[ON the eighteenth of June, 1812, war was declared by congress
against Great Britain, and the next session of congress
commenced in November, 1812, when the president, in his annual
message to the two houses, gave a sketch of the events which
had transpired during the recess. The military operations on the
frontier had resulted, at first, in a series of unexpected and
disgraceful disasters to our arms. Amidst all discouragements,
Mr. Clay was the leader, and the life and soul of the
administration party in the house. His early biographer says
of him: ‘he moved in majesty, for he moved in strength. No
difficulties could weary or withstand his energies. Like the
Carthagenian chief in the passage of the Alps, he kept his
place in front of his comrades, putting aside, with a giant
effort, every obstacle that opposed his progress, applauding the
foremost of his followers, and rousing those who lingered, by
words of encouragement or reproach, till he succeeded in putting
them upon a moral eminence, from which they could look down upon
the region where their prowess was to meet with its long
expected reward.’
Among the first measures proposed at this session of congress,
to raise the spirit of the nation, and retrieve the fortunes of
war, made gloomy by the disasters upon the frontier, was a bill
to increase the army, by raising twenty additional regiments. In
support of this bill, and on the merits of the war, as well as
in reply to the arguments of the opposition members, Mr. Clay
addressed the committee of the whole house, in the following
speech.]
MR. CLAY (the speaker) said he was gratified yesterday by the
recommitment of this bill to a committee of the whole house, from two
considerations; one, since it afforded him a slight relaxation from a
most fatiguing situation; and the other, because it furnished him with
an opportunity of presenting to the committee his sentiments, upon the
important topics which had been mingled in the debate. He regretted,
however, that the necessity under which the chairman had been placed,
of putting the question,[3] precluded the opportunity he had wished to
enjoy, of rendering more acceptable to the committee any thing he might
have to offer on the interesting points, on which it was his duty to
touch. Unprepared, however, as he was, to speak on this day, of which
he was the more sensible from the ill state of his health, he would
solicit the attention of the committee for a few moments.
I was a little astonished, I confess, said Mr. Clay, when I found this
bill permitted to pass silently through the committee of the whole,
and not selected until the moment when the question was to be put for
its third reading, as the subject on which gentlemen in the opposition
chose to lay before the house their views of the interesting attitude
in which the nation stands. It did appear to me, that the loan bill,
which will soon come before us, would have afforded a much more proper
occasion, it being more essential, as providing the ways and means
for the prosecution of the war. But the gentlemen had the right of
selection, and having exercised it, no matter how improperly, I am
gratified, whatever I may think of the character of some part of the
debate, at the latitude in which, for once, they have been indulged. I
claim only, in return, of gentlemen on the other side of the house, and
of the committee, a like indulgence in expressing my sentiments, with
the same unrestrained freedom. Perhaps, in the course of the remarks,
which I may feel myself called upon to make, gentlemen may apprehend,
that they assume too harsh an aspect; but I have only now to say, that
I shall speak of parties, measures, and things, as they strike my moral
sense, protesting against the imputation of any intention, on my part,
to wound the feelings of any _gentlemen_.
Considering the situation in which this country is now placed――a state
of actual war with one of the most powerful nations on the earth――it
may not be useless to take a view of the past, and of the various
parties which have at different times appeared in this country, and
to attend to the manner by which we have been driven from a peaceful
posture, to our present warlike attitude. Such an inquiry may assist
in guiding us to that result, an honorable peace, which must be
the sincere desire of every friend to America. The course of that
opposition, by which the administration of the government had been
unremittingly impeded for the last twelve years, was singular, and, I
believe, unexampled in the history of any country. It has been alike
the duty and the interest of the administration to preserve peace.
It was their duty, because it is necessary to the growth of an infant
people, to their genius, and to their habits. It was their interest,
because a change of the condition of the nation, brings along with it a
danger of the loss of the affections of the people. The administration
has not been forgetful of these solemn obligations. No art has been
left unessayed, no experiment, promising a favorable result, left
untried, to maintain the peaceful relations of the country. When,
some six or seven years ago, the affairs of the nation assumed a
threatening aspect, a partial non-importation was adopted. As they grew
more alarming, an embargo was imposed. It would have accomplished its
purpose, but it was sacrificed upon the altar of conciliation. Vain and
fruitless attempt to propitiate! Then came along non-intercourse; and
a general non-importation followed in the train. In the mean time, any
indications of a return to the public law and the path of justice, on
the part of either belligerent, are seized upon with avidity by the
administration. The arrangement with Mr. Erskine is concluded. It is
first applauded, and then censured by the opposition. No matter with
what unfeigned sincerity, with what real effort, the administration
cultivates peace, the opposition insists, that it alone is culpable
for every breach that is made between the two countries. Because the
president thought proper, in accepting the proffered reparation for
the attack on a national vessel, to intimate, that it would have better
comported with the justice of the king (and who does not think so?) to
punish the offending officer, the opposition, entering into the royal
feelings, sees, in that imaginary insult, abundant cause for rejecting
Mr. Erskine’s arrangement. On another occasion, you cannot have
forgotten the hypocritical ingenuity which they displayed, to divest
Mr. Jackson’s correspondence of a premeditated insult to this country.
If gentlemen would only reserve for their own government, half the
sensibility which is indulged for that of Great Britain, they would
find much less to condemn. Restriction after restriction has been tried;
negotiation has been resorted to, until further negotiation would have
been disgraceful. Whilst these peaceful experiments are undergoing a
trial, what is the conduct of the opposition? They are the champions
of war――the proud――the spirited――the sole repository of the nation’s
honor――the men of exclusive vigor and energy. The administration, on
the contrary, is weak, feeble, and pusillanimous――‘incapable of being
kicked into a war.’ The maxim, ‘not a cent for tribute, millions for
defence,’ is loudly proclaimed. Is the administration for negotiation?
The opposition is tired, sick, disgusted with negotiation. They want to
draw the sword, and avenge the nation’s wrongs. When, however, foreign
nations, perhaps emboldened by the very opposition here made, refuse to
listen to the amicable appeals, which have been repeated and reiterated
by the administration, to their justice and to their interest――when, in
fact, war with one of them has become identified with our independence
and our sovereignty, and to abstain from it was no longer possible,
behold the opposition veering round and becoming the friends of peace
and commerce. They tell you of the calamities of war, its tragical
events, the squandering away of your resources, the waste of the public
treasure, and the spilling of innocent blood. ‘Gorgons, hydras, and
chimeras dire.’ They tell you, that honor is an illusion! Now, we see
them exhibiting the terrific forms of the roaring king of the forest.
Now, the meekness and humility of the lamb! They are for war and no
restrictions, when the administration is for peace. They are for peace
and restrictions, when the administration is for war. You find them,
sir, tacking with every gale, displaying the colors of every party, and
of all nations, steady only in one unalterable purpose――to steer, if
possible, into the haven of power.
During all this time, the parasites of opposition do not fail, by
cunning sarcasm, or sly inuendo, to throw out the idea of French
influence, which is known to be false, which ought to be met in one
manner only, and that is by the lie direct. The administration of
this country devoted to foreign influence! The administration of
this country subservient to France! Great God! what a charge! how is
it so influenced? By what ligament, on what basis, on what possible
foundation does it rest? Is it similarity of language? No! we speak
different tongues, we speak the English language. On the resemblance
of our laws? No! the sources of our jurisprudence spring from another
and a different country. On commercial intercourse? No! we have
comparatively none with France. Is it from the correspondence in the
genius of the two governments? No! here alone is the liberty of man
secure from the inexorable despotism, which, every where else, tramples
it under foot. Where, then, is the ground of such an influence? But,
sir, I am insulting you by arguing on such a subject. Yet, preposterous
and ridiculous as the insinuation is, it is propagated with so much
industry, that there are persons found foolish and credulous enough
to believe it. You will, no doubt, think it incredible, (but I have
nevertheless been told it is a fact,) that an honorable member of this
house, now in my eye, recently lost his election by the circulation
of a silly story in his district, that he was the first cousin of the
emperor Napoleon. The proof of the charge rested on the statement of
facts, which was undoubtedly true. The gentleman in question, it was
alleged, had married a connection of the lady of the President of the
United States, who was the intimate friend of Thomas Jefferson, late
President of the United States, who some years ago, was in the habit of
wearing red French breeches. Now, taking these premises as established,
you, Mr. Chairman, are too good a logician not to see that the
conclusion necessarily follows!
Throughout the period he had been speaking of, the opposition has
been distinguished, amidst all its veerings and changes, by another
inflexible feature――the application to Bonaparte of every vile
and opprobious epithet our language, copious as it is in terms of
vituperation, affords. He has been compared to every hideous monster,
and beast, from that mentioned in the Revelations, down to the most
insignificant quadruped. He has been called the scourge of mankind, the
destroyer of Europe, the great robber, the infidel, the modern Attila,
and heaven knows by what other names. Really, gentlemen remind me of
an obscure lady, in a city not very far off, who also took it into her
head, in conversation with an accomplished French gentleman, to talk
of the affairs of Europe. She, too, spoke of the destruction of the
balance of power; stormed and raged about the insatiable ambition of
the emperor; called him the curse of mankind, the destroyer of Europe.
The Frenchman listened to her with perfect patience, and when she
had ceased, said to her, with ineffable politeness, ‘madame, it would
give my master, the emperor, infinite pain, if he knew how hardly you
thought of him.’ Sir, gentlemen appear to me to forget, that they stand
on American soil; that they are not in the British house of commons,
but in the chamber of the house of representatives of the United States;
that we have nothing to do with the affairs of Europe, the partition of
territory and sovereignty there, except so far as these things affect
the interests of our own country. Gentlemen transform themselves into
the Burkes, Chathams, and Pitts, of another country, and forgetting,
from honest zeal, the interests of America, engage with European
sensibility in the discussion of European interests. If gentlemen ask
me, whether I do not view with regret and horror the concentration of
such vast power in the hands of Bonaparte, I reply, that I do. I regret
to see the emperor of China holding such immense sway over the fortunes
of millions of our species. I regret to see Great Britain possessing
so uncontrolled a command over all the waters of our globe. If I had
the ability to distribute among the nations of Europe their several
portions of power and of sovereignty, I would say, that Holland should
be resuscitated, and given the weight she enjoyed in the days of her
De Witts. I would confine France within her natural boundaries, the
Alps, Pyrenees, and the Rhine, and make her a secondary naval power
only. I would abridge the British maritime power, raise Prussia and
Austria to their original condition, and preserve the integrity of the
empire of Russia. But these are speculations. I look at the political
transactions of Europe, with the single exception of their possible
bearing upon us, as I do at the history of other countries, or other
times. I do not survey them with half the interest that I do the
movements in South America. Our political relation with them is much
less important than it is supposed to be. I have no fears of French
or English subjugation. If we are united we are too powerful for the
mightiest nation in Europe, or all Europe combined. If we are separated
and torn asunder, we shall become an easy prey to the weakest of them.
In the latter dreadful contingency, our country will not be worth
preserving.
Next to the notice which the opposition has found itself called upon
to bestow upon the French emperor, a distinguished citizen of Virginia,
formerly president of the United States, has never for a moment failed
to receive their kindest and most respectful attention. An honorable
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) of whom I am sorry to
say, it becomes necessary for me, in the course of my remarks, to
take some notice, has alluded to him in a remarkable manner. Neither
his retirement from public office, his eminent services, nor his
advanced age, can exempt this patriot from the coarse assaults of
party malevolence. No, sir, in 1801, he snatched from the rude hand
of usurpation the violated constitution of his country, and _that_ is
his crime. He preserved that instrument, in form, and substance, and
spirit, a precious inheritance for generations to come, and for _this_
he can never be forgiven. How vain and impotent is party rage, directed
against such a man! He is not more elevated by his lofty residence,
upon the summit of his own favorite mountain, than he is lifted, by the
serenity of his mind, and the consciousness of a well-spent life, above
the malignant passions and bitter feelings of the day. No! his own
beloved Monticello is not more moved by the storms that beat against
its sides, than is this illustrious man, by the howlings of the whole
British pack, set loose from the Essex kennel! When the gentleman to
whom I have been compelled to allude, shall have mingled his dust with
that of his abused ancestors, when he shall have been consigned to
oblivion, or, if he lives at all, shall live only in the treasonable
annals of a certain junto, the name of Jefferson will be hailed with
gratitude, his memory honored and cherished as the second founder
of the liberties of the people, and the period of his administration
will be looked back to, as one of the happiest and brightest epochs
of American history[4]――an oasis in the midst of a sandy desert. But
I beg the gentleman’s pardon; he has indeed secured to himself a more
imperishable fame than I had supposed; I think it was about four years
ago that he submitted to the house of representatives, an initiative
proposition for an impeachment of Mr. Jefferson. The house condescended
to consider it. The gentleman debated it with his usual _temper_,
_moderation_, and _urbanity_. The house decided upon it in the most
solemn manner, and, although the gentleman had some how obtained a
second, the final vote stood, one for, and one hundred and seventeen
against the proposition!
In one respect there is a remarkable difference between the
administration and the opposition; it is in a sacred regard for
personal liberty. When out of power, my political friends condemned
the surrender of Jonathan Robbins; they opposed the violation of
the freedom of the press, in the sedition law; they opposed the more
insidious attack upon the freedom of the person, under the imposing
garb of an alien law. The party now in opposition, then in power,
advocated the sacrifice of the unhappy Robbins, and passed those two
laws. True to our principles, we are now struggling for the liberty
of our seamen against foreign oppression. True to theirs, they oppose
a war undertaken for this object. They have indeed lately affected
a tender solicitude for the liberties of the people, and talk of the
danger of standing armies, and the burden of taxes. But it must be
evident to you, Mr. Chairman, that they speak in a foreign idiom.
Their brogue evinces that it is not their vernacular tongue. What!
the opposition, who, in 1798 and 1799, could raise a useless army
to fight an enemy three thousand miles distant from us, alarmed at
the existence of one raised for a known and specified object――the
attack of the adjoining provinces of the enemy. What! the gentleman
from Massachusetts, who assisted by his vote to raise the army of
twenty-five thousand, alarmed at the danger of our liberties from this
very army!
But, sir, I must speak of another subject, which I never think of but
with feelings of the deepest awe. The gentleman from Massachusetts, in
imitation of some of his predecessors of 1799, has entertained us with
a picture of cabinet plots, presidential plots, and all sorts of plots,
which have been engendered by the diseased state of the gentleman’s
imagination. I wish, sir, that another plot, of a much more serious
and alarming character――a plot that aims at the dismemberment of our
union――had only the same imaginary existence. But no man, who has paid
any attention to the tone of certain prints, and to transactions in a
particular quarter of the union, for several years past, can doubt the
existence of such a plot. It was far, very far from my intention to
charge the opposition with such a design. No, I believe them generally
incapable of it. But I cannot say as much for some, who have been
unworthily associated with them in the quarter of the union to which
I have referred. The gentleman cannot have forgotten his own sentiment,
uttered even on the floor of this house, ‘peaceably if we can, FORCIBLY
if we must,’ nearly at the very time Henry’s mission to Boston was
undertaken. The flagitiousness of that embassy had been attempted to
be concealed, by directing the public attention to the price which,
the gentleman says, was given for the disclosure. As if any price
could change the atrociousness of the attempt on the part of Great
Britain, or could extenuate, in the slightest degree, the offence of
those citizens, who entertained and deliberated upon a proposition so
infamous and unnatural! There was a most remarkable coincidence between
some of the things which that man states, and certain events in the
quarter alluded to. In the contingency of war with Great Britain,
it will be recollected, that the neutrality and eventual separation
of that section of the union was to be brought about. How, sir, has
it happened, since the declaration of war, that British officers in
Canada have asserted to American officers, that this very neutrality
would take place? That they have so asserted can be established beyond
controversy. The project is not brought forward openly, with a direct
avowal of the intention. No, the stock of good sense and patriotism
in that portion of the country is too great to be undisguisedly
encountered. It is assailed from the masked batteries of friendship, of
peace and commerce, on the one side, and by the groundless imputation
of opposite propensities, on the other. The affections of the people,
there, are gradually to be undermined. The project is suggested or
withdrawn; the diabolical _dramatis personæ_, in this criminal tragedy,
make their appearance or exit, as the audience, to whom they address
themselves, applaud, or condemn. I was astonished, sir, in reading
lately a letter, or pretended letter, published in a prominent print
in that quarter, and written, not in the fervor of party zeal, but
coolly and dispassionately, to find that the writer affected to reason
about a separation, and attempted to demonstrate its advantages to the
different portions of the union; deploring the existence now of what he
terms prejudices against it, but hoping for the arrival of the period
when they shall be eradicated. But, sir, I will quit this unpleasant
subject; I will turn from one, whom no sense of decency or propriety
could restrain from soiling the carpet on which he treads,[5] to
gentlemen, who have not forgotten what is due to themselves, to the
place in which we are assembled, or to those by whom they are opposed.
The gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Pearson), from Connecticut
(Mr. Pitkin), and from New York (Mr. Bleeker), have, with their usual
decorum, contended that the war would not have been declared, had
it not been for the duplicity of France, in withholding an authentic
instrument, repealing the decrees of Berlin and Milan; that upon the
exhibition of such an instrument, the revocation of the orders in
council took place; that this main cause of the war, but for which it
would not have been declared, being removed, the administration ought
to seek for the restoration of peace; and that, upon its sincerely
doing so, terms compatible with the honor and interest of this country
might be obtained. It is my purpose, said Mr. Clay, to examine, first,
into the circumstances under which the war was declared; secondly, into
the causes of continuing it; and, lastly, into the means which have
been taken, or ought to be taken, to procure peace; but, sir, I am
really so exhausted, that, little as I am in the habit of asking of
the house an indulgence of this kind, I feel I must trespass on their
goodness.
[Here Mr. Clay sat down. Mr. Newton moved, that the committee rise,
report progress, and ask leave to sit again, which was done. On the
next day he proceeded.]
I am sensible, Mr. Chairman, that some part of the debate, to which
this bill has given rise, has been attended by circumstances much to
be regretted, not usual in this house, and of which it is to be hoped,
there will be no repetition. The gentleman from Boston had so absolved
himself from every rule of decorum and propriety, had so outraged
all decency, that I have found it impossible to suppress the feelings
excited on the occasion. His colleague, whom I have the honor to follow,
(Mr. Wheaton,) whatever else he might not have proved, in his very
learned, ingenious, and original exposition of the powers of this
government――an exposition in which he has sought, where nobody before
him has, and nobody after him will look, for a grant of our powers,
I mean the preamble to the constitution――has clearly shown, to the
satisfaction of all who heard him, that the power of defensive war is
conferred. I claim the benefit of a similar principle, in behalf of my
political friends, against the gentlemen from Boston. I demand only the
exercise of the right of repulsion. No one is more anxious than I am
to preserve the dignity and the freedom of debate; no member is more
responsible for its abuse, and, if, on this occasion, its just limits
have been violated, let him, who has been the unprovoked aggressor,
appropriate to himself, exclusively, the consequences.
I omitted yesterday, sir, when speaking of a delicate and painful
subject, to notice a powerful engine which the conspirators against
the integrity of the union employ, to effect their nefarious purposes;
I mean southern influence. The true friend to his country, knowing
that our constitution was the work of compromise, in which interests
apparently conflicting were attempted to be reconciled, aims to
extinguish or allay prejudices. But this patriotic exertion does not
suit the views of those, who are urged on by diabolical ambition.
They find it convenient, to imagine the existence of certain improper
influences, and to propagate with their utmost industry a belief of
them. Hence the idea of southern preponderance, Virginia influence,
the yoking of the respectable yeomanry of the north with negro
slaves to the car of southern nabobs. If Virginia really cherished a
reprehensible ambition, an aim to monopolize the chief magistracy of
the country, how was such a purpose to be accomplished? Virginia, alone,
cannot elect a president, whose elevation depends upon a plurality of
electoral votes, and a consequent concurrence of many states. Would
Vermont, disinterested Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, independent Georgia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, all consent to become the tools
of inordinate ambition? But the present incumbent was designated to the
office before his predecessor had retired. How? By public sentiment;
public sentiment, which grew out of his known virtues, his illustrious
services, and his distinguished abilities. Would the gentleman crush
this public sentiment?――is he prepared to admit, that he would arrest
the progress of opinion?
The war was declared, because Great Britain arrogated to herself the
pretension of regulating our foreign trade, under the delusive name
of retaliatory orders in council――a pretension by which she undertook
to proclaim to American enterprise, ‘thus far shalt thou go, and no
further’――orders which she refused to revoke, after the alleged cause
of their enactment had ceased; because she persisted in the practice of
impressing American seamen; because she had instigated the Indians to
commit hostilities against us; and because she refused indemnity for
her past injuries upon our commerce. I throw out of the question other
wrongs. The war in fact was announced, on our part, to meet the war
which she was waging on her part. So undeniable were the causes of the
war, so powerfully did they address themselves to the feelings of the
whole American people, that when the bill was pending before this house,
gentlemen in the opposition, although provoked to debate, would not,
or could not, utter one syllable against it. It is true, they wrapped
themselves up in sullen silence, pretending they did not choose to
debate such a question in secret session. Whilst speaking of the
proceedings on that occasion, I beg to be permitted to advert to
another fact which transpired; an important fact, material for the
nation to know, and which I have often regretted had not been spread
upon our journals. My honorable colleague (Mr. M’Kee) moved, in
committee of the whole, to comprehend France in the war; and when the
question was taken upon the proposition, there appeared but ten votes
in support of it, of whom, seven belonged to this side of the house,
and three only to the other! It is said, that we were inveigled into
the war by the perfidy of France; and that, had she furnished the
document in time, which was first published in England, in May last,
it would have been prevented. I will concede to gentlemen, every thing
they ask about the injustice of France towards this country. I wish
to God, that our ability was equal to our disposition, to make her
feel the sense that we entertain of that injustice. The manner of
the publication of the paper in question, was, undoubtedly, extremely
exceptionable. But I maintain, that, had it made its appearance
earlier, it would not have had the effect supposed; and the proof
lies in the unequivocal declarations of the British government. I will
trouble you, sir, with going no further back than to the letters of the
British minister, addressed to the secretary of state, just before the
expiration of his diplomatic functions. It will be recollected by the
committee, that he exhibited to this government a despatch, from lord
Castlereagh, in which the principle was distinctly avowed, that, to
produce the effect of a repeal of the orders in council, the French
decrees must be absolutely and entirely revoked as to all the world,
and not as to America alone. A copy of that despatch was demanded of
him, and he very awkwardly evaded it. But on the tenth of June, after
the bill declaring war had actually passed this house, and was pending
before the senate, (and which, I have no doubt, was known to him,) in
a letter to Mr. Monroe, he says: ‘I have no hesitation, sir, in saying,
that Great Britain, as the case has hitherto stood, never did, nor
never _could_, engage, without the greatest injustice to herself and
her allies, as well as to other neutral nations, to repeal her orders
as affecting America alone, leaving them in force against other states,
upon condition that France would except, singly and specially, America
from the operation of her decrees.’ On the fourteenth of the same month,
the bill still pending before the senate, he repeats: ‘I will now say,
that I feel entirely authorized to assure you, that if you can, at any
time, produce a _full and unconditional_ repeal of the French decrees,
as you have a right to demand it, in your character of a neutral nation,
and that it be disengaged from any question concerning our maritime
rights, we shall be ready to meet you with a revocation of the orders
in council. Previously to your producing _such_ an instrument, which
I am sorry to see you regard as unnecessary, you cannot expect of us
to give up our orders in council.’ Thus, sir, you see, that the British
government would not be content with a repeal of the French decrees,
as to us only. But the French paper in question was such a repeal.
It could not, therefore, satisfy the British government. It could
not, therefore, have induced that government, had it been earlier
promulgated, to repeal the orders in council. It could not, therefore,
have averted the war. The withholding of it did not occasion the
war, and the promulgation of it would not have prevented the war.
But gentlemen have contended, that, in point of fact, it did produce
a repeal of the orders in council. This I deny. After it made its
appearance in England, it was declared by one of the British ministry,
in parliament, not to be satisfactory. And all the world knows,
that the repeal of the orders in council resulted from the inquiry,
reluctantly acceded to by the ministry, into the effect upon their
manufacturing establishments, of our non-importation law, or to the
warlike attitude assumed by this government, or to both. But it is
said, that the orders in council are withdrawn, no matter from what
cause; and that having been the sole motive for declaring the war,
the relations of peace ought to be restored. This brings me to the
examination of the grounds for continuing the present hostilities
between this country and Great Britain.
I am far from acknowledging, that, had the orders in council
been repealed, as they have been, before the war was declared, the
declaration of hostilities would of course have been prevented. In a
body so numerous as this is, from which the declaration emanated, it is
impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, what would have been
the effect of such a repeal. Each member must answer for himself. As to
myself, I have no hesitation in saying, that I have always considered
the impressment of American seamen as much the most serious aggression.
But, sir, how have those orders at last been repealed? Great Britain,
it is true, has intimated a willingness to suspend their practical
operation, but she still arrogates to herself the right to revive them
upon certain contingences, of which she constitutes herself the sole
judge. She waives the temporary use of the rod, but she suspends it
_in terrorem_ over our heads. Supposing it to be conceded to gentlemen,
that such a repeal of the orders in council as took place on the
twenty-third of June last, exceptionable as it is, being known before
the war was proclaimed, would have prevented it; does it follow that
it ought to induce us to lay down our arms, without the redress of
any other injury of which we complain? Does it follow, in all cases,
that that which would in the first instance have prevented would also
terminate the war? By no means. It requires a strong and powerful
effort in a nation, prone to peace as this is, to burst through its
habits, and encounter the difficulties and privations of war. Such a
nation ought but seldom to embark in a belligerent contest; but when it
does, it should be for obvious and essential rights alone, and should
firmly resolve to extort, at all hazards, their recognition. The war
of the revolution is an example of a war begun for one object and
prosecuted for another. It was waged, in its commencement, against the
right asserted by the parent country to tax the colonies. Then, no one
thought of absolute independence. The idea of independence was repelled.
But the British government would have relinquished the principle of
taxation. The founders of our liberties saw, however, that there was
no security short of independence, and they achieved that independence.
When nations are engaged in war, those rights in controversy, which
are not acknowledged by the treaty of peace, are abandoned. And who
is prepared to say, that American seamen shall be surrendered as
victims to the British principle of impressment? And, sir, what is this
principle? She contends, that she has a right to the services of her
own subjects; and that, in the exercise of this right, she may lawfully
impress them, even although she finds them in American vessels, upon
the high seas, without her jurisdiction. Now I deny that she has any
right, beyond her jurisdiction, to come on board our vessels, upon
the high seas, for any other purpose, than in the pursuit of enemies,
or their goods, or goods contraband of war. But she further contends,
that her subjects cannot renounce their allegiance to her, and contract
a new obligation to other sovereigns. I do not mean to go into the
general question of the right of expatriation. If, as is contended, all
nations deny it, all nations at the same time admit and practice the
right of naturalization. Great Britain herself does this. Great Britain,
in the very case of foreign seamen, imposes, perhaps, fewer restraints
upon naturalization than any other nation. Then, if subjects cannot
break their original allegiance, they may, according to universal
usage, contract a new allegiance. What is the effect of this double
obligation? Undoubtedly, that the sovereign, having possession of the
subject, would have the right to the services of the subject. If he
return within the jurisdiction of his primitive sovereign he may resume
his right to his services, of which the subject, by his own act, could
not divest himself. But his primitive sovereign can have no right to
go in quest of him, out of his own jurisdiction, into the jurisdiction
of another sovereign, or upon the high seas, where there exists either
no jurisdiction, or it is possessed by the nation owning the ship
navigating them. But, sir, this discussion is altogether useless. It is
not to the British principle, objectionable as it is, that we are alone
to look; it is to her practice; no matter what guise she puts on. It
is in vain to assert the inviolability of the obligation of allegiance.
It is in vain to set up the plea of necessity, and to allege that she
cannot exist, without the impressment of HER seamen. The naked truth
is, she comes, by her press-gangs, on board of our vessels, seizes OUR
native as well as naturalized seamen, and drags them into her service.
It is the case, then, of the assertion of an erroneous principle, and
of a practice not conformable to the asserted principle――a principle,
which, if it were theoretically right, must be for ever practically
wrong――a practice which can obtain countenance from no principle
whatever, and to submit to which, on our part, would betray the most
abject degradation. We are told, by gentlemen in the opposition,
that government has not done all that was incumbent on it to do, to
avoid just cause of complaint on the part of Great Britain; that,
in particular, the certificates of protection, authorized by the act
of 1796, are fraudulently used. Sir, government has done too much in
granting those paper protections. I can never think of them without
being shocked. They resemble the passes which the master grants to
his negro slave――‘let the bearer, Mungo, pass and repass without
molestation.’ What do they imply? That Great Britain has a right to
seize all who are not provided with them. From their very nature, they
must be liable to abuse on both sides. If Great Britain desires a mark,
by which she can know her own subjects, let her give them an ear mark.
The colors that float from the mast-head should be the credentials of
our seamen. There is no safety to us, and the gentlemen have shown it,
but in the rule, that all who sail under the flag (not being enemies)
are protected by the flag. It is impossible, that this country should
ever abandon the gallant tars, who have won for us such splendid
trophies. Let me suppose that the genius of Columbia should visit one
of them in his oppressor’s prison, and attempt to reconcile him to his
forlorn and wretched condition. She would say to him, in the language
of gentlemen on the other side, ‘Great Britain intends you no harm; she
did not mean to impress you, but one of her own subjects; having taken
you by mistake, I will remonstrate, and try to prevail upon her, by
peaceable means, to release you; but I cannot, my son, fight for you.’
If he did not consider this mere mockery, the poor tar would address
her judgment, and say, ‘you owe me, my country, protection; I owe you,
in return, obedience. I am no British subject, I am a native of old
Massachusetts, where lived my aged father, my wife, my children. I have
faithfully discharged my duty Will you refuse to do yours?’ Appealing
to her passions, he would continue: ‘I lost this eye in fighting under
Truxton, with the Insurgente; I got this scar before Tripoli; I broke
this leg on board the Constitution, when the Guerriere struck.’ If she
remained still unmoved, he would break out, in the accents of mingled
distress and despair,
Hard, hard is my fate! once I freedom enjoyed,
Was as happy as happy could be!
Oh! how hard is my fate, how galling these chains![6]
I will not imagine the dreadful catastrophe to which he would be driven,
by an abandonment of him to his oppressor. It will not be, it cannot be,
that his country will refuse him protection.
It is said, that Great Britain has been always willing to make a
satisfactory arrangement of the subject of impressment; and that
Mr. King had nearly concluded one, prior to his departure from that
country. Let us hear what that minister says, upon his return to
America. In his letter, dated at New York, in July, 1803, after giving
an account of his attempt to form an arrangement for the protection of
our seamen, and his interviews to this end with lords Hawkesbury and
St. Vincent; and stating, that, when he had supposed the terms of a
convention were agreed upon, a new pretension was set up, (the _mare
clausum_,) he concludes: ‘I regret to have been unable to put this
business on a satisfactory footing, knowing, as I do, its very great
importance to both parties; but I flatter myself that I have not
misjudged the interests of our own country, in refusing to sanction
a principle, that might be productive of more extensive evils than
those it was our aim to prevent.’ The sequel of his negotiation on
this affair, is more fully given in the recent conversation between
Mr. Russell and lord Castlereagh, communicated to congress during its
present session. Lord Castlereagh says to Mr. Russell:
‘Indeed, there has evidently been much misapprehension on this subject;
an erroneous belief entertained, that an arrangement, in regard to it,
has been nearer an accomplishment than the facts will warrant. Even our
friends in congress, I mean those who are opposed to going to war with
us, have been so confident in this mistake, that they have ascribed
the failure of such an arrangement solely to the misconduct of the
American government. This error probably originated with Mr. King; for,
being much esteemed here, and always well received by the persons in
power, he seems to have misconstrued their readiness to listen to his
representations, and their warm professions of a disposition to remove
the complaints of America, in relation to impressment, into a supposed
conviction, on their part, of the propriety of adopting the plan which
he had proposed. But lord St. Vincent, whom he might have thought he
had brought over to his opinions, appears never for a moment to have
ceased to regard all arrangement on the subject to be attended with
formidable if not insurmountable obstacles. This is obvious, from a
letter which his lordship addressed to sir William Scott, at the time.’
Here lord Castlereagh read a letter, contained in the records before
him, in which lord St. Vincent states to sir William Scott, the zeal
with which Mr. King had assailed him, on this subject of impressment;
confesses his own perplexity, and total incompetency to discover any
practical project, for the safe discontinuance of that practice, and
asks for counsel and advice. ‘Thus you see,’ proceeded lord Castlereagh,
‘that the confidence of Mr. King, on this subject, was entirely
unfounded.’
Thus it is apparent, that at no time has the enemy been willing to
place this subject on a satisfactory footing. I will speak hereafter
of the overtures made by the administration since the war.
The honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Bleeker), in the very
sensible speech with which he favored the committee, made one
observation, which did not comport with his usual liberal and enlarged
views. It was, that those who are most interested against the practice
of impressment, did not desire a continuance of the war, on account
of it; whilst those (the southern and western members) who had no
interest in it, were the zealous advocates of American seamen. It was
a provincial sentiment, unworthy of that gentleman. It was one which,
in a change of condition, he would not express, because I know he could
not feel it. Does not that gentleman feel for the unhappy victims of
the tomahawk, in the western wilds, although his quarter of the union
may be exempted from similar barbarities? I am sure he does. If there
be a description of rights, which, more than any other, should unite
all parties in all quarters of the union, it is unquestionably the
rights of the person. No matter what his vocation; whether he seeks
subsistence amidst the dangers of the deep, or draws them from the
bowels of the earth, or from the humblest occupations of mechanic life;
whenever the sacred rights of an American freeman are assailed, all
hearts ought to unite, and every arm should be braced, to vindicate
his cause.
The gentleman from Delaware sees in Canada no object worthy of conquest.
According to him, it is a cold, sterile, and inhospitable region. And
yet, such are the allurements which it offers, that the same gentleman
apprehends that, if it be annexed to the United States, already too
much weakened by an extension of territory, the people of New England
will rush over the line and depopulate that section of the union! That
gentleman considers it honest to hold Canada as a kind of hostage,
to regard it as a sort of bond, for the good behavior of the enemy.
But he will not enforce the bond. The actual conquest of that country
would, according to him, make no impression upon the enemy; and yet
the very apprehension only, of such a conquest, would at all times have
a powerful operation upon him! Other gentlemen consider the invasion
of that country as wicked and unjustifiable. Its inhabitants are
represented as harmless and unoffending; as connected with those of
the bordering states by a thousand tender ties, interchanging acts
of kindness, and all the offices of good neighborhood. Canada, said
Mr. Clay, innocent! Canada unoffending! Is it not in Canada, that the
tomahawk of the savage has been moulded into its death-like form? Has
it not been from Canadian magazines, Malden and others, that those
supplies have been issued, which nourish and continue the Indian
hostilities――supplies which have enabled the savage hordes to butcher
the garrison of Chicago, and to commit other horrible excesses and
murders? Was it not by the joint coöperation of Canadians and Indians,
that a remote American fort, Michilimackinac, was assailed and reduced,
while in ignorance of a state of war? But, sir, how soon have the
opposition changed their tone! When the administration was striving,
by the operation of peaceful measures, to bring Great Britain back
to a sense of justice, they were for old-fashioned war. And, now they
have got old-fashioned war, their sensibilities are cruelly shocked,
and all their sympathies lavished upon the harmless inhabitants
of the adjoining provinces. What does a state of war present? The
united energies of one people arrayed against the combined energies of
another; a conflict in which each party aims to inflict all the injury
it can, by sea and land, upon the territories, property, and citizens
of the other; subject only to the rules of mitigated war, practiced
by civilized nations. The gentleman would not touch the continental
provinces of the enemy, nor, I presume, for the same reason, her
possessions in the West Indies. The same humane spirit would spare
the seamen and soldiers of the enemy. The sacred person of his majesty
must not be attacked; for the learned gentlemen, on the other side, are
quite familiar with the maxim, that the king can do no wrong. Indeed,
sir, I know of no person on whom we may make war, upon the principles
of the honorable gentlemen, but Mr. Stephen, the celebrated author of
the orders in council, or the board of admiralty, who authorize and
regulate the practice of impressment!
The disasters of the war admonish us, we are told, of the necessity
of terminating the contest. If our achievements by land have been less
splendid than those of our intrepid seamen by water, it is not because
the American soldier is less brave. On the one element, organization,
discipline, and a thorough knowledge of their duties, exist, on the
part of the officers and their men. On the other, almost every thing
is yet to be acquired. We have, however, the consolation, that our
country abounds with the richest materials, and that in no instance,
when engaged in action, have our arms been tarnished. At Brownstown
and at Queenstown, the valor of veterans was displayed, and acts of
the noblest heroism were performed. It is true, that the disgrace
of Detroit remains to be wiped off. That is a subject on which I
cannot trust my feelings; it is not fitting I should speak. But this
much I will say, it was an event which no human foresight could have
anticipated, and for which the administration cannot be justly censured.
It was the parent of all the misfortunes we have experienced on
land. But for it, the Indian war would have been, in a great measure,
prevented or terminated; the ascendency on lake Erie acquired, and the
war pushed on, perhaps, to Montreal. With the exception of that event,
the war, even upon the land, has been attended by a series of the most
brilliant exploits, which, whatever interest they may inspire on this
side of the mountains, have given the greatest pleasure on the other.
The expedition, under the command of governor Edwards and colonel
Russell, to lake Pioria, on the Illinois, was completely successful. So
was that of captain Craig, who, it is said, ascended that river still
higher. General Hopkins destroyed the prophet’s town. We have just
received intelligence of the gallant enterprise of colonel Campbell.
In short, sir, the Indian towns have been swept from the mouth to the
source of the Wabash; and a hostile country has been penetrated far
beyond the most daring incursions of any campaign, during the former
Indian war. Never was more cool, deliberate bravery displayed, than
that by Newman’s party, from Georgia. And the capture of the Detroit,
and the destruction of the Caledonia, (whether placed to a maritime
or land account,) for judgment, skill, and courage, on the part of
lieutenant Elliot, have never been surpassed.
It is alleged, that the elections in England are in favor of the
ministry, and that those in this country are against the war. If, in
such a cause, (saying nothing of the impurity of their elections,) the
people of that country have rallied round their government, it affords
a salutary lesson to the people here; who, at all hazards, ought to
support theirs, struggling as it is to maintain our just rights. But
the people here have not been false to themselves; a great majority
approve the war, as is evinced by the recent reëlection of the chief
magistrate. Suppose it were even true, that an entire section of the
union were opposed to the war; that section being a minority, is the
will of the majority to be relinquished? In that section the real
strength of the opposition had been greatly exaggerated. Vermont has,
by two successive expressions of her opinion, approved the declaration
of war. In New Hampshire, parties are so nearly equipoised, that
out of thirty or thirty-five thousand votes those who approved and
are for supporting it, lost the election by only one thousand or one
thousand five hundred. In Massachusetts alone have they obtained any
considerable accession. If we come to New York, we shall find that
other and local causes have influenced her elections.
What cause, Mr. Chairman, which existed for declaring the war, has
been removed? We sought indemnity for the past, and security for
the future. The orders in council are suspended, not revoked; no
compensation for spoliations; Indian hostilities, which were before
secretly instigated, are now openly encouraged; and the practice of
impressment unremittingly persevered in and insisted upon. Yet the
administration has given the strongest demonstrations of its love
of peace. On the twenty-ninth of June, less than ten days after the
declaration of war, the secretary of state writes to Mr. Russell,
authorizing him to agree to an armistice, upon two conditions only, and
what are they? That the orders in council should be repealed, and the
practice of impressing American seamen cease, those already impressed
being released. The proposition was for nothing more than a _real_
truce; that the war should in fact cease on _both_ sides. Again, on
the twenty-seventh of July, one month later, anticipating a possible
objection to these terms, reasonable as they are, Mr. Monroe empowers
Mr. Russell to stipulate in general terms for an armistice, having
only an informal understanding on these points. In return, the enemy is
offered a prohibition of the employment of his seamen in our service,
thus removing entirely all pretext for the practice of impressment.
The very proposition which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Pitkin)
contends ought to be made, has been made. How are these pacific
advances met by the other party? Rejected, as absolutely inadmissible;
cavils are indulged about the inadequacy of Mr. Russell’s powers,
and the want of an act of congress is intimated. And yet the constant
usage of nations, I believe, is, where the legislation of one party is
necessary to carry into effect a given stipulation, to leave it to the
contracting party to provide the requisite laws. If he fail to do so,
it is a breach of good faith, and becomes the subject of subsequent
remonstrance by the injured party. When Mr. Russell renews the overture,
in what was intended as a more agreeable form to the British government,
lord Castlereagh is not content with a simple rejection, but clothes it
in the language of insult. Afterwards, in conversation with Mr. Russell,
the moderation of our government is misinterpreted, and made the
occasion of a sneer, that we are tired of the war. The proposition
of admiral Warren is submitted in a spirit not more pacific. He is
instructed, he tells us, to propose, that the government of the United
States shall instantly recall their letters of marque and reprisal
against British ships, together with all orders and instructions for
any acts of hostility whatever, against the territories of his majesty,
or the persons or property of his subjects. That small affair being
settled, he is further authorized to arrange as to the revocation of
the laws which interdict the commerce and ships of war of his majesty
from the harbors and waters of the United States. This messenger of
peace comes with one qualified concession in his pocket, not made
to the justice of our demands, and is fully empowered to receive our
homage, a contrite retraction of all our measures adopted against his
master! And, in default, he does not fail to assure us, the orders in
council are to be forthwith revived. The administration, still anxious
to terminate the war, suppresses the indignation which such a proposal
ought to have created, and, in its answer, concludes by informing
admiral Warren, ‘that if there be no objection to an accommodation of
the difference relating to impressment, in the mode proposed, other
than the suspension of the British claim to impressment during the
armistice, there can be none to proceeding, _without the armistice_, to
an immediate discussion and arrangement of an article on that subject.’
Thus it has left the door of negotiation unclosed, and it remains to
be seen, if the enemy will accept the invitation tendered to him. The
honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pearson) supposes, that if
congress would pass a law, prohibiting the employment of British seamen
in our service, upon condition of a like prohibition on their part, and
repeal the act of non-importation, peace would immediately follow. Sir,
I have no doubt, if such a law were to pass, with all the requisite
solemnities, and the repeal to take place, lord Castlereagh would laugh
at our simplicity. No, sir, the administration has erred in the steps
which it has taken to restore peace, but its error has been, not in
doing too little, but in betraying too great a solicitude for that
event. An honorable peace is attainable only by an efficient war.
My plan would be, to call out the ample resources of the country,
give them a judicious direction, prosecute the war with the utmost
vigor, strike wherever we can reach the enemy, at sea or on land, and
negotiate the terms of a peace at Quebec or at Halifax. We are told,
that England is a proud and lofty nation, which, disdaining to wait for
danger, meets it half way. Haughty as she is, we once triumphed over
her, and, if we do not listen to the counsels of timidity and despair,
we shall again prevail. In such a cause, with the aid of Providence,
we must come out crowned with success, but if we fail, let us fail like
men, lash ourselves to our gallant tars, and expire together in one
common struggle, fighting for FREE TRADE AND SEAMEN’S RIGHTS.