E 
 
 
Class iii5LjL_ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 THE HONOUBABLE ARTEMAS WARD, 
 
 DELIVERED IN TUB 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF 
 THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 ON THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, 1814, 
 
 ON A BILL 
 
 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE MILITARY 
 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE YEAR ONB 
 THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN. 
 
 BOSTON . 
 PRINTED BY C. STEBBINS, 
 
 i8U. 
 
In excliange 
 
 APR 1 7 ira 
 
 
MR. WARD'S SPEECH, 
 
 On the bill making appropriations for the support of the military establishment of the 
 Uuited States, for the year one thousand eight hundred aod fourteen. 
 
 MJR. SPEAKERy 
 
 I AM against passing- the bill on your table. It contemplates 
 appropiiating the enormous sum of §20,302,906 to tlie support 
 of the military establishment for the present year. Tliis sum, 
 and three times as much more, as is manifest from the well-found- 
 ed calculations of military gentlemen, will be expended in the 
 course of this year, if the army is raised which is authorized by 
 the bills which have been lately passed, and the war for the con- 
 quest of Canada is prosecuted with the degree of folly and im- 
 providence which have hitherto characterized it in its course. 
 
 This appropriation will absorb nearly the whole sum which 
 •will be raised by the loan bill recently enacted. The terms upon 
 which this money will be obtained, requires a more profitable ap- 
 plication of it. When an individual raises money by sending his 
 paper to market, it is considered a sure indication of impending 
 bankruptcy, and is ever found to be the messenger of truth.— 
 When a government, in behalf of all its citizens, raises money 
 upon terms which every individual would reject, were he a bor- 
 rower, as too wasting and extravagant, they ought at least to be 
 able to give a good account of the manner in which it has been 
 expended, and the returns and advantages which are obtained. 
 Bad economy in an individual, is bad economy in the public. But, 
 sir, if this sum, or any larger sum within the resources of the 
 country, was called for to build a navy for the protection of the 
 commerce, and avenging the wrongs of our common country, 
 against the aggression of any and all nations, whether English or 
 French, barbarous or civilized, I should give my vote for it with 
 great promptness and pleasure ; but with a view to the conquest 
 of Canada, or in the support of a war which I view not only to be 
 weak, but wicked, I would as soon vote supplies to be expended 
 in the invasion of Canada by land, as the investment of it by sea. 
 We can as conscientiously pay for the shedding human blood on 
 the plains of Abraham, as on the river St. liawrence. If the 
 character of the contest in which we are engaged, were that 
 which is given to it by the Pi'esident in his message, I should be 
 one of the last men in this house to oppose this appropriation ; 
 and sure I am that my constituents would expend their last dol- 
 lar, and shed their best blood, in its support. If, sir, in the lan- 
 guage of the President, " it appealed for its support to the pure 
 principles of patriotism and the pride of liberty," in the section 
 
of country wliich I have the honour to represent, the withholding 
 of supplies, the refusinc^ to levy men, or raise money, or any other 
 incident, would not impede its prosecution. If, sir, it appealed to 
 these heaven born principles for support, the citizens of Massa- 
 chusetts, never insensible to them, notwithstanding the many 
 dark surmises against them, and the many illiberal, not to say in- 
 decent remarks, to which they have been subject in the course 
 of this debate, would be found where they ever have been, and 
 ever will be, when those pure principles call them to action, in 
 the front rank of effort and danger. Tliis is the proud and ele- 
 vated ground on which the true history of your country has placed 
 them. In the glorious contest which achieved our independence, 
 in which Massachusetts took counsel alone of her courage, her 
 supplies of men and money were greatly beyond that of any other 
 stale in the Union, whatever may be their pride or their boasting. 
 In a war in which " the pure principles of patriotism and the 
 pride of liberty" beat to arms, the place which has ever known 
 Massachusetts, would know her again. 
 
 Though the President has said that the war appeals to " the 
 pure principles of patriotism and the pride of liberty for support," 
 he has not condescended to show how, or in what manner, it does 
 so. It rests wholly in assertion. And if he had said directly the 
 reverse, the position would at least have been as well supported. 
 In my mind, its character is the antipode of that which is given it 
 by the President. The prosecution of it, after the revocation of 
 the orders in council, was unjust, as it respects our enemy, and 
 pre-eminently so, as it respects our own country. Not believing 
 in the justice, necessity, or expediency of the war, 1 am against 
 its farther prosecution ; and it is my wish to admonish the admin- 
 istration to effect an armistice, and make a peace by the only 
 means which are left us, by shutting our hand and withholding 
 supplies. 
 
 Some gentlemen seem to act under the impression that the mi- 
 nority are faulty in not concurring in the granting of supplies ; that 
 the Congress in 1812 having declaied war, we are committed and 
 must make the necessary provision for carrying it on. Phis I do 
 not admit to be sound doctrine. We are as much at liberty to think 
 for ourselves, and act according to our opinions, as our predeces- 
 sors were. Acts of legislatures which are in tlie nature of grants, 
 it is true, are irrevocable, but the declaration of war is not of that 
 character. An after legislature, with reference to such an act, is 
 not bound to effectuate the purposes of a former one. it is not only 
 their liglit, but tiicii- duly, to rrscue their country from destruc- 
 tion. This unjusiifiabie claim of supeiiorily, on behalf of the last 
 Congress, and of a sort of vassalage lo tliein, on the part of the 
 present, is not to be admitted or endured. Whether or not the 
 war was just at the time when it was declared, is of no impor- 
 tance. To prosecute it without cause, is as unwarrantable as to 
 commence it wiliiout justice. After the revocation of the orders 
 in council, I contend that we had no cause for pros^uting the 
 
•war, which was just, even as it respects our enemy. But if .it 
 were just, as it respects our enemy, in the siiuaiioii of our cotm- 
 try it was unjust and cruel, as it respects our own cuuntry, and 
 ai^ainst tlie duty which tlie cjovernment owes to its citizens. If 
 we had just cause of war, as it respects our enemy and our own 
 country, it ought not to have been declared until nctjotiaiion h;.d 
 been fully and fairly tried, and the alternative of war or satisfac- 
 tion had been presented to the enemy. If just cause of war ex- 
 isted, and negotiation had been tried aiul exhausted, to prosecute 
 it by invading Canada, and carrying misery and destruction to its 
 inhabitants, in as much as invading them has no tendency to en- 
 force our rights, which are said to be violated, or to compensate 
 us for the injuries said to be sustained, is wanton and cruel. The 
 mischief done to them is merely gratuitous. To make a war just, 
 as it respects our enemy, it is necessary that they should have 
 done us an injury of such magnitude as to be good sause of war, 
 not accidentally, but intentionally, claiming a right to do it, or in 
 contempt of our rights, and that we should have called for satis- 
 faction, and it should have been denied us War is a tremendous- 
 evil, and ought not to be resorted to for light reasons. It is the 
 last resort, the ultima ratio of man, and the greatest temporal 
 scourge of GOD. It is with surprise and deep regret that I hear 
 it spoken of with so much insensibility by gentlemen of the ma- 
 jority. The bloody, the wasting work of war, seems to be con- 
 sidered as an amusement, or a trifling game of hazard. Having 
 failed in two campaigns, prosecuted at an amazing expense of 
 blood, treasure and human happiness, another effort is spoken of 
 with as much sang froid as a second hit in a game of back gam- 
 mon. 
 
 The misfortune of the world is, that they who declare war do 
 not fight the battles and undergo the miseries of the field. Had 
 the Congress which declared war sat on the snow-banks where 
 Hampton's army encamped, their false or mistaken patriotism 
 would have been cooled, their session would have been short, and 
 we should have had no war. Let gentlemen visit the field of bat- 
 tle, view the bodies of the dead, and hear the groans of the dying; 
 let them follow the maimed and the cripples through all the 
 mazes and miseries of their wretched journey through the re- 
 mainder of life ; let them visit the friends of those who have fallen 
 in battle, and witness their agonies and distress, and they will not 
 expect to compensate for the aggregate of human misery in lofty, 
 unmeaning expressions, of what is due to mistaken national honor. 
 
 To make a war just as it respects our own citizens, the object 
 contended for, ought to be of sufficient magnitude if obtained, to 
 compensate them for all the losses they sustain, and the miseries 
 they suffer in its prosecution ; otherwise more of evil than good 
 will result from it. The expectation of success ought also to be 
 reasonable. These points ought to be so clear that there could be 
 no difference of opinion, among intelligent and honest men. There 
 are cases, it is true, in which a nation ought to take counsel only of 
 
6 
 
 its cuurai^e. When its existence is threatened ana all is at haz- 
 ard, every effort oiii^ht to be made, and if it falls it will fall in 
 triumph. But, sir, in ordinary cases, somethinj^ is due to national 
 interest and national happiness, as well as to visionary notions of 
 national honor. I am as little in the habit of reckonint^ every 
 thinEv in dollars and cents, as any gentleman in this house. But 
 the false patriotism of sacrificine: important mterests and rights to 
 secure pretended ones, deserves severe reprobation ; it is against 
 an important article in my political creed. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nelson) " rejoiced and re- 
 joiced," almost without ceasing, that the discussion of this and its 
 kindred bills, had taken place in the latitude which has been in- 
 dulged, inasmuch as it had afforded au opportunity to the minor 
 rity, to show to the world the evidence of their attachment to the 
 English nation, and the effects of British influence. VVe have been 
 asked again and again, by gentlemen of the majority, from vari- 
 ous quarters of the House, where that spirit of resistance to Bri- 
 tish aggression has fled, which was manifested by the federalists 
 of Boston, in their memorials to Congress, in 806, urging the gov- 
 ernment to war with England, and pledging their lives and for- 
 tunes to prosecute it with vigor ; where those feelings now are, 
 which were exhibited by the federalists at the death of Pierce, 
 who fell by the hand of British violence ; and where that national 
 pride is which was called forth at the insult offered to our sove- 
 reignty, in the attack upon the Chesapeake. It is said by those 
 gentlemen, who with an air of triumph ask these questions, that, 
 when Pierce Mas killed the federalists contended for the honor of 
 burying him, and for the first positions in his funeral train ; and 
 that they thirsted for satisfaction for the insult offered to our na- 
 tional honor, in the affair of the Chesapeake, This is all true 
 
 The same spirit now exists among the same honorable men, and 
 will show itself whenever the purposes of justice, and the honor 
 of the nation require it. The gentlemen who have alhided to these 
 facts, cannot have attended to their operation, and the evidence 
 which they furnish, that the feelings of the federalists are truly 
 American. Siiould the British put forth their hands and touch 
 American interest or insult the honor of our nation, if any want of 
 spirit or power of resistance is discovered in our country, it will be 
 found in the ranks of the majority. When and on what occasion 
 have the gentlemen of the majority exhibited such temper and spi- 
 rit towards the French, under insults and injuries of the most atro- 
 cious nature, as they now bear witness, that the federalists on 
 tilt J occasions manifested towards the English? — On none. I re- 
 peat it, sir, on none — On all occasions our government for twelve 
 years past, have discovered a truckling, submissive temper lo the 
 government of France, which would disgrace the tamest people. 
 When injured and insulted outrageously instead of demanding sat- 
 isfaction and shewing manly and proper resentment, such as our 
 national honor required, our government have condescended to 
 put apologies into their mouths, which ihey have disdained to offer 
 
Tor themselves. When our ships were burnt by French cruisers 
 by order of the Emperor, against all law moral or national, the 
 complaints of our government were expressed in the language of 
 meekness. They merely suggested to the French minister, that 
 if it was necessary to burn our ships to prevent tlie fleets of their 
 enemy from falling in with tliem and obtaining information, (which 
 the French had never intimated) that it was the "most distress- 
 ing mode in which belligerenis exercise might contrary to right." 
 While our government have been very sensitive and tremblingly 
 alive to every symptom of British indecorum, and by a kind of se- 
 cond sight have seen it where it did not exist ; they have licked 
 the dust from the feetof tlie emppror of the French. The maxim 
 " the same disposition which makes one insolent to the weak, 
 makes him abject to the powerful," has been abundantly verified 
 in the conduct of our government towards the two great bellig- 
 erents. 
 
 I have no blind prejudices or partialities for the English nation. 
 My feelings are purely American. Englishmen and Frenchme^i 
 when they violate the rights of our country, it is my wish should 
 receive the same measure of resistance. I was educated in revo- 
 lutionary principles, and inhaled with my first breath something of 
 prejudice against the people with which we are now at war. It 
 does not enter into my views to shew that our enemies are right ; 
 it is true I feel a conviction that the government of our country is 
 wrong, and if this could be shown without seeming to justify our 
 enemy, the task to me would be less unwelcome. This it is impos- 
 sible to avoid. It is a despotism of principles, from the tyranny of 
 which no one who attempts to perform what I feci to be my duty 
 to do, can escape. It i^ impossible to show that one party to a 
 controversy is wrong, without apparently shewing that the other 
 is right. But justice is justice, and right is rigiit, let them apply 
 against whom they will ; and he must be a miserable judge who 
 decides causes according to the parties, and not according to their 
 merits. 
 
 Although the orders in council are out of the question, having 
 bctn revoked, notice given to our government and an armistice 
 proposed by our enemy before hostilities were commenced, yet 
 such have been the allusions to thern as evidencing a disposition on 
 the part of our enemy, waiuonly to invade our commercial rights, 
 and not to be at peace with us, that a few remarks upon tiicm will 
 not be misapplied. » 
 
 The enemy did not consider those orders as an infraction of our 
 rights, as an independent nation. If they reasoned incorrectly 
 and their orders were indefensible, there was nothing of contempt 
 or intentional wrong in their conduct ; of course nothuig to excite 
 the violence of passion, or tliac heat which, aiises when injury is 
 coupled with insult. Injuries of this kind we have often received 
 Irom the French, and tamely submitted. 
 
 At the time of the passing of the Berlin decrees, we were at 
 peace with Prussia, Hamburg and Denmark, and our merchants 
 
8 
 
 were carrying on a profitable trade with them, in various commo- 
 dities, some of -which were of the growth and manufacture of 
 Great Britain. These nations then ranked as free and independ- 
 ent nations, and the trade which we then carried on with them 
 was lawful, and one which we had a right to pursue. The Em- 
 peror of France nor any other government, excepting that of the 
 respective countries above mentioned, had a right to interrupt it. 
 JJonaparte, as a war measure, not as a municipal regulation, re- 
 solved upon the destruction of this trade ; and by means of a mili- 
 tary force compelled the governments of those countries to discon- 
 tinue this trade with us, to the injury of our merchants. Had Bo- 
 naparte htted out ships and captured American property on the 
 high seas, on its passage to those countries, if it were originally of 
 British growth or manufacture, no one wouk! have contended that 
 it was not a violation ot our neutral rights, and that we ought not to 
 have resented it. Where is the difference between his sending a 
 lorce upon the seas to capture our property going to a neutral port, 
 and sending an army by land to do the same thing? If the end is 
 wrong the means used to effect it cannot make it right. The pro- 
 perty of our citizens captured and condemned, under the Berlin 
 decree, greatly exceeded that seized under the Orders in Council, 
 in any given space of time. 
 
 Many months before the Orders in Council were put in execu- 
 tion, we had notice from the British government, that if France was 
 permitted with impunity, to interrupt the trade between neutrals, 
 that she would by way of retaliation interrupt the trade of neutrals 
 with France. However, whether or not the Orders were a just 
 retaliation upon France, and could be inflicted through the sides 
 of a neutral, is of no importance, they having been repealed and 
 due notice given to our government. With reference to the tem- 
 per discovered by our enemy, 1 thought it pertinent to make these 
 remarks. 
 
 After the Orders in Council were revoked, we had no just cause 
 of war, even against our enemy. The complaints of impress- 
 ment did not furnish one, when war was declared. That injuries 
 had been done to us in this respect, is not to be denied. But that 
 they are of the magniiude suggested, there is no pretence ; an ex- 
 aggeration without exaniple, has been the effect of the round num- 
 ber calculation, in which gentlemen have indulged. The subject 
 does not admit of precise certainty, as to the number of our sea- 
 men taken against their will, or the amount of our injury. But the 
 investigation, which one of my honorable colleagues (Mr. Taggart) 
 has made, and which is before the public, shows that it is a mere 
 baggatelle, when compared with the representations of gentlemen 
 of the majority : even within the walls of this house, and in the 
 course of this debate egregious errors have been committed. The 
 gentleman, from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ingersoll) has attempted to as- 
 certain the whole number of impressed American seamen, by 
 comparing the number of American seamen, found on board the 
 Guerriere, Java and Peacock, with the whole number of seamen 
 
9 
 
 on board those vessels, and then supposing, that the whole num- 
 ber of impressed American seamen in all the British ships, bears 
 the same proportion to the whole number of seamen in the Britisli 
 navy. This rule if rightly executed would be uncertain and falla- 
 cious. But the gentleman, has made a mistake of upwards of nine 
 hundred per cent, in the number found on board the Java. He 
 has assumed tiiat she had eleven, whereas she had but one. 
 
 The investigation of this subject which has taken place, before 
 the legislature of Massachusetts, to aid in which, men of both po- 
 litical parties have not only been invited, but compelled to give in- 
 formation, shews that the evil is not only small, but diminishing 
 daily. 
 
 The British nation claim the services of her subjects in time of 
 war, and the right of visiting neutral merchant ships, and taking 
 those who have withdrawn from her support. This right on change 
 of circumstances, she admits to exist in our government, and it is 
 certainly claimed and exercised by other belligerent nations. Her 
 right to impress even her own subjects, has been more than doubt- 
 ed by many of the majority. That the power of compelling the 
 subjects and citizens ot all countries, to contribute their services 
 in time of war exists in some department of their government, 
 cannot be questioned. The chairman of the military committee 
 (in the course of this debate) has intimated, that, if enlisting sol- 
 diers failed, conscription would be the next resort. 
 
 Thoue;h it is admitted that this power exists in our country, it 
 is denied that it appertains to the government of the United States. 
 It belongs to the state governments. As between G. Britain and 
 her subjects, I can see no reason v^hy she by her naval officers, 
 cannot compel the services of her subjects found on the high seas, 
 as well as we ours, by our military officers found on land. If she 
 has a right to the services of her subjects, they have no right to 
 withhold them. There cannot be right against right. If the sub- 
 ject has no right to withhold his services, withdrawing from his 
 country and entering on board a neutral ship is wrong, and to ex- 
 empt him from serving his country because he had withdrawn, 
 would be allowing him to take the advantage of his own vrrong, 
 which is not admissible. But it is said, that they have no right to 
 visit our merchant ships ; that a ship at sea is an extension of our 
 territory. This principle is applicable only to national ships. The 
 argument of the honorable Speaker, proves too much. If his doc- 
 trine is correct, that a neutral merchant ship at sea is an exten- 
 sion of her territory — articles contraband of war — enemy's persons 
 and property may be carried without interruption by neutrals, and 
 the law of nations respecting contraband of war, would be of no ef- 
 fect. It is due to the honor of a neutral nation, to suppose that her 
 armed ships sailing under her authority, will not violate bellige- 
 rent rights, and supply her enemy with articles contraband, 8cc. 
 But this is not due to her merchant vessels. The right to visit 
 them for the purpose of searching for articles contraband, for ene- 
 my's persons and enemies goods, is claimed and exercised by all 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 beillt^crcnt nations. If this doctrine of the Speaker is correct, ife 
 follows of course^ that free ships make free goods, a position which 
 is denied by all writers of respectability on international law. In 
 all cases where free ships make free goods, is the rule hf tween 
 nations, it is the effect of treaties which have changed the common 
 rule, and the mukmg of which shows that the law of nations is 
 otherwise. 
 
 But it is said, that if they visit our ships, they will take not on- 
 ly their own, but our citizens That such is the similarity of Ian- i^ 
 guage, manners, Sec. that it is impossible to discriminate ; and be- 
 cause they cannfet exercise their right, without invading ours, 
 they must abandon theirs. Who is it that occasions this confusion 
 of characters and persons ? The documents which have been read 
 by gentlemen on the other side, to show the magnitude of the inju- 
 ry, and the deternsinaiion to compel a redress in President Wash- 
 ington's time, show also that from the high wages given, and other 
 lures, British seamen were enticed into our service. No means 
 of prevention were adopted to exclude them from our vessels, 
 and avoid this intermixture of persons — and confusion of rights. 
 
 What, sir, is the law in cases analogous ? We may reason from 
 small things, to things of greater magnitude and of a higher 
 nature. My feelings always recoil, when I compare men with pro- 
 perly. 1 am in the habit of estimating human flesh and blood, 
 quite as highly as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cal- 
 houn) 1 also prefer the person of a man to a bale of goods. 1 con- 
 sider him of too high a nature to be placed on a level with pro- 
 pertyi 
 
 If A. has an indefinite quantity of any commodity, which has no 
 ear marks, or distinguishing features ; and B. has also an indefinite 
 quantity of the same commodity — and B. intermixes his with A's, 
 the consequences are, that B. incurs a forfeiture of his right. He 
 •Wrtio creates the confusion of rights, forfeits his right. 1 do not 
 mean to be understood, that as we suffer their men to come on 
 board our ships, and confusion arises, that therefore they have a 
 right to take and hold, not only their subjects, but our citizens.— 
 But certamly as we are the cause of the confusion, it does not seem 
 to be warrantable, to conclude, that they shall not be permitted 
 to take even their own. 
 
 The right to take from American merchantmen, native Ameri- 
 can citizens, or the citizens or subjects of any other country, whe- 
 ther naturalized in America or lioi, is not claimed by the British, 
 and whenever they are taken by mistake, they are dit.charged as 
 soon as the mistake isdiscovereil ; and our government have been 
 invited, again and again, to furnish inlormation that justice might 
 be done. In point of principle, there is no controversy between 
 us, excepting as to her subjects, which have been naturalized in 
 America. A right to their services, she claims in virtue of their 
 native allegiance, which she contends they owe her, and cannat 
 throw off, without her consent. 
 
li 
 
 Upon Uils point, the British p^overnment, and our own, are at 
 issue ; and upon the ground of reason and authority, in my miiid, 
 it is as^ainst us. But if it were not, I ask gentlemen of the majo- 
 rity, who seem to be so sensitive on this subject, if there is any 
 justification for involvinc; our country in war, in the state in which 
 we were, for this class of citizens — when the consequences are, that 
 native American citizens, who are bone of our bone, and flesh ot 
 our flesh, cannot be protected. What is the President's answer 
 to the native American citizens of North Carolina and Maryland, 
 the fathers and mothers, the brothers and sisters, the wives and 
 children, who supplicate protection of o»ir government for themr 
 selves, in the houses, in which they were born and on the soil, on 
 which they and their ancestors have immemorially inhabited— ^ 
 " Ave cannot protect you." 
 
 Why not give this answer to the new born citizens of our couni- 
 try, or even to native citizens, who are not content to share in i.he 
 milk and honey of our land at home, but ask protection on the 
 highway of nations ? Would not the answer to the citizens, " we 
 cannot protect you," be emphatically true, more so than the an- 
 swer to the good people of North Carolina and Maryland ? and 
 could not honorable pride more easily submit to give it ? Great 
 sensibility is discovered by gentlemen in this debate, for the suf- 
 ferings of our naturalized citizens, and it has often been repeated 
 that government dare not refuse to protect them. Many lofty 
 high sounding expressions concerning their rights, and what is 
 due to our national honor, have been repeated again and again.^- 
 Sir, humiliating as the thought is, in the present state of our navy, 
 it is not in the power of the government to protect our naturalized 
 citizens, on the ocean. In attempting it, we take the children's 
 bread, and give it to strangers. 
 
 This class of citizens have no claim upon our government for 
 protection on the high seas, against their native country. We 
 took them, subject to her claim of allegiance, and are bound to 
 protect them on the high seas only against others than their own 
 country. By naturalizing them, no such duly devolves on our 
 country. As well might a man who had mortgaged his estate, 
 and then conveying it, as free of all incumbrances, complain ot hi^ 
 grantee for not paying the debt, to secure wiiich it was conveyed 
 in mortgage. The forms of our naturalization law lead to no dis? 
 closure of the circumstances under which a citizen, who offers 
 himself for naturalization, leaves his own country — Whether or 
 not he is banished, and discharged of all obligations of allegiance, 
 does not appear. The pride of men wh.o can say to native citi- 
 zens, we cannot protect you, and with swelUng importance rush 
 jnto a hopeless war for the protection of naturalized ones, is con-: 
 temptible. 
 
 That allegiance is natural and universal, in ^V mind, is sup- 
 ported by reason and authority. On this subject, the great Eu- 
 ropean nations accord. In our country it has been decided that 
 allegiance is perpetual, by the highest judicial tribunal, and in 
 
IS 
 
 times when the public mind was less agitated than at present. 
 All the purposes for which a man, by the writers on the law oi 
 nations, may emigrate to another country, may be accomplished 
 without his throwing off his allegiance, and, in any event, making 
 Avar against his own. By emigration, and being domiciled in a 
 new country, a person may place himself in such a situation as to 
 incur double or inconsistent duties ; but if he, thus situated, incurs 
 any penalties, he is a subject for mercy ; but it does not alter the 
 Jaw. 
 
 But, sir, if the British impressing her subjects, who have been 
 naturalized, is a cause of war, can it be just as it respects out- 
 own country, that ten of our native citizens should be sacrificed 
 in trying to defend one of them ? We have already lost in a much 
 greater proportion. If an answer could be rightly given in the 
 affirmative, 1 say, to obtain justice by negociation, had not been 
 fully and fairly tried. I shall not wade through an ocean of do- 
 cuments to show what does not exist, by showing what does. Any 
 person who will take the trouble to read the letter from Lord 
 Grenviile to Mr. King, of the 7th of March, 1797, the instructions 
 of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Monroe, of the 5th of January, 1804, and 
 of Mr. Madison to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, of May 17th, 
 1806, and the correspondence between Monroe and Pinkney and 
 the British commissioners, and examine all the other documents 
 m the executive department for twenty years past, will find, that 
 a constant effort has been made, on the part of our enemy, to ad- 
 just all difficulties respecting impressment, upon terms consistent 
 with her preserving the control of her citizens, without distress- 
 ing ours, and that such terms have never been offered or yielded 
 to them by our government. Impressment was not a cause of war 
 when it was declared. The mischief existed in a much greater 
 degree during the administration of Washington. It was consid- 
 ered by him as an evil of a nature not to be remedied by war. 
 Surely no man better knew what was due to the honor or interest 
 of his nation, than the father of his country, or was more ready 
 to assert her claims. Since the rejection of the treaty made by 
 iMonroe and Pinkney, no attempt has been made to effect an ar- 
 rangement respecting impressment. In the treaty with Mr. Ers- 
 kme it was not noticed ; and in the communication from our Sec- 
 retary of State to Mr. Adams, alter war was declared, it is not 
 mentioned. Is it possible that government can now seriously de- 
 clare that a cause of such a nature, which has slept so long, and 
 not even been the subject of negociation, was a justifiable cause 
 of declaring war when we made the declaration ? Surely a gov- 
 ernment whicli, with such an extent of delenceless sea-coast ; 
 with such an amount of property on the ocean unprotected ; with 
 conflicting o])inions among its citizens, would declare war against 
 a nation which had the means of annoying us in the highest de- 
 gree, must have a great avidity for shedding human blood, and 
 must expect the curses and execrations of tlieir suffering country. 
 '1 lie blood of thousands cries to Heaven for vengeance against them. 
 
13 
 
 No men ever more wanted what the celebrated Valdcsso said — 
 " All military men, need a lime for sober relkclion before tlieir 
 death" — than those who involved this once happy country in war. 
 The feelings which gentlemen of the majority discover, as it 
 respects war, in my mind, do no credit to their liearts. To obtain 
 any object by negociation, and in a manner which ought to flatter 
 the pride and honor of our country, docs not seem to afford them 
 any pleasure. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ingcrsoll) 
 when endeavouring to support the position, that taking high ground, 
 as it respected England, was the way to bring her to our feet, 
 referred to the settlement of the affair of the Chesapeake. He 
 spoke of that proud nation as having been brought to humble her- 
 self before us, by spirited measures on our part. In another 
 part of the same address to this committee, instead of rejoicing 
 at this event, he deeply regretted that Congress had not then 
 been in session, that war might have been instantly declared. 
 The habit of our nation was then feverish ; her pulse then beat 
 high, and he seemed to think we should then havf fought with 
 spirit. Can any gentleman wish to obtain by the sword what can 
 be secured by negociation ! ! I desire to thank my GOD that he 
 has not yet suffered such feelings generally to pervade the hearts 
 of my countrymen. 
 
 If we had just cause of war, and negociation had been exhaust- 
 ed, the invasion of Canada is inhuman and barbarous: if success- 
 ful, it has no tendency to put us in possession of our violated 
 rights, or compensate us for cur wrongs. The mischief which 
 is done to the Canadians, is merely gratuitous ; as much as the de- 
 struction of the property of a humble individual. The unoftend- 
 ing Canadians do not stand between us and our rights. Where 
 a government places its citizens or subjects in that situation, the 
 injured country must cut its way through them to the object to 
 which it has a rightful claim. If the British government, by 
 means of armed ships, invade our commercial rights, we are jus- 
 tified in destroying them, and the blood of her subjects will be on 
 the heads of those who administer their government- Their de- 
 struction can be justified, because it is necessary to the attainment 
 of a rightful object. This cannot be said as it respects the in- 
 vasion of Canada. Even misrepresentation has not charged the 
 innocent Cai.adians ivith indulging any feelings inimical to us, un- 
 til acts of outrage were committed against them. All the wrongs 
 which it is pretended we have received, result from the acts of 
 the government to which they are subject, and in whose councils 
 they have no voice. Foul, indeed, must be the robes of the magis- 
 trates of a country to justify washing them in the blood of its in- 
 nocent subjects. The invasion of Canada is like storming an in- 
 firmary. The vanquished will be a present plague and future 
 expense. Suppose the Canadas should be taken : will it do us 
 any good, or our enemies any hurt ? If they are to become a com- 
 ponent part of the United States, and be admitted to all the priv- 
 ileges of freemen, we sha'll then have a motley mixture ot citi- 
 
14 
 
 zens, ignuiaiU of their rights and of their duties, added to a popu- 
 lation already too heterogeneous. If they are held as a conquered 
 province, and considered as a colony, an armed force must be 
 maintained to keep them in order ; at the head of which some 
 future Caesar, or present Bonaparte, may overturn the govern- 
 ment of our country 
 
 The honorable Speaker is impressed, that the pride of England 
 sets a value upon these possessions, and that the brilliant pages of 
 her history will be -arnished by their loss; and that the memory 
 of Wolf, and his splendid victory over Montcalm, cannot, after 
 these possessions are gone froni her, be had in remembrance by 
 the English nation with pleasure. These circumstances may 
 make the purchase dear to us, but give the possessiop., when ob- 
 tained, no ^ditional value. If it has an artificial valufe to our 
 enemy, it will be lost in our hands. Besides, can it be believed 
 that Great Britain would sacrifice her maritime rights, or any 
 principle which enables her to maintain them, to regain the pos- 
 session of the Canadas, which have ever been an expense to her ? 
 Is it in man to believe that she would make a peace and cede the 
 Canadas, and leave us in possession of the fisheries wiiich were 
 secured to us by the treaty of peace ? The fisheries are of more 
 importance to the United States than all the land between the 
 Lakes and the North Pole. The wealth of the deep is inex- 
 hausiibie. Fishing vessels are the cradles in which our most ex- 
 PC'ienced sepmen are rocked. But for them, instead of triumph- 
 j"gin the successes of our naval heroes, an^ passing resolutions of 
 immortality to their memories, we miirht "<'w have been mourn- 
 ing at their defeat, and wecpine: over their faded laurels. 
 
 But, sir, is the conquest of Canada to be ejected ? One honor- 
 able gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) has told us, 
 when attempting to show that British power is less now than when 
 struggling for existence and the freedom of the ^vorld, that it is 
 not bone, and sinew, and muscle, that nerves the arm and makes 
 powerful, but that it is motive and vigor of feeling which does it. 
 Another honorable gentleman (the Speaker) has -aid, that British 
 pride sets a high value on the Canadas. No honorable gentleman 
 will say that the citizens of the United States, as it respects the 
 conquest of Canada, feel the operations of the motives which, in 
 the opinion of the gentleman (Mr. Calhoun") constitute power, 
 when the states in the neighbourhood of the most powerful pro- 
 vince will not move a finger to effect it, but reprobate the attempt 
 in others. In this situation, what prospect can even tliese gentle- 
 men have of obtaining the object of the w^ar — the conquest of 
 Canada ? 
 
 A gentleman from Vermont presses the prosecution of the war 
 for the conf|uest of the ]irovinces, because it will be convenient 
 to us to possess them, we now having too extensive a frontier. Is 
 there no such thing, in the estimation of that gentleman, as na- 
 tional morality, or national justice ? Arc the rights of one nation 
 to be measured by the wishes or wants of another ? The gentle- 
 
15 
 
 i, 
 
 man's farm may be locked in by the lands of his neij^hbour, and he 
 may want them ; but this will hardly justify him, in /o?-o conscicn- 
 tiXf in seizing them by force. 
 
 Believing as I do, that tlie invading of Canada is wrong, I can- 
 not voluntarily aid in the ui.jusi attempt to take it. If 1 were to 
 give my vote for any measure, the object of which is to effectuate 
 that end, I sl\ould offeii'd against the present generation, posteri- 
 ty, my country, and my GOD. Considering the invasion as immor- 
 al, whether or not it has been unskilfully prosecuted, will make 
 no difference with me, as to voting supplies. If the end is wrong, 
 a skilful application of means to effect it, will not make it right. 
 
 On the subject of a navy for the general purposes of the nation, 
 with no reference to the prosecution of the war in which we arc 
 engaged ; and as to the appropriations wluch we ought to afford 
 the administration for the purpose of building a navy, 1 totally 
 disagree with the honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, (Mr. 
 Potter.) He seems to be impressed, that the only way to prevent 
 all governments from engaging in war is to deny them all the 
 means of building ships or making any preparation for it In this, 
 however much I generally value and respect his opinions, I think 
 he is quite erroneous. A government thus sparingly provided for, 
 could do no more good to the people than a blind man in an empty 
 house. 
 
 A naval force is our proper defence. If our liberties are to be 
 preserved, and our commerce and common country defended, we 
 must have one — It is indispensable. With such an extensive sea- 
 coast a million of soldiers could not guard us at all points. Amer- 
 ican valor cannot operate where it is not. A foreign nation, pre- 
 dominant at sea, could, apply their force, wherever we had none. 
 The remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) as 
 to making the war purely defensive on our inland frontier, apply 
 with double force, as to our seaboard. 
 
 Our navy ought to be of such magnitude, as to make it an item 
 in the accounts and considerations of the maritime powers of 
 Europe. But to secure us respect on the ocean from all nations, 
 it is not necessary that our naval force should be competent to 
 coping with any one important European power. Suppose Eng- 
 land and France were at war, each having their five hundred or 
 any other number of ships of war, and the United States with only 
 fifty ; if our rights were invaded by England, the consequence 
 would be, that our weight would be thrown in the scale ot her 
 enemy, and there would be five hund'-ed and fifty against five hun- 
 dred. If France should tresspass against us, our naval power 
 would co-operate with England and the like inequality would be 
 produced against France. So that, though their several force 
 would greatly exceed ours, yet each belligerent, having a view to 
 the force of their enemy, as well as to ours, would find it for their 
 security to respect oar rights. But if our naval force is so con- 
 temptible as to make us of no consideration in the estimation ol 
 
16 
 
 European nations, we shall ever be subject to their rapine atid 
 plunder, as often as they are belligerent, and we neutral. 
 
 " Free trade and sailor's rights" are the order of the day, at 
 court and in tiie country ; and gentlemen are so delighted with 
 the sound, that they pay little regard to the substance. They 
 seem to have taken for their maxim, as it respects sailor's rights, 
 " all for love and the world well lost." 
 
 After the revocation of the orders in council, our commerce was 
 tinder no restrictions from the Britisli, excepting those which the 
 rights of belligerents, by the law of nations, impose upon neu- 
 trals. We have been for so long a time at peace, while the Eu- 
 ropean nations have been at war, that we seem to have forgotten 
 that belligerents have any rights. But, however high we may 
 hold our neutral rights, it is to be considered, when they are put 
 in practice, they must admit some temperament and amicable 
 compromise with the rights of others. Should it be our misfor- 
 tune to continue in war, I think we shall be found to claim and 
 exercise belligerent rights in as high a degree as any nation on 
 earth. Already have our courts gone farther, in condemning pro- 
 perty as a prize of war, than any of the decisions of Sir William 
 Scott. 
 
 That free ships make free goods, or that the flag covers all 
 which sails under it, is not the doctrine of the law of nations, and 
 to have it so settled, is not less against our interest, than against 
 the principles of international law. If a gentleman, who has his 
 home, 710^ on the mountain wave, but on the mountains them- 
 selves, had contended that this was or ought to be the law of na^- 
 tions, I should not have been much surprised. But that the gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ingersoll,) who resides in one of 
 the most flourishing commercial cities in the United States, and 
 Avho every day must behold the abundant fruits of the principle, 
 that free ships do not make free goods, should contend for it, is 
 to me truly astonishing. Situated as wc are, a world by ourselves, 
 naturally, and under a wise administration, might be so politically, 
 the mercantile nations of Europe, will probably be at war ten 
 years, while we shall be but one. If free ships made free goods, 
 the merchants of European belligerent nations would pursue their 
 foreign commerce with their usual profits, only paying freight to 
 a neutral carrier. In the ousiness of carrying, we should have 
 for rivals nations in Europe who, from the lower wages of their 
 seamen and cheaper subsistence, would under work us. But if 
 free ships do not make free goods, the consequence is, that the 
 belligerent owner cannot ship his goods on his own account, but 
 is obliged to sell to a neutral, who secures not only the freight, but 
 the mercantile profit. In our country a great commercial capital 
 is employed in foreign commerce, while those nations who have 
 been our rivals in the carrying trade in tlie existing war between 
 l-Lngland and France, and probably will be in future wars, have 
 little or none. Our merchants as purchasers having anniiiilated 
 their ri\als, have secured not only the mercantile profits, but 
 
17 
 
 the profits of carrying. Immense wealth in our country is the 
 fruit of tlie principle, that free ships do not make free floods. And 
 if we must go to war, the interest of our country requires that 
 we should fight in support of this principle rather than to effect 
 an alteration. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania, contends tliat tlie laws of 
 nations must be altered ; that articles contraband mubt be dimin- 
 ished, and the right of searching for enemies' goods limited and 
 restrained ; and that neither the President of the United States, 
 nor any future President ought to make peace until these changes 
 are effected. Sir, is it for the interest of our country that tiiese 
 alterations in the laws of nations should take place ? In my mind 
 it is not. But if it were, is it in our, power to effect them ? Can 
 we with our armed ships, so few in number that they cannot 
 with all their heroism and valour defend our own ports, enforce a 
 change in the law of nations, and give a new code to the world i" 
 No, sir, there is something in this proposition beyond the dieams 
 of madness. 
 
 Sir — I am one of those who never believed the causes alleg- 
 ed, to be the real causes of the war being declared. It is not in 
 man to control his faith. Wc caniiot believe without evidence, 
 nor disbelieve against it. It is not to be believed that war for the 
 protection ol commerce and sailors' rights, could be forced upon the 
 nation, by those who are not merchants, nor sailors, nor their rcla- 
 lious, nor connections, against the prayers and entreaties of those 
 who are. Nature- has not changed, nor fathers and mothers in the 
 Eastern states, " monsters proved." Miracles, or at least, some- 
 thing more than the declaration of the gentleman from South-Ca- 
 rolina, will be necessary to establish this to be fact. This geri- 
 tleman, in the abundance ot his candor and decent respect for the 
 inhabitants of the Eastern states, supposes that such outrages 
 have been committed against the right of sailors, as to furnish just 
 cause ot war, and that they are by the operation of party spirit so 
 duped and blinded, as to be insensible to the feelings of humanity, 
 and the sufferings of their brethren and kindred. This gentleman 
 would do well to pause and consider how far party feelings, have 
 affected himself. 
 
 They respect human flesh and blood, and the rights and liberties 
 of men, as highly as any member in this House, and they will not 
 condescend to take lessons in humanity from the people of any 
 state in the Union. 
 
 The people ot Massachusetts are not the inferiors of those of the 
 state, which the gentleman has the honor to represent, m the pub- 
 lic or private virtues ; nor in the knowledge of tlic true interest of 
 their country, foreign or domestic ; nor in the pioofs tliey iiave 
 given of zeal and industry in its services, nor in any particular 
 which calls for, and obtains the just considerations of the humane 
 and enlightened. 
 
 'j'here are but three suppositions, upon which I can account for 
 war, being declared by our government against England, at Uie 
 c 
 
18 
 
 time when it took place ; each of %vhich caiTy terror to our coun- 
 trv, accorfiiny to thi- vie^vs, wluch I have of its interests. 
 
 1st. Tluu the Enperor of Fraiice, hud an ascendency in the 
 covn-,ci;s <A' onr nation, from the fears, which he excited, or the 
 hopes he inspired. 
 
 2d. That llie \ic\vs and designs of the administration, were, to 
 destroy the commerce of the country, and make us purely an agrl- 
 cuhural and manufaeuurinp; people. 
 
 3d. That it was ir.tctidcd by the administration, to change the 
 form of our government. 
 
 In adducing the facts and evidence which operate on my mind, 
 in favor of each supposition, I shall endeavor to avoid repeating 
 that which has been laid before the committee, and remarked up- 
 on, by those who have preceded me in this debate, and shall advert 
 to such auxiliary proofs only, as have occurred to me, and not been 
 noticed by others. 
 
 Tiie honorable chairman of the committee of Ways and Means, 
 in the remarks which he submitted to the committee, made frequent 
 allusions to the late Pit >Jcnt, Mr. JefTerson, and to his actions 
 and opinions and those of others concerning him. It cannot there- 
 fore be amiss if I avail myself of his example. 
 
 I have long considered that gentleman as the champion of anti- 
 federalism and democracy, as the main spring and soul of the par- 
 ty which now direct the destinies of our country. It is a fact well 
 known, that he, long since predicted the predominance of French 
 power, and the overthrow of England. England, it has been 
 thought, could do little more than " gather up her garments that 
 sbe might fall with decency." 
 
 With sucli impressions, the hope might have been indulged, 
 though 1 think it v/ould have proved vain, that French favors 
 migh^ be secured by subserviency to French power. To me, sir, 
 the effects of French influence have been as visible in the measures 
 of our government, since the commencement of Mr. Jefferson's pre- 
 sidency, as though they were written in sun beams. A few facts in 
 ac'fliiion to those which have been mentioned by other gentlemen, as 
 evidfiice of French influence, will be suggested without much am- 
 plification or comment. Alter the commencement of the French 
 revolution, the government of France, proclaimed the right of 
 self government to exist in the people of all countries ; and the in- 
 habitants of St. Domingo were declared to be fix;e. In 1806, the 
 merchants of our country carried on a profitable commerce, with 
 tliat Island, as they might lawfully do. Bonaparte then wanted 
 " ships, colonies and commerce," and declared that a rebellion 
 existed in that country, because they refused to submit to his pow- 
 er. Our administration finding the people of St. Domingo, in full 
 possession and exercise of the powers of government, had a right 
 to curry on commerce with them, without asking permission of the 
 Emperor ol France, or any other power. 
 
 A rap from iii • French minister, procured the passing of an act 
 prohibiting this commerce, as promptly as a rap on your table 
 
19 
 
 calls this house to order. In 1801 — 2, when the Spaniards were 
 in alliance with the Enipcrcr vi' Fiance, tlic clu|)rs of J»is arjii.:fs 
 and the instruments of his power, N. Orleans, to which as a pi.'cc 
 of deposit we had aright by treaty, was occluded by thern, and 
 we were deprived of this Hgiu to our threat injury. Spoliations 
 upon our commerce, to a great amount, previously to this lime, 
 had been committed by the Spaniards, and compensation had been 
 demanded and refused. It is a fact, which has frequently been al- 
 luded to by the majority in our debates, and not denied by me, to 
 be true, that gentlemen prominent in the federal party, were for 
 doing our country forcible justice. They were for seizing New- 
 Orleans, and repossessing themselves of rights of which, in viola- 
 tion of good faith, they had been deprived. Upon this occasion, 
 the Demosthenean eloquence of a Morris, was exerted with great 
 force, in the first branch of our legislature, to excite theui to vin- 
 dicate and enforce our rights, but without effect. We were tnjn 
 told, that it was anti-republican, and against the genius of our gov- 
 ernment, to go to war for foreign conquest ; that no considcruuoR 
 ought to induce the United Stales to go to war for fifty years.— 
 The voice of complaints from our injured citizens, was heard ijy 
 our government, but not re]i:arded. The Spaniards were then the 
 allies of the French ; Spanish insults and injuries, were submitted 
 to with lameness. Since the Spaniards commenced their struggle 
 to rescue their country from French bondage, what has been the 
 conduct of our government ? — it has been reversed, instead of 
 manifesting that sympathy, which ought to have been excited, for 
 a people, who were among the first lo acknowledge our indepen- 
 dence, and who were struggling for their own, oar government 
 assumed a hostile attitude. The minister of Spain, Mi . Ouis was 
 not accredited. 
 
 The policy of our government towards Spain, as it respects her 
 American possession, let the members of the twelfth Congress 
 explain what ihe world does not already know. In a contest like 
 that between France and Spain, every man of sentiment must be 
 a party with the latter. To me it is not a subject of indifF>irence, 
 whether Spain is governed by the monarch of i>er choice, or by a 
 mere puppet of a king, wlio will always act uj conformity to the 
 views of the tyrant of Europe, the chief juggler behind the cur- 
 tain. Tne sentiments of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr For- 
 sythe) upon this subject, in my mind, are not only very incorrect, 
 but highly repreheusible. 
 
 The coincidence of the measures of our government, and those 
 of France for many years past, ,i;ust have been the elTect of design 
 and not of accident. Our embargo and non-intercourse laws, 
 have comported exactly with the French continental system. 
 Whatever has been prophesied in France, has come to pass here. 
 The footsteps of Bonaparte, have been visible in all 'he patns of 
 our governraent. The acts of insolence on the part ot I'rance, and 
 submission on the part of our administration are without nu abcr. 
 
 The Emperor of the French assumed the right of interfering 
 
20 
 
 in our iiuinicipal les^ulations, and in the details of acts passed by 
 the legislature of our nation. Mr. Barlow, in his letter to Mr. 
 Monroe, of the 16th of March, 1812, says — 
 
 " The Emperor did not like the hill we have seen before Con- 
 gress, for admitting En;;;!ish s^^oods contracted for before the non- 
 importation law went into operation. I was questioned by ti.e 
 Duke of Bassano on the bill, v/ith a ^ood deal of point, when it 
 iir&t appeared ; and I gave such clear and decided explanations 
 as I thought, at that time, would remove all uneasiness. But I 
 have since heard that the Emperor is not well pleased. If Con- 
 gress had aj)nlicd its lelieving hand to individual cases only, and 
 on personal petitions, it would have excited no suspicions " 
 
 The conduct of Mr. Barlow, while minister in France, was 
 warmly approved by the President. Is there nothing of French 
 influence manifested in this transaction ? Could any thing show it 
 more clearly ? Are the legislature of our country, in the hall of 
 liberty, which v.'e hear so often mentioned, to enquire whether 
 " the Emperor likes a bill" before they pass it ? Many of our me- 
 ritorious citizens who were entitled to the consideration of our 
 government would have been ruined, had they not been permitted 
 to import goods contracted for, before the passing of llie non-im- 
 porta'.ion act. Not to have made a general provision, but to have 
 driven them to a personal petition, would have been unjust and 
 cruel to them, as well as base and servile in our government. Our 
 minister submits to be " questioned with a good deal of point," to 
 make " explanations," tried to remove " uneasiness" on the pait 
 of the Emperor, but after all this he, the Emperor, " was not well 
 satisfied " Had Cham-pagny then told us, that with reference to 
 France " we were less free" than the colony of Jamaica were, as 
 it respects England, it would have been too true ; and he might 
 have added the other epithets which he applied to us, on another 
 occasion, that we were " without honor and without energy." 
 
 As it respects the Berlin and Milan decrees, our government 
 submitted to take the lead in changing the state of things between 
 the two countries, when by a solemn act of legislation, we had 
 committed ourselves on the subject of France being in the wrong, 
 and bound to take the first step. Insults to our national honor and 
 injuries to our national interest have been submitted to patiently, 
 when France has been the aggressor. But thank God, we have 
 reason to hope there is an end of the excess of Fiench power, and 
 that French influence in our councils will cease with it. 
 
 2d. That the views and designs of the government were to de- 
 stroy the commerce of the country, much internal evidence arises 
 from the measures which they adopted. The Embargo was a 
 perpetual law. Against the will of the President and little more 
 than one third of the Senate, it could not be repealed, and com- 
 merce revived. War was declared, without such indications to 
 our commercial citizens as would induce them to bring home their 
 property from abroad. The non-intercourse law was cominued, 
 which put it out of their power to withdraw their funds from the 
 
21 
 
 enemy's country. Every thinij whlcli was done or onuttccl, was 
 calculated to destroy our merchants and comaicrcial capital. The 
 gentleman to whom I have alluded, as the U;ader of tlic dominant 
 party, is the enemy of commerce ; considers threat cities, the con- 
 comitant of commerce, as " great sores" on the body politic, and 
 the, tillers of the earth as GOD's chosen people. lie wishes to 
 see the a[;:riculturist and the mechanic by the side of each other, 
 and that the place which now knows merciiants should know iheni 
 no more. 
 
 3d. 'i'hat it was intended l)y the admiaibtration to chansje tho 
 form of government. 
 
 In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mazie, tb.e ties of our govern- 
 ment were spoken of as Liliputian, and inadequate to the exi- 
 gencies of our coimiry. I believe this imjjression prevails with 
 matiy gentlemen high in the consideration of tiiat class of the 
 people, who now constitute the majority. If they believe that our 
 government is too feeble, that its ties are Liliputian, would it not 
 be of course that they v/ould attempt to make them stronger ? If 
 this were theii- desip;n, v/hat course could have been taken more 
 apt than the one pursued ? If I were one of the administratioir, 
 and this end was in view, no means bcuer adapted to that end 
 could present themselv;es. A. military force would be indispensi- 
 ble. A naval one would not answer. A hundred thousand sea- 
 men would not endanger the liberties of this country, or assist in 
 overturning the government, in as great a degree as one half the 
 army would, which this appropriation is designed to raise and sup- 
 ply. To raise an armed force has ever been the favorite measure 
 of those who have meditated a revolution in their country. When 
 I see a man or a party of men, treading in the footsteps of those 
 v/ho have gone before them, I conclude Uiat they aim at, and will 
 arrive at the same end. What better pretext could be furnished 
 for raising an army, than a v/ar with England and an invasion of 
 Canada ? When the idea prevailed that the conquest of Canada 
 was to be the work of but a few short days, it was generally said, 
 by the friends of administration, and often by men holding high 
 ranks in the army, that from the conquest of Canada they would 
 return and put down federal opposition. All opposition could ea- 
 sily be called by this name, and be subjected to the same fate. If 
 the object of the war, was free trade and sailors' rights, the seat 
 of it would be on the ocean, where they are violated. Instead of 
 expending millions upon the land to no purpose, we should have 
 employed our funds in building ships to meet our enemy on the 
 ocean, where she alone can be met to any effect. Can any mea- 
 sure be more prepostoa'ous than attempting to enforce your rights 
 on the ocean by attacking a detaclied, unimportant territory, 
 •which, if taken, would not distress your enemy, or compel her 
 to do justice i No man can believe, that if Canada was taken, 
 our enemy would abandon the principle for which she contends. 
 We must then, in order to enforce what is considered the righib 
 of naturalized seamen, resort lo the ocean at last, A v/ar mast 
 
23 
 
 be waged which would be interminable, or tnd possibly in our 
 defeat and disgrace ; our sea coasts be laid waste ; thousands of 
 our citizens slain, and tens of thousands reduced to poverty and 
 wretchedness. No administration would subject our country to all 
 the miseries of this war, for no other purpose than the vindica- 
 tion of the rights of naturalized seamen, when out of the juris- 
 diction of the government of our country. Some other object 
 must have been in view. 
 
 These apprehensions may be viewed as the vagaries or wander- 
 ings of a jealous, perhaps, distempered mind. But, to them, who 
 think there is no danger, it may be observed, that the moment of 
 security is the most fatal. All the Republics, which have gone- 
 before us, have lost their liberties, and the people, ever honest, 
 and believing their deceivers to be so, have prepared the shackles 
 for themselves. I fear we, like them, shall not see our danger, 
 until it is too late to avert it. May we learn wisdom from what 
 they liave suffered From the declaration of this war, unless peace 
 is the fruit of the pendmgncgociation, I fear the downfall of Ame- 
 rican liberty may be dated. I do not, sir, believe, that the majority 
 apprehend, that they are ministering to such an end. But I ask 
 gentlemen to consider, what has taken place in our time, and what 
 they have read in the history of other times. We have seen the 
 legislature of France, turned out of the Hall of Liberty, by a mili- 
 tary force, which, it had nurtured and established. We have read 
 in history, that the same Avas done in England, in the days of 
 Cromwell. However secure gentlemen may feel in their seats, it 
 is not impossible they may witness the reaction of the same scenes 
 here, and that the military force, which, they now vote to raise, 
 without being able to render any reason, may ere long put an end 
 to their existence as legislators. Executive patronage and execu- 
 tive influence, are truly alarming. Important miiiiary bills and 
 other bills deeply affecting the rights of persons, are passed into 
 laws, without amendment or alteration, against unanswerable rea- 
 sons, why they ought not to pass, merely because the Executive, 
 or the Head of a department- has suggested, that they were neces- 
 sary, without assigning any reason why they are so. 
 
 1 have been not a little amused at the inconsistency of the 
 grounds taken, and the remarks made, by different gentlemen of 
 the majority, who have taken a part in the debate on this and its 
 kindred bills. The gentleuian from Virginia (Mr. Nelson) in 
 speakiiig of the British orders in council remarked, that under 
 them our commerce had been swept from the ocean j and one 
 would have supposed, from his suggestions, that of our many ships 
 which went to sea, but few escaped. No vessels were the subject 
 of the operation ot these orders, excepting those which wpre 
 bound to France. Another gentleman from South-Carolina (Mr. 
 Eowndes) has undertaken to show, that the Bruish ministry do not 
 propel iy .appreciate the right of impressment, and that the exer- 
 cise ol it, on the nigh seas is of no importance to them ; that al- 
 most the wiiole commerce of this country is directly with England, 
 
S3 
 
 and that of course, takinc: her seamen in her own ports, and in the 
 narrow seas furnislics iier with all the chance to repossess heist If 
 of them, which she would have if she exercised the right oftaki-ig 
 them on the high seas, and thereby exposed our ships to great and 
 unnecessary risque. I shall leave these gentlemen to settle which 
 is wrong, or to show, if they can, that both are right. How the 
 whole, or almost the whole, commerce of our country has been 
 swept from the ocean on its way to France, when it is not destined 
 to go there, but almost exclusively to England, it is difficult for me 
 to conceive ! 
 
 Much has been said upon the subject of opposition, on the part 
 of the minority, to the will and the measures of the majority ; and 
 we have been admonislied to pause and consider the dangerous 
 consequences which must result. Sir, an opposition to wrong 
 measures is always right, and it ought to be continued while those 
 measures are persevered in. Some gentlemen, apparently wish- 
 ing for a union of parties, have invited tlie minority to coalesce. 
 Sir, no man more cordially wishes an end of party distinctions than 
 I do. There is something in the pride and obstinacy of party spi- 
 rit which wars against the public good. It is my wish that it was 
 annihilated. When Mr Jefferson's inaugural speech appeared, 
 I was delighted. I had the pleasing impression, that although he 
 had got into power, by bringing into disrepute men whom I es- 
 teemed more highly than himself,yet,now he was in place, he would 
 administer the government as his speech indicated, and ought 
 to have support. Would to GOD it had been so. If gentlemen 
 of the majority wish for a coalition, I ask them to consider that we 
 differ no more from them, than they do from us ; that it is easier to 
 pass from wrong to right, and from error to truth, than the re- 
 verse. Are gentlemen of the majority sure they arc right ? Have 
 the minority no claims to their consideration ? By their fruits 
 all men and all parties are known. Let federal and what is call- 
 ed republican measures be tested by this, the fairest of all rules. 
 During the presidency of Washington, the administration of the 
 government of our country was attended with embarrassments and 
 difficulties, greater than have been known, at any period of her 
 history. He had to steer our ship on the margin of whirlpools. 
 Let any man look into his own circumstances and prospects, and 
 those of his neighbors then, and at this time, and what a deteriora- 
 tion he will find has taken place 1 let him look into the affairs of 
 our country, and what an awful reverse ! From a proud eminence 
 he will find we have been strangely precipitated, without necessi- 
 ty or apology, into the depths of poverty and disgrace When I 
 reflect what my country might have been, had she availed herself 
 of her advantages and resources, and applied ihem properly ; and, 
 when I consider what she now is, my patience is exhausted ; my 
 indignation cannot be restrained. 
 
 It is supposed by gentlemen that the object of the opposition is 
 to oust the present incumbents from power, and get into place 
 themselves. Whatever iniemperate expressions may have been 
 
24- 
 
 uttered hy ardent men, tendinj; to excite such a belief, I can say 
 Avith great sincerity, with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Shef- 
 fey) 1 have no such views nor warm wishes ; nor do I believe ihat 
 it enters into " the scope of the policy" of those whom I have the 
 honor immediately to represent. Let us have a government pure- 
 ly American ; a government by which the power of the whole will 
 be exerted to preserve the rights and protect the interest of ail the 
 parts, and we care not, what Americans administer it. When this 
 is not the case, a government is the worst of factions. In the 
 Eastern states ; we have too much reason to say " such things are." 
 In the course of debate, many uiifuunded charges of propensity to 
 rebellion have been made against the citizens of Massachusetts. 
 But with all the examples of rebellion which she has had, set her, 
 resistance does not enter into her policy ; though a temperate, 
 manly, determined spirit, will not on any public occasion bewantitip-. 
 Nothing but the extreme of suffering and a thorough conviction 
 that the purposes, for which, government is instituted, cannot be 
 obtained, will drive her to resistance. They have been charged with 
 a design to sever the Union, and insinuations ol tins description, have 
 issued from a quarter, whence they were little to have been ex- 
 pected. Sir, let suggestions, and intimations, of this kind, be propo- 
 gated by whom they will, in what manner they may be, and for 
 whatever purpose, I feel it my duty to repel them, as unjust and 
 unfounded Such are not the views of the federalists cf Massachu- 
 setts. They cling to the Union, as the rock of their salvation, 
 and will die in defence of it, provided they have an equality of be- 
 nefits. But every thing has its " hitherto." There is a point, be- 
 yond which, submission would be a crime. GOD grant, that we 
 may never arrive at this point. 
 
 Allusions have often been had in the course of this debate, to 
 the temper and feeling of the people, and state of patty in Massa- 
 cluisetts, and gentlemen have, with much composure and philoso- 
 phy viewed and compared their strength, and inferences have 
 been drawn against the success of those who have been driven al- 
 most to resistance. The gentlcnjan from Georgia (Mr. Forsythe) 
 seems to suppose, that the people of the Southern states, in the 
 event of an explosion in thcKastern, would have nothing to do, but 
 stand by with composure, and witness the destruction of that par- 
 ty, wlio are the opposers of the prosecution of the war. Instead 
 of contemplating this subject, with the coldness of the gentleman, 
 I turn from it with horror. A contest once begun, GOD only 
 can teli how or when it would end. All parts of the United States 
 will be involved in one common fate ; and it deserves some con- 
 sideraiion from that gentleman, that victory, in the history of the 
 world has never travelled to the Nortii. If the gentleman prop- 
 erly appreciated the effects of such remarks, if he regards the 
 peace and prosperity , of the country, he would suppress them. 
 Wiien a pile is prepared and a train laid, it requires but little to 
 kindle it, and cause an explosion. Such are the character of the 
 laws, which have been enacted, and the temper and &pirir witb.. 
 
25 
 
 %vhich they havQ been passed, as to create great excUemein. 
 Statutes, which consign to poverty and rnin, thousands of people, 
 arc unacted, apparently, without remorse or regret. Insult added 
 to injury, will not long be endured 
 
 The disappointments and the suffering of the citizens of Massa- 
 chusetts have' been great, and they have been borne with a pa- 
 tience, without example in the U. Suites. No oppression is so 
 heavy as that which is inflicted by the perversion or exorbitancy 
 of legal authority. They who pretend to no right, but rely on 
 force, by force may be repelled and punished. But when plunder 
 bears the name of legal seizure, and robbery is perpetrated by ju- 
 dicial sentence, though virtue and patriotism may shrink from aa 
 alliance with rebellion, for a time, yet the oppressor will not al- 
 ways be secure in the robes of the magistrate. The natural eon- 
 sequence of injury is resentment, and a disregard of right often 
 produces a resistance to right itself. 
 
 Two of my colleagues who have preceded me, in this debate, 
 having noticed the obnoxious allusions to my worthy predecessor, 
 I shall content myself with remarking, that his integrity, his do- 
 mestic and private virtues, and his patriotism and public character 
 are s.uch, as to place him beyond the reach of slander, or the need 
 of praise; and I shall leave the public to ju(ige, whether he, or 
 the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Forsyth) who made an attack 
 upon him in his absence, best merit the epithet, " recreant spi- 
 rit," which he applied.* 
 
 * Mr. Forsytk, in his spcecli, used the term " recreant spirit," whlcli it was un- 
 derstood, by many gentlemen, he meant to apply to Mr. Quincy. Mr. Forsyth, in 
 his explanation, said he made oo such application. 
 
 MR. GASTON'S SPEECH, 
 
 UPON THE LOAN BILL. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, in committee of the whole, on the 18th and 
 19th of February, 1814, on the motion to fill the bJank with twenty -five millions (rt"' 
 ■iloilars. 
 
 MS. CHAIRMAN, 
 
 I FEAR I am about to engage in a very injudicious attempt— I 
 fear that the patience of the committee is exhausted, and that it 
 ■would be idle to hope for their attention. It was originally my 
 wish to claim their notice at an early stage of the debate ; but I 
 found this wish was not to be efl'ected but by a competition tor the> 
 floor^ and I thought such a competition not justified by the nature 
 of the remarks which I had to submit. Under these impressions 
 I had made up my ntxind to ^vait until some favorable, unoccupied 
 D 
 
26 
 
 interval should be presented ; and I should not ?2ow have presum- 
 ed to anticipate other gentlemen who seem disposed to address 
 you, but for some extraordinary observations which have just been 
 littered, and which, in my opinion, demand immediate animad- 
 version. 
 
 Tlic geiulemeri from Tennessee, who has this moment resum- 
 ed his seat, (Mr Grundy) seems a little sore that his doctrine of 
 Moral Treason, wluch he promulgated at the last session, should 
 have been so vehemently oppugned by the persons for whose ben- 
 efit he had compiled ii. I am not of the number of those, Mr, 
 Chairman, who have deemed this doctrine worthy of examination. 
 As originally understood, it was so preposterous and so repugnant 
 to the principles of our constitution, that every intelligent free- 
 man found its refutation in the consciousness of his own liberty. 
 By subsequent explanations and definitions, it has been so attenu- 
 ated and subtilized, that what was never very distinct, now almost 
 eludes perception. According to the last attempt at exposition, 
 if it have any nisaning, it would seem to embrace systematic ef- 
 forts to persuade capitalists not to lend money, and the unthinking 
 youth not to enlist as soldiers to carry on the war against Canada. 
 His denunciations of such a system — of the existence of which I 
 know nothing; and which, if it exist, is innocent or criminal ac- 
 coi'ding to the viotives from which it springs —pass by me alto- 
 gether unheeded. But his unfounded imputations upon some of 
 the best men and truest patriots of the country ; and his attempt 
 to support /i/.s doctrine by their example ought to be repelled, and 
 a very short notice will suffice for that purpose. 
 
 The gentleman has referred to the act of 1 4th July, 1798, the 
 much misrepresented and abused sedition law. It is diflficult for 
 me to express my astonishment at the construction which he af- 
 fixes to the first section of this act Need we wonder at any cl'- 
 ror, however gross, at any prejudice, however irrational, prevail- 
 ing in respect to party measures and party opinions, when we find 
 a p-ofessional gentleman assigning to a law a meaning which, but 
 for what we have heard, would have been pronounced impossible 
 on the part of any man of ordinary good sense ? The first section 
 of this law declares, that if any persons shall conspire together, 
 with intent to ojijiosc any measures of the government of the U. 
 States, and in pursuance of such intent shall counsel, or attempt 
 to procure, insurrcctions^riots^ Isfc. they shall be deemed guilty of 
 a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. Can it be 
 necessary to ask what was meant in this law by the expression 
 " with intent to ojijiose any measures of the government ?" To op- 
 pose, in its plain original sense, necessarily implies physical re- 
 sisiarjce — the exercise oi force. It is metaphorically used, in- 
 deed, to signify dissuasion, as the word to combat is applied to 
 denote a controversy in argument ; and a law prohibiting single 
 combats might as well be interpreied to forbid controversies in 
 discourse, as a law prohibiting c.pposition to the measyres of gov- 
 ernment construed to interdict the expression of honest opinions 
 
S7 
 
 that may retard their operations. But the act is still more expli- 
 cit. To constitute crime, it requires no,t ouly that the persons 
 should combine " with intent to oppose the measures of govern- 
 ment," but that in pursuance of bucli intent tliey should proceed 
 to '* counsel or attempt to procure insurrections, riots," 8cc. The 
 design of the act is unccpuvocal — it is to check and punish incipi- 
 ent treason, before it has manifested itself in actual war against the 
 nation. It was altogether unnecessary, if there had been any com- 
 mon law applicable in the courts of the United States ; for in ev- 
 ery government under Heaven, the acts which it describes are 
 made punishable. A doubt whether the common law had a fede- 
 ral existence, alone occasioned the passing of the law. Yet we 
 are gravely asked if, in tlie year 1798, men had combined together 
 to dissuade persons from lending money to the government, or 
 from enlisting in the army ; v/hether they could not have been 
 punished under this law ? No, sir — No, sir. There was not a 
 prosecuting officer in the United States so ignorant of his duty, as^ 
 to dare to bring forward an indictment upon such a pretext. 
 
 To the next section of tiiis abused act, the gentleman has given 
 an interpretation as destitute of plausibility, even as his cxpusiiion 
 of the first section. To find a warrant for his doctrine of moral 
 treason, or to lessen its odium by casting reproach on others, the 
 gentleman has charged, that this section subjected to indictment 
 and punishment the publication of scandalous and malicious writ- 
 ings against the government although they might be true — and that 
 had it not been for the third section of the act, which his prede- 
 cessor moved in the House of Representatives after the bill had 
 passed the Senate, the truth would have afforded no defence on an 
 indictment for a libel against the government. Sir, this position 
 is utterly untenable — No part of is true. The gentleman must 
 be presumed to know, and ought to recollect, that when an offence 
 is ci'eaied by statute, every word of the description of the olTencc 
 is material and essential. What are the words describing the ot- 
 fence ? "If any person shall write, print, or publish ^uy false., 
 scandalous and malicious wilting against the govcrnuicni. Sec." 
 It is a necessary part of the offence that the writing sliould be 
 false. If it be not false, then the crime has not been commiited, 
 the law has not been broken, and punishment cannot be inilictcd. 
 Why then, I may be asked, was the third section, moved by the 
 gentleman's predecessor, inserted in the law ' i'he answer is, to 
 avoid all cavil, all real or pretended doubt, all foundation for the 
 charge that would have been made had it been rejected. It might 
 have been pretended, that as on an indictment for libel at com- 
 mon law, the truth or falsehood of the charge was not a matter ol 
 inquiry before the jury, so on an indictment for libel u.ider this 
 actj»riotwithstanding its plain words, the falsehood of ihe publica- 
 tion was not material to consliiute the ofience ; and luid ihe pro- 
 posed amendment been rejected, from the specimen wc have this 
 day had of the course of legal thinking of one of the bar of Ten- 
 nessee, there is a moral certainty that the law would have been 
 
28 
 
 there stigt-natizecl as designed to prohibit the publication of truth. 
 To adopt the amendment, removed all pretext for such a misre- 
 presentation. It was accordingly incorporated into the law ; and 
 to shew that it was not introductory of any 12ctj principle, it was 
 expressed as declaratory of the preceding section, " And be it 
 enacted and declared, that it shall be lawful for the defendant, on 
 trial, to give in evidence, va his defence, the truth of the matter 
 charged as a libel." No, sir — The idea of punishing truth, when 
 pi'blished agair.st the officers of the government, was reserved un- 
 til more recent times — until the abused sedition law had expired, 
 
 and the champions of a free press were safely fixed in power. 
 
 Surely the gentleman has not been so inattentive to the course of 
 public proceedings, as never to have heard of the case of Harry 
 Croswell. He for an alleged libel on Mr. Jeff"erson, was indicted 
 at common law, not under the horrible sedition act ; he was not 
 permitted to prove the truth of his publication, and was thus con- 
 victed 1 
 
 I have done, sir, with the gentleman from Tennessee, his moral 
 treason, and his exposition of the sedition law — and will endeavor 
 to call your attention to subjects not altogether so foreign from 
 the bill upon the tabic. The object of the bill is to authorise a 
 toan to the government of the United States. The precise prop- 
 osition before you is to declare what sum shall be borrowed ; — 
 " twenty-five millions of dollars." — Enormous as is the addition 
 which is thus proposed to be made to our debts, could it be shewn 
 to be necessary to accomplish any purposes demanded by the ho- 
 nor and Avelfare of the co-untry, it assuredly would meet with no 
 opposition from nic. Is a loan wanted, or revenue required to 
 enable the government to pay off" its just engagements ? to give 
 security and protection to any part of our territory, or any portion 
 of our citizens ? to afford to our gallant navy, (that precious relict 
 of better days) such encouragement and extension as may enable 
 it more effectually to vindicate our rights on the element where 
 they have been assailed l My voice and assistance shall be cheer- 
 fully rendered to obtain them. Let the present proposition be 
 Avithdrawn, and let it be moved to fill the blank with such sum as 
 bhall be adequate to supply any deficiency of revenue wanted for 
 these purposes, and I will second the motion. Nay, sir, should the 
 present proposition be rejected, (for while it is pending, a smaller 
 •sum cannot be moved) and none of those who are most conversant 
 Avith the state of our finances, should come forward with a further 
 proposition, I will myself undertake to move the sum which shall 
 appear competent to eff'ect all these objects. But, sir, this enor- 
 mous sum is v.anted not for these purposes : it is avowedly not 
 necessary, except to carry on the scheme of invasion and conquest 
 against the Canadas. To this scheme I have never been a friend ; 
 but to its prosecution noiv, I have invincible objections, founded 
 on considerations of justice, humanity and national policy. These 
 objections I wish to explain and enforce, and thus avail myself of 
 v,n onnoriuniiy of discussing some of the main: interesting topics 
 
29 
 
 \¥hich grow out of the alarming state of the nation. I fear tluit 
 all I can do will avail nothing : but. sir, rcpvcscniing a respecta- 
 ble portion of the American people who are sufTtiing with pecu- 
 liar severity from the pressure of this unfortunate and mismanag- 
 ed war ; who, with me, believe no good is to grow cut of it, and 
 who apprehend, from its continuance, evils, compared w ill) which 
 all they have yet suffered are but trifles light as air — I shouUl be 
 unfaithful to them and myself if I did not interpose my best cfiurts 
 to arrest the downhill career of ruin. In performing this duty. I 
 shall certainly say the things I do think. Endeavoring to use 
 such language only as is consistent with self-respect aid decency 
 towards those who differ from me in opinion, I mean freely to ex- 
 ercise the right which belongs to my station. 
 
 Right ! did I say, sir ? The expression is inaccurate ; once in- 
 deed there did exist in this house the 7-ight of free discussion It was 
 once deemed a constitutional privilege for every member to bring 
 forward any proposition he deemed beneficial to tie country, and 
 support it by whatever arguments he could adduce ; to ofltr a- 
 mendments to the propositions of others, so as to render them, in 
 his judgment, more unexceptionable ; and to state the reasons of 
 his dissent from any measure on which he was called to vote, and 
 endeavor to impress his opinion on others. No doubt a vast por- 
 tion of the good people of this republic yet believe tliat such is the 
 course of proceedings here. Little do they dream of the compli- 
 cated machinery, by means of which every privilege, except that 
 of thinking, is made to depend on the pleasure, the courtesy, the 
 whim of the majority. — By certain interpolations into our practice, 
 but which no where shew their hideous front in our written code, 
 the system of suppressing the liberty of speech is brought to a de- 
 gree of perfection that almost astonishes its authors. A gtntLe- 
 inan wishes to bring forward an original proposition — He must 
 first state it, and ohivcin permission from a majority of tiic house, to 
 let it be considered, before he can shew the propriety of axiopling 
 it, or ask even for a decision upon it. Thus is annihilated the 
 right of originating a proposition. But a proposition is originated 
 by others, it is passed through tlie ordeal of consideration, and he 
 is desirous of amending its defects, or of exposing its impropriety. 
 This is, perhaps, deemed inconvenient I)y the majority. It may 
 give them trouble, or bring forward a discussion which titey do net 
 wish the people to hear, or detain them too long fiom tlieir dinners 
 — a new species of legerdemain is resorted to. Tlie previous 
 question, utterly perverted from its original and legitimate use, is 
 demanded ; the demand is supported by a majority. In an instant 
 all the proposed amendments disappear ; every tongue is so fetter- 
 ed, that it can utter but aye or no, and the proposition becomes a 
 law without deliberation, without correction, and without debate. 
 And this process is called legislation I And the hall in whicli these 
 goodly doings are transacted is sometimes termed the Temple ol 
 Liberty ! Sir, this procedure must be corrected, or freedom is 
 ^ejected from her citadel, and woimded in her very vitals. Incon- 
 
30 
 
 venicncies also result. to ihc inajority from this tyrannical exercise 
 of power, sufficient, perhaps, to counterbalance all the benefits 
 Avhicli can bu derived from ii. Gentlemen often complain that the 
 minority do not pursue the practice which is adopted by minori- 
 ties elsewhere. In England, say they, the opposition address the 
 house and the nation only on great fundamental questions involv- 
 ing disputed principles, and do not hang on the skirts of every 
 bill figliting the ministry, through all the details of their measures. 
 Why is not the same course pursued here ? The answer is obvi- 
 ous. Here the minority arc not allowed to bring forward these 
 great fundamental questions — they have no opportunity of shewing 
 their views, except such as may be casually ?iftorded by some mea- 
 sure of the majority, on which they are good natured enough to 
 allow debate. Unless they avail themselves of such a bill in evct- 
 ry stage of it, as a peg on which to hang their observations, they 
 must be utterly mute. Thus it happens too, that there is frequent- 
 ly not any discernible connectionbetween the topics discussed, and 
 the subject supposed to be under debate. Perhaps the very 
 course 1 am pursuing is an apt illustration of these facts. Some 
 weeks since I submitted to the House a resolution which I thought 
 eminently deserving of attention — a resolution " that pending our 
 negociation with G. Britain, it is inexpedient to prosecute a war 
 of invasion and conquest against the Canadas." This resolution 
 could not be discussed, for the House would not vouchsafe to it a 
 consideration. But, as on the proposition now before you, debate 
 is indulged, and has assumed a latitude that seems to permit eve- 
 ry thing connected with the war, I am willing to embrace the oc- 
 casion to support my favorite proposition, to which a regular 
 hearing has been refused. Grateful even for this opportunity, I 
 acknowledge the courtesy which is shewn me by the majority ; 
 sorely as I feel the degiadaiion of indirectly using as a favor what, 
 us a freeman and the representative of freemen, 1 ought openly to 
 enjoy as a right. 
 
 It is very far from n:y design to enter into a particular inquiry 
 as to the origin of this war, or as to its causes whether technical or 
 real. Such an inquiry would present a theme too important and 
 too extensive to be taken up as collateral or subsidiary to some 
 other investigation. At the present moment loo, it is not so es- 
 sential to know how this war has been produced, as it is to ascer- 
 tain how it ought to be prosecuted, and how it may be speedily 
 and lairly brought to a close — So far only as a knowledge of the 
 origin and causes of this war may be usclul in producing this re- 
 sult, is it my purpose now to consider ihem. 
 
 An honoiablc gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) 
 claims for this war the character of delensive. He has properly 
 remarked that a war defensive in its origin may oe offensive in its 
 operaliuns, and of consecjuence that its character is not defined by 
 the nature of these op;;raiions. Bui, sir, he is incorrect in suppos- 
 ing that its charactc)' is to be tested by the ?notivc which occasion- 
 ed its iiistituiion. War is offensive or defensive, simpiy as it is 
 
31 
 
 instituted by or ac^ainst a nation. It is an appcn.l to force to decide 
 controversies between sovereigns who admit of no other tribunal 
 to determine their rights. There is a perfect analogy in this re- 
 spect between nations at war, and individuals lidgating in a co\irt 
 of justice. He who commences the j)rocess is Uic actor — He wlio 
 is summoned to the controversy, has the defensive part, and it is 
 in this view inimateriul whether the motive to litigation be found 
 in an honest desire to claim wliat is due, or in the malignant wish 
 to oppress and defraud. For the correctness of thcsp ideas, I rely 
 not on my own judgment. This ought not v/ithout hesitation to 
 be opposed to that of the honorable guntleinan who, independently 
 of his personal claims to attention, as ciuiirman of tlie committee 
 of foreign relations, must be presumed to be particularly conver- 
 sant with all questions connected with national law. Any person 
 who has the curiosity to test these sentiments by the authority of 
 jurists will find them explicitly recognized ijy IJurlamaqui vol. 2. 
 part 4. chapt. 3. §. 5. and by Vattel — b. 3. chapt. 3. §. 35 and 37. 
 
 Nor let it be deemed, sir, of no importance whether this war be 
 called defensive or offensive. It is always of moment that things 
 should be called by their right names. INIany of the vices and 
 most of the errors of men arise from the misapplication of terms. 
 The reasoner, who uses words to convey a meaning variant from 
 their received signification, will probably occasion error, however 
 precise his definitions. In spite of definitions, the hearer appro- 
 priates to his expressions the sense which usage has associated, 
 and a confusion of ideas fatal to truth is the unavoidable conse- 
 quence. Many phrases too, besides their primary meaning con- 
 vey a secondary sense of commendation or blame. By an artful 
 use of these, tlie sophist is enabled to convert the honest preju- 
 dices of man, the guards of his security, into the instruments of 
 his deception. The sagacious Miiabeau, than whom none better 
 imderstood the arts which render the human understanding and 
 passions subservient to the tyranny of fraud, he who so long " rode 
 in the whirlwind, and directed the storm" of the most furious of 
 revolutions ; compressed the elements of his science into one sen- 
 tentious maxim " words are things." But the distinction be- 
 tween offensive and defensive war has peculiar claims upon our 
 recollection. So fatal is war to the best interests of the human 
 family, that a tremendous responsibility always rests upon the na- 
 tion that commences it. Tliis responsibility attaches through all 
 its stages, and is awfully increased into certain guilt, by the neg- 
 lect of any fair opportunity to restore the relations of peace. Be- 
 sides, the consideration that the war was offensive in its origin — 
 that consideration which emphatically creates the obligation to 
 terminate its horrors as speedily as justice will permit — will fre- 
 quently be found to present the greatest obstacles to efforts at re- 
 conciliation. 
 
 The advocates for this war, vieing with each other in zeal for 
 its justification and continuance, do not precisely agree in opin- 
 ion, as to its causes, or as to the objects for which it is to be pros- 
 
3^ 
 
 ecutcd. The p,cntleman from Pennsylvania who presides over you; 
 judiciary comniittee (Mr. Ingersoll) in an elaborate argument 
 seems desirous to prove (I am nOt certain v.hich) either that the 
 •war is a consf^qucnce of the vioiution on the part of Great Britain 
 of his fiivourite principle " free ships make free goods," or is to 
 result in the establishment of this principle. This comprehensive 
 dogma the gentleman contends to be a part of the original una- 
 dulterated code of national law, consecrated by the treaty of 
 Utretcht, strenuously asserted by Britain herself in her dispute 
 with Spain, in the year 1737, recognised in her commercial treaty 
 with France, in 17S5, and vitally essential to our maritime inter- 
 ests. The gentleman from Virginia whom I yesterday heard with 
 much pleasure (Mr. Jackson) dissents from his political friend 
 and declares that this manim has never been asserted by our gov- 
 ernment under any adir.inistration as '.junded on the common law 
 of nations. Although the gentleman from Virginia is in this I'e- 
 spect, unquestionably correct, yet it is not certain that the chair- 
 man of the judiciary committee is altogether erroneous, in attrib- 
 uting to the administration an expectation of establishing by this 
 war some such theory. That the neutral flag shall protect all 
 that it covers from capture, is a very convenient doctrine for a na- 
 tion frequently at war with an adversary of decidedly superior 
 ■maritime strength. France who, with occasional short intervals, 
 has been for centuries at war with England, has very naturally 
 wished to incorporate this doctrine into the law of nations. Her 
 imperial master has adopted it as one of the elementary princi- 
 ples of his new maritime code, M'hich he solemnly promulgated 
 in his decree of Berlin, of Novembsr, 1806, and in support of 
 which he has used every violence and stratagem to array the na- 
 tions of the world into one great m.ariumc confederacy. At least, 
 as early as the infamous*l'urreau better of June, 1809, the execu- 
 "tive of this country v.as pirlcctly apprised of the existence of such 
 a confederacy, of l!)c purposes which it was to uphold, and of the, 
 determiuiition of France to bribe or compel our accession to it. 
 The decree of the great protecter of the confederacy, of the date 
 of April, 1811, though probably not issued till May, 18i2, an- 
 nounced in language sufiicicntly distinct that this claim had been 
 so far complied with on our part as to exempt us from the further 
 application of the penalties of disobedience — And our declaration 
 ui" war against the sole recusant of imperial theory was proclaim- 
 ed by Najxaleon to his Senate as a spirited and generous exertion 
 to vindicate the new religion of the Hag, which, like the supersti- 
 tion of the sanctuary, v/as to protect every fraud, and shelter every 
 crime. Extravagant theretorc, as the positions of the gentleman 
 from Pennsylvania may be thought by the far greater part of this 
 committee, they may have more countenance from the adminis- 
 tration than is generally suspected, and on this account may de- 
 serve a rapid and transient examination. The assertion, that by 
 the general law of nations the character of the vessel gives a char- 
 acter to the goods is unequivocally denied. The actual reyerst? 
 
33 
 
 of the assertion is maintained by jurists generally with a harmony 
 ihat forbids doubt. 
 
 Instead of detailing their opinions separately, permit me to give 
 the language of one who wished well to the genllemim's doctrine, 
 who had otien carefully explored the musty volumes of national 
 law, and wlio was never apt to carry his admissions 6f(/o;ic/ the line 
 which candor prescribed. Mr. Jefferson in his letter to Gen«:t, 
 of 24th July, 1793, expresses himself thus, " 1 believe it camzot be 
 doubted but tliat by the general law of nations, the goods of a 
 friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the goods of 
 an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize, li is 
 true that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences 
 cf having their vessels siopi>ed at sea, ransacked, carried into 
 port, and detained under pretence of having enemy's goods on 
 board, have in many instances, introduced another principle be- 
 Hveen t/ie?n, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and that 
 friendly bottoms shall make friendly goods ; a principle much 
 less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in poii)t 
 of gain or joss — but this is altogether the effect oj particular treaty 
 controlling in s/iecial cases the general Jirinciples of the law of na- 
 iionsi and therefore taking effect between such nations only as have 
 agreed to control it." If the gentleman will examine the treat- 
 ies to which he has advened, the commercial treaty of Utrecht, 
 between England and France (which by the bye the house ot com- 
 mons refused to sanction) and the subsequent commercial treaty 
 of Mr. Pitt, in 1786, lie will find the language on this head une- 
 quivocal. The arrangement is declared to be made with a view 
 to prevent the embarrassments and dissensions that would arise 
 without such an arrangement — or in other words, trom the appli- 
 cation of the principles of the common law of nations. Nor is it 
 at all strange that Britain in a commercial treaty, from which she 
 expected to derive immense advanlat;es, sliuuld acqui;jsce in such 
 an arrangement as between her and 1 rancc. Fur it is obvious 
 that no practical effect could result from it, except when one was 
 at peace and the other at war. And such a slate of things has so 
 rarely happened that its recurrence might be numbered among 
 political impossibilities. 
 
 The " no search" clamor in England of 1737, which the gentle- 
 man has produced the parliamentary debates to prove, had about 
 as much to do with the belligerent right to capture enemy's pro- 
 perty conveyed in neutral ships, as the " no search" cry made 
 about thirty years afterwards in the case of Jolui Wilkes and Gen- 
 eral AVarranis. The dispute of 1737 with Spain grew out ot a 
 municipal claim asserted by that govermiunt and of the rigorous 
 practice of their Guarda Castas to search British vessels hovcrmg 
 en the coasts of the Spanish colonies for prohibited articles design- 
 ed to be smuggled into them — A claim said to be repugnant to the 
 treaty of Seville, and certainly very inconvenient to the illicit trade 
 between Jamaica and the Spanish Main — and a practice enlorced 
 with all that barbarity which usually characterises tlic ir.nnnn* Oi 
 
3* 
 
 eustom-house and i^ venue tryants. How far the establishment ol 
 the goiiUcman's project would be beneficial to this country is per- 
 haps nnt so char. At a time when we had no capital to afford 
 empioyment to our navigation, it certainly would have been ad- 
 vantageous. But since that period has passed away, the most 
 enlightened commercial men will tell you, they wish for no such 
 innovation. Its effect would be, to give us, when neutrals, the 
 benefit of beii!g among the carriers of the commodities of the 
 weaker maritime belligerent, for freight. But the effect of the 
 old principle is to give us the profit which results, not merely 
 from tlie carriage, but the purchase and re-sale of these commod- 
 ities, with almost a monopoly in either market. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania has assigned another causae 
 for the war, in which he has obtained the concurrence of several 
 of his friends — the instigation, by the Britisli government, of In- 
 dian wnrs — Althougli, sir, this theme of popu'.ar declamation has 
 almost become trite ; ahliongh the tomahawk and the scalping 
 knife have been so often brandished with rhetorical ambi-dexter- 
 ity, that their exhibition almost ceases to excite interest ; yet far 
 be it from me to think or speak lightly of the cruelties of savage 
 warfare, or to conceal my utter abhorrence and detestation of 
 them. But it is a different, a very different question, whether 
 the Canadians have armed the Indians to join in defence against 
 a common iavader, or had, previously to war, instigated them to 
 hostilities against us. This last charge I do not believe — no evi- 
 dence has been given to warrant it, that I have yet heard. Over 
 the affair of Tippecanoe, the commencement of Indian war, there 
 hovers a mystery which ought to be dissipated, but which the 
 government will not dispel. I have sought, honestly sought for 
 information. Of official there is a little or none. From private 
 sources, not likely, in this respect, to mislead, (for they are friend- 
 ly to tliis war, and coimected with the western interest and feel- 
 ing) I learn that the great cause of Indian hostilities is to be found, 
 ■where experience and history would prompt us to look for it — 
 is to be found in our cupidity for their lands, and their jealousy and 
 distrust of our superior intelligence and force. Indian wars have 
 been, until a few years back, almost uninterrupted in this coun- 
 try, both before and since the revolution. They need no other 
 instigations than are to be found in the inconsistent views, inter- 
 ests, claims, passions and habits qf neighboring yet distinct races 
 of people. Sir, General Harrison's treaty of Nov. 1809, was the 
 mine of the great Indian explosion. The Indians complained, I 
 know not how justly, that in that treaty they were cheated of lands 
 ■which the parties to it had no right to convey, and never meant to 
 convey. There are gentlemen in this legislature who know that 
 Tecumsch immediately afterwards avowed his fixed purpose to 
 vindicate by force and by an union of the red men the rights of 
 his tribe and the manaccd independence of the whole race. And 
 we all know (tlie fact is on record) that shortly after this treaty 
 the British governor general of Canada caused it to be officially 
 
3» 
 
 liommuiilcated lo tbe fjovcrnmeiu of the United States tiiat the 
 Indians were rr.editatint^ hostile desi!2;ns. Sir, the holy command 
 " thuu shalt not bear false witness asj^aiist thy ncigiibonr" applies 
 even to an enemy. I will not sanction this chargi: ivithoiit evi- 
 dence, and acjainst evidence, lest I violate ti)is hi£i;h injunction. I 
 am not a disciple of that new moral school which would construe 
 this divine prohibition, as Uie s^cntleniin iiom Tennessee (Mr. 
 Grundy) lias expounded the commandmc:it- " Thou shalt notUill," 
 as a " mere municipal regulation applyiii;;- solely to the Jews !" 
 
 But this war, say its advocates, nearly one and all, v/as declared to 
 protectour seamen against impressment, in fashionable phrase, "for 
 Sailors' Rights." There is no doubt, sir, that the conflicting claims 
 of the two countries on the subject of seamen, and the occasional, 
 abuse of the practice of search for British seamen on board of 
 American merchantmen, had excited serious dissatisfaction \n 
 America — yet I hazard nothing by the assertion, that the quesuon 
 of seamen was not a cause of this war. I remember full well the 
 characteristic special pleading of the gentleman from Tennessee 
 on this subject, at the last session, " tliat he really could not tell 
 " whether, if the orders in council had been repealed, we sliould 
 " have gone to war about seamen or not"— but, sir, I consider 
 this as little more or less than adherence to a cautious form, as a 
 protestando by way of excluding a conclusion, or in the naiure of 
 the commencement of an ansvyer to a Dill in chancery, in which 
 the defendant takes care to sare to himself now, and at ail tnnes 
 hereafter, all, and all manner of benefit of exception to the errors 
 that may be discovered in complainant's allegations. I am aware, 
 too, of the very conspicuous blazon which is given to our sailors* 
 wrongs in the President's war-message, and in the manifesto of 
 the committee of foreign relations. But this proves no more, than 
 that when war was determined on, it was deemed adviseable to 
 make out as strong a case as possible, either to excite the sympa- 
 thy of the world, or to rouse the indignation of our own citizens. 
 The impressment of our seamen was grouped in the picture 
 with the dearly bought Henry plot; the, at last dubious excitement 
 of Indian hostilities, and the adjusted controversy about construc- 
 tive blockades. 
 
 No, sir, the question of seamen was not a cause of this war. 
 More than five years had passed over since an arrangement on 
 this question, perfectly satisfactory to our ministers, had been made 
 with Great Britain ; but it pleased not tiie President and was reject- 
 ed. Yet during the whole period that afterwards elapsed until the 
 declaration of war, no second effort was made to adjust this cause 
 of controversy. From December, 1807, with very short intervals 
 we waged against Britain a commercial war to coerce her into an 
 observance of the rights we claimed at her hands. In every step 
 of this system, whether embargo, non-intercourse, or non impor- 
 tation, we avowed the grounds of this contest, and the coijdiiion 
 «n which it should ternUnate— the orders in council, and thci^f 
 
36 
 
 I'epeal. In April, 1809, th'e famous arrant^cmcnt with Erskine was 
 made, hailed by tl»e well-meaning as a second treaty ot amity be- 
 tween the two Gountries ; yet it contained nothing upon the ques- 
 tion of seamen. In the President's communication to Congress 
 at the com ^encemei:t of the war session, November, IfSll, enu- 
 merating, in no light tone, our controversies with Britain, and' 
 recommending preparations for war, the impressment of seamen 
 was not remembered. The secretary of state was earnestiy en- 
 gaged in a correspondence wirli the British minister, Foster, at 
 the seat of government, until the declaration of war ; nay, until 
 after it had passed the house of representatives. The object of 
 the correspondence avowedly was, to bring our differences to an 
 amicable close — But in this correspondence, the question of im- 
 pressment finds no place, except incidentally not as a substantive 
 topic of discussion. And in the official communication from our 
 government to our minister in Russia, stating the fact of war de- 
 clared against Britain, ai d alleging its justification, with a view 
 to be communicated to the Russian government — [Mr. Moiiroe's 
 letter to John Q. Adams, of July, 1812] — this justification is rest- 
 ed solely on tl:e British orders in council, i hese, then, were 
 emphatically and exclusively the cause of war. And had it not 
 been for very many weighty considerations to be found in the state 
 of the world, in tlie nauire of the war in Europe, oui nf which 
 proceeded this violation of neutral rights ; in the conduct of the 
 other mighty belligerent, her injuries, her menaces and intrigues, 
 and in the peculiar condition of this country, actually growing into 
 unexampled prosperity, under the very state of things of which 
 we complained — had it not been for these, and considerations like 
 these, that, trumpct-iongued warned us from the gulf into which 
 we were about to plunge, the orders in council would have justi- 
 fied the resort to war — At all events, they formed what might be 
 termed a sufficient technical cause of hostilities, much better than 
 often figures, with conspicuous effect, in the manifestoes of prin- 
 ces, under the specious names of justice, independence and viola- 
 ted rights. But, sir, scarcely had the fatal step been taken, and 
 the destinies of our nation risqued on the fortune of the sword, 
 when the obnoxious orders were revoked, the causes of war re- 
 moved, and an honorable opportunity afforded of returning to the 
 happy state of peace, commerce, and successful enterprize How 
 grateful must not the executive of a country, whose policy was 
 fundamentally pacific — how grateful must it not have been iov this 
 bappy rescue from the horrors of war ! How rejoiced, that all had 
 been effected without a struggle, which it was the object to obtain 
 by a bloody and precarious contest ! Exulting to shew, that when 
 it unsheathed the sword, not passion, but duty urged the reluctant 
 deed, surely it hastened to return the unstained weapon to the 
 scabbard, and extend the^ blessed olive branch of peace. Was it 
 so ? — Sir, I never can think of the conduct of the executive upon 
 this occasion, without mingled feelings of surprise, regret, and an- 
 
* .37 . 
 
 c;6r. It can be accounted for but by an infatuation the most prtj- 
 found — an infatuation which is not yet dissioiited, and which should 
 fill every breast with apprehensions of that (Irciulful result, which, 
 in the wisdom of Providence, is preceded by the " darkened coun- 
 sels" of rulers. 
 
 But it is entirely a mistake, says the pjentlcman from Pennsyl- 
 vania. The orders in council never v/crc rcvo/ced ; they were in- 
 deed tsit/idra-v}!, but under a declaration, asscrtlnp; the rii^ht to re- 
 enact them, should the violence of France, accpiiesced in by Amer- 
 ica, renew the necessity for them. Will the administration, sir, 
 bring forward this excuse ? Will they take tliis ground ? No, sir, 
 they cannot, they dare not. The President has told the nation, 
 that the revocation of the orders was substantially satisfactory — 
 in his peculiar phraseology, " The repeal of the orders i i council, 
 was susceptible of explanations meeting the just views of this 
 government." How could he do otherwise, after his pioclamation 
 t)f the 2d November, 1810, declaring the French edicts so revok« 
 ed as to cease to be injurious to our rights ; a proclamation found- 
 ed solely on the letter of the duke de Cadore, of the 5th August, 
 promising a revocation. Does the gentleman recollect the cele- 
 brated '* Bien entendu," or proviso annexed to this letter : " Pro- 
 vided, that in consequence of this declaration the British govern- 
 ment shall revoke their orders in council, and renounce their new 
 principles of blockade, or America shall cause her rights to be 
 respected, conformably to the act whicJi you have communicated ?" 
 Does the gentleman remember the torturous and labored efforts •,£ 
 Mr. secretary Monroe to explain this proviso into a condition sub- 
 sequent ? To prove that it was designed only to assert the right of 
 France to re-enact these decrees if Britain should persist in her or- 
 ders, and we forbear from resisting them ? Such a condition sub- 
 sequent annexed to nfiromised revocation of the French decrees, 
 had no effect to impair its force — but the same annexed in terms 
 to the actual revocation of the British orders renders it entirely 
 null !-— No, sir, the executive cannot take this ground his dis- 
 creet friends will not take it for him. In the emphatic language 
 «f the eloquent Junius, this would indeed " resemble the termi- 
 gant chastity of a prude, who prosecutes one lover for a rape, 
 while she solicits the lewd embraces of another." 
 
 But can it be urged, says the gentleman ; that the revocation of 
 the orders in council removed all our causes of complaint, and left 
 us nothing more to demand of the enemy ? No, sir, this is not urg- 
 ed — But it is contended that as the revocation of the orders in 
 council removed the cause of war, hostilities ■shonXAmstantly have 
 been suspended and a fair, manly effort qaade to settle by negotia- 
 tion all unadjusted differences which had not caused the war. A 
 ouestion of much importance and delicacy remained to be settled 
 in relation to the search for British seamen on board our mer- 
 chant vessels, and the occasional impressment of Americans. Un- 
 der every administration of our country this question had excited 
 great interest and been attended with much difRcuIty. Of late, 
 
38 • 
 
 indeed, it had in some degree lost its interest, and Jiartly because 
 of the comparatively rare occurrence of the practice. Tlie re- 
 strictive anti- commercial system had expelled native and foreii^n 
 Sfamen in vast numbers from our country, and almost removed 
 the tcjiiptations to an exercise of what the British claimed as a 
 marilirne rip:lit — For five years before the war, the dispute had, in 
 fact slept — Subjects more important pressed themselves on our 
 notice, and while these pressed that was postponed as a matter for 
 future arrangement. But out of these new subjects a controver- 
 sy arose which issued in war — It had scarcely been declared be- 
 fore the matter in coritroversy was arranged to our satisfaction by 
 the voluntary act of the enemy. What was our plain obvious 
 course — the course of duly and of policy ? —Sheath the sword un- 
 til it is ascertained whether the dispute which had been laid aside 
 for future arrangement, and which, in consequence of the adjust- 
 ment of more pressing concerns, is now properly presented to no- 
 tice, can or cannot be amicably settled. Even tyrants p'-onounce 
 war the " ultima ratio regum" the last resort of princes. Notling 
 can justify the exercise of force but the inability to obtain riglit by 
 other means. You had not supposed your just claims on the sub- 
 ject 6f seamen unattainable by negotiation, or you would not have 
 reserved them for years as a subject for negotiation — And if they 
 be thus attainable, how will ye answer to God and the country for 
 the blood and treasure uselessly — rriminaily expended ? — This 
 mode of thinking, sir, seems to me very straight, and quite in ac- 
 cordance with the good old notions of practical morality — Besides, 
 it is the incumbent duly of him who seeks justice, first to render 
 it. Whatever our claims on Great Britain might have been in re- 
 lation to seamen, she was not without her claims on us. At a time 
 when her floating bulwarks v.ere her sole safe guard against slave- 
 ry, she could not view without alarm and resentment the warriors 
 who should have manned those bulwarks pursuing a more gainful 
 occupation in American vessels. Our merchant ships were crowd- 
 ed with British seamen ; most of them deserters from their ships 
 of war, and all furnished with fraudulent protections to prove them 
 American. To us they were not necessary — they ale the bread 
 and bid down the wages of native seamen whom it v/as our first 
 duty to foster and encourage. To their own country they were 
 necessary, essentially necessary. They were wanted for her de- 
 fence in a moment of unprecedented peril. Ought we not then 
 •while seeking to protect our own seamen from forced British scr-" 
 vice, to have removed from her seamen the temptation to desert 
 their country and to supplant ours at home ? — Why need I ask the 
 question ? Your seamen's bill, as it is called, enacted into a law 
 since the w»r, is an acknowledgment that this ought to have been 
 done — However deceptive some of its provisions may appear, its 
 very jmnciiik is to restore to Britain her seamen, and save our 
 own from her service. Unless you believed this principle rights it 
 was the nieanest of degradations at such a time to pass such a law 
 —And if it was right, then you had justice to render, as well as to 
 
39 
 
 seek. Had yon pursued this plain path of ricjht, had you suspend- 
 ed hostilities, you would have consulted also ihe true policy cf 
 your country. An unconditional proposition for an armistice up- 
 on the revocation of the orders, or an unconditional acceptance of 
 the offer for an armistice would have passed for magnanimity. 
 The disgraces which have since foully distained our military char- 
 acter were not then anflcipaied. The world would have believed, 
 your enemy would have believed, that you suspended your career 
 of conquest because the war had owed its origin not to ambition, 
 but to duty— because you sought not territory, but justice — be- 
 cause you preferred an honest peace to the most splendid victory. 
 With the reputation of having commanded, by your attitude of 
 armour, a repeal of the offensive orders, you would have evinced 
 a moderation which must have secured the most beneficial arrange- 
 ments on the qviestion of seamen. 
 
 But, sir, this was not done. No armistice could obtain tl\c ap- 
 probation of the executive, unless it was preceded by an abandon- 
 ment, formal or informal, of the British claim to search for their sea- 
 men on board our merchant vessels. As an evidence of this aban- 
 donment, the exercise of the claim must, by stipulation, be sus- 
 pended during the armistice, and this suspension was to be the 
 price of its purchase. Even without an armistice, no "arrange- 
 ment" was to be deemed a lit subject for negotiation which sUould 
 not be predicated on "the basis" of an exclusion from our vessels, 
 by our laws, of their seamen, and an absolute prohibition of search 
 to their officers. This, sir, was taking very lofty ground ; but at 
 that moment the Canada fever raged high, and the delirium of for- 
 eign conquest was at its acme. In a few weeks, the American flag; 
 was to wave triumphant on the ramparts of Quebec — The propo- 
 sition for an armistice from the governor of Canada was utterly 
 inadmissible. In the language of our secretary of state, it wanted 
 reciprocity—" The proposition is not reciprocal, because it re- 
 " strains tne United States from acting where their power is great- 
 « est, and leaves Great Britain at liberty, and gives her time to 
 " augment her forces in our neighborhood." 
 
 Mr. Russell did condescend to offer an armistice to the enemy, 
 upon the condition of yielding, as preliminary, even to a suspen- 
 sion of arms, all that could be extorted by the most triumphant 
 war. But even he, in his pacific proposition, could not refrain 
 from exulting at the glorious conquests that would inevitably be 
 made, if submission was refused or delayed. 
 
 " Your lordship is aware of the difficulties with which a.prose- 
 cution of the war, even for a short period, must nccessarilij em- 
 barrass all future attempts at accommodation. Passions exasper- 
 ated by injuries; alliances, or conquests on ter/Tm lu/iic/i fordid i/ieir 
 . abandonment, luill inevitably hereafter embitter and firotract a con.' 
 test which might now be so easily and happily terminated." 
 
 I cannot forbear, sir, from one remark at the" awful squinting" 
 in this letter at an alliance with France. Gentlemen are sensi- 
 tive when the possibility of such a connection is intimated. The 
 
40 
 
 ipery suspicion of such a design in the cabinet is vie'^ved as a cal- 
 umny. Here the accredited agent of the American executive 
 proclaims such a connection, such an alliance as inevilable— pro- 
 claims it in an official communication to the public enemy. The 
 declaration is laid before Congress and the people by the President, 
 uijaccompanied by any disavowal — 1 he minister ib not censured 
 — For his very conduct in this employment he is raised to the 
 highest grade of foreign Ministers; and in spite of the reluctance 
 of the Senate to confirm his nomination, he is pressed upon them 
 by the President until their assent to his appointment is extorted. 
 I dwell not upon this topic, for I confess to you the honest fears 
 which once congealed my heart are now dissipated. The sun of 
 national freedom has burst forth from behind the portentous eclipse 
 that " with fear of change" had perplexed the darkened world. 
 Napoleon, no longer invincible, stript of the false glare which 
 spendid crime threw around his character, is no longer eulogised 
 as " super-eminent" but denounced by the champions of adminis- 
 ti ation as an " usurper." No one courts the friendship of a fallen 
 tyrant 1 — 
 
 It is not for me to say in what manner the dispute about seamen 
 is to be settled. On this subject I have no hesitation, however, 
 in giving my general sentiments. It is the duty ot this government 
 to proiect its seamen (I mean its native seamen) from the forced 
 service of any and every power on earth, so far as the strength of 
 the country can obtain for them protection. True it is, that in my 
 opinion the number of impressed Americans bears no reasonable 
 proportion to the number alleged. I live in a slate which^ tho* it 
 carries, not on an extensive foreign commerce, has many native 
 seamen. At the moment of the declaration of war, the inquiry- 
 was liiade whether a single native seamen of North Carolina was 
 then detained by British impressment. I could hear of none. I 
 know that during our restrictive system many of our sailors en- 
 tered voluntarily into the British service, and when tired of it, 
 complained that they had been impressed — Instances have ac- 
 tually occurred at Plymouth and at London, of men surrendered 
 as impressed Americans, who afterwards boasted that they had 
 cheated their king. In the battle, I think, of the President and the 
 Little Belt, a neighbour of mine now an industrious farmer noticed 
 in the number of the slain one of his own name. He exclaimed, 
 there goes one of my protections. Oii being asked tor an expla- 
 nation he remarked, that in his wild days, when he followed the 
 sea, it was an ordinuiy mode of procuring a little spending money 
 to get a protection from a Notary for a dollar, and sell it to the first 
 foreigner whom it at all fitted for fifteen or twenty. The pro- 
 tected alien assumed, of course, the American name, and if im- 
 pressed, claimed to be liberated under it. The examinations 
 which have been had before the committee of the Massachusetts 
 legislature, and especially that of William Gray, confirm the be- 
 lief that the number of impressed Americans has been exaggerated 
 Inftuiichy beyond the truth. But their number has been large 
 
41 
 
 ciiout^h lo render the grievance a serious ouc — And be llicy mujv 
 or less, the right to the protection of their country is sacred and 
 must be regarded. Tliis government would forfeit its claims to 
 the respect and affection of its citizens if it omitted any rational 
 means to secure the riglits of American seamen from actual vio- 
 lation. Seek to obtain this security by practical means. If you 
 cannot by suljstitute obtain an abandonment of the right or prac-. 
 tice to search our vessels, regulate it so as to prevent its abuse — 
 ivaving for the present not rflinquishm,^ your objections to the 
 right. Do all that can fairly be asked of you to supercede the ne- 
 cessity of the practice. W hen this is done, and you should never- 
 theless fail — when war is rendered necessanj to obtain a practical 
 and reasonable security for American seamen against the abuses 
 of impressment, then, sir, that war is just. Whoever may ques- 
 tion its expediency, none who admit that wars may ever be justly 
 waged can feel any conscientious scruples in yielding it support. 
 This, sir, is no late opinion of mine. It has been long and pub- 
 licly avowed — not indeed as a pledge to my constituents, as my 
 friend and colleague (Mr. Murphey) has remarked — we do not 
 deal in pledges — but because it is my habit to be frank when no 
 duty commands concealment — Nor is it strange that I should feel 
 attached to the rights of the American sailor. I am a native of 
 the sea-board. Many of the playmates of my infancy have be- 
 come the adventurous ploughmen of the deep. Sea-faring men 
 are among my strongest personal and political friends. And for 
 their true interests — their fair rights, I claim to feel ?. concern as 
 sincere, and a zeal as fervent as can be boasted by any gentleman 
 from the interior, or from beyond the mountains, who has heard 
 of them, but knows them not. 
 
 Has the prosecution of your scheme of invasion and conquest 
 against the Canadas a tendency to secure these rights, and advance 
 these interests ? This, sir, is a momentous question, on which it 
 is the duty of every man in authority to reflect dispassionately, 
 and with a fixed purpose to attain the truth. Unless this tenden- 
 cy be manifest, and morally certain, every motive which can be 
 addressed to an honest heart and intelligent mind, forbids its pros- 
 ecution at the present moment. Make a fair comparison of its 
 certain or probable ills with its possible gains, and then pronounce 
 the sentence which justice, humanity, and policy demand ; and a 
 suffering nation will bless your decision. 
 
 It is not my design to consider the immense expenditure which 
 this scheme has cost, and which a continuance of it will cost to 
 this country.* Well worthy is this topic of consideration, espe- 
 
 * It was well remarked by Mr. Pearson, that the constitutional rule of ascertaioiiig 
 the contribution of each individual to the satisfaction (.f the public dcbl, was to be col- 
 lected from the system of direct taxes. Supposing the debt which will have been cre- 
 ated by the Canada war by the close of the next campaign to he ninety millions, eve- 
 ry man may ascertain how much of his properly is mortgaged for its payment, by ad- 
 verting to his portion of the direct tax. The whole amount of this direct tax is thre^ 
 millions. — Multiplying therefore each man's direct tax by thirty, will give the share ©f 
 the wAofe debt, for whidi he raay be considered as liable. 
 F 
 
^h2 
 
 CKiUy at a mumciiL wlir.n industry is without ciicuurui^ciiicul, diu'" 
 external revenue is utterly destroyed. But it has been examined 
 with great al)ility by t^enilenien who have preccdctl nie, cspe 
 cialiy by the gentlemen from Connectieut and Virginia, (Mi-. Pit 
 Kin and Mr. Shefi'ey) and contenting myself with an earnest re- 
 quest, that their remarks be not forgotten, and that in your zeal 
 for eonquests you do not beggar your people, I hasten to present 
 other views which have not been so fully unfolded. 
 
 There is something in the character of a war made upon i.he 
 /leo/iie «f a country, to force them to abandon a government v.hich 
 they cherish, and to become the subjects or associates of their in- 
 vaders, which necessaiily involves calamities beyond liiose inci- 
 dent to ordinary wars. Among us some remain who remember 
 ihe horrors of the invasion of the revolution — and others of us 
 have hung with reverence on the lips of narrative old age, as it re- 
 lated the interesting tale. Such a war is not a contest between 
 those only who seek for renown in military achievements, or the 
 more humble mercenaries whose" business 'tis to die." It breaks 
 in upon all the charities of domestic life — and interrupts all the 
 pursuits of industry. The peasant quits his plough, and the me- 
 chanic is hurried from his shop to commence without apprentice- 
 ship the exercise of the trade of deatii. The irregularity of the 
 resistance which is opposed to the invader^ itsoccasiojial obstinacy 
 atid, occasional intermission, provoking every bad passion of his 
 soldiery, is the excuse lor plunder, lust, a«d cruelty. Thes-c 
 afocities exasperate the sufferers to revenge — and every weapon 
 which anger can supply, and eveiy device which ingeriious hatred 
 can conceive, is used to inflict vengeance on the detested foe. 
 IMiere is yet a war more horrible than this. As there is no anger 
 so deadly as the anger of a friend, there is no war so ferocious as 
 that which is waged between men of the sam.e blood, and formerly 
 connected by the closest ties of affection. 'I'he pen of the histori- 
 an confesses its inability to describe, the fervid fancy of the poet 
 cannot realise, the horrors of a civil war. This invasion of Canada 
 involves the miseries of both these species of war. You carrv 
 fire and sword amongst a people who are " united against you (say 
 your generals) to a man" — amongst a people who, kappy in them- 
 selves, satisfied with their condition, view you not as coming to 
 emancipate them from thraldom, but to reduce them to a foreign 
 yoke ; a people long and intimately connected with the bordering 
 inhabitants of our country by commercial intercou>se, by the ties' 
 of hospitality, by the bonds of afliinity and of blood — a people,, as to 
 every social and individual purpose, long identified with your own. 
 It must be that such a war will rouse a spirit of sariguinary feroci- 
 ty that will overleap every holy barrier of nature and venerable 
 usage of civilization. — Where will you find an authenticated in- 
 stance of this ferocity, that more instantaneously compels the 
 shuddering abnoirence of the heart, than the fact asserted by my 
 eloquent friend from Mew-Hampshire, (Mr. Webster) — " The 
 bayonet of the brother has been actually opposed to the breast of 
 
4.3 
 
 \he brother." — Merciful Heaven ! That those who have bceu 
 rocked in the same cradle by the ^ame maternal hand — who have 
 imbibed tlie first genial nourishment of infant existence from the 
 same blessed source — should be forced Ui contend in impious strife 
 for ftic destruction of that being derived from their common par- 
 ents! — It should not be so! — Every feeling of our nature cries 
 aloud against it ! 
 
 One subject is intimately connected with this Canadian war, 
 which demands the most tiiorough and deliberate examination. I 
 tremble to approach it thu^ incidentally, lest J injure the cause of 
 humanity and truth, by a cursory vindication. And yet I dare iiofc 
 altogether omit it, because I fear an opportunity of full considera- 
 tion will not be presented, ajid it is of an urgency and of a magnitude 
 that forbid it to be overlooked. I mean, sir, the falsely called 
 system of retaliation, which threatens to impart to tlie war a char- 
 acter of barbari»y which has not its parallel in the modern annals 
 af Christendom. Twenty-three persons of our invading army, 
 who were taken prisoners by the enemy at the battle of Queens- 
 town, in Canada, have been sent to England as British subjects, to 
 be tried for treason. To deter the enemy from executing the law 
 upon these unhappy men, our executive has ordered into close 
 custody an equal number — not of American citizens invading our 
 country — (this would, indeed, be retaliation) — but of British pris- 
 oners who have committed no crime. It is avowed that these 
 shall be put to instantaneous death, if the men sent to England 
 fihould be convicted and executed. The British government 
 liave proceeded in return, to confine a corresponding number of 
 Americans as hostages for the safety of these British prisoners, 
 under the same determination and avowal. This has been again 
 retaliated on our side, and the retaliation retorted by the enemy, 
 so that an indiscriminate and universal destruction of the pris- 
 oners on each side, is the menaced consequence of the execution 
 of one of the presumed Englishmen ordered home for trial. 
 
 Before we enter upon this career of coid-'ulooded massacre, ii 
 behoves us, by every obligation which we owe ta (lod, to our fel- 
 low men, and to our ourselve:>, to be certain tljat ll;c liglu is with 
 us, and that the duty is imperative. If in a moment of excited 
 feeling we should heedlessly enact the fatal deed which consigns 
 thousands of the gallant and th,e brave, Americans and Britons, 
 to an ignomitiious death, and should afterwards discover that the 
 deed was criminal, that the blood of the innocent is upon us, and 
 the cries of their fatherless infants have ascended against us to the 
 throne of the Most High ; how shall we silence tlie reproaches of 
 conscience ? how atone for the v.ide-spread and irreparable mis- 
 chief l or how efface from the American name, the iniamous stain 
 that will be stamped upon it ? With motives thus awfully obliga- 
 tory to a correct decision, we are in imminent danger of error, 
 from causes of which we are not aware. A portion of our popu- 
 lation, inconsiderable in number as compared with the whole 
 taass, b'lt influential, because of thf;ir activity, violence, bn!dnc;jti\ 
 
44 
 
 and their control uf (he /lo/nilar firesses-^1 mean, sir, that part of 
 our naturalized citizens, who, not content with pursuing the pri- 
 vate ocrAipations of industry, undertake to manac;e the affairs of 
 state, or teach us how they shouUl be managed, have systematic- 
 ally and zealously laboured to disseminate false principles, and 
 excite prejudices and passions calculated to mislead the public 
 mind. Divesting ourselves, as far as possible, from all hasiy im- 
 pressions, let us examine upon ^hsA foundation rests the right to 
 put our prisoners U> death, in revenge for the execution of the 
 men who arc to be tried in England for treason. If it shall be, 
 that these men arc native subjects of Great Britain, who have nev- 
 er pretended to shake off their allegiance by naturalization here, 
 their crime in making war against their acknowledged country, 
 and actually invading its territories, is so manifesily treason ; and 
 the right of their country to punish such treason, is so complete, 
 that I will not presume it necessary to argue upon either of these 
 topics. If the enemy has a perfect right to regard them as trai- 
 tors, we cannot have the inconsistent right to avenge, with inno- 
 cent blood, their just doom. But it may be, that some of them are 
 British subjects, naturalized in America, I believe this is not the 
 fact. We have no official information ; but from the most respec- 
 table inofficial sources, I learn it is not the fact. If it should be, 
 however, a very interesting inquiry presents itself — What is the 
 effect of naturalization in severing the tics which bind a man to 
 his native country ; and in requiring, as against its claims, tlic 
 protection of his adopted country ? It is my conviction, that erro- 
 neous opinions prevail upon this point. — It is a point on which 
 this country, surrounded by foreign territories, into which our 
 citizens are migrating in vast numbers, has a very deep interest 
 to form correct opinions. 
 
 Every political association must be considered as originally 
 founded on a contract between each of its members and the whole 
 body. Each stipulates to yield obedience to the laws, and to re- 
 frain from acts destructive of the existence of the state — while the 
 community, as such, stipulates to secure to each individual the en- 
 joyment of his rights. The duration of such un association if not 
 defined by the original compact is necessarily unlimited. When 
 any one of its members is desirous to free himself from his engage- 
 ments, it is manifest that he cannot doit by his own act, at his own 
 pleasure, for such a power would be utterly inconsistent with the 
 notion of an obligation. He can be released from his contract only 
 upon the occurrence of some event which by the terms of the as- 
 sociation it is stipulated shall have such effect, or by the consent 
 of the community to which he was bound. As is the state of the 
 original parties to the association, such is thai of their descendants. 
 Children in every political community must be viewed as succeed- 
 ing to the rights, and with them, to the consequent obligations of 
 their parents — But for this principle the great inducement to the 
 social state, the desire of providing for the security and happiness 
 o.f a family vould be annihilated, and the trammels of government 
 
4.^ 
 
 never would be submitted to. But for this, that perpetual succes- 
 sion which keeps up the identity of a nation, although its iiulividu- 
 als are all in a state of decay and renovation, which gives it a cor- 
 porate being essential to its action, is at once destroyed. From 
 tiiese principles, or principles like these, it is that all jurists agree, 
 that when a political society is formed, the fundamental laws of 
 that society may prescribe when and upon what terms only any in- 
 dividual of it shall be freed from his engagement to defend it. 
 That each society possesses this right, is a principle of universa' 
 ]aw— No dictum can be found to contradict it. How such rigb 
 shall be exercised must of course depend on tlte wisdom and vi.- 
 tueofthe society itself, or of those who enact its laws. It must 
 be perfectly obvious, that in any case Avherc the fundamental laws 
 of the society do not permit the individual to release himself from 
 his engagement, the intervention of a third party cannot efiectthis 
 release. ' A promise of A to B cannot be discharged by an act of 
 C. The effect therefore, which the naturalization in any country 
 of the subject of another has upon the original obligations of that 
 subjc ct to his native country, must depend upon its laws, prescrib- 
 ing to what extent and under what circumstances these original 
 obligations may be lessened or destroyed. The institutions of 
 different countries vary from each other in this respect — some 
 are more rigid and others more indulgent But 1 know of but 
 one state on earth, the State of Virginia, which allows the native 
 subject or citizen so completely to divest himself of his original 
 character as to raise against her with impunity the hand of parri- 
 cide. Virginia by a statute docs permit a citizen by a formal deed 
 executed before Avitnesses, acknowledged in court and recorded, 
 to quit claim and renounce his birth right, and thencctorth to be 
 deemed as though he never had been of the State. All other 
 states in the civilized world impose this restraint, that their orig- 
 inal subject shall never wage war against his country. 
 
 With the fundamental laws of England, in relation to this sub- 
 ject, we have a perfect acqurAntancc In general every man is 
 there at liberty to quit the kingdom, to pursue abroad such occu- 
 pations, and enter into such engagements as he may find benefi- 
 cial ; but on the express condition, that he shall not violate his 
 faith to his sovereign, the first great duty of whiciu is not to in- 
 vade his territories, and war against his subjects. 1 was surpri- 
 sed to hear a gentleman from Kentucky, wliose good sense and 
 independence i much respect (Mr. Montgomery) argue that the 
 permission to a British subject to leave his country was znim/iHed 
 consent, that he might throw off all allegiance to it. Such an im- 
 filication is done away by the very term.s of the permission. The 
 law is as old as Magna Charta, and has been unitbrm down to this 
 day. '' Lizuit ujiicid'juc de cetera exire de regno nostra ct rcdirc 
 ■salvo et stcure fier terrain ct per aquam^ salva fide NosfKA. ' 
 oSd Jrticle Abbot's edition of Magna Charta. " It may be lawful 
 for every one hereafter to go out of our kingdom, and return safe- 
 ly and securel-y by land and by sea, saving his faith to us." In 
 
Uic vciga ol Elizabeth occarrcd the case ul Dr. Story, which gen- 
 ilemen will find accurately reported, 2d Dyer, 298b. o04b. A na- 
 tive of England, he had long quitted that country, had become a 
 subject of Philip of Spain, and had actually been received as am- 
 bassador from Philip at the English court. He was indicted for 
 treason — lie pleaded the fact of his having become a Spaiiish sub- 
 ject—the plea was overruled — lie was convicted and executed. 
 The case of colonel Townly occurred in 1746. He was indicted 
 for treason in aiding in the rebellion of 1745, was convicted and 
 executed ; notwithstanding the fact of his having become a French 
 subject, and bearing a French commission. The case of iEneas 
 !McDonald in the same year was more remarkable. He had left 
 Scotland his native land, a meie infant, and ever afterwards resi- 
 ded in France. As a subject of the king of France, and an offi- 
 cer in his army, he accompanied the Pretender in 1745 — was ta- 
 ken prisoner, indicted for treason, and convicted. He was, indeed, 
 not executed. The hardship of his fate excited commiseration, 
 and upon the recommendation of his jury to mercy, his sentence 
 was commuted into perpetual banishment. It is vain to multiply 
 proofs. Nothing can be n.ore certain than the English law in re- 
 lation to its subjects naturalized abroad waging war against their 
 country. The law of France is more strict and equally precise. 
 The edict of Trianon, of 23d August, 1813, with great precision 
 declares, " no French7Tian can be naturalized abroad without our 
 consent, (that is of the Emperor)*' — and that ^ Frenchmen natu- 
 ralized abroad, even tvith oiw fiermission, can at no time carry arms 
 against France, under pain of being indicted in our courts, and 
 condemned to the punishment enacted in the penal code — Book 3. 
 ch. 75." During the French revolution in 1795, a corps of emi- 
 grants, whom oppression and brutal violence had compelled to 
 ijuit their country, formed themselves into an army in the jiay and 
 employment of Britain, and as such engaged in the ill fated expe- 
 tVilion to Quiheron. They were made piiaoners and executed as 
 traitors. What is our own law '. la every state of the Union, ex- 
 cept Virginia, i: is precisely the law which obtains in Great Bri- 
 tain — no man shall ej^'unipt himself from the obligation not to war 
 against his country — and in Virginia even, he can only get rid of 
 t!iis obligation, by observing the stipulated forms which its law 
 prescribes. Naturalization, granted in anotlier country, has no ef- 
 fect whatever to destroy his original primary allegiance. A gen- 
 tleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes) informed us that under a Bri- 
 tish statute, two years voluntary service in their navy i/ino facto^ 
 naturalized a foreigner. Be it so, sir — Let us suppose that during 
 <)ur restrictions on commerce an American citizen, a Virginian 
 for instance, who had gone through the stipulated formalities of 
 expatriation had entered on board tiie British navy, and after serv- 
 ing there two years, and thus becoming a naturalized subject of 
 George the 3d, had infamously joined in the invasion of his native 
 land. Suppose this miscreant taken prisoner heading a hostile 
 band at the burning of Havre, or at the atrocious outrages o» 
 
47 
 
 Harapton, and arrtVisiTicd-fov treason in levying war a!;aiiu-.t the 
 United States— what defence could ijc made for him ? Is thcic a 
 ?j;entleman in the house with any pretensions to legal science, who 
 will so far hazard his reputation as to allege that a defence co\iId 
 be made for him ? Is there a judge in our land from those who a- 
 dorn the bench of our supreme court, down to the humblest in ca- 
 pacity and office, who could be even amused by the miserable so- 
 phistry, that naturalization in Britain repealed our law of treason? 
 No, sir— The traitor would be condemned— inevitably condemned ; 
 and if the President were frightened from executing the sentence- 
 by an insolent threat from Biiiain, to put innocent Americans to 
 death, in revenge for the just doom of the convict, he would en- 
 counter the contempt and execration of his country. How is it 
 then that we undertake by such menaces to deter the enemy from 
 executing a like law, under like circumstances agaii^st her unnat- 
 ural children ? 
 
 This law against the alienation of allegiance is no relict cf ty- 
 ranny; it is founded in the analogy of nature, and essential to the 
 harmony of the world. There is a striking similitude between the 
 duties of a citizen to his country, and those of a son 13 his father. 
 Indeed, sir, what is the word country, but a comprehensive phrase, 
 embracing all those charities which grow out of the domestic re- 
 lations of parents, children, kindred and friends ? When the boy 
 has attained manhood, and the father's care is no longer necessary 
 to guard him Irom daily harms, he is at liberty to quit the paren- 
 tal roof, to become the inmate of another family, there form con- 
 nections essential to his happiness, and take tipon himself obliga- 
 tions of respect and tenderness as the adopted son of other parents. 
 But is nature's first great bond utterly severed ? Can he return at 
 the bidding of his new friends, to ravage and destroy the home ot 
 his childhood, and pollute it with the life-blood of those from \7hom 
 he received life ? Would this be but an ordinary trespass, a com- 
 mon homicide, which provocation might extenuate, excuse, or 
 even justify ? — An association, sir, formed by a resurrection ot the 
 wretches who have died on the gibbet, would disdain such a prin- 
 ciple in their code. What is tiie jargon of modern expatriation, 
 but the same principle interpolated into the code, of nations '. 
 
 The peace and independence of every state, and of none more 
 than ours, demand that the citizen should not be released from the 
 just claims of his country by the interference of foreign powers. 
 Give to such interference this effect, and every nation is made de- 
 pendent upon the arbitrary exercise of a foreign right to 9ontrol 
 and regulate its vital concerns. The Spanish dominions to the 
 south, and the British territories to the nortJi, have tempted from 
 us many of our boldest spirits. Let them go— let them there cix- 
 joy every privilege, iXthey can find it, Avhich in our Kappy country 
 is given to the fugitive European ; every privilege which is csscn- 
 liarto their comfort. Let them pursue in tranquillity their mdus- 
 trious occupations — realize the profits of cnterprizc, and be pro- 
 tf cted from «yerv invasion of individual right. In return lor these 
 
48 
 
 advantaf^cs, let them, like the European whom we naturalize, ren- 
 der a checifiil obedience to the laws, perform every social duty 
 which is assi.Q;ned to them, and contribute to the support of the 
 goverp.mcnt a fair proportion of their gains. But permit them not 
 to forget the country which gave them birth and prct-ected their 
 infancy. Suffer them not with impunity to be converted into hos- 
 tile tribes', whose numbers may be swelled from day to day by the 
 factious, the restless, and the criminal, who have but to pass an 
 ideal line, and the duty of obedience is converted into the right to 
 destroy. 
 
 Unless I am greatly deceived, the law of England must be suf- 
 fered to have its course with the individuals, if natives of England, 
 ar.d migrating to us since the revolution, who are sent thither for 
 trial — Whether they ought to be executed, if convicted, is a very 
 different question. Considering the intimate connection which 
 common origin, language and manners, and a long and intimate 
 commerce has heretofore induced between the countries, and the 
 consequent interchange of iheir inhabitants ; remembering too 
 that general laws are often cruel in their application to particular 
 cases, the executive authority in that country, is bound by the 
 strongest motives, to consult the dictates of humanity, and forbear 
 the too rigorous exercise of right. But if these considerations 
 should not there prevail, and the severe penalty of the law of trea- 
 son is exacted, as of right it may be, shall we without right, with- 
 out the semblance of law, coldly murder those who are in our 
 power, who have committed no treason against us, and against 
 whom crime is not pretended ? Is this called retaliation ? Bri- 
 tain executes British traitors serving in the American army, re- 
 gularly tried and convicted of treason, and we, in return, ex- 
 ecut© — whom ? American traitors, serving in the British army, 
 and convicted of treason ? No, but faithful, loyal men, bearing arms 
 in the cause of their native country I tried by no law 1 offenders 
 against no law ! Sir, the pretension is monstrous. I have met 
 ■with no instance of such a pretension being ever asserted in a civili- 
 zed country. Did Philip of Spain retaliate in this way for the ex- 
 ecution of Dr. Story ? Did France retaliate for the execution of 
 Col. Townly ? Did Britain thus retaliate for the execution of the 
 French emigrants taken at Quiberon ? I have heard it said that 
 Napper Tandy, an Irishman, naturalized in France, was surrender- 
 ed upon a threat of retaliation fi om France. I doubt the fact — 
 the only evidence of it is in a note to an evidently partial and one- 
 sided account of his trial in a collection of Curran's Speeches. In 
 no anthentic register have I been able to find it. But if it were true, 
 the j>ote itself states, that the ground on which lie was demanded, 
 was not that he had been naturalized by F'rance, and therefore not 
 liable to be executed for treason ; but because he had been unjust- 
 ly seized at Hamburg, in neutral territory, and ought to be return- 
 ed. Theobald Wolf Tone, Tandy's associate, and, like him, an 
 officer of Francty but not like him, arrested in a violated neutral 
 territory, was neither demanded nor delivered,, Condeuiiied tp 
 
49 
 
 death, lie changed the mode of its execution by commiltiog suicide. 
 And shall my country, claiming to excel in humanity, as it excels 
 in freedom, the nations of Europe, shall it be the first to avow a 
 mons'.rous, unfounded pretension, and vindicate it by innocent 
 blood ? Shall it teach a lesson of barbarity to the hardened chief- 
 tains of slaughter, of which they were before ignorant ? Shall it 
 seek to protect foreigners from the vengeance of their sovereigns, 
 at the cost of immolating its own native citizens ? Shall it doom a 
 revolutionary Winchester, or a gallant Winder, to a shameful 
 death, because it cannot save alien traitors from their legal fate ? 
 Think for a moment, sir, on the consequences, and deem it not 
 imw«rthy of you to regard them. True courage shuts not its 
 eyes upon danger or its result. It views them steadily, and calm- 
 ly resolves whether they ought to be encountered. Already has 
 this Canadian war a character sufficiently cruel, as Newark, Buff- 
 aloe and Niagara can testify. But when the spirit of ferocity shall 
 have been maddened by the vapour steaming from the innocent 
 blood that shall stagnate around every depot of prisoners, then 
 will it become a war, not of savage, but of demoniac character. 
 Your part of it may, perhaps, be ably sustained — Your way through 
 the Canadas may be traced afar off by the smoke of their burning 
 villages — Your path may be marked by tlie blood of their furious 
 peasantry — You may render your course audible by the frantic 
 shrieks of their women and children. But your own sacred soil 
 "will also be the scene of this drama of fiends. Your exposed and 
 defenceless sea-board, the sea-board of the south, will invite a terri- 
 ble vens'-eance. That sea-board which has been shamefully neglected, 
 and is at this moment without protection, has been already invaded. 
 But an invasion,after the war shall have assumed its unmitigated form 
 of carnage, and woe, and wickedness, must he followed with horrors 
 which imagination can but faintly conceive. I will not trust my- 
 self to tell you all I feel, all my constituents feel, upon tliis subject 
 — But I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that when 
 he alludes to the probability that an intestine foe may be roused 
 lo asbassinalion and brutality, he touches a chord that vibrates to 
 the very heart. Yes, sir, I live in a slate whose misfortune it is 
 to contain the materials out of which may be made such a foe — A 
 foe that will be found every where — in our fields, our kitchens, and 
 our chambers; a foe, ignorant, degraded by habits of servitude, 
 uncurbed by moral restraints — whom no recollections of former 
 kindness will soften, and whom the remembrance of severity will 
 goad to phrenzy — from whom nor age, nor infancy, nor beauty, 
 will find reverence or pity — and whose subjugation will l)c i)ut a- 
 nother word for extermination — Such a foe, ^^ir, may be added to 
 iill up the measure of our calamities. Let mc not be misunder- 
 stood — Let no gentleman misconceive my meaning. Do 1 state 
 these consequences to intimidate or deter you ? I think i^ettcr of 
 my countrymen. I hope and believe'in the language of Wilkinson 
 to Prevost, that Americans will not be deterred from pursuing 
 what is right by any dread of consequences. No, sir, 1 state them 
 
50 
 
 to rouse your attention and waken your scrutiny into the correct- 
 ness of the coursci you are pursuing. If on mature deliberation 
 you are sure you are right, proceed, regardless of what may hap- 
 pen. 
 
 Justum ct tenacem propositi viruw 
 
 Si fractiis illabatur orhis., 
 Impavidum feritnt Ruinx* 
 
 But reflect well, I conjure you, before reflection is too late- 
 Let not passion or prejudice dictate the decision — If erroneous, 
 its reversal may be decreed by a nation's miseries, and by the 
 ■world's abhorrence. 
 
 Mr. Chairman — Turning from the gloomy view of the effects of 
 the Canada war, my attention is arrested by another consequence 
 likely to follow from it, on which I will not long detain you, but 
 which is not less interesting, nor less alarming. In proportion as 
 gentlemen become heated in their pursuit of conquest, and are 
 baffled in their efforts to overtake it, the object becomes more val- 
 uable in their estimation, and success is more identified with their 
 pride. The conquest of Canada contemplated as an easy sport, 
 without a fixed design either to keep it to secure, or surrender it 
 to purchase rights, has from its difficulty swelled into an impor- 
 tance which causes it to be valued above all rights. Patriotism 
 was relied on to fill the ranks of the invading army ; but it did not 
 suflicieniiy answer the call. These ranks, however, must be filled 
 —Avarice is next re»orted to — The most enormous price is bid 
 for soldiers, that was ever offered in any age or country. Should 
 this fail, what is the next scheme ? — There is no reserve or con- 
 cealment. It has been avowed that the next scheme is a conscrip- 
 tion. It is known that this scheme was recommended even at this 
 session by the war department — and that it was postponed only to 
 try first the efiect of enormous bounty. The freemen of this coun- 
 try are to be drafted from the ranks of the militia, and forced a- 
 broad as military machines, to wage a war of conquest ! Sir — I 
 have been accustomed to consider the little share which I have in 
 the Constitution of these United States, as the most valuable pat- 
 rimony, I have to leave to those beings, in whom I hope my name 
 and remembrance to be perpetuated. But I solemnly declare, 
 that if such a doctrine be engrafted into this Constitution, I shall 
 regard it as without value, and care not for its preservation. Even 
 in France, where man inured to despotism, has become so past^ive 
 and subservient, as almost to lose the faculty of feeling oppressioh, 
 
 * riir mnn resolvM and st( arly in his truest. 
 Inflexible to ill, and obslinalely just; 
 
 • • • » « «♦ * 
 
 From orbs cfiiivul;'d should all llie planets fly, 
 Morld ci'usli en worlii, -^iixl ocean mix with sky ; 
 TIE, uncoiic:;rn'il would view the t'allinp; whole, 
 And still maintain the purj)os«; of bis soul 
 
51 
 
 and the capacity to perceive it ; even there, sir, the tyranny of coii- 
 :-...ription rouses him tu tlie asscition of l)is innate freedom, to a 
 struij^gle against slavery in its most malif^nuiit form. No, sir. !iot 
 the dread of all the severe punishments* oi-daiucd for refractory 
 conscripts, not the " peine du boulct," the " travaux publicjues," 
 nor death itself, can stupify him into seemini^ sul)mission. He 
 yields only to absolute force, and is marched to the field of glory 
 manacled and hand-cuO'ed. And is such a principle to ue introdu- 
 ced into our benign, our free institutions ? Helieve me, the attempt 
 will be fatal. — It cannot succeed but by military terror — It will be 
 the signal for drawing the sword at home. — Americans are not 
 fitted to be the slaves of a system of French conscription, the most 
 detestable of the inventions of tyranny. Sir, I hear it whispered 
 near me, this is not worse than the impressment of seamen. It is 
 worse, infinitely worse. Impressment forces seamen to serve in 
 the public ships of their cauntry, instead of pursuing tlieir occu- 
 pation in the merchant service. It changes their employnit-rii to 
 one more rigorous, of ionger continuance, of greater danger, but 
 it is yet employment of the same kind — It is yet employment for 
 which they are fitted by usage and education. But conscnpiion is 
 indiscriminate in the victims of its tyranny. The age not ihe pur- 
 suit of the conscript is the sole criterion of his fitness. VVliaiever 
 be his habits, whatever his immediate views, whatever his designed 
 occupation in life, a stern mandate tears him from the roof of his 
 father, from the desk, the office, the plough, or the workshop, and 
 he IS carried far from iionie to tighi iii torcign ciimes the unucs 
 of ambition. But, sir — if conscription were not worse than im- 
 pressment, I should not lose my objections to it — I am not prepa- 
 red to assent to the introduction of eitf.er conscription or inipresr- 
 Tnent into my country. For all the British territories in tiie 
 Western World, I would not. Fight for Sailors' Righis — yet riv- 
 et on our citizens a French conscription ! Fight for lighis on the 
 ocean, and annihilate the most precious of all rights at home — the 
 right of a Freeman never to be forced out of his own countiy i— 
 How alarming is the infatuation of that zeal, which, in its ardor for 
 attaining its object, tramples in the dust objects of infinitely high- 
 er price I 
 
 What is the probability of success in this scheme of conquest, 
 is a topic on which I mean not to enlarge. It is not necessary that 
 I should, for others have ably dibcussecl it. That you may take 
 Upper Canada, that you may overrun the lower province I bc- 
 
 * The system of conscription is upheld in France, by the most rigorous puuish- 
 nieiits upon all who arc iiistrunicnial in evading its upcraiion. 'I he mobt ruinuus fu.- s 
 are imposed upon the jiarents oi' liie refractory conscript, and « htre lliey arc iiccessary 
 to his eseape* the severest corp iral punishmeut, sucli as branding with liot iroL, public ex- 
 posure and imprisonment. The "Peine du Boulet," is hu iron ball of tight pounds 
 Aveiglu, fastened to the leg by an iron chain seven feet long. It is accomprmied with 
 hard labour of ten hours daily, and, iu the intervals of rest, solitary coi.fnitinent. It 
 lasts ten years, and the poor wretch wears a disgraceful dress, the emblem of his igno- 
 miny — The 'travaux publiqucs" are employracDt in such publick laboiV's as the gov- 
 ernraent may direct. 
 
53 
 
 hcvc — But that you will take Quebec, while the mouth ot the St 
 Lawrence is commanded by a hostile fleet, I cannot believe. If an 
 opposite thouj^ht sometimes gets possession of my imas^ination. I 
 find it springint? from that impulse of the heart which makes me 
 fancy victory percb.ed on the standard of my country, and nc-t the 
 result of an exertion of the understanding — But, sir, if vou should 
 conquer the Canadas, subdue Nova Scotia, and possess yourself of 
 all the British territories in America — If, after impoverishing your 
 country by ruinous loans, and grinding down your people by op- 
 ])rcssive taxes, you should wade at last through the horrors of 
 invasion, massacre of prisoners, a servile war, and a military con- 
 scription, to the now darling object of your wishes — I pray you, 
 air, wliat is then to be done ? — What do you design to do with the 
 conquered territory ? We will keep it, say the gentlemen from 
 Vermont and Pennsylvania, (Mr. Bradley and Mr. Ingersoll.) 
 We will kccj) it because it is an object with our people — because 
 it will keep off Indian wars — and retribute us for the wrongs we 
 have sustained. I believe, indeed, that, if conquered, there vvill 
 be a powerful party to the north and west that will not consent to 
 part with it, with whom it is an object. But how shall it be kept I 
 — As a conquered province ? To retain it as such against the 
 eflorts of an exasperated, though conquered, people within, and 
 the exertions of a powerful, proud and irritated enemy without, 
 that enemy master of the sea, always able to invade and to suc- 
 cour the invaders, will require a military strength and a pecuniary 
 expenditure not less continued or less in amount, than were de- 
 manded to take it— Such a conquest is never finished— when nom- 
 inally effected it is to be begun. But we will incorporate it into 
 the Union — Aye, this would be indeed a pleasant resuit. Let my 
 southern friends — let gentleman who represent slave holding 
 states attend to this. How would this project take at home : 
 Wliat would their constituents give to have half a dozen new states 
 made out of the Canadas ? It is, besides, so notable an expedient 
 for strengthening the nation, and so perfectly in accordance with 
 the principles of our form of government. We are to force men 
 into an association the very life of which vi freedom^ and the breath 
 of that life unrestrained choice ! And to give vigor to the nation, 
 we are to admit into its councils, and into a free participation of 
 its power, men whose dislike of its government has been strength- 
 ened into abhorrence by the exasperations of war, and all whose 
 affections are fixed upon its enemy I — But at all events you arc to 
 keep the Canadas. What then will you do about sailors' rights c 
 
 You will not be a jot nearer to them then, than you are now — 
 
 How will you procure them, or seek to procure them ? Will you 
 then begin in good earnest to protect or obtain them by naval 
 means ? — Would it not be adviseable to attend to this declared ob- 
 ject of the warr207y, rather than wait until after the Canadian scheme 
 is cfTccted ? — Perhaps you mean to keep Canada and abandon sai- 
 lors' rights — If so, why not avow to the people that it is conquest 
 you fig.ht for, and notrighi .?— But perhaps it is designed when the 
 
53 
 
 ..conquest, is cfTcctetl, to give it back to Biitiaii as an equivalent foi» 
 \he cession, on her part, of some maritime rii^lit — tor the privilccvc 
 that our ships shall not be searched fur British sailors. On tliis 
 question you may make an arrangement prariicaily securing all 
 we ought now to contend for. You will 1 hope make it in the pend- 
 ing negotiation — But, that by a surrender of Canada, alter it is 
 conquered, you may purchase from her disavowal or rclin(|uish- 
 i-nent of the right, no man can believe who undcrsiands cither the 
 views or the p-ejudiccs of that people. They believe the righi 
 essential" to their naval existence, to deter their seamen from gen- 
 eral desertion — All classes in that country so regard it— we know 
 there is not a difference of opinion among any description of poli- 
 ticians in the kingdom upon ihis subject. If they have any jeal- 
 ousy of you, (and I believe some of them have) it is not a jealousy 
 of your territorial extent — but of your fitness to become their com- 
 me'rcial and naval rival. Can it be believed then that they wouM 
 compromise in a surrender of a claim, which surrendered, in their 
 judgment, weakens them and invigoiates you where alone they 
 are apprehensive of a competition, for the sake of preventing an ac- 
 cession to your territory which extends your limits, while it takes 
 away from your strength ? Indulge no such delusion — Were Can- 
 ada a thousand times more important to Britain than it is, i-t were 
 yet of less value than her naval power. For the sake of it she 
 would never yield a principle on which that naval power depends. 
 No, sir, the return of conquered Canada, even with the hoped for 
 agency in our favour of the Russian Emperor, would not weigh a 
 feather In the scale against what she deems her first great nation- 
 al interest. As it reg-ards too these fancied exertions of Russia in 
 our favour, gentlemen surely deceive themselves. However at- 
 tached Russia may be to the most liberal principles of commercial 
 intercourse, A//e never will array herself against the right of the 
 sovereign to compel the services of his sea-faring subjects — On 
 this head her policy is not less rigorous (to say the least) than 
 that of England — I will not be more particular — a short time will 
 probably siiew the grounds of my belief. 
 
 But, sir, among the reasons for prosecuting the invasion ol 
 Canada, one has been gravely stated of a very peculiar kind. 
 Canada, says a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) 
 should be invaded to protect our frontiers and sea-board from in- 
 vasion — it is the most econom-cal and effectual method ot defence. 
 Alilnugh this consideration presents nothing very splendid to ouv 
 view, yet it would be worth all other reasons for the invasion if iu 
 were founded on fact. But ask the people on your frontiers and 
 on your sea-board, and what will they say ? — They will tell you, 
 that it is the invasion of Canada alone which endangers them — 
 The most effectual defence to them would be an abandonment ol 
 your scheme. Sir, an invasion of the United States, but for the 
 purpose of diverting your forces from Canada, or retorting on you 
 the distresses of war, cannot enter into the scheme of British or 
 Canadian policy. It is not to be prosecuted, but at vast inconven- 
 
54 
 
 icncc) and cxpcTiSe, w'lih [i;reat loss of useful soldiers, under a cer*- 
 taiuiy of ultimate failure, and witiiout hope of triors' or o-ain. The 
 Canadian yeoniar.:y, freed fiorn the terrors of invasions, will cheer- 
 fully resume their peaceful occupations — and such of the British 
 rcjf^ulars as are not recjuired for oi-dinary garrison duty, instead of 
 beins^ employed in a miserable, predatory, yet destructive border 
 warfare, will be sent to minj^le in the European strife, where re- 
 nown and empire arc the niij^hty stake. Surely this is emphatic- 
 ally the age and the government of paradox. A war for " free 
 trade" is waged by embaigo, and prohibition of all commercial 
 intercourse — " sailors' lights" arc secured by imprisoning them 
 at home, and not permitting them to move from place to place 
 within their prison, but by a license from a collector, like a negro's 
 pass, and obtained on the security of a bondsman — and our fron- 
 tiers and sea-board are to be defended by an invasion of Canada, 
 which can alone endanger an attack ! 
 
 But the real efficient argument for perseverance in the scheme 
 of Canadian conquest has been given by the gentleman, from Ten- 
 nessee (Mr. Grundy). We made the war on Britain, says the 
 gentleman, and shall we restrict ourselves to defensive measures? 
 For what purpose was war declared, if we do nothing against the 
 possessions of the enemy ? Yes, sir, it is the consideration that this 
 war was originally offensive on our side, that creates the, I fear, 
 insuperable obstacle to our discontinuance of it. It were vain to 
 lament that gentlemen are under the influence of feelings which 
 belong to human nature. It would be idle to declaim against the 
 sinlulness or the toiiy of false pride. All must admit that it is one 
 of the greatest eflbrts of magnanimity, to retract a course public- 
 ly taken, and on the correctness of which reputation is staked. If 
 honorable gentlemen could but perceive that this difficulty is one 
 of pride only, and of pride opposing their country's best interests, 
 I know that they could, and believe many of them would, make the 
 effort — -Painful as may be the acknowledgment of political error, 
 yet if they clearly sav that cither this humiliation must be endur- 
 ed, or the nation ruinod, they could not hesitate in their choice be- 
 tween such alternatives. i3ut, sir, I wish not to present such al- 
 ternatives to their election — So difficult is it to produce a convic- 
 tion, ag-ainst which ilic pride of the ncaii rebels, that I will not at- 
 t,cmpt it. Gentlemen arc not called on lo retract. They may now 
 suspend tlie execution of their scheme ol n vasiun without an ac- 
 knowledgment of its error. They may iww, without humiliation, 
 restrict themselves to defence, although liie war was in its origin 
 ofiensive. A becond favorable opportunity is presented of restor- 
 ing tranquillity to our once happy country — The tirst, the revoca- 
 tion of the orders m council, was suffered to pass unimproved. 
 Let not this be lost — a third may not shortly occur. Your enemy 
 has invited a direct negotiation for the restoration of peace. Your 
 executive has accepted the oiler, and miiusiers have been appoint- 
 ed to meet the commissioners of the opposite party. This cir- 
 cuipsiancc ought i.o produce an ent,irc and esseutiftl change m 
 
55 
 
 your policy. If the executive be sincere in the acceptance of this 
 proposition, he must h-iv«- acted on the hope that an amicable ad- 
 justment of flifferences miejht be made. And wliilr there is such 
 a hope, such a prospect, on what principle can you jusiiiy invasion 
 and conquest ? Force is the substitute, not the Icei'iniate coadju- 
 tor of negotiation — Nations fight because they cannot treat. Eve- 
 ry benevolent fofling and correct principle arc opposed to an ef- 
 fusion of blood, and an extension of misery, which arc hoped to be 
 unnecessary ' I'is necessity alone which iuinis'.ies their excuse — 
 do not then at the moment when you avow a belief, a liopc at least, 
 that such necessity exists not, pursue a conduct which, but for its 
 existence, is inhuman and detestable. 
 
 Besides, sir, if you are earnest in the wish to obtain peace from 
 the Gottenburg niission, suspend, in the mean time, ofTtnsive op- 
 erations, which cannot facilitate, and ihay prevent the accomplish- 
 ment of your object. Think you that Britain is to be intimidated 
 by your menaced invasion of her territories ? If she had not learn- 
 ed by experience, how harmless are your threats, she would nev- 
 ertheless see but little cause for fear. She knows that the con- 
 quest cannot be completed in one, not in two campaigns. And 
 '.vhen she finds that every soldier whom you enlist, is to cost you 
 in bounty alone, up\Vards of 100 guineas,* she will perceive that 
 the war is more destructive to your finance, the great source of 
 military strength, than to her territories. The blow aimed at her, 
 recoils upon yourselves. But the exasperations which must re- 
 sult from the wiongs mutually inflicted in the course of the cam- 
 paign, may have a very injurious effect upon the disposition to pur- 
 sue pacific efforts. They will be apt to create a temper on each side, 
 unfavorable to an amicable arrangement. In truth, too, sir, you 
 are not prepared for such a campaign, as in honor and humanity 
 you can alone permit yourselves to carry on. Suppose by the 
 month of May or June, you raise your men — What arc they ? 
 Soldiers, fitted to take care of themselves in camp, and supix)rt the 
 reputation of your arms in the field ? No — they are a mere rabble 
 of raw recruits — march them to Canada, and pestilence will sweep 
 them off by regiments and'brigadcs — while the want of discipline 
 will unfit those, whom pestilence spares, for an honorable contest 
 with an experienced foe — Instead therefore of the hurry and bus- 
 tle of filling your ranks with recruits and rushing with them into 
 Canada, attend rather to the training and improvement of those 
 now in service. Make soldiers of them — 'oy gradual enlistments 
 you may regularly add to their number, and inscnsilily incorporate 
 the new levies' with the disciplined troops. If it should hereafter 
 become necessary to march into the field, you will then have an 
 army under your command, not a midtitudc. without subordination. 
 Suspend, therefore, hostilities, while you negotiate. Make an ar- 
 mistice until the result of the negotiation is ascertained. \ ou can 
 
 * The bounty to e.^ch soldier is one hundred nml twenty-four doHars c^.^h, .ind one 
 hundred and sixty acres of land, which, at two dolhrs per x^ovi, is three hundred and 
 twenty dollars, in all, four hundred and forty-four dollars besides the eight dolhirs pc 
 man to the recruitinc; agent. 
 
5& 
 
 lose nothino-_you may gain every thing by sucii a course— Then 
 negotiate fairly, with a view to obtain for your native seamen a 
 
 practical and reasonable security against impressment and with 
 
 a disposition to aid Britain in commanding the services of her 
 own. Such an arrangement might have been made on the revo- 
 cation of the orders in council, could you have been then satisfied 
 with any thing short of an abandonment of the British claim to 
 
 search. I doubt not but that it may now be made more you 
 
 probably cannot obtain. The time may come when, with greater 
 effect, you can prefer, if necessary, higher claims. All is hazard- 
 ed by precipitately urging more than your relative strength ena- 
 bles you to enforce. Permit your country to grow — Let no just 
 right be abandoned — If any be postponed, it may be advanced at a 
 more opportune season, with better prospect of success. If you 
 will quit this crusade against Canada, and seek peace in the spirit 
 of accommodation — and (permit me to add) if you will forego your 
 empiric schemes of embargo and commercial restrictions — you 
 will restore harmony at home, and allay that wide spread, and m 
 some places, alarming spirit oi discontent that prevails in our land. 
 And if your pacific efforts fail, if an obstinate and implacable foe 
 ■will not agree to such a peace as the country can with credit ac- 
 cept, then appeal to the candor ajidspiritof your people for a con- 
 •stitutional support, with a full assurance, that such an appeal un- 
 der such circumstances, cannot be made in vain. 
 
 It is time — Mr.Chairman — that I should release you from the fa- 
 tigue of hearing me. There is but one more topic to which I solicit 
 youi' attention.— Many admonitions have been addressed to the mi- 
 nority, by gentlemen on the ministerial side of thishouse,not without 
 merit, and I hope not without edification, on the evils of violent 
 opposition and intemperate party spirit. It is not to be denied 
 that opposition may exceed all reasonable bounds, and a minority 
 l)ecome factious. But when I hear it seriously urged, that the 
 nature of our government foibids that firm, manly, aciive opposi- 
 tion, wiiich in countries less free, is salutary and necessary — and 
 when I perceive all the dangers of faction apprehended, only on 
 the side of a minority — I witness but rtew instances of that wori' 
 dcrful ductility of the himian mind, v/hich in its zeal to effect a 
 favorite purpose, begins with <he work of self deception. \\hy, 
 sir, will not our form of government tolerate or require the same 
 ardour «f constitutional opposition, which is desirable in one 
 v.herein the chief magistrate is hereditary ? " Because, says the 
 gentleman from South-Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) in a monarchy the 
 influence of the executive and his ministers requires continual 
 vigilance, lest it obtain too great a preponderance — but here the 
 executive springs from the people, can do nothing without their 
 support, and cannot, therefore, overrule and control the pub- 
 lic sentiment." Sir, let us not stop at the surface of things. 
 The influence of the executive in this country, while he retains 
 his Jwjrdarity, is infinitely greater than that of a limited mo- 
 narch. It is as much stronger as the spasm of convulsion is 
 
37 
 
 more violent than the voluntary tension of a muscle. The warmtii 
 of feeling excited durins; the contest of an election, and the na- 
 tural zeal to uphold him whom they have chosen, create, between 
 the executive and his adherents, a connection of /iassio?i — while 
 the distribution of ofiice and emolument adds a communion of in- 
 terest — which combined, produce an union almost indissoluble. 
 " Support the administration" becomes a watch-word, which pas- 
 ses from each chieftain of the dominant party to his subaltcrnst, 
 and thence to their followers in the ranks, till the President's 
 opinion becomes the criterion of orthodoxy, and his notions obtain 
 a dominion over the public sentiment, which facilitates the most 
 dangerous encroachments, and demands the most jealous super- 
 vision. In a proportion as a government is free, the spirit of bold 
 inquiry— of animated interest in its measures — and of firm oppo- 
 sition, where they are not approved, becomes essential to its puri- 
 ty and continuance. And he, who in a democracy or republic at- 
 tempts to control the will of the popular idol of the day, may envy 
 the luxurious ease with which ministerial oppressions are oppos- 
 ed and thwarted in governments which are less free. Intemper- 
 ance of party, wherever found, never will meet with an advocate 
 
 in me — It is a most calamitous scourge to our country the bane 
 
 of social enjoyment, of mdividual justice, and of public virtue 
 
 unfriendly to the best pursuits of man, his interest and his duty 
 
 it renders useless, or even pernicious, the highest endowments of 
 intellect, and the noblest dispositions of the soul. But, sir, what- 
 ever may be the evils necessarily inherent in its nature, its ravag- 
 es are then most enormous and desolating when it is seated on the 
 throne of power, and vested with all the attributes of rule. I 
 mean not to follow the gentleman from South-Carolina over the clas- 
 sic ground of Greece, Carthage, and Rome, to refute his theory, 
 and shew that not to vehement opposition, but to the abuse fo fac- 
 tious and intolerant power their doom is to be attributed Nor 
 
 will I examine some more modern instances of republics whose 
 destruction has the same origin — The thing is no longer matter of 
 discussion — It has passed into a settled truth in the science of po- 
 litical philosophy. One, who on a question of historical deduction, 
 of political theorijy is entitled to high respect, has given us an 
 admirable summary of the experience of republics on this inter- 
 esting enquiry — In the 10th number of the Federalist, written by 
 Mr. Madison — We find the following apt and judicious obscrva- 
 uons — " By a faction I understand a number of cilizejis wheihcr 
 amouncing to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united 
 and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interes 
 adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and ag- 
 gregate interests of the community." 
 
 « The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of 
 faction caamot b^ removed j and that relief is only to be sought in 
 the means of controlling its effects. If a faction consists of ]csi» 
 than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principh 
 which enables the majority to defeat its sinister vic^vs by regula- 
 n 
 
58 
 
 vote. It may clog the administration, it raav convulse the socie- 
 ty ; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under 
 the forms of the constitution. IVhai a majority 7",, included in a 
 factions the form offiopidargo-vernment on the other hand enables it 
 to sacrifice to its ruling /lassion or interest, both the public good, 
 and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and pri- 
 vate rights against the dayigers of such a faction, and at the same 
 time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is 
 Chen the great object to which our enquiries are directed. Let me 
 add that it is the great desideratum by which alone this form of 
 government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it 
 has so long laboured, and be recommended to the esteem and a- 
 doption of mankind." 
 
 If this doctrine were then to be collected from the History of 
 the World, can it now be doubted since the experience of the last 
 twenty-five years ? Go to France, once Revolutionary, now Impe- 
 rial France — and ask her whether — Factious Power — or, Intem- 
 perate Opposition, be the more fatal to Freedom and Happiness ? 
 Perhaps at some moment when the eagle eye of her master is 
 turned away, she may whisper to you, to behold the demolition of 
 Lyons, or the devastation of La Vendee. Perhaps she will give 
 you a written answer — Draw near to the once fatal Lamp-post, and 
 by its flickering light, read it as traced in characters of blood that 
 flowed from the guillotine. " Faction is a demon ! — Faction 
 out of power, is a demon enchained ! — Faction, vested with the 
 attributes of rule, is a Moloch of destruction I" 
 
 Sir— If the denunciations Avhich gentlemen have pronounced 
 against factious violence, are not merely the images of rhetoric 
 pomp— if they are, indeed, solicitous to mitigate the rancour of 
 party feuds — in the sincerity of my soul I wish them success. It 
 is melancholy to behold the miserable jealousies and malignant 
 suspicions which so extensively prevail, to the destruction of so- 
 cial comfort, and the imminent peril of the republic. On this sub- 
 ject I have reflected much — not merely in the intervals stolen 
 from the bustle of business, or the gaieties of amusement ; but in 
 the moments of " depression and solitude," the most favourable 
 to the correction of error. For one, I am willing to bring a portion 
 of party feeling, and party prejudice, as an oblation at the shrine 
 of my country. But do offering can avail any thing if not made on 
 the part of those who are the political favourites of the day. On 
 them it is incumbent to come forward and set the magnanimous 
 example— Approaches or concessions on the side of the minority 
 •would be misconstrued into indications of tiniidity or of a hanker- 
 ing for favour. But a spirit of conciliation, arising from those 
 ranks, would be hailed as the harbinger of sunny days, as a chal- 
 lenge to liberality, and to a generous contention for the public 
 weal. This spirit requires not any departure from deliberate 
 opinion, unless it is shewn to be erroneous — such a concession 
 ■would be a dereliction of duty— Its injunctions would be but few, 
 and it is to be hoped not difficult of observance— Seek to uphold 
 
your measures by the force of argument, not of d^ nunclation— ♦ 
 Stiprnatise not opposition to your notions willi offensive epithets 
 — These prove nothing but your angcc or your weakness, and are 
 sure to generate a spirit of " moral resistance" not easily to bf. 
 checked or tamed- Give to presidential views constitutional re-, 
 spect, but suffer them not to supersede the exercise of independent 
 inquiry — Encourage instead of suppressing fair discussion, so that 
 those who approve not may at least have a respectful hearing — 
 Thus without derogating a particle from theenergy of your meas- 
 ures yOU would impart a tone to political dissensions which would 
 deprive them of their acrimony, and render them harmless to the 
 nation. 
 
 The nominal party distinctions, sir, have become mere cabal- 
 listick terms. It is no longer a question whether, according to the 
 theory of our constitution, t"here is more danger of the federal en- 
 croaching on the state governments, or the democracy of the state 
 governments paralizing the arm of federal power — Federalism 
 and democracy have lost their meaning. It is now a question of 
 commerce, peace, and union of the States. On this question, un- 
 less the honesty and intelligence of the nation shall confederate in- 
 to one great American party, disdaining petty office-keeping and 
 office-hunting views, defying alike the insolence of the popular 
 prints, the prejudices of faction, and the dominion of executive in- 
 fluence — I fear a decision will be pronounced fatal to the hopes, 
 to the existence of the nation. In this question I assuredly have 
 a very deep interest — but it is the interest of a citizen only— My 
 public career I hope will not continue long — Should it please the 
 Disposer of events to permit mc to see the great interests of this 
 nation confided to men who will secure its rights by firmness, mode- 
 ration and impartiality abrbad, and at home cultivate the arts of 
 peace, encourage honest industry in all its branches, dispense e- 
 qual justice to all classes of the community, and thus administer 
 the government in the true spirit of the constitution, as a trust 
 for the people, not as the property of a party, it will be to me ut- 
 terly unimportant by what political epithet they may be character- 
 ized—As a private citizen, grateful for the blessings I may enjoy, 
 and yielding a prompt obedience to every legitimate demand that 
 can be made upon me, I shall rejoice, as far as my little sphere 
 may extend, to foster the same dispositions among those who sur- 
 round me. 
 
•»<