of all this stir; I used to meet Mr. Adams at dinner while it went on, very calm and undisturbed. After seeing and hearing what takes place in some of these meetings, one is tempted to think that the Union must break up next morning; but the flame appeared generally to smoulder almost as quickly as it ignited. The debates in the Senate, during the same period, were dignified, business-like, not very lively, so it may be judged which House had the most attraction for the passing traveler.2

Well might Lord Morpeth say of Mr. Adams: "He has left behind him some words the sparks of which are not extinct." The fires of hatred smoulder and blaze up and smoulder again, and years do not extinguish them. How careful, then, should every lover of his country be, not to kindle those fires of hatred in the hearts of his countrymen? Long after all the ambitions, all the hopes, all the loves of John Quincy Adams had perished, and only the memory of his greatness remained, that hatred which his own heart had conceived, his own ambition cherished, and his whole intellect nourished, survived; and it grew apace in the hearts of his people, who reverenced him and believed in him, not realizing that his claim for the right of petition was but a cloak for his ambition and a mere excuse to get up a sectional storm, whose fierce winds should bear him in triumph to the White House and thus secure to him both the Presidency, and a triumph over his hated rival, Andrew Jackson. The legacy of hate is a fearful legacy-be it personal, sectional, or national and should be deprecated by every true patriot, as a poison to the life of the nation, the State, and the individual.

ΑΝΝΕΧΑATION OF TEXAS.

The annexation of Texas was distinctly a Democratic measure, and moreover, it was a Jacksonian Democratic

measure.

Gen. Jackson was the most picturesque, as he was one of the grandest, of all the historic figures that have loomed up above the American horizon, and he still remained, in 1844, the head of the Democratic party, though retired from public life; and from the shades of the Hermitage he still dictated its policy.

When, in 1844, he again announced, as he had done whilst President, that "Texas must be annexed, else she might ally herself with England," that "this golden moment must not be lost, or real necessity might compel Texas to look elsewhere for protection," the Democracy at once adopted that policy as a part of their platform ; and with annexation for their war-cry and James K. Polk, a Tennessee, Andrew Jackson Democrat, their candidate, they entered upon that Presidential race, in which was defeated the great leader of the great Whig party, the idol of Kentucky, and probably the most popular man of the day, the country over, Henry Clay. Gen. Jackson was as pronounced in his enmities as was Mr. Adams, and more outspoken. But whilst he was a good hater, his hatred extended only to individuals, and the British nation. Perfectly devoted to the Union of the States, he would never have admitted to his breast, for a moment, even, any sectional feeling whatever. His patriotism was as intense as his love for his friends was ardent; and for country or for friends he would have shed the last drop of his blood. He had hated the British nation with a most intense hatred ever since the war of the Revolution, when British soldiers had taken him prisoner and treated him with indignity, mere lad as he was. He may have always hated Mr. Adams, but he certainly did so after he had defeated him for the Presidency in 1824; and he hated Henry Clay with the most bitter and undying hate because he believed, however unjustly, to the day of his death that Henry Clay had sold him out to Adams in the matter of the Presidency. He was perfectly convinced that Mr. Clay had made a bargain with Mr. Adams by which the latter was chosen President, and his convictions were unchangeable on this subject.

In the annexation of Texas, he saw his opportunity not only to secure a great territory for his beloved country, but also to checkmate Great Britain in her purpose to acquire Texas; to triumph over Mr. Adams and to defeat Henry Clay's dearest ambition and highest hope. At one blow he could crush the three enemies of his life; and he dealt it well.

Gen. Jackson claimed that Texas, properly, belonged to the United States; and the Democrats openly accused Mr. Adams of having yielded up Texas, in exchange for the Floridas, to Spain in the treaty of 1819, because of his settled enmity to the West and South; he being Secretary of State at the time and having arranged the treaty with the Spanish government. Mr. Adams of course denied this. Mr. Clay, in a speech made, in 1819, in opposition to that exchange, had declared that our "title to the Rio Del Norte was as well founded as it was to the island of New Orleans." And had offered some resolutions in the House to the effect that "the equivalent given in the treaty for Texas was inadequate," and that no treaty "purporting to alienate" any part of our territory was "valid without the concurrence of Congress." And when he was Secretary of State, during Mr. Adams' administration, he had made strenuous efforts to regain the lost territory. But, in April of 1844, Mr. Clay wrote a letter from Raleigh, saying, "I do not think that Texas ought to be received into the Union as an integral part of it, in decided opposition to the wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confederacy."1 Of course this "respectable portion" meant the Whig party of the North who were opposed to any increase of Southern territory whatever. This declaration by Mr. Clay alienated his party in the South to a great extent from him; the three States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia, which had all gone for Harrison in 1840, now voting the Democratic ticket. Besides these, the great States of New York and Pennsylvania, and also Maine, returned to their allegiance to the Democratic party, from which the glamour of Gen. Harrison's military fame had temporarily allured them.