[PRESIDENT MADISON, in a message dated December 26, 1816, had
apprized congress, that the existing laws did not enable him
to preserve the peace of the United States with foreign powers.
The subject having been referred to the committee on foreign
relations, that committee, through their chairman, Mr. Forsyth,
of Georgia, reported a bill for enforcing neutrality. This bill
was debated in committee of the whole, on the 24th of January,
1817, by Messrs. Forsyth, Smith, of Maryland, Grosvenor, of New
York, Randolph, of Virginia, Sharp, of Kentucky, Sheffey, of
Virginia, Hopkinson, of Pennsylvania, and Clay (speaker). In
the brief remarks of Mr. Clay it will be observed, that he
renews the expression of his sympathies with the people of South
America in their struggle for independence; and, considering
the bill under discussion as intended to discountenance that
revolution, he avowed his opposition to it.]
MR. CLAY (speaker). As long as the government abstained from taking
any part in the contest now carrying on in the southern part of
this continent, it was unquestionably its duty to maintain a strict
neutrality. On that point there was and could be no difference
of opinion. It ought not, however, to be overlooked, that the two
parties stood with this government on unequal ground. One of them
had an accredited minister here, to watch over its interests, and
to remonstrate against any acts of which it might complain; whilst
the other, being wholly unrepresented, had no organ through which
to communicate its grievances. This inequality of condition in the
contending parties, imposed upon us the duty of great circumspection
and prudence in what we might do.
Whenever a war exists, whether between two independent states or
between parts of a common empire, he knew of but two relations in which
other powers could stand towards the belligerents; the one was that of
neutrality, and the other that of a belligerent.
Being then in a state of neutrality respecting the contest, and bound
to maintain it, the question was, whether the provisions of the bill
were necessary to the performance of that duty? It will be recollected
that we have an existing law, directed against armaments, such as are
described in the bill. That law was passed in 1794. It was intended to
preserve our neutrality in the contest between France and her enemies.
The circumstances under which it was passed, must be yet fresh in our
recollection. The French revolution had excited a universal enthusiasm
in the cause of liberty. The flame reached this country, and spread
with electric rapidity throughout the continent. There was not a state,
county, city, or village, exempted from it. An ardent disposition to
enter into the conflict, on the side of France, was every where felt.
General Washington thought it the interest of this country to remain
neutral, and the law of 1794 was enacted, to restrain our citizens from
taking part in the contest. If that law had been effectual to preserve
the neutrality of this country, during the stormy period of the French
revolution, we ought to pause before we assent to the adoption of new
penalties and provisions. If the law did not reach the case (which he
understood to be doubtful from some judicial decisions), he was willing
to legislate so far as to make it comprehend it. Further than that, as
at present advised, he was not willing to go.
But the present bill not only went further, but, in his judgment,
contained provisions not demanded of us by our neutral duties. It
contained two principles not embraced by the law of 1794. The first
was, the requisition of a bond from the owners of armed vessels, that
persons, to whom they might sell these vessels, should not use them
in the contest. The second was, the power vested in the collectors to
seize and detain, under certain circumstances, any such vessels. Now,
with regard to the first provision, it is not denied that an armed
vessel may be lawfully sold by an American citizen to a foreign subject,
other than a subject of Spain. But on what ground is it possible, then,
to maintain, that it is the duty of the American citizen to become
responsible for the subsequent use which may be made of such vessel by
the foreign subject? We are bound to take care that our own citizens
do not violate our neutrality, but we are under no such obligation
as it respects the subjects of foreign powers. It is the business of
those foreign powers to guard the conduct of their own subjects. If
it be true, as he had heard it asserted, that Fell’s Point exhibits an
activity in hostile preparation, not surpassed during the late war, we
had enough to do with our own citizens. It was not incumbent upon us,
as a neutral power, to provide, after a legal sale had been made of
an armed vessel to a foreign subject, against any illegal use of the
vessel.
Gentlemen have contended, that this bill ought to be considered as
intended merely to enforce our own laws; as a municipal regulation,
having no relation to the war now existing. It was impossible to
deceive ourselves, as to the true character of the measure. Bestow on
it what denomination you please, disguise it as you may, it is a law,
and will be understood by the whole world as a law, to discountenance
any aid being given to the South American colonies in a state of
revolution against the parent country. With respect to the nature
of that struggle, he had not now, for the first time, to express
his opinion and his wishes. An honorable gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Sheffey) had said, the people of South America were incapable,
from the ignorance and superstition which prevail among them, of
achieving independence or enjoying liberty. And to what cause is that
ignorance and superstition owing? Was it not to the vices of their
government? to the tyranny and oppression, hierarchical and political,
under which they groaned? If Spain succeeded in riveting their chains
upon them, would not that ignorance and superstition be perpetuated?
In the event of that success, he feared the time would never arrive,
when the good wishes of the honorable gentleman from Virginia would
be conciliated in behalf of that oppressed and suffering people. For
his part, he wished their independence. It was the first step towards
improving their condition. Let them have free government, if they be
capable of enjoying it; but let them have, at all events, independence.
Yes, from the inmost recesses of my soul, I wish them independence.
I may be accused of an imprudent utterance of my feelings, on this
occasion. I care not; when the independence, the happiness, the liberty
of a whole people is at stake, and that people our neighbors, our
brethren, occupying a portion of the same continent, imitating our
example, and participating of the same sympathies with ourselves, I
will boldly avow my feelings and my wishes in their behalf, even at
the hazard of such an imputation.
But, notwithstanding the feelings which he cherished on this
subject, Mr. Clay admitted that it became us not to exhibit the
spectacle of a people at war and a government at peace. We ought to
perform our neutral duties, whilst we are neutral, without regard to
the unredressed injuries inflicted upon us by old Spain, on the one
hand, or to the glorious object of the struggle of the South American
patriots on the other. We ought to render strict justice, and no more.
If the bill on the table was limited to that object, he would vote for
it. But he thought it went further; that it assumed obligations which
we were not bound to incur, and, thinking so, he could not, in its
present shape, give to it his assent.