at a time when he gave law to Europe. He is now fallen; and it would be ungenerous on our part to pursue him with insult. It little becomes the sycophants, who contributed their best efforts to the success of his enterprises; it little becomes them to accuse him of the miseries he has entailed on the whole race of mankind! The Bourbons, we acknowledge, have done us no harm; but the Bourbons reign over the French; that is sufficient for us to know. A change of dynasty does not alter the interests and political conduct of nations. When we proclaimed our independence, we threw off, not merely the yoke of Bonaparte, but swore never to submit again either to France or to any foreign power! The people of Hayti and France form now two distinct nations, whose public spirit, interests, and politics are directly opposed to each other. Little do we care about the dynasty that governs France; they ought to care as little about the dynasty we have chosen to govern us. Our political and commercial relations with France, as long as she refuses solemnly to acknowledge our independence, cannot be the same as those we entertain with other nations. While we have nothing to apprehend from the pretensions of the latter, we should guard against the insidious plots of the French, and repel their influence and aggression by all the means in our power. The objections urged by the French induce us, naturally, to inquire into the conduct of the Bourbons towards us, since the restoration of that family to the throne of France. We shall ask French politicians, whether Bonaparte, or his minister, sent us Dauxion-Lavaysse, Medina and Dravermann?' Whether it was Bonaparte who sent that host of ex-colonists, the Fontanges, Esmangarts, Laujons, &c.? Let them tell us, that it would have been impossible for Bonaparte to subdue us; for we cannot rely much on the faith of those, who have already once broken it ; nor on the moderation of those who, having made the experiment of force, have not succeeded. What Bonaparte would have found impracticable, is equally impracticable to the Bourbons; and are there not good grounds to believe, that such an affectation of being moderate, proceeds only from the impossibility of subduing us by war ? But the independence of Hayti, they contend, cannot be valid, without a formal recognition. The principle is a part of the law of nations in Europe; it has been admitted by the United States of America, who exerted their utmost efforts to procure the acknowledgment of their independence from England, and obtained a solemn treaty to that effect. Ought the civilised world to renounce the principle? Can re'See the instructions of M. Malouet, Minister of the Navy and Colonies, respecting that system of espionage. volt be a sufficient tille for the acquisition of rights, and force effectual for making them incontestible? A single example of this sort would give birth, in the New World, to revolutions so much the more fatal to Europe, because she is not prepared to encounter them. We have too just, too legitimate a cause, to be under the necessity of supporting it by revolutionary violence. If justice be not an empty sound, or the mere plaything of a child, when opposed to despotism; if solid argument, reason, and equity ultimately prevail; we must be victorious in the present struggle. We too, in turn, appeal to the law of nations. It must be an equitable law, since it governs the world. We admit equally the principle admitted by the United States of America, and are determined to use as much perseverance to procure from France a recognition of our independence, as the United States did, in order to compel England to acknowledge theirs. It cannot be doubted, that the nature of our grievances is widely different from that of the Americans in regard to England. How comes it that, whenever the, independence of Hayti is mentioned, the French writers cite as an example that of the United States? Is it remorse of conscience that urges them? Ought they not to have explained to us the mode by which that solemn treaty was effected? Was it by revolution and violence? Had they powerful auxiliaries, who assisted them with ships, men, ammunition, pecuniary aid, &c. &c. &c.? Or was it merely by the good right of an equitable cause? Let them point out, then, the fatal consequences which followed the revolt of the United States, and inform us whether Europe or even England were injured by it. Did it undermine and destroy the foundation of British power, as was contemplated by the political and crafty designs of the cabinets of Madrid and Versailles? The independence of the United States has been a source of blessings to Europe and the whole world. The independence of our own country would, in its moral and political consequences, be equally productive of happiness to mankind. We are not quite sure, whether the force and propriety of the arguments used by the enemies of our independence, excite in a greater degree pity or contempt. We are told gravely, that England, in acknowledging the independence of America, yielded merely to the impulse of high feeling and benevolence, in behalf of subjects who were originally of British extraction. The ties of blood, which ought to make the separation so painful, were, on the contrary, the stimulus which promoted it; while we, who are of African descent, and have nothing in common with the French, are to continue, notwithstanding, firm in our attach ment. It is not exactly English, but European blood, of which they are speaking. The Americans are white; we on the contrary are black; and, as we are not descended from French blood, we have therefore no claim to that impulse of high feeling and benevolence from the French. Admirable reasoning truly! We admit the argument, such as it is: we want neither the high feeling nor benevolence of our most implacable enemy. Of this we shall remind him again, in the course of the discussion. Would not any person imagine, who should listen to the arguments of these refined politicians, that the Europeans alone received from the Creator an exclusive privilege of forming bodies politic, of governing themselves by their own laws, and engrossing all the advantages of social life; while the other nations of the earth, merely because they are not descended from privileged blood, can establish no claim to rights of inestimable value to man? They ought at least to show us the clause in Adam's will, by which he disinherits us of our natural and political rights, in order to confer them exclusively and entirely on the children of Japhet! Is there a man, amongst the Europeans, gifted with common sense, who is not ashamed of such assertions ? These puerile objections lead us naturally to speak of the preju dices, which we have to endure from the ignorance, pride, and passions of men. M. de Pradt has observed somewhere, that the difference of co-w lor is the key to all colonial questions in this he is perfectly right. From this source every difficulty arises; here all calculations are inter rupted. It is the pivot, upon which all such questions turn for prejudice is so strongly and deeply implanted in hearts blinded and made callous by passion, that it can never be eradicated or subdued. A black king at St. Domingo! The crown on the head of a black! This the French politicians, editors of newspapers, and colonising system-mongers, cannot digest: as if a black king were a phenomenon, never seen before, on the face of the earth! Of all the prejudices which afflict and dishonor the human race, there is none more odious, absurd, and fatal in its consequences, than the prejudice of color. Who is to reign over negroes, if a negro be not fit to be a king? Is royalty the exclusive prerogative of a white complexion? Can there exist any motive of reprobation in the variety of color which diversifies the inhabitants of this globe? Shall we determine from the difference of complexion, the specific qualities of men, physical as well as moral? Is it from the epidermis, or from the heart, that vigor, courage, virtue and vice, good or bad propensities, proceed? If the difference of color be a crime in your eyes; if people of fair com plexion must possess absolute and exclusive sway, take ap arms, rebel against the views of your Creator, by whose pleasure are scattered upon earth varieties of men, as well as of animals, and of other productions, the work of his munificence! Scythian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian, white, black, and yellow, oppress, detest each other! Because you are not of the same hue, exterminate each other! The victorious color shall reign exclusively on earth! But as the difference is produced by the difference of climates, we recommend the victorious color to remain invariably in the climate best suited to it; the European in Europe, the American in America, the African in Africa. For if they quit their native clime, if they spread themselves on the surface of the earth, as was the case in primæval times; after some centuries, there would again be white, black, and yellow; and men would be obliged, once more, to exterminate each other. O blindness! O passions of men! To what do you not drive them? Such however is the doctrine of those, who preach the prejudice of colors. Such the boasted fruits of an enlightened and civilised age. When shall such abomination have an end? When shall men cease at length to hate, to persecute each other? When shall peace, union, universal harmony, extend their reign over the whole earth? Would not this be the end, the highest point of perfection, in reli gion, philosophy, and morals? Then shall be fulfilled the words of the holy Scriptures;' as long as there are men, there shall be men of every color. The idle prejudice, therefore, could not, in the scale of reason, be of any weight against the legitimacy of our rights, and the recognition of the throne and independence of Hayti. They who depend on such frivolities, cover themselves with ridicule and contempt.2 As those politicians perpetually talk of a revolution which would prove fatal to Europe, as it would be unprepared, cannot we ask them, why should the vast continent of America be condemned to inactivity? Are its inhabitants born without the wants, affections, and propensities which animate Europeans? Can there not to be found, in fickle Europe, revolutions such as those which agitate America? Has there never been, at any period, an Isaiah, chap. xiv. 6, 7, 8, 9. 2 His majesty the King of Hayti, on several occasions, when in the act of administering justice to the white, yellow, and the black, (and this frequently occurs,) said that he was of the green: making no distinction of color, but between the honest and dishonest: a strong proof of impartiality, justice, and profound contempt of the absurd and odious prejudice. It would be in vain to accuse us of the same injustice towards the white. We detest the French, but not their color. They who have been our scourge are hated; but we love all men, of whatever color or nation. instance in Europe, of nations, who separated themselves from their mother-country? Switzerland emancipated herself from the yoke of the house of Austria; Portugal severed herself from Spain: the Seven United Provinces of the Low-Countries became a powerful republic, when they detached themselves from the Spanish monarchy, at that time in all its glory. Why do they persist in urging at every moment the example of the United States of America, while we have in Europe similar and more striking examples? They ought to have told us, in what manner the gallant posterity of ancient Helvetia, Lusitania, and Batavia, succeeded in re-asserting their liberty and independence; and owing to what cause those revolutions proved fatal to Europe and to the world. Had such nations rights different from America, to break from an entire system of which they were a part? Is it not a right common to all people, to repel, with every effort in their power, injustice and oppression? Are not all the changes, which have taken place in Europe, the result of revolutions, secession, war, violence, &c. &c.? In what way, in ancient and modern times, have states been converted, some into kingdoms, others into monarchies? Is there a single state in Europe that retains its primitive condition? Is there one which did not depend upon another, before it attained to independence? In what manner have all these states been separated from the whole, of which they made a part? How have some been created, others expunged from the map of empires? Has it not been by revolutions, wars, treaties, that these political changes took place? And were they not effected under the sanction and sacred shield, the laws of European policy? Every one declaims against revolution, and every one has derived advantage from it. There are in Europe, as in the New World, kings, princes, dukes, counts, barons, knights, &c, who owe their political existence to revolution only. Old and new kingdoms have extended their limits by the revolution; new constitutions, new rights, new titles, have been created, which had no other source and support than revolution. No one will consent to renounce his rights and privileges; no one will consent to give back what he has taken; yet all, unanimously, concur in censuring revolution! They regret the past, the good old times, but no one will revert to his former condition; and the most remarkable circumstance is, that the very men who delight most in tumult and revolutions, are the most ridiculously disposed, (for it is infatuation,) to indulge in invectives when speaking of that accursed revolution! We are no lovers of revolutions: no one is more anxious to uphold, than we are, the stability of empires and of human things; but |