If the terms of the
fragment are not misunderstood, they are in full contradiction to all
the written & unwritten evidences of morality: if they are
misunderstood, they are no longer a foundation for the doctrines
which have been built on them.
But even had this doctrine been as true as it is manifestly
false, it would have been asked, to whom is it that the treaties with
France have become _disagreeable_? How will it be proved that they
are _useless_?
The conclusion of the sentence suggests a reflection too strong
to be suppressed `for the party may say with truth that it would not
have allied itself with this nation, if it had been under the present
form of it's government.' The Republic of the U.S. allied itself with
France when under a despotic government. She changes her government,
declares it shall be a Republic, prepares a form of Republic
extremely free, and in the mean time is governing herself as such,
and it is proposed that America shall declare the treaties void
because `it may say with truth that it would not have allied itself
with that nation, if it had been under the present form of it's
government!' Who is the American who can say with truth that he would
not have allied himself to France if she had been a republic? or
that a Republic of any form would be as _disagreeable_ as her antient
despotism?
Upon the whole I conclude
That the treaties are still binding, notwithstanding the change
of government in France: that no part of them, but the clause of
guarantee, holds up _danger_, even at a distance.
Pages:
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175