_The_ SPEAKER _of the honorable the House of
Representatives of the U. S._
_Defeat of General St. Clair._
And then the order of the day, that the House do resolve itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the report of the committee appointed to
inquire into the causes of the failure of the expedition under Major
General St. Clair, being taken up--
Mr. MADISON suggested that the most simple, most practicable and
consistent plan would be, to recommit the report of the select
committee, and refer the present applications[44] to the committee to
whom the report shall be recommitted. He therefore moved that the
Committee of the Whole should be discharged from considering the reports
on the causes of the failure of the late expedition.
Mr. SMITH (S. C.) observed that several objections struck him in
opposition to this motion. The House must at some period, said he, meet
this case; if it is recommitted, there will be an impropriety in
referring it to the same committee; if a new committee is appointed,
they must begin the whole subject _de novo_; and, if their investigation
should take up such a length of time as that of the former committee,
the session will be expended, and at the close of it the business will
recur on the House, and the same discussion will occur again that is now
proposed. He hoped the House would therefore proceed in the
consideration of the report, assign two or three days in the week for
the purpose, and continue the investigation till the whole is finished.
Mr. GILES replied, that he had no doubt that the vouchers on which the
committee had founded the report would appear sufficient to justify the
decisions that they had made. He said that he did not suppose that the
applicants would adduce any new information; one of them had been called
on, he attended the committee, and he supposed that he had furnished all
the information he was in possession of. He objected to a recommitment;
as one of the committee, he was perfectly satisfied with the report; nor
did he conceive there was any additional evidence to be produced, except
it was of a recent date.
Mr. AMES said, he perceived such a disinclination to go into the subject
as indicated a proper temper of mind in relation to the persons
supposed to be in any ways interested in the ultimate decision of the
House. He was opposed to a recommitment, as it would procrastinate
instead of expediting the inquiry. He adverted to the report. Facts are
stated; the public have been left to draw the inferences; the committee
have not explicitly criminated any body; but they have determined, in
several instances, who is not to blame. What is the situation of those
who are implicated in the causes of the failure? Every citizen knows
that, in consequence of the issue of the expedition, clamors against the
War Department, in respect to Indian affairs, have rung through the
Continent. Should public officers, who have been placed in situations of
such importance, be silent, and submit calmly to such imputations, they
would be unworthy of public confidence, unworthy to breathe the vital
air. They now apply for an opportunity to be heard in their own
vindication. Shall they be sent to a committee-room, and make their
defence against the allegations brought forward to their disadvantage,
which have been published to the world, in the hearing of perhaps ten or
a dozen persons only? He hoped not--he thought justice to them and to
the public required that they should be allowed to make their defence in
the face of the world. Will not precluding them look like a wish to
smother all further inquiry into the matter?
Mr. BALDWIN was in favor of recommitting; he said it was the most
eligible mode, and was consonant to the practice of the House.
Mr. MADISON remarked that it had been said a disposition was discovered
to smother inquiry. In reply he observed that, if he wished to prevent a
thorough investigation, he should be in favor of the whole subject being
undertaken by the House; because, he observed, that if a select
committee of a few members took seven weeks to form an incomplete
report, it must appear evident that so large a body as this House could
never get through the matter. He further observed, that the same reason
existed for referring the residue of the evidence to a select committee
as induced the measure in the first instance.
Mr. FITZSIMONS said he was at first in favor of a recommitment, but on
further consideration he was convinced the House would be able to get
through the subject in a shorter time than a select committee. He added
several other reasons which induced him to be in favor of the House
proceeding with the report.
Mr. GERRY said it appeared to him that the only question seemed to be,
whether the House or the select committee shall establish the facts. If
these facts are established by the committee, would it give equal
satisfaction as if they were established by the House? He conceived it
would not; but, should the result be a conviction on the part of the
House that some of the officers are culpable, will the House rest an
impeachment on the report of the committee? He conceived the House
ought to found their decisions on facts ascertained by themselves. It
has been said there is no difference between the House and the
committee. If this is the case, does it not imply a censure by the House
on certain characters? He thought it did. It therefore becomes the House
to discuss the report, that it may be determined on what footing it
stands. If, in the case of a contested election, the House revolted from
the idea of submitting their judgment to facts substantiated by a
committee, the case before us is of unspeakably greater magnitude. For
these, and several other reasons, he hoped the report would not be
recommitted.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the motion for recommitting; he supported
his opinion by the uniform practice of the House, which in every case
where new evidence was adduced, always provided that the new evidence
should be examined by the same committee, who had originally brought in
the report. He said if this mode was departed from, we should find no
committee would bring forward a state of facts in future. He thought it
was not treating the committee with proper candor to decide on their
report in its present situation.
Mr. SYLVESTER observed, that the resolution of the House at the close of
the last session, that they would take up the subject early in the
present session, precluded a recommitment; he was therefore opposed to
the motion.
Mr. BOUDINOT was in favor of a recommitment; he said, if there is new
evidence to be brought, the House ought to wait till that is received
and reported at the Clerk's table; and this he conceived ought to be
done in the usual way, by a select committee; till the whole testimony
is completed it appeared to him the House was not prepared to take one
step in the matter.
Mr. MADISON replied to Mr. GERRY's allusion to the ease of the contested
election. He inquired of him whether the House itself went into an
investigation of facts in the first instance? He believed he would not
say they did. With respect to the memorials, he inquired, whether, if
they had been presented at the time of the investigation of the subject
by the select committee, they would not have been referred to the
committee? If they would then have been referred, the same reason exists
for referring them to a select committee at the present time.
Mr. LAURANCE was of opinion that a recommitment would tend to a saving
of time; the committee will not be obliged to go over the same ground
again that has already been explored; all they will be obliged to do is,
to investigate the new testimony which will be adduced. He hoped,
therefore, that the motion would prevail.
Mr. GILES said, that the proceedings of the committee were public, and
that the Secretaries could have attended all the time, had they seen
proper. They attended but once, and then appeared extremely anxious to
get away to attend to their offices. The committee would have been
extremely glad to have had those gentlemen present oftener, and to
receive all the information they could give, and supposed they had done
it.
Mr. GERRY replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, if gentlemen would recur to
the proceedings of the House on the contested election, they will find
that the House expressly reserved to itself the right of substantiating
the facts, which should appear from an examination of the depositions,
taken in conformity to the resolutions of the House; and here he
adverted to the mode pointed out by the House in taking those
depositions. The adverse party was to be summoned to attend to the
taking them; but in this report it appears that _ex parte_ evidence has
been admitted as the foundation on which some of the decisions have been
made.
Mr. MURRAY supported the motion for a recommitment. He observed that the
matter, in its present state, was so incomplete that he could not see
how the House could proceed upon it. One part of the evidence only is
finished, and the report is made on that evidence. Now, we are told new
testimony is offered; let the whole be brought into view at once, and
then the House will be in a situation to judge.
Mr. PAGE was in favor of a further commitment of the subject; but
whether to the committee who made the report, or to a new committee, he
should not take upon him to say. With respect to the admission of any
head of a department to the bar of this House, except in case of an
impeachment, he would never consent to it. It would be a precedent of a
most dangerous nature, tending to a destruction of all freedom of
inquiry by committees.
Mr. FINDLAY observed, that the committee wished that Mr. Hodgdon should
have been present, but he did not make his appearance; the committee
therefore proceeded on the testimony they had, and as there is now new
evidence brought forward, he thought it was proper that the report
should be recommitted. As one of the committee, he should have no
objections to such alterations as might appear proper on further and
more complete investigation of the matter.
Mr. STEELE called for the reading of a clause in the memorial of the
Secretary of War, which states that the committee had drawn conclusions
from _ex parte_ evidence. This being read, Mr. STEELE remarked on the
want of candor towards the committee, which had been shown by some of
the members in the course of their observations. He then adverted to the
above clause respecting _ex parte_ evidence, and observed that, with
respect to the Secretary of War, it was not true that the committee had
proceeded on _ex parte_ evidence; that officer, said he, was notified of
the meetings of the committee; he attended those meetings; he furnished
the committee with papers and documents, &c.; and further, he was
requested to detain officers in town whose testimony was necessary in
the matter, and that he complained of some of those officers being
detained by the delays of the committee from the recruiting service.
With respect to Mr. Hodgdon the same cannot be said, as he was not then
in the country.
Mr. STEELE then concluded by some additional remarks on the indelicacy
manifested by some gentlemen in their treatment of the committee, and
observed that he did not apply it to himself personally, but as it
respected the committee at large, he thought proper to express the
contempt which he conceived it merited.
Mr. DAYTON replied to Mr. STEELE. He repeated the substance of his
original remarks on the report, and added, that in the course of the
discussion he should attempt to show that the deductions made in several
parts of the report were false. Mr. D. added, that whatever the
gentleman last speaking might say, as one of the committee who signed
the report, he was certainly implicated in whatever censure it merited.
The question for a recommitment was then agreed to, 30 to 22. And it was
accordingly
_Resolved_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed
the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the
failure of the expedition under Major General St. Clair, be discharged
from the consideration thereof; and that the said report, together with
the documents relating thereto, including the letter of the Secretary of
War, and the memorial of Samuel Hodgdon, be recommitted to Mr.
FITZSIMONS, Mr. GILES, Mr. STEELE, Mr. CLARK, and Mr. FINDLAY.
THURSDAY, November 15.
Another member, to wit, THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.
MONDAY, November 19.
Another member, to wit: JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, from Maryland, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.
_Protection to American Commerce._
Mr. WILLIAMSON moved that a committee be appointed to prepare and bring
in a bill or bills for promoting commerce, by the increase of American
seamen. In moving the above, Mr. W. addressed the House as follows:
Measures have already been taken by Congress for increasing the number
of our shipping; but no effectual and _general_ measure has been adopted
for increasing the number of native American seamen. Every gentleman in
my hearing knows that there are always a considerable number of
foreigners employed on board American vessels; but none of us could have
expected, and some of us may not have heard of the injury and insults to
which our commerce has been exposed, from having British seamen on board
our ships.
A schooner called the David and George, belonging to Portsmouth, in
Virginia, and commanded by Captain Goffigan, lately touched at Sierra
Leone, on the coast of Africa; she was navigated by eleven persons.
Three of that number who had been on shore, informed Captain Wickham who
commanded an armed vessel, that they were British subjects. Captain
Wickham went on board the American vessel and claimed the three seamen;
he also claimed wages for them. Captain Goffigan refused to deliver the
men, and declared with truth that nothing was due them. Captain Wickham
took the men by force, and by the same regulation he went into the hold,
and took as much of the cargo as he thought fit, under the cover of
substitute for wages. Captain Goffigan complained of this violence and
robbery to Mr. Clarkson, who is Governor of the Province. The Governor
replied, that he should have done the same thing, and that _he had
orders from his superiors_ so to act in such cases.
The ship Illustrious President, belonging to Virginia, commanded by
Captain Butler, touched some time ago at Madeira, on her passage to the
East Indies. The British frigate Hyena, commanded by Captain Hargood,
lay at that time in the road. Seven of Captain Butler's sailors being
British subjects, Captain Hargood sent to take them by force from on
board the American ship, and he would have done so, had not the Governor
of the Island, remembering what he owed to the honor of his nation and
to every ship under his protection, interrupted his authority.
The ship Fame belonging to Philadelphia, commanded by Walter Sims, on
her way to the East Indies, lately touched at Table Bay, at the Cape of
Good Hope. Captain Blith, who commanded a ship of twenty guns, then lay
in the road. One of Captain Sims' sailors, a native of Scotland, offered
his service to Captain Blith, calling himself a British subject. That
very man in Philadelphia had taken the oath of allegiance to the United
States; but the British claim was best, for Captain Blith's ship was
strongest. He took the man, sent an officer on board the American ship,
who took the liberty of opening the after hatch, searching the hold and
looking out a chest and clothes. Captain Blith justified these acts of
violence, by saying, that he had _printed instructions_ to take all who
called themselves British subjects.
These are a few out of the numberless cases in which our ships have been
robbed of their seamen, and they are samples of the manner in which we
shall be constantly treated, while we depend on foreigners to navigate
our ships. If these cases had terminated in threats and abusive
language, to which our flag is too much accustomed, it might have been
questioned whether the nation of the offending party was to blame. When
you are told by one officer and another, that he is instructed to
distress our trade, we should, if possible, deprive them of the present
excuse. Is it not our business to inquire into the cause of this
strange conduct? By a vitiated passion for British goods, we are
universally clothed in the manufactures of that nation. Our debts
increase every year, and we labor to make her rich, while we are
becoming poor. We pour our treasures into her lap more than any other
nation under the sun. Observe the rewards! I say nothing about her
measures on our Western Frontier; but our trading ships are boarded and
plundered at discretion by her ships of war; and yet, Great Britain,
whose commerce we cherish, is the only nation that treats us in this
manner. Perhaps it is conjectured that Americans are of that species of
animals whose favor is increased by rough treatment. Be this as it may,
it is our duty to consider of the safest and surest mode of extending
our commerce. After we have been told that an American vessel having
sailors on board, who chance to have been born in the British dominion,
is subject to be deprived of her hands, robbed of her property, and
turned adrift without help, it can hardly be necessary to adduce other
arguments in favor of native American seamen; but other strong and
conclusive arguments in favor of the measure present themselves. The
merchants' property in critical situations, or in distant or obscure
parts of the world, is always most safe when a ship is navigated by men
who uniformly strive to return to their native home, and whose hopes and
happiness centre in that country to which their ship belongs. The crew
of a French brig some weeks ago, murdered their captain and mate on our
coast; that misfortune, in all probability, would not have happened, if
the seamen had been natives of France. Two of them only were of that
kingdom. Is it necessary to add, that a powerful body of seamen, at some
future day, may save us from the vast expense and danger of a standing
army? Upon this single argument of native seamen we might rest the
question. It needs neither support nor illustration. I shall, therefore,
presume, that it is our duty as soon as possible, to provide for the
daily operations of pride or injustice, by furnishing the merchant with
seamen, of whom he cannot be robbed, except by open declaration of
war--with seamen in whom he can trust--with men, who, actuated by those
passions which are inseparable from the human breast, the pride of
nation and the love of country, may serve him in every part of the
world,--to furnish the nation with a safe and strong bulwark against
foreign tyranny and invasion.
I shall now take the liberty of moving that committees may be appointed
to bring in bills for the purposes mentioned.
Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. GOODHUE, Mr. BENJAMIN BOURNE, and Mr.
BARNWELL, were appointed to prepare and bring in the same.
THURSDAY, November 22.
Another member, to wit, JOHN MILLEDGE, returned to serve in this House
for the State of Georgia in the room of ANTHONY WAYNE, whose seat was
declared vacant, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat
in the House.
WEDNESDAY, November 28.
_Warner Mifflin's Petition._
Mr. STEELE called the attention of the House to the memorial and
representation of Warner Mifflin on the subject of Negro slavery. Mr. S.
said that after what had passed at New York on this subject, he had
hoped the House would have heard no more of it; but, to his surprise, he
found the subject was started anew, and had been introduced by a
fanatic, who, not content with keeping his own conscience, undertook to
become the keeper of the consciences of other men, and in a manner which
he deemed not very decent, had intruded his opinions into this House.
Had an application been made to him to present such a petition, he
thought he should have avoided a compliance with it. Gentlemen in the
Northern States do not realize the mischievous consequences which have
already resulted from measures of this kind, and if a stop were not put
to such proceedings, the Southern States would be compelled to apply to
the General Government for their interference. He concluded, by moving
"that the paper purporting to be a petition from Warner Mifflin, be
returned to him by the Clerk of the House; and that the entry of said
petition be expunged from the Journal."
Mr. AMES rose to explain his motives in presenting the petition. He said
it was his opinion, which he had expressed to the House long ago, that
this Government could not, with propriety, take any steps in the matter
referred to in this petition; but, on the general principle that every
citizen has a right to petition the Legislature, and to apply to any
member to present his request to the House, he had handed it in. The
petitioner is a citizen of Delaware; and had the member from that State
been in the House, he should not have thought himself obliged to have
introduced it; but that gentleman being absent, the petitioner had a
right to apply to a member from any other State. He had no idea of
supporting the prayer of the petition, his mind having been long made up
on the subject. He considered it as totally inexpedient to interfere
with the subject, and had uniformly opposed the applications made at a
former session of Congress.
Mr. LIVERMORE did not consider the motion in order, the subject not
being properly before the House; nor did he believe there was any
disposition to bring it forward.
Mr. W. SMITH said he had seconded the motion, with a view of putting it
out of the power of any member to call it up when persons might be
absent who would find it their duty to oppose it. Mr. S. said he
admitted, in its full extent, the right of each citizen to petition for
a redress of grievances, and the duty of the House to consider such
petitions; but the paper in question is a mere rant and rhapsody of a
meddling fanatic, interlarded with texts of Scripture, and concluded
with no specific prayer. He observed it was the general practice of
Legislative bodies for members presenting petitions to read them, in
order to make known their objects, and to have them entered on the
journal. In this particular instance the practice might be attended with
danger. Citizens of the Southern States learning that papers of this
kind meet with countenance here would be alarmed. The gentleman who
presented this paper had not, on this occasion, shown his usual regard
to Southern interests. Had he stated its dangerous object, the House
would undoubtedly have refused its reception. After the proceedings at
New York, when a similar application was made, his constituents had a
right to expect that the subject would never be stirred again. He would
assure the House, that while he continued a member of it, he should
never fail to express his abhorrence against all such applications, as
they could have none but a mischievous tendency. So far from being
calculated to meliorate the condition of the race who were the object of
them, they had a tendency to alienate their affections from their
masters, and by exciting in them a spirit of restlessness, to render
greater severity towards them necessary. He therefore earnestly called
on the House to agree to the motion, and thereby convince this
enthusiast, and others, that they can never meet countenance in the
Legislature of the Union.
The part of the motion directing the petition to be returned by the
Clerk was agreed to. The remainder was withdrawn by Mr. STEELE, the
mover.
THURSDAY, December 13.
ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the
House.
TUESDAY, December 18.
A memorial of the officers, now residing in the State of New York, of
the late American Army, in behalf of themselves and their brethren, the
soldiers of the said Army, was presented to the House and read, praying
that the depreciation which accrued on the certificates of debt granted
them in reward for their military services during the late war, may be
made good to them, or such other relief afforded them as the present
circumstances of the United States will admit. Also, a memorial of the
Pennsylvania line of the late Army, to the same effect.
_Ordered_, That the said memorials do lie on the table.
THURSDAY, December 27.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
accompanying a statement of the present organization of the troops;
also, Returns of the commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers,
and privates, in the service of the United States; which were read, and
ordered to lie on the table.
FRIDAY, December 28.
A memorial of the officers and soldiers of the late New Hampshire line
of the Continental Army was presented to the House and read, praying
that the depreciation which accrued on the certificates of debt granted
them in reward for their military services during the late war may be
made good to them, or such other relief afforded them as the present
circumstances of the United States will admit; which was laid on the
table.
_Reduction of the Army._
Mr. STEELE called up his resolution laid on the table some days ago, as
follows:
"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
bring in a bill to reduce the military establishment of the
United States to ---- regiments or corps, consisting each
of ---- non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians,
with such proportion of commissioned officers as the
PRESIDENT may think proper to continue in service; and to
repeal so much of an act, passed the fifth of March, one
thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, entitled 'An act for
making farther and more effectual provision for the
protection of the frontiers of the United States,' as may
contravene this intention.'"
Mr. STEELE, in proposing the above resolution, said, the situation of
the frontiers, and the inefficiency of the measures adopted through the
medium of the War Department, to relieve them; the extreme burdens which
those measures were heaping on the people, and the probability of their
continuance, afforded ample scope for inquiry; and to sit silent on such
an occasion, he thought, would be to partake of and support the errors
from which those misfortunes may have arisen. The citizens of the United
States, he said, were of a peaceable and patient disposition, and they
have with cheerfulness acquiesced in the measures of the National
Legislature; but they were not become so tame as to submit to immense
and fruitless expenses, and the disgrace of their military character, to
answer any vain projects of folly and ambition, without a prospect of
guaranteeing a peace. Is it not evident, said he, that plans have been
persevered in without regard to common sense, by an unnecessary increase
of our army, until the indignation of the whole continent has been
roused up against it?
To elucidate this position, Mr. S. recited the expenses, charges, and
increase of the War Department from its first establishment under the
present Government, to its present enormous demands, which for the year
1793, are no less, agreeably to the estimate furnished by the Secretary
of the Treasury, than $1,171,719;[45] more than double the sum
necessary for the support of all the other branches of the National
Government. The better to illustrate this subject of the Indian war, he
entered into comparative statements of the years 1790, '91, '92, and
'93; and, animadverting on the different items of calculation, he
asserted, in strong terms, that they exceeded every thing that the
history of the Indian wars afforded for twenty years back; he wished any
gentleman to enter into an investigation and comparison of the alarming
increase of the expenses of the department, and to take a retrospect of
the subject for twenty years back; and he was certain neither the
Secretary of War nor any other person could account rationally for the
occasion of such an establishment. There was no precedent to be found in
any of the States; not one of them has a War Department; neither was it
contemplated in the Constitution of the United States. Yet it has, in
the short space of three or four years, been imposing on the country
burdens which the people have at length expressed their abhorrence of;
it has been increased from $137,000 in 1789, to the extravagant demand
now required, of $1,171,719 and $50,000 contingencies for the support of
1793. This is so alarming an increase, that it calls loudly for
reformation, or the entire abolition of the department, and that another
system shall be adopted for the protection of the frontiers. Armies of
regulars will never afford protection; they have never answered any good
purpose against the Indians from the time of Braddock's defeat down to
that of Major General St. Clair, although this last-mentioned
unfortunate expedition cost the United States an immense sum of money,
and the lives of a great number of valuable officers and citizens.
History and the experience of ages have proved this fact, that unwieldy
armies will never be able to fight the savages in the wilderness;
indeed, the Secretary of War confesses the fact in one of his reports,
which Mr. S. read, wherein the Secretary accounts for the ill success of
the plans, by observing, "that it was owing to the extreme activity of
the enemy and our ignorance of the wilderness through which our troops
had to march." But the Secretary might have also added, our entire
ignorance of the mode of carrying on the war.
Here Mr. S. took occasion to observe, that this alarmingly expensive and
useless department had crept upon the country entirely from our fondness
for taking up money on loans; for had it not been that the money was
thus obtained with a sort of facility that was not directly felt by the
people, they never would have consented to be directly taxed to support
the parade of so unnecessary an establishment. This is my reason for
being an enemy to loans; they deceive citizens, and lull them for a
time, in order to levy double contributions afterwards.
But it may be demanded, how are the frontiers to be protected, if the
army was disbanded? In reply to this Mr. S. said he wished that the
former two regiments might be retained to garrison the forts, and that a
militia near the scene of action should be raised, who would be able to
make five expeditions against the savages in a year, if necessary,
instead of one solitary fruitless attempt, which, upon an average, is as
much as a regular army can do; and sometimes not so much, for it does
not appear that any expedition took place during the last twelve months:
moreover, it is not so easy for the Indians to discover the plans and
approaches of militia, as they do the slow motions of an unwieldy army,
dragging their heavy artillery through the woods. The fact is, that the
Indians have the best intelligence and know every motion of the army,
and they can even calculate the time and place to meet them, and the
numbers of their tribes that will be necessary to receive such a force;
they will always be prepared when a regular army are to march against
them. But if the business be left to a militia of the frontier
inhabitants, who know the country, and have their property at stake, it
would not cost the Government one-fourth part of the expense to give a
complete protection, and to repel all the depredations of the savages,
if that be our intention. If it be the protection and happiness of our
brethren on the frontiers--if we are serious to check the progress of
expense, the motion which I have brought forward will be the most
effectual means, and to establish a proper Militia System. On this
motion, therefore, will depend the question, whether we are to continue
a fruitless warfare in the present mode for seven or ten years, or shall
we adopt a better system, which will not cost one-fourth of the expense,
and which would completely check the Indians; nay, it would entirely
exterminate them, if that was thought to be necessary.
In order to bring the matter to a point, Mr. S. suggested, that it would
be proper to disband all the troops except the two former regiments of
two thousand one hundred and twenty-eight men, which would be more than
sufficient to garrison all the fourteen posts on the frontier. These,
with a militia, under proper regulations, and the officers appointed by
the PRESIDENT, would be found a more certain protection. The garrisons
are at Fayette, Hamilton, Steuben, Knox, Tammany, Telfair, Harmar,
Franklin, Jefferson, St. Clair, Marietta, Massachusetts, Matthews, and
Knoxville. Most of these are commanded by captains, except two that are
commanded by majors: now, reducing the establishment to two thousand one
hundred and eighteen non-commissioned and privates, and average them
amongst the garrisons, it will give one hundred and fifty-two men for
each; the sum saved by this reduction would be six hundred and
twenty-four thousand six hundred and seven dollars--the difference
between the appropriations for 1792 and those required for 1793.
With regard to the expense that would be incurred from militia
expeditions, none of them would cost above thirty thousand dollars; and
four or five of those, if made in a year, would have ten times the
success and effect that could be expected from the present system. Had
the militia plan been adopted, we should not at this day hear such
murmurs from our constituents, nor would the people be saddled with
heavy taxes and imposts; but, on the contrary, the money that has been
actually wasted would have sunk a considerable part of our National
Debt. But by the system of warfare lately adopted of dragging heavy
cannon and camps into a wilderness, of which we have confessed our
ignorance, if it be allowed any longer, our Treasury will be exhausted,
and the public revenues which the Secretary of the Treasury reported as
affording a prospect of income beyond the permanent wants of Government,
will not all together be sufficient for our War Establishment; we must
fly to loans, and pursue a system of ruin and distress to the country.
Under these impressions, said Mr. S., I have introduced the proposition
now before the House; and I entreat gentlemen to think seriously of it,
for thereon, in a high degree, will depend the real protection of our
frontier, the safety of our garrisons, and the ultimate ease, happiness,
and tranquillity of the continent.
Mr. HARTLEY, although he did not wish to advocate the continuance of a
standing army, yet he was averse to disbanding the troops at present,
while it is known that a negotiation for a peace is going forward, and
may not perhaps be brought to a decision before the spring. It is a
well-known maxim in politics, that a peace can always be easiest
obtained by a nation which is prepared for war. He noticed the great
prudence and economy of the PRESIDENT in forming the army into a legion;
and he differed in opinion with Mr. STEELE respecting the insufficiency
of regular troops. No instance could be quoted where regulars had
engaged the Indians without beating them.
Mr. PARKER said he had always abhorred the idea of keeping up standing
armies in this country; and he believed he could from experience
demonstrate that it was an unwise measure at the commencement of the
present Government; for it answered no better purpose than throwing out
a hint to the British and Spanish Governments, on our Northern and
Southern frontiers, to increase their forces, and even to administer
countenance and support to the Indians, which they never would have
thought of doing, but for our vain attempt at military parade. He
mentioned a letter which had been written by Lord Dorchester to the
Indians, informing them "that Prince Edward had arrived with a number of
chosen warriors to protect them," meaning against the United States.
Thus, said Mr. P., we have been warring with our finances for the last
three years, by keeping up an army in imitation of European plans, which
are formed in countries altogether unanalogous to America in every
possible view. The consequences have been unsuccessful, and produced
military disgraces, by sending into the field a collection of beings,
collected from stews and brothels and from the most unprincipled of
their species, to fight against Indians well supported on both sides,
and fighting, as they do, for their property, their hunting ground,
their wives, and children, instead of calling forth the militia, the
natural strength of the country. But the present plan has involved us in
such difficulties that we are not now able to provide for the payment of
our debts, without the medium of loans; nay, we are now called on for a
small sum of two hundred thousand dollars at the bank, which would have
been easily paid out of the surplus in the Treasury, were it not that
our finances have been exhausted by those ill-judged expeditions under
General Harmer and General St. Clair. He mentioned the naked, starved
appearance of the men who were sent out--with shoes that would not last
three days, clothes that did not half cover their miserable bodies from
the inclemency of the weather, and food sometimes not fit for dogs. He
could mention the particulars, if required, of some other very
abominable abuses, but refrained from it at present. He concluded by
expressing the same opinion of militia that Mr. S. had done; and, with
regard to the starved soldiery who had appeared in the woods, they were
despised so much by the Indians, that they called them Coatmen, and shot
them down like wild turkeys.
Mr. FITZSIMONS was apprehensive that it would be a dangerous experiment,
so suddenly to alter the system of defence already adopted. He remarked,
that when Mr. STEELE had stated the War Department to have cost the
United States three million five hundred and forty thousand dollars, he
had committed a great mistake, for there was one million one hundred and
seventy-one thousand dollars of that sum not yet granted. [Mr. STEELE
explained, that he had gone by the estimates for the appropriations
proposed, &c.] Mr. FITZSIMONS did not wish to advocate a standing army;
and if any better mode of defence for the frontiers could be digested,
he would be amongst the foremost who would agree to it.
Mr. WHITE could not entirely approve of the motion for striking out,
unless a proper substitute for defence was fairly brought forward.
Mr. WILLIAMSON said, it was not disbanding an army of men, but the
disbanding an army of paper, that he conceived to be the object of the
motion, and it should have his support. He mentioned an affair between
ninety militia and two hundred and forty Indians, wherein the militia
_received_ them much better than any of the regulars could boast of
having done!
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) reverted to a clause in the law which
empowers the PRESIDENT either to raise those three additional
regiments, or to forbear to raise them, or discharge them, &c., provided
he thought it consistent with the safety of the country. From this Mr.
S. said it was evident there was a sort of indelicacy in the motion, as
it implies a doubt that the PRESIDENT might fail in this instance, or
vary from his usual line of prudence.
Mr. DAYTON said, he would vote for referring the motion to a Committee
of the Whole, although he disapproved of it. He should not have risen
had he not heard from the two North Carolina members the strangest
perversion of argument and the most extraordinary reasoning. The
gentleman who has brought forward the motion, said Mr. D., has decried
every idea of energy and efficacy in regular disciplined troops
considering them not only inefficient, but contemptible, when employed
against Indians; and, to confirm this assertion, he has instanced the
expedition under General St. Clair, when it is well known that there
were not, in fact, two companies of regular disciplined infantry among
them. The other gentleman (Mr. WILLIAMSON) has extravagantly commended
the back-country militia, and extolled them for their efficiency and
success in Indian warfare; and instances the affair of a rencontre
between Major Adair, with ninety militia, against two hundred and forty
Indians. In reply to this, Mr. D. felt himself compelled to remark, that
that affair did not appear so successful in his mind; for those very
militia were unquestionably surprised and beaten, inasmuch as they were
driven into a corner, until the Indians captured all their horses and
other property in their camp; and what is still more disgraceful, one
half of the Major's party deserted him at the commencement of the
action, and secured themselves within their garrison.
Whilst he was up, Mr. D. would further observe on the extraordinary
speech of the mover of the question, that it was such as no person could
have ever expected to hear within the walls of that House. It seemed to
be calculated to prejudice the minds of the people against the whole
Administration; and it appeared still the more extraordinary that such a
speech should come from a gentleman who so lately expressed the nicest
delicacy in matters of order and decency; for, in this instance, he has
committed the greatest breach of decorum and propriety, by a direct
censure of the Secretary of War, the PRESIDENT, and both Houses of the
Legislature. [Here several members called Mr. DAYTON to order.] He
proceeded, however, and appealed to the House, whether he had not drawn
a just picture of the expressions of the gentleman from North Carolina.
The very calculations which he has so laboriously produced have been
questioned by other members. In regard to the surprise expressed by the
gentleman at the increase of the War Department from 1791 to '92 and
'93, it was not so strange that five thousand men would require greater
supplies than two thousand. Yet the gentleman is surprised at the
increase of expense, and seems to imply that abuses have been committed;
but if an increase of expense for protecting the frontiers has accrued,
the censure ought to fall on the Legislature for directing it by their
laws, and not upon the Executive, who are merely the instruments for
carrying them into effect.
Upon the whole, Mr. D., however he might himself be in favor of a
reduction of the army, if it stood simply on its own merits, yet, as it
now struck him, it being connected with some recent circumstances, he
would therefore oppose it as tending only to embarrass the Executive in
their attempts towards a pacification. Moreover, he said he knew the
temper of Indians so well, by having lived amongst them, that there was
not a nation on earth more extravagant in their demands, when they saw
the force against them was lessening. So that what is intended by the
motion for reduction at present, as economical, may turn out to be, in
the end, the most expensive of any.
Mr. WADSWORTH was also against the motion; and Mr. AMES closed the
debate by a few observations on the necessity of committing to a
Committee of the Whole, as there would be no other way of answering the
industrious calculations of the mover.
The question on committal was carried, and made the order of the day for
next Wednesday.
WEDNESDAY, January 2.
_Military Establishment._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the Military Establishment of
the United States.
Mr. WADSWORTH rose and observed, that he had pledged himself to the
House last Friday to show that the calculations of the gentleman from
North Carolina were not true; and, if true, that the inferences drawn
from them were not correct. There was a material difference (he said)
between the appropriations quoted by the gentleman and those which he
would now read to the House. Here he read a statement which he had
prepared, from which it would appear that Mr. STEELE had overrated the
contingencies, hospitals, quartermasters, forage, cavalry, ordnance,
pay, and subsistence, each of them.
The total difference between Mr. STEELE's and Mr. WADSWORTH's
calculations, from this representation, was $27,080 in the year 1790.
In like manner, Mr. W. read his calculations for 1791. On comparing
which with those of Mr. STEELE, he said there was a difference in the
total of $252,312; and in the total of 1792, he showed a difference of
$567,530. He also particularly objected to Mr. STEELE's statements of
the ordnance expense for 1793, which had been called $23,000; but that
sum, although it comes under the head of ordnance in the estimate, is
not altogether appropriated for the purchase of cannon; the whole amount
of the expense of cannon, he said, had been very trifling--about $700
or $800. Having proceeded thus far in attempting to controvert the
calculations of the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. W. said, it would
indeed have been an alarming thing to the United States, had they been
founded in reality. But the gentleman had not confined himself to
misstatements--he had gone further; for he had "lamented the necessity
of quoting even truths from that office"--the War Office. Here Mr. W.
stated that the quotation which Mr. STEELE had made from a report of the
Secretary of War had not been correctly quoted. After Mr. W. had thus
represented Mr. STEELE's calculations as erroneous, and his quotations
as misstated, he said that the House ought to beware of not being led
astray by them. He next observed, that the gentleman had laid a great
deal of blame of the present hostilities between the United States and
the Indians, and the expense attending them, to the War Department. But
Mr. W. conceived that there were other causes to be assigned for the
Indian war. There had never been a day, from the first settlement of
America to the present moment, without our being at war with the
Indians, in one place or another. The history of the country, the
resolves of the old Congress, every book published by Congress, show
this to have been the case. [Here he read some quotations from the
resolves of 1784, to show the appropriations for defraying the expenses
of Indian wars.] He wished the House to take a retrospect of the
subject, from the beginning of those troubles down to the late
application for assistance from the National Government by the Governor
of Georgia. Although they have three thousand men on the frontier of
that State, yet it is not found sufficient, and the Indians have driven
them in. Indeed, there has been a time when the town of Savannah has
been obliged to keep a guard.
It was not his intention to introduce commendations of the officer at
the head of the War Department, but he thought it proper to observe,
that he is not to be blamed on account of the expenses referred to. He
is no more than an instrument acting under the Supreme Executive. It is
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has found it necessary and proper
to recommend the establishment of a military force. It is, therefore,
not the Secretary's, it is the PRESIDENT's war; and to assert that the
Secretary has had any undue influence with the Legislature, would be
altogether false; for, on the contrary, his reports have been treated
with disrespect in this House. Was not his report at New York ridiculed,
and called "preaching," &c., because it was in favor of peace, and spoke
with great humanity respecting the hardships often inflicted by the
whites on the Indians? Indeed, the Secretary of War has been uniform in
his endeavors to bring about a durable peace. This, however desirable an
object, has been found hitherto impracticable, and the Indians have
lately carried their depredations to so great a length that the
PRESIDENT has judged it necessary to repel them by force. They have
murdered in cold blood our ambassadors of peace, whilst holding a flag
of truce in one hand and reaching the other out in friendship to the
Indians. Perhaps they may have been excited to this degree of barbarity
by many causes. It is hard to determine which are the greatest
aggressors--the settlers on the frontiers or the Indians. The murder of
the Moravian Indians, the proclamation of Congress against our own
people, all show that the Indians have ground for complaint.
Here Mr. W. recapitulated the affairs of the banditti at Fort St.
Vincennes; the representations of Judge Innis, of Kentucky, from 1783 to
1790, respecting the people there who could not be restrained from the
commission of crimes against the peace of the country. From these causes
and the common fatality of the times, our attempts towards peace have
proved abortive, and the war has been prolonged, but the Secretary is
entirely innocent of promoting it.
In regard to the other arguments of the gentleman (Mr. STEELE)
respecting the militia, that they would afford either a cheaper or
better defence for the frontiers, he had his doubts.
Mr. W. now went over the whole history of the frontier wars; a line of
posts was once established and garrisoned by militia, yet they could not
prevent the Indians from coming within sixty miles of Winchester, and
murdering, scalping and plundering the women and children. After the
peace of 1762, the Indians drove in the militia, and advanced as far as
Cumberland and Carlisle, in the State of Pennsylvania.
But Colonel Boquet, with the remains of two regiments of regular troops,
who had just before arrived from the West Indies, marched against the
savages, and hired pack-horses to carry some of his sick men. With these
regulars, Colonel Boquet fought them and drove them with the bayonet
from one end of the country to the other. The battle began at one
o'clock the first day and lasted until night, and was renewed the next
morning with superior force by the Indians; yet they were entirely
discomfited. This news went to Fort Pitt and Virginia, and revived the
spirits of the country. Virginia raised more troops--and Colonel Boquet
dictated a peace to the savages.
These instances furnished sufficient arguments to show the superiority
of regular troops over militia. But he could mention many others, viz:
General Hartman, with eight hundred chosen men, giving a total defeat to
the Indians; Colonel Willet's attack and defeat of them; and General
Sullivan's affair in South Carolina.
As to the defeat of Harmer and St. Clair, their men ought not to be
reckoned regular troops. They were raw recruits, undisciplined, &c. But
even they stood better than the militia; for the militia ran away, and
those who remained to fight the savages fell, to their honor be it
spoken, whilst the militia, who were the advanced guard, ran and threw
away their guns, nay, their coats.
Upon the whole, the balance of argument, Mr. W. thought, must appear in
favor of regular troops.
He further took occasion to animadvert on what Mr. WILLIAMSON had said,
when that gentleman expressed himself so strongly in favor of the
militia under Major Adair. That officer, Mr. W. observed, had been a
Continental officer, and from his own words, it appeared that he had no
very great opinion of the militia, for they had fled to the garrison;
and the Indians obtained their ends, notwithstanding the _reception_
given by Major Adair. Theirs was the triumph, and when they retired, it
seems to have been not so much a matter of necessity, as a thing of
choice, on their part. The loss of horses, one hundred, perhaps, and the
expense of this affair, amounted to a much greater sum than any regular
troops would have cost. The party under Major Adair, supposing it to
consist of a hundred men, cost one hundred dollars a day, reckoning the
attendant circumstances--and considering it, as Mr. W. did, a complete
defeat--for there are no circumstances to prove that it was
otherwise--the militia having deserted him and left the few regulars he
had exposed to the whole of the danger.
Mr. W. did not stop here in his details of military disgraces--he
recounted many other cases. He mentioned the Grant's expedition against
the Cherokees, &c. And still he drew a balance against the successes of
the militia; for, he said, they had constantly been defeated, and the
country left exposed to the depredations of the enemy.
Much has been said, observed Mr. W., of Clark and Sevier's successes.
They, indeed, afford an exception to the cases above mentioned; but how
far were they successful? The immense expense of men and money, and the
interruption given to the agriculture of the country by calling away
from their business so many industrious citizens, is a thing beyond the
power of calculation; for my part, said he, I do not know figures enough
to count it up. For the truth of this position, and for the enormous
waste and expense incurred by militia, he appealed to one of the members
(Col. PARKER) on the other side of the House, who had experience in the
matter, whether it was not absolutely impossible either to bring militia
under a proper discipline, or prevent their enormous waste. A whole
brigade of regular troops would not cost so much as one regiment of
militia to a country. The militia of Kentucky have cost more blood and
wealth than all the American war; when the circumstances are considered
of calling out men from the tillage of the field, &c. It is enormous the
number of lives, and the aggregate loss is countless. The causes of
these things are, want of order and discipline, &c. And those causes
have produced _a universal reprobation of the war establishment_; but
all those who condemn are not well acquainted with those causes; they
judge from hearing only one-half of the truth in our newspapers. It is
supposed a peace can be easily effected, but I know of no peace that
has not been effected by force; for, although promises have been made
and peace often treated for with the Indians, yet they have as
constantly broken those promises. This is a good reason for keeping up
the present force of the United States. We are now able to meet the
Indians and demand a safe peace. But the gentleman from North Carolina
calls our establishment a mere military parade, which, it is said by
another gentleman, (Mr. PARKER,) will only tend to rouse the Spaniards
and the British, &c.
He went on quoting the conduct of the Indians and their threatening
manner, when they told you, "go to your own side of the Ohio," &c. What
language do they now hold out? But I am not at liberty, said Mr. W., to
mention it, as it was confidentially communicated to this House, and
read with our doors shut. However, it is well known to all the members
present the insolence of that language. For my part, I have little hopes
of a peace from any promises of the Indians; and although a negotiation
is said to be upon the carpet, I can never depend upon the promises of
savages who have so often broken them.
In speaking of the recruits that have been lately raised for the regular
army, Mr. W. opposed his opinion to that of Mr. PARKER, who mentioned
them in such contemptible terms as having been collected from the stews
and brothels of the cities, &c. For his part, Mr. W. had often seen
them, and he believed they were equal, if not superior in spirit and
appearance, to most of the soldiery during the British war, and better
than the soldiery were at the close of the war, with some exceptions,
such as respects the men who cost £300 each. Before he could quit the
subject, he begged leave to mention another instance of the efficacy of
regular troops; it was the affair of General Wayne's surprise, when the
light-horse dismounted, and cut the militia to pieces, and the infantry
drove them off at the point of the bayonet.
He ridiculed the idea of calling out a militia upon every emergency.
Where are they to be formed? In Pennsylvania it would be attended with a
tenfold loss, if they must quit their daily labor. He would admit that
the character of the Kentucky militia had been brave and intrepid; but
there was still occasion for a new war, and no ultimate protection
afforded to the frontier.
The Governor of North Carolina had complained of a friendly Indian being
murdered, &c. On the whole, he thought it improper to take militia to
fight Indian warriors. He admitted that some abuses might have been
practised in the regular army, but they were as little, if not less,
than in any other army he could remember.
He insisted that the scheme of the Department of War was not a scheme of
the Secretary, but a scheme of the United States from the PRESIDENT down
to the members of the Legislature, and the meanest of their
constituents. He took a retrospect of the great skill of the PRESIDENT
after Braddock's defeat. The PRESIDENT must be the best judge of the
disposition of Indians, and the best way of treating with them; he
approves the scheme of the present war, and shall we imprudently attempt
to change his plan, by sending out a few men to be knocked on the head
by the Indians, as those _coat_ men were? so called by the gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. PARKER,) but instead of coat men, he, Mr. W. thought
they might also have been called petty-coat men, &c. He finished his
observations by again remarking, that the calculations of the gentleman
(Mr. STEELE) who had introduced the motion for reducing the present war
establishments were founded in error and ought not to have any weight
with the House.
Mr. STEELE.--When the House have deliberated upon the merits of the
gentleman's arguments, and the truth of my statements; and when they
have decided the question, I will submit to their decision; but, in the
mean time, I insist that my calculations are founded on the reports of
the Secretary and the public printed documents on the table, of the
appropriations and laws, &c. I wish the gentleman (Mr. WADSWORTH) had
told us where he has found those papers, from which he attempts to
controvert such authentic documents as I have quoted. I wish he had made
the House understand them; for my part they appear unintelligible.
Mr. WADSWORTH said it was from the laws.
Mr. STEELE explained some things in his former statements; and in reply
to some suggestions that might be thrown out with respect to his
indelicate mode of attacking the Secretary of War, or the PRESIDENT, he
defied any member to show that he had acted beyond the line of his duty,
or that he had ever shown any disrespect towards the PRESIDENT. On the
contrary, he was of opinion that that gentleman's character would for
ever be secured against all the possible attacks of ingratitude or
malice, &c. He also used some other very handsome expressions on this
occasion. But whilst he was ready to declare these things, and to prove
that he had no personal intentions of injuring the Secretary of War,
yet, he would not suffer himself to be deprived of his privilege, whilst
he had the honor of a seat in that House; and, in the present instance,
he thought it his duty to hold up his opposition against the rapid
increase of expenses in all the Departments of Government, which he said
were grown to an enormous burden upon the people, and unwarranted by the
constitution; that they therefore ought to be immediately checked. He
hoped, for the future, gentlemen would confine their arguments to
measures, and not apply them to persons. He sat down, for the present,
with this proviso: that he would reserve to himself the right of
answering to what might be advanced against his proposition, which he
could prove to be salutary; and that the present system is fundamentally
wrong.
Mr. HARTLEY was against adopting the motion under the present
circumstances of the country, and he entered into a particular
investigation of the merits of the question. When the last law for the
more effectual protection of the frontiers passed, the subject now under
consideration was very fully and ably discussed, and the gentlemen who
were averse to the augmentation, had several alterations made to satisfy
them.
Instead of the PRESIDENT's being obliged to raise the whole of the three
regiments, he was to exercise his discretion either to make the
augmentation complete, or raise a part, and he had authority to disband
them after being raised.
The 12th section of that law is thus expressed: "It shall be lawful for
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to forbear to raise, or to disband
after they shall be raised, the whole or any part of the said three
additional regiments, in case events shall in his judgment render his so
doing consistent with the public safety."
We should therefore consider whether circumstances have so materially
changed since that time as to render it proper that the Legislature
should interfere, repeal the powers given to the PRESIDENT, and
discharge the three regiments. This necessarily leads us first to view
the situation of our finances, and the state of the frontiers at and
immediately before the time of passing the law. The extent of our
revenue was not as well known then as at present, and every good man
deprecated the misfortune which obliged him to increase the taxes. The
war was a disagreeable one, but necessary, if peace could not otherwise
be obtained. The Legislature considered the expense, and were of opinion
that we had means and abilities to defray the same. Many murders and
ravages had been committed by the savages on the frontiers. One army had
suffered in the year 1790, and nearly a whole army cut off on the 4th of
November, 1791. And we had every reason to suppose that the Indians
would act in great force against us. Our finances are still respectable.
It is true, I should be happy if we could apply the money towards
discharging the national debt already contracted, but the unfortunate
situation of our frontiers prevent it. War, though an evil, may (from
the present disposition of the world) be sometimes necessary, when
nations are unreasonable and justice cannot be otherwise obtained.
Hostilities have lately been committed on our troops commanded by Major
Adair, and several of the Southern tribes show themselves inimical, and
we have no absolute assurances that we shall have peace in the spring.
The agreement by some tribes to a suspension of hostilities, was only
convenient to them as it protected their families for the winter.
The great object of the additional armament was to obtain peace: this is
not yet effected. May we promise ourselves more success in negotiation
by laying down our arms, or by retaining them? History is in favor of
the latter. Indeed, I hold it as a maxim, that the nation which is
prepared for war can most easily obtain peace. For my own part, I can
discover no existing causes for altering the system established by the
act to which I have before referred. The expense has been made a very
serious objection. It ought to have weight; but where measures have been
proper, America has not regarded it. She has freely expended her
treasure to support her rights. We are bound in justice and honor to
protect our fellow-citizens on the frontiers; we demand from them an
excise. They require from the General Government protection. I am for
making peace with all the Indians upon reasonable terms; but any country
which has been fairly purchased from the Indians, they should not be
permitted to repossess or hold by conquest. If an offensive war be
necessary says the gentleman from North Carolina, regular troops are not
the most proper to carry it on. They are more expensive, and unfit to
meet the savages of the wilderness. As to the expense, I have partly
answered before. But if the gentleman is to have five expeditions in one
year, I believe he would find that his calculations are not correct: a
misfortune to either detachments or party would bear very hard upon the
district they came from; the partial loss of regulars would not be
equally felt, very few of them having families.
I have a high opinion of the backwoods riflemen, but I am confident that
we cannot certainly rely upon their turning out as often as they might
be wanted; we could not rely on such uncertainty; and yet this is
offered as a favorite project. If you cannot rely upon them, you may say
that the ordinary militia can be drafted. You would find them unfit for
such a service; they would in general be composed of substitutes,
inexperienced and undisciplined, and it would be unfair to take them all
from the frontiers, and some of the States, or at least one, have no
militia laws. I am for retaining the regular troops.
The PRESIDENT has practised economy in organizing the troops voted for,
and I am told they have made considerable progress in discipline; they
are formed into legionary corps, composed of horse, riflemen,
light-infantry, and battalion-men. The three former will be fit for
active service in the field, the latter for the common duties in the
camp or garrison. I will allow volunteers and militia their full credit;
but I do not think the regular troops merit the disparagement attempted.
Volunteer corps have not been free from misfortunes. Colonel Crawford,
at the head of five hundred volunteers from Virginia and Pennsylvania,
was defeated in the Western country, and he was burnt at the stake.
General Braddock, it is said, was obstinate, and his European troops
were undisciplined for such a service. The army under General St. Clair
was lost, because the men were undisciplined and unfitted for that
service. I can mention several instances where regular troops have
successfully penetrated the Indian country, among warlike tribes, with
success: Colonel Montgomery, into the Cherokees; Colonel Armstrong to
the Kittaning; Colonel Boquet's campaign of 1763, and 1764. Three
detachments of the American army, in the year 1778, (one under the
command of General Broadhead, one under Lieutenant Colonel Butler, and
the last commanded by your humble servant,) penetrated the country
possessed by the Six Nations. Neither of the detachments was large, and
the last had to contend against superior numbers. In General Sullivan's
campaign, the year following, his vanguard beat an equal, if not a
superior number of Indians. I might mention the Roman legions; they
almost constantly were successful against those they called Barbarians,
until their enemies adopted the Roman discipline. I have a high opinion
of the personal bravery and prowess of an Indian, but I do deny that
they can act to the best advantage in large bodies. They have not an
experience of that kind; disciplined troops would have the advantage. I
reprobate the idea of a standing army, which might endanger the liberty
of this country; but I consider the troops contemplated in the act of
Congress to be absolutely necessary, until peace shall be obtained, and
therefore shall vote against a reduction. Every step has been taken, and
I dare say will be taken, by the PRESIDENT, to procure a peace without
bloodshed. Our messengers of peace have, in some places, been murdered,
and yet he has sent messengers to others.
Mr. CLARK.--One would suppose from the style of the debate, that we were
going to abandon the frontiers, the safety of the country, &c., and to
disband the whole of the army: for, the arguments of those gentlemen who
are opposed to the motion seem to be calculated to mislead the House in
that way, and to prove that the question under consideration is for
reducing the whole of the troops now existing. But this is so far from
being the true state of the matter, that it is not even contemplated to
disband a single man of them; it only goes to the prevention of raising
any more troops, which perhaps would be the safest policy under the
present circumstances and temper of the United States. There are about
three thousand three hundred effective men already raised, who are
sufficient to garrison the forts on the frontier, agreeably to the
gentleman's statement who introduced the motion; and, indeed, it seems
as if they were fully competent, if we believe the report that the whole
of the Indian force, at the time of meeting General St. Clair, and when
they exerted themselves to the utmost, was but one thousand two hundred
warriors.
Mr. C. made some further remarks on the sentiments which had been
expressed by the gentleman last up; and, in speaking of the
discretionary powers vested in the PRESIDENT, he was of opinion that the
situation of the Chief Magistrate in this respect was extremely
delicate: for, supposing he might be inclined to stop the recruiting
service, and reduce the war establishment; and supposing the frontiers
to be again harassed, it might be charged to him for not having kept up
the legal complement of men. Under this impression, Mr. C. wished that
some way could be adopted of conveying to the PRESIDENT the sentiments
of the Legislature on this subject, without the tedious form of a law.
Mr. PARKER.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY) has been
reading a section of the law, to inform us of the discretionary powers
vested in the PRESIDENT, which we have heard from other members before
he rose, and which we all knew as well as himself. I am sorry to hear
gentlemen, when they have no other resource of argument left, so often
resorting to the name of the PRESIDENT, to carry their measures; and
yet, in the present instance, I much doubt whether those sentiments are
avowed by the PRESIDENT, which have been laid to his charge in the
course of this debate: however, if they were really so, this is not a
sufficient reason to silence me, or to prevent me from delivering my own
sentiments, and those of my constituents who sent me here to do so. He
vindicated the character of the militia, in opposition to the
disgraceful picture which Mr. WADSWORTH had painted of this respectable
class of citizens, whom he (Mr. P.) insisted were always more spirited
soldiery, and fitter for fighting the Indians than the regulars,
although they did not always move at the sound of a trumpet or beat of a
drum, which were necessary to rouse the attention of heart-broken,
mercenary troops, who seldom act but from force, or fear of the
whipping-post. Militia were not so well acquainted with military show,
or the display of columns; neither did the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, when acting Major of a regiment little better than militia, find
that the doctrine of tactics was of any great service to him.
Mr. P. further mentioned, that the forerunners of General Burgoyne's
army were taken by General Stark's militia near Bennington; and the
capture of the whole of Burgoyne's army was chiefly brought about by
militia, as General Lincoln had very few regular troops at the time of
his surrender. In short, the militia bore a conspicuous share of almost
every engagement during the war. At Trenton, the men who took the
Hessians were little other than militia, as they had been raised but a
short time before. Mr. P. could vouch for them, as he was a witness of
their activity and bravery. Another instance offered of their success at
Charleston, after it was taken by the British and the regulars drove
off; the militia kept possession of the country and supported
themselves. He also remembered having been called away from the regular
army in the North to take the command of some militia in Virginia, who
supported themselves for twelve months without either pay or provisions
from the United States; and yet they were never once defeated or
disgraced, neither did they leave the country unprotected and exposed;
and all they received for their services was certificates which
necessity obliged them to alienate at three shillings in the pound to
persons who are now in possession of them drawing an annual interest of
nearly as much, and who never perhaps had a good wish toward the
Revolution. He next quoted the militia under Colonel Mercer, at
Yorktown, who were successful in a skirmish with the enemy under
Tarleton. These and several other arguments in favor of the militia,
whom he still maintained to be the best security of a country, were used
by Mr. P. He would not advocate the raising them from all parts of the
United States, but only in such places as the safety of the frontiers
required it most: they were not, to be sure, accustomed to the display
of the column, &c., but they knew how to take the Indians in a proper
way through the woods.
It gave him pain to hear the character of the militia so much traduced,
and it also was a painful reflection to think of the two disgraceful
defeats of our armies under Generals Harmar and St. Clair; indeed, it
would have a strange appearance to the world, to think that this country
is inhabited by the same men who lived in 1776. He repeated what he had
before asserted, that most of the present regulars were collected from
the stews and brothels of the cities, and had none of the spirit or
principles of the honest yeomanry, who composed the militia during
former wars, when every man turned out impressed with a good cause.
It was not, he said, his desire to criminate any individual in office,
although he would maintain his right of expressing his opinion on that
floor, so long as he held a seat in the House. But with regard to
myself, said he, I am not disposed to pour incense into any man's cup; I
respect the PRESIDENT as much as any man, and think him incapable of
doing wrong, at least on those principles that foreign despots are
supposed to do no wrong, because the people are their subjects, and dare
not to say their sovereigns do wrong, and dare not contradict this
tyrannic maxim. If the House, or if the PRESIDENT, have committed an
error, they ought to correct it; for my part, I conceived the whole of
the plan wrong from the beginning. From the present appearances, he was
convinced we should get no peace with the Indians, unless it were
dictated by the British agents in Canada; for it was clear, as long as
they can do us the injustice to withhold territory from us, we can have
little reason to expect their aid or friendship in bringing about a
peace which is so desirable. He hoped to live to see the day that
America will be able to show herself superior to her enemies, and
chastise them: at present, it would be improper to engage in any war, if
it could be avoided.
In addition to the foregoing reasons offered by Mr. P. for being opposed
to a war establishment, he also remarked, that it was from a desire to
see the public debt redeemed without resorting to new _taxes_; for if
_they_ once should get fixed _there_, (pointing up to the Senate
Chamber,) we should never be able to withdraw them, whether they were
necessary or not. He concluded by a hearty wish that the motion made by
his friend from North Carolina might succeed.
Mr. BOUDINOT was against the motion, as he thought any immediate
alteration of the present system would be attended with dangerous
consequences, under the present circumstances of the United States. He
did not think it would be justifiable to alter it. It would show an
instability in our public measures, especially at this moment, when we
have done every thing to bring about a peace with the hostile Indians:
and, when it is just advancing to the season for effecting it--when it
is at the eve of completion--shall we rashly counteract the whole? and
after having brought the enemy, who were so much elated on account of
their recent success, to a proper sense of our power and force to impose
an honorable peace, would it not be extremely imprudent to lessen our
own consequence before we have accomplished the object? The Indians
would, in this case, most indubitably raise their demands in proportion
to what they supposed to be our weakness. Mr. B. added several other
observations.
Mr. WILLIS had always been strongly impressed with a dislike for
standing armies; but when he considered the situation of the frontiers,
and particularly of the State of Georgia, he must give his vote against
the motion. Neither did he think two regiments by any means a sufficient
force, even to garrison the posts.
On motion, the committee rose and reported progress.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,
enclosing a list of the several persons employed in his office, with the
salary allowed to each, pursuant to the resolution of this House of the
thirty-first ultimo; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill making compensation to the widows and orphans of certain persons
who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags of truce, and,
after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress.
THURSDAY, January 3.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to
regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions: which was received, and read
twice, and committed.
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill to make compensation to the widows and orphans of certain persons
who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags of truce; and,
after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee
had again had the said bill under consideration, and made several
amendments thereto.
_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, do lie on the table.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War,
enclosing a list of the persons employed in the several offices of his
Department, with the salary allowed to each, pursuant to the resolution
of this House, of the 31st ultimo; which were read, and ordered to lie
on the table.
_Military Establishment._
The order of the day being called for, the House went into Committee of
the Whole, (Mr. _White_ in the chair,) on Mr. STEELE's motion for
reducing part of the present military establishment of the United
States.
In reply to the speech made yesterday by Mr. WADSWORTH, and which had
been expressed in such strong language, Mr. STEELE thought it necessary
to make a few observations, as a preliminary, before the House went
further into the debate.
The gentleman from Connecticut had disputed the calculations which he,
Mr. S., had produced. Perhaps the gentleman's calculations may be right,
and perhaps both of our statements may be so; but with respect to those
which I produced, if the acts of Congress are false, if the reports and
estimates of the Heads of Departments on your table, Mr. SPEAKER, are
false, then my statements are wrong, or "untrue" as the gentleman
expressed it, and for which, I hope, on more cool reflection, he will
not adhere to. Mr. S. then read the acts of Congress of the 29th of
September, 1789, 26th of March, 1790, and 12th of August, same year; the
11th of February, 1791, and 23d December, 1792, &c., from which he
clearly proved that every item of his calculations was exactly quoted.
He knew of no surplusage unexpended at the War Department, but $140,000
as reported by the Secretary of the Treasury; if any gentlemen in the
House knew of any other, he hoped they would mention them. For his part,
he thought the estimate for 1793 showed very little savings any where
from the grants of the preceding year, but it contained demands for new
grants much larger than for any former year. This, however, was a
subject he did not at present mean to say much on, until he should hear
the sentiments of other members. He therefore sat down with a
reservation, that he would take the liberty of replying to such
arguments as might be adduced against his proposition.
Mr. WADSWORTH disavowed any intention of being indelicate in his
expressions yesterday, toward the gentleman from North Carolina; and if
he had, in the warmth of debate, said any thing to which that gentleman
could take offence, it was not meant so, and he was ready to retract it.
He could not, however, avoid taking notice, that the gentleman's
arguments appeared to him to convey a strong censure on the Executive,
and to spread abroad improper impressions. The principal error which he
dwelt on, was that of quoting the difference between the appropriations
of 1789 and 1790, to be so great as appeared from that gentleman's
statement. But the fact is, that the gentleman had overlooked the laws,
and instead of quoting the amount of the _two_ appropriations made in
1789, he had only mentioned the amount of _one_, consequently this was
giving an improper impression of the real comparative appropriations of
those two years; for, when they are taken in the whole, the difference
is not so great, nor the increase so much as Mr. STEELE exhibited it, by
$27,080. In like manner, the comparative increases of the other years,
1791, 1792, and 1793, have been misstated, and the truth is, that the
total increases are not less, but _more_ than the gentleman represented
them by the sum of $567,530.72.
Mr. CLARK hoped the gentleman last up did not suppose that the House was
going to war with the Secretary of War. He sincerely wished that some
means should be adopted of conveying the sense of the House to the
PRESIDENT, who would thereby be considerably relieved from the delicate
situation in which he now stands with regard to the discretionary powers
vested in him. Before Mr. C. sat down, he suggested the idea of filling
up the blank in Mr. STEELE's motion with the word three, so as to limit
the military to three regiments.