Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

my may be their religion, and so far we have as little to do with it as the law would have to do with a man, who like Madan,* should write a book in defence of a plurality of wives. But the polygamy of the Mormons is no book speculation; it is an act, a fact, and the legislator has to do and deal with acts and facts.

Monogamy is sanctioned by our religion, indeed, as everything pure and holy is, but monogamy goes beyond our religion. It is "a law written in the heart" of our race. The Greeks, the Romans-whose history is rich with noble mothers, wives, and matrons-and the Germans, were monogamists before St. Paul denounced the gods of Greece, at Athens, or Boniface applied the axe to the oak trees in the sacred groves of Germany. Monogamy does not only go with the western Caucasian race, the Europeans and their descendants, beyond Christianity, it goes beyond Common Law. It is one of the primordial elements out of which all law proceeds, or which the law steps in to recognize and to protect. Wedlock, that is, the being locked of one man in wedding to one woman, stands in this respect on a level with property. Property antecedes law, as values, and with them a currency, or circulating medium long precede money. Wedlock, or monogamic marriage, is one of the "categories" of our social thoughts and conceptions, and, therefore, of our social existence. It is one of the elementary distinctions-historical and actual-between European and Asiatic humanity. It is one of the frames of our thoughts, and moulds of our feelings; it is a psychological condition of our jural consciousness, of our liberty, of our literature, of our aspirations, of our religious convictions, and of our domestic being and family relation, the foundation of all that is called polity. It is one of the pre-existing conditions of our existence as civilized white men, as much so as our being moral entities is a pre-existing condition of the idea of law, or of the possibility of a revelation. Strike it out, and you destroy our very being; and when we say our, we mean our race -a race which has its great and broad

destiny, a solemn aim in the great career of civilization, with which no one of us has any right to trifle.

There have been a few exceptions to the pervading monogamic spirit of our western Caucasian race. The Papal See is reported to have permitted bigamy in one or two cases, when a man had married a second wife, erroneously believing that the first was dead. The aberration of Luther regarding the Landgrave of Hesse is well known. Though he erred, he still erred from a desire to save a fellow being, under peculiar circumstances, from the sin of adultery. The most remarkable fact, however, in this connection seems to us, that Napoleon, according to his own dictation, had seriously occupied himself with the introduction of lawful bigamy in the West Indies. In the first volume of the "Mémoires pour Servir à l'Histoire de la France," by Count Montholon, we find a passage which seems to us of an interest, sufficient to warrant us in extracting it at length:

"The question of liberty of the blacks, is a very complicated and very difficult. In Africa and in Asia it has been solved, but it has been done by polygamy. The whites and the blacks form parts of the same family. The chief of the family [how naturally Napoleon here falls at once into the Asiatic view, in speaking of the chief, not of the father of the family!] having white, black and colored wives, the white and mulatto children are brothers, are brought up in the same cradle, have the same name, and sit at the same table. Would it then be impossible to authorize polygamy in our islands, restricting the number of wives to two, a white and a black one? First Consul had some exchange of ideas on this subject with some theologians, in order to prepare this great measure. The patriarchs had several wives. In the first centuries of Christianity, the church tolerated a species of concubinage, the effect of which allowed several women (or wives, the original is femmes) to one man. The Pope, the council, have the authority and the means to authorize a similar institution, since its object would be civilization, the harmony of society, and not to spread the

The

Rev. Martin Madan, author of Theluptora, a Defence of the Plurality of Wives. He lived about 1767. Horace Walpole (page 185, vol. v. of his Letters) calls him "the rogue Madan."

The attention of the philosopher cannot help being arrested by the fact, that at all times property and marriage have stood or fallen together. Wherever fanatics, Protestants, Catholics, and even Mahometans, have attacked the one, they have attacked the other. In Europe, Asia, and America, in ancient times, and in modern, from the Spartan communist to the German Anabaptist, from the Anabaptist to the French communist, and American Oneida men. The reader will find this subject touched upon by Lieber, in his Essays on Labor and Property.

lust of the flesh; the effect of these marriages would be limited to the colonies proper measures would be taken, so that they should not carry disorder into the present state of our society."

A volume might be written on this wild passage, which, nevertheless, is thoroughly Napoleonic, yet, on the other hand, self-contradictory throughout. A pity, that it will not serve the Mormons; for, although favoring bigamy, it founds this "institution" on amalgamation, and the Mormons consider the poor blacks a cursed race, proving the curse by their sable skin.

In spite of these exceptions it is, nevertheless, true that monogamy, together with the endeavor to establish political liberty, the abolition of castes, and a spirit of criticism and freedom in inquiry, opposed to mere tradition, as well as creative freedom in the arts and letters, constitute the main distinctions between Asiatic and European mankind. We know that this does not apply to Russia, but Russia is a mere hybrid between Asia and Europe, a historical intruder, whose destiny is the same with that of Turkey-of being broken up.

We return to our subject. We maintain that in this light, the Mormon polygamy is a subject of the weightiest importance to be considered by him, whose duty it is to decide whether he shall give his assistance to instil so foreign an element into our system, or lend his aid in keeping it at a distance; for, decide he must, since his Constitution demands a Yes or No of him, and does not say, So soon as asked to admit a State you shall vote Yes. If that had been the intention of the framers, they would have made the whole question a matter of judicial record, as our law makes naturalization, but admitting a State into an organism of States is a subject somewhat graver than merely naturalizing an individual.

Yet, it has been asked: Have we not already sanctioned their polity, by allowing them to carry it out in our territory? We do not believe that the Emperor of Russia is answerable for every vileness committed by the Bashkeers. There is one act, indeed, which has appeared like an acknowledgment on our part-we mean the appointment of Brigham Young as governor of Utah, by President Fillmore. This is a single act of a single branch of our government. Every one can err, and this was an error; but errors ought to be retracted. At any rate,

the member of Congress who will be obliged to vote on the admission, must decide the matter in his own conscience, according to the Constitution, good faith, and duty. The decision is his own affair, upon his own responsibility. He must vote as trustee for his country. The wisest farmer may not always be able to prevent degrading irregularity in his outhouses, but he would sink below all hope of rising again to a fair level in the opinion of his neighbors, were he to introduce the corrupt one into the dwelling house as his wedded wife.

Our task has been to answer the question whether the Mormons ought to be admitted into the Union. We have answered some of the main points as well as we are able to do it, and here we take leave of the subject, at least for the present.

We are aware that the perusal of this paper will call up in the mind of many a reflecting reader, a point, which, so far as we know, has never been discussed, and well it is that it has not. If we lay so much stress upon the necessity of keeping the Mormons out of our Union, as we have done, because they would be a sloughing member of the body, what is to be done, if a State, fairly admitted, and forming an integrant part of our system, should become as foul and festering as they now are? Mr. Calhoun, it seems to us, must have found it easy to answer this question; for if, upon the mere ground of a federal contract, a State has the right to secede from the Union, because the contract, according to the conviction of the State has been violated, it logically follows that the Union has a corresponding right of expelling a State, when, according to the conviction of the Union, the contract has been violated. It is upon this ground that the views of Mr. Calhoun have ever appeared to us dangerous to the very States whose especial champion he was considered.

We, whose views on our State-system lie between the two poles marked by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster, do not find it so easy to answer the question. Let us suppose that a State were to turn a sort of former Algiers; or suppose a State were to adopt French communism in the present Proudhon style-no God, no government, no property, no wives, not even polygamy, but with cynicism, in the literal sense of the word--a doggery proclaimed universal; suppose a State should become so filled with Chinese, that the whites were absorbed; or sup

poso a State should become bona fide Africanized; or let us imagine that a territory has formed itself with the consent of Congress into a State, thus being, of course, sovereign, and then applies for admission into the Union. Congress votes No, and the State declines removing the difficulties that may have been in the way. What becomes of the State? An independent empire in the midst of us?*

We might suppose a number of cases of this kind, which do not belong to the politics, but rather to the hyper-politics of a country, and can as little be brought within the sphere of rule and regular action, as the subject of revolution. Blackstone, when he touches upon the question, what is to be done when the crown breaks the British contract? says that the law does not contemplate the case, and that history furnishes the example of James II. being sent off for having done so. So we would say, there is no rule without exception, and there is no institution, which in the combination of certain circumstances, can help dealing

with subjects that must be decided, but for which its own distinct law and character does not furnish the regular means. The knot must be loosened; untie it, if feasible; if not, use Alexander's way. Modern English judges never answer speculative cases; they have invariably replied, When the case comes up, I shall decide it after hearing the law and the facts. Suppositions, as we have made them, would have been in their proper place when the Constitution was formed, if even then, for it has proved a great blessing to our country, that the framers were far-seeing and practical men, who neither threw away the past, merely that they might contrive something new, nor lost themselves in speculative subtleties, or a desire to play at political omniscience, regulating beforehand, all possible combinations. It is an error into which, strange enough, those are now continually falling that arrogate themselves the name of "men of progress."

Once more-the question we proposed to ourselves was: Ought the Mormons to be admitted? And we answer NO.

THE COSSACKS.t

THERE is a great deal of speculation,

though but very little known about the origin of this strange race of people, who have contributed so much by their arms to the aggrandizement of the Russian Empire. Historians and geographers generally treat of them under two distinct heads-the Cossacks of the Don, and the Cossacks of the Dnieper. All the various tribes of Cossacks of which we read, are probably offshoots from the one or the other of these two principal stocks.

We will speak first of the Cossacks of the Dnieper. So long ago as the 15th century, they had their home on the banks of this river, which flowed through their country from North to South. On their north lived the Poles and the Russians. On their south, the Empire of

the Turks extended along the entire Northern coast of the Black Sea. Their country was very appropriately called the Ukraine, that is, the Frontier Country. Its natural situation made it the bulwark of Christendon, against Mohammedanism, in this part of the world, and its inhabitants always had to bear the brunt of the battle, in the long and bloody wars between the Turks and their northern neighbors. Even in times of peace, they were never free from the dangers of sudden invasion. They were obliged to keep themselves continually on the lookout for the enemy. Thus, from the beginning, they became a nation of soldiers. In the times when the Poles were prosperous and powerful, the Cossacks of the Dnieper acknowledged

The whole subject of transition from dependence to sovereignty is involved in theoretical difficulty. In strict philosophy, there is no real source of sovereignty but revolution. Napoleon, when he made his brothers kings, always used the term of acknowledging them as kings, or sovereigns. It was felt by him that the making or constituting a sovereign, implied a contradiction in terms; but if he acknowledged Joseph as Sovereign king of Naples, when had Joseph become such? Not, certainly, by declaring himself a sovereign. He was made a sovereign by the Emperor's proclamation, yet the conqueror merely acknowledged him. Happily, reality goes on in spite of theoretical difficulties of theories.

Brockhaus Gegenwart, band II. -Haathausen; Studien über Russland.

their supremacy, and fought under their banners. Sigismund I., who came to the throne in 1507, was the first Polish king who availed himself of the services of the Cossacks for the defence of his dominions against the Tartars: though we are told that Casimir, the same who united Poland and Lithuania, recognized them as his vassals, and gave them equal privileges with the Polish nobility. In the reign of Stephen Batory, who ascended the throne in 1575, the Cossacks of the Dnieper began to play a very important part in the history of Poland. This king spared no pains for their improvement and amelioration. He trained them to habits of military discipline; he confirmed to them the possession of their territory, and the enjoyment of their own hereditary institutions. The government of the Cossacks was a deinocracy. The principle of equality was recognized, and no Cossack was disqualified by distinctions of rank from attaining the highest offices. Their chief was called the Hetman or Attaman. He was chosen annually, and during his term of office, his authority was unlimited. The Cossacks were not at all exclusive or clannish in their customs. Nobody was excluded from their community; hence their numbers were swollen with fugitives from justice and victims of oppression from the countries around them. Thus they became a mixed race, though the Sclavic element was always predominant. For this reason, some have said that the Cossacks were not, properly speaking, a nation, but only a military organization, for the purposes of defence or plunder, like the Rangers of Texas; or a peculiar class of people, like the Squatters of our Western country. Many of the Cossacks were sailors, rather than horsemen, and the so-called Zafarog Cossacks, who lived on the lower Dnieper, were notorious for their piratical excursions on the Black Sea.

So long as the Poles kept their promises, and respected the liberties of the Cossacks, so long the Cossacks remained faithful subjects of the Poles. But it stands recorded upon the pages of history, that the loyalty of the Cossacks was most shamefully abused by the Poles, who were afterwards summoned to witness the consequences of their injustice, in the dismemberment of their country. The Jesuits crept into Poland. Here, as everywhere else, they laid their plots, and wove their intrigues. They insinuated themselves into the favor of the

king; they gained access to the councils of the nation, and from that time the whole atmosphere of Poland became tainted with bigotry. The Cossacks had never acknowledged the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. They belonged to the Greek Church, which was also the National Church of the Russians. They are damnable heretics, cried the Jesuits. They must forthwith be converted, answered the Poles; and so, the fires of persecution were lighted against this innocent people.

The nobility of Poland too, have just as much to answer for, in their treatment of the Cossacks, as the clergy. The haughty aristocrats could not bear to see the Cossacks enjoying equal privileges with themselves. They wished to make serfs of them. The will of the king was of no effect. The monarchy had become elective, and the king was no better than a foot-ball, to be kicked about by the contending factions. The nobles vied with the priests in oppressing the Cossacks; for intolerance in religiou always goes hand in hand with tyranny in politics. Treaties were disregarded, and old established laws trodden under foot. There lived among the Cossacks at this time, a man by the jaw-breaking name of Chruielneski. He became their Hetman. His property had been violated, and family outraged by a Polish Governor. Private revenge, therefore, added fuel to his patriotism; he made an alliance with the Tartars of the Crimea. An army was raised, large enough to conquer the Poles, who, in 1649, by the treaty of Zborou, were forced to recognize all the rights and privileges of the Cossacks. But the Cossacks had become too far alienated from the Poles, ever to be their friends again. No treaty of peace could close up the breach between them. The Poles and Russians were enemies, and the Cossacks had become formidable enough to hold the balance of power between them. They had generally fought on the side of the Poles, but the wrongs they had suffered, led them to forget their enmity towards the Russians. Their religion was the same as that of the Russians, and they were as nearly allied to them by blood as to the Poles. They accordingly put themselves under the protection of Russia, and in 1654 the treaty of peace was concluded which made them the subjects of the Czar. This event gave a shock to Poland, from which she never recovered.

But the Cossacks of the Dnieper fared no better with the Russians for their masters, than if they had submitted to the oppressions of the Poles. It made little difference that the Czar had sworn to respect their Constitution, and to refrain from interfering in their internal affairs. The Democracy of the Ukraine, and the Absolutism of Russia could not exist together, any more than fire and water. Sooner or later the one was to absorb the other. The process was probably hastened by the turbulent and disorderly spirit of the Cossacks. They were a nation of warriors, and like warlike nations generally, they were heroes on the field of battle, and notorious robbers everywhere else. When Peter the Great and Charles XII. of Sweden were at war with each other, the Cossacks had Mazeppa for their Hetman, the same whom Byron has immortalized; he turned traitor to the Russians, and united his forces to those of Charles. The victory gained by Peter at the Battle of Pultowa, in 1709, gave him full opportunity to exercise his revenge against the rebels. The Cossacks were deprived of their most valuable privileges; they were no longer permitted to choose their own Hetman; and the ambassadors whom they sent to the Czar, to complain of their grievances, were put in chains. Twelve thousand Cossacks ended their days in hard labor, as convicts, upon the Ladoga Canal. Ten thousand more were marched into Persia.

In 1784,

Catherine II. put a finishing stroke to the work, which her predecessor had begun. The boundaries of the Empire had been extended far beyond the Ukraine. The Cossacks were no longer the protectors of the frontier, and hence there was no need of continuing an organization so inconsistent with the despotic system of Russia. They had conspired together to throw off the yoke of Russia, and establish an independent government. Thus a plausible pretext was furnished for their complete annihilation. Some of their number were transported to the banks of the river Kuban, where their descendants still form part of the line of the Caucasus, under the name of Cossacks of the Black Sea. With this exception, the existence of the Cossacks of the Dnieper is only a matter of history, and all traces of their institutions in the Ukraine are well-nigh obliterated.

The Cossacks of the Don, on the contrary, still continue to occupy their an

cient home, in one of the most fertile districts of the Russian Empire. Their territory is a little larger than the State of Indiana, and contains a population of 700,000, of which 150,000 are serfs. Besides these, there are about 300,000 so-called Cossacks, distributed in military colonies along the line of the Caucasus, and through Siberia, who trace their relationship with the Cossacks of the Don, through the early settlers, that were sent out from them, in former times, to those regions, to guard the frontiers. Thus it appears, that the Cossacks of the Russian Empire number, at present, about a million of souls.

As early as 1570, the Cossacks of the Don became tributary to Russia. In those times they were a wild race of freebooters, famous for their courage and skill in war, and their turbulent and predatory spirit. We meet them in history, fighting the battles of the Russians against the Tartars, or taking an active part in the internal convulsions of the empire; engaged, sometimes, in exploring and conquering distant regions previously unknown; at other times, in plundering the caravans that bear the commerce of the Orient from Azof and Astrachan, to Moscow. To the roving and restless spirit of the Cossacks, Russia owes her dominion over Siberia. In the reign of John the Terrible, a Cossack chief by the name of Yermak, in the employment of the Stroganoffs, a family of wealthy merchants, undertook, with a handful of followers, 840 in number, an expedition across the Ural Mountains, which, like the expedition of Cortez to Mexico, resulted in the conquest of an empire, immense in extent, and abounding in inexhaustible mines of gold. The descendants of these adventurers and of those who followed them, now compose the aristocracy of Siberia. Some of them live in the towns: others are stationed in garrisons along the frontiers of China.

From the Cossacks of Siberia, we pass by the Cossacks of the Ural and Orenburg, who number together about 100,000, to those who compose the military line of the Caucasus. Their popu lation amounts to about 150,000, of whom no less than 20,000 are constantly under arms. They occupy the chain of fortified villages or military posts, which extends along the northern frontier of Circassia from the Black Sea to the Caspian. The descendants of the Cossacks who were first sent to this re

« AnteriorContinuar »