The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill for an amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia;
when, after striking out the words "claiming under it," in the fifth
section, and adding two new sections, the committee rose, the House
concurred in the amendments, and the bill was ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.
One of the sections was moved by Mr. MILLEDGE, and was in the following
words:
"That, from and after the establishment of the said
government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be
entitled to and enjoy all and singular the rights,
privileges, and advantages, granted to the people of the
territory of the United States north-west of the river
Ohio, in and by the aforesaid ordinance of the 13th day of
July, in the year 1787, in as full and ample manner as the
same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said
last-mentioned territory."
The other, moved by Mr. HARPER, was to the following effect:
"That, from and after the establishment of the aforesaid
government, it shall not be lawful for any person to import
or bring into the said territory, from any part or place
without the limits of the United States, any slave or
slaves, on pain of forfeiting three hundred dollars for
every slave so brought, one-half to the United States, and
the other half to the person who shall sue for the same;
and every person so imported shall be entitled to and
receive his or her freedom."
When this section was proposed, Mr. THATCHER moved to strike out the
words "without the limits of the United States," so as to have made it
unlawful to have brought any slave there; but the motion was not
seconded.
TUESDAY, March 27.
The bill from the Senate for an amicable settlement of limits with the
State of Georgia, was passed with amendments.
_Relations with France._
Mr. BALDWIN hoped the House would now resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union.
After a few observations from Mr. SEWALL against, and from Mr. NICHOLAS
in favor of going into the business of the Union, the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject, Mr. DENT in the
chair; when the PRESIDENT'S Message of the 19th instant having been
read,
Mr. SPRIGG rose and observed, that every subject which came before the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union must necessarily be
important; but he believed there never was any more so than that which
was presented to them by the Message of the PRESIDENT which had been
read. Separated as we are from Europe by an immense ocean, it were to be
wished that we were equally separated from its political concerns, and
that we should have to do with them no farther than what relates to
commerce. This, unhappily, had not been the case, and there now existed
painful differences between this country and the French Republic. The
Message which had just been read was an evidence of this. In this
situation of things, it appeared necessary that the House should declare
whether this country was to have peace or war. This was a subject in
which the best interests of the Union were deeply concerned, and he
hoped the business would be met fully and fairly. The PRESIDENT had
informed the House that the present state of things is changed from what
it was when he prohibited the arming of merchant vessels, and that
therefore he had withdrawn that prohibition. Whether the order formerly
issued by the PRESIDENT for this purpose was in conformity to the spirit
or letter of the law, was not of importance now to inquire; the effect
had been beneficial, and in the same proportion as the prohibition had
been beneficial would be the evils of withdrawing it. In order to
ascertain the sense of the committee upon what measures may be proper to
be taken in the present crisis, he should offer the following
resolutions to their consideration:
_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
under existing circumstances, it is not expedient for the
United States to resort to war against the French Republic.
_Resolved_, _&c._, That provision ought to be made by law
for restricting the arming of merchant vessels, except in
cases in which the practice was heretofore permitted.
_Resolved_, _&c._, That adequate provision shall be made by
law for the protection of our sea-coast, and for the
internal defence of the country.
The first resolution being taken up,
Mr. SITGREAVES said that, for himself, he could not agree to the
proposed resolution. He did not mean, by this disagreement, to express
an opinion, that, at this moment, it was expedient to go to war with the
French Republic; but he thought the formal declaration of the contrary
sentiment was highly improper. The present is a period of menace and of
danger, of injury and outrage, and whatever might be the expediency of
the actual crisis, yet he had no hesitation to avow his belief that the
time is not far distant when war must be resorted to, or the national
honor and interest be abandoned. The conduct of France was calculated to
excite or justify no other expectation; and under such circumstances,
with such prospects, he could by no means consent to a formal
declaration of non-resistance. Besides, it is contrary to the usual and
ordinary course of Legislative proceeding, to pass mere negative
resolutions. The power of declaring war being vested in the Congress, so
long as the Congress shall forbear to declare war, it is a sufficient
expression of their sentiment that such a declaration would be
inexpedient: it is the only proper expression of such a sentiment; and
it can be no more right to resolve that we will not resort to war, than
it would be to pass an act to declare it would be inexpedient to make a
law for the regulation of bankruptcy or any other municipal concern.
However desirable, therefore, he admitted unanimity to be, at a time
like the present, he found it impossible to agree to the resolution.
Mr. BALDWIN did not agree with the gentleman last up; he thought the
resolution proper and free from exception. We were, he said,
twenty-three years ago, when we were about beginning the war with Great
Britain, in a situation similar to the present; but we were then without
many advantages which we now have. We were then without any common tie,
except what arose from common interest. No means existed of holding
conference together, but nature pointed out the course to be taken, and
representatives from different parts of the country were travelling at
the same moment to hold counsel together, and to speak their sentiments.
The gentleman who has just taken his seat apprehends war must be the
consequence of our present situation.
Mr. B. said this was the first time that the question of declaring war
had ever presented itself, and upon which, he believed, there might be a
difference of opinion as to the exercise of that power. He did not mean
to say wantonly that our constitution is imperfect; but every society
which has a written constitution must have recourse to it for direction.
It would be improper therefore to inquire what agency the Legislature
ought to have in the declaring of war; whether it is not proper that all
the circumstances relative to such a state should be before them. He did
not believe it was intended that this House should merely be the
instrument to give the sound of war; the subject seemed to be placed
wholly in the hands of the Legislature. This was the understanding of
the country when there was no Government in existence, and he believed
this was the meaning of the constitution. The country is now every where
agitating this question of peace or war, and he trusted they would not
be left to grope their way in the dark on this important question. The
PRESIDENT had informed the House that all hopes of a negotiation were at
an end. He was willing to take the information as it was given, without
going into the Cabinet of the Executive, and to take measures
accordingly. But when some persons declare that the present state of
things is already a state of war; that the country is going on in it;
that the die is cast, and that we have nothing to do but to go on with
it as well as we can, if the House does not believe this to be a true
position, this resolution ought to be agreed to, which went to say that
the House does not consider the present a state of war, but a state of
peace.
Mr. OTIS said, if the gentleman who made the motion would consent to use
the constitutional words on this occasion, he apprehended there would be
no difference of opinion. He meant that instead of saying "to resort to
war," to say "to declare war."
Mr. SPRIGG said, the resolution which he had proposed had not been the
work of a moment, and he did not feel disposed to make the alterations
proposed.
Mr. OTIS added, then he should propose to strike out the words "resort
to," and insert "declare," as he was of opinion with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. SITGREAVES,) that the only subjects fit for
discussion were active measures, and that it was not regular to declare
when they would not do a thing.
Mr. PINCKNEY was desirous of settling this motion by the previous
question; but he was informed by the Chair that such a motion would not
be in order in a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that he hoped his friend from
Massachusetts would withdraw the motion he had just offered, in order to
make room for one he had to offer, which would render the first
resolution more general, more innocent, and yet equally or more
efficacious, and would test the sincerity of the advocates of that
resolution as to their professed anxiety for the maintenance of peace.
Upon Mr. OTIS withdrawing his motion, Mr. D. moved to strike out the
words "against the French Republic" and declared that although he deemed
the whole resolution unnecessary, and considered it as not naturally
growing out of the PRESIDENT'S Message, which did not call upon us to
declare or make war, yet as it must be the intention of the mover, or of
some other member to follow it up with like declarations in relation to
all other nations with whom the United States had any intercourse,
provided they acted consistently, he thought it better to make the
resolution a general one, even if it should be afterwards negatived. He,
for himself, was as ready to say that, under existing circumstances, it
was as expedient for the United States to go to war with any other
nation as with the French Republic. He saw no reason why that
particular power should be singled out in the manner proposed; and as he
was for cultivating peace, not with one only, but with all the nations
of the world, he was willing so to declare his disposition, if any
declaration was proper on the occasion. It was also to be observed, that
it could not with propriety be objected against the amendment that there
was no other nation with whom we were in danger of entering into
hostility, for the tables of the House had been loaded with
communications relative to the encroachments and unreasonable demands of
another country, which had occasioned an apprehension that the United
States would be driven to the necessity of a war in order to obtain
possession of its own territory. If, therefore, gentlemen were anxious
to cultivate harmony with the French only, then the resolution as first
moved, was proper for their adoption; but if the preservation of peace
with all was their real object, then he trusted that the amendment could
not with propriety be rejected by those gentlemen who had introduced and
advocated a proposition the utility of which, under any modification, he
owned for himself, he could not discern, although he was willing to
render it as unexceptionable as possible before it was decided upon.
Mr. SPRIGG informed the gentleman from New Jersey that the reason why
the French Republic was inserted in the resolution was because it was
founded on the Message of the PRESIDENT, which related solely to the
French Republic. For his part, he was not desirous of war with any power
on earth.
Mr. HARPER seconded the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, because
he thought it would be better in that shape. He had no particular
objection to the resolution as proposed, only that he thought it a
resolution about nothing; but as it might gratify the mover and some
others, he should not object to it. He was not himself disposed for war,
but for peace, while peace could be preserved. But he never said, and
would not say, that war was the worst thing which could happen to this
country; he thought submission to the aggressions of a foreign power
infinitely worse. If gentlemen meant by agreeing to this resolution, to
prevent the country from being put into a state of defence; if they
meant by it to effect an entering wedge to submission, he trusted they
would find themselves mistaken; for though he believed the true interest
of the country lay in peace, yet he was not disposed to recede from any
measures which he thought proper through fear of war. Or did gentlemen
intend, by this question of peace or war, to enlist the popular
prejudices in favor of peace, in order to prevent proper measures being
taken for the defence of the country? If this was their view he should
be the first to strip off the disguise. He trusted that this was not the
case, as he saw it connected with another resolution which proposed the
taking of measures for the defence of the country. The question at
present, said Mr. H., is not a question of war, but of defence; and no
two questions are more distinct. If gentlemen confound these two
questions, and are determined to take no measures of defence lest they
should lead to war, let them say so. He believed, however, the
distinction was well understood by the American people.
Mr. GILES believed this the proper time to declare whether the country
should remain in peace or go to war. He thought the resolution proper as
it stood, because founded on the Message of the PRESIDENT, in which the
French Republic is only named. There was a part of that Message, he
said, which, in his opinion, amounted to a declaration of war. The
PRESIDENT tells the House, "that the situation of things is materially
changed since he issued his order to prevent the arming of merchant
vessels." As far as he understood the situation of the United States at
that time, it was a state of neutrality. If that state is changed, and
the present is not a state of neutrality, he wished to know what is. He
knew only of two states, a state of neutrality and a state of war; he
knew of no mongrel state between them. Therefore, if the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, could declare war, we are now in war. Believing,
however, that Congress had alone the power to declare war, he thought it
time to declare what the state of the nation is. He did not know whether
the object might not be answered by the resolution being general, as he
was and always had been (notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary)
against war with any nation upon the earth. He looked upon it as the
greatest calamity which could befal any nation; and whatever may be the
phantoms raised in perspective of national honor and glory in such a
state, they will, in the end, all prove fallacious. He believed no
nation ought to go to war except when attacked; and this kind of war he
should be as ready to meet as any one. Mr. G. said, gentlemen were
continually speaking of the degraded state of the nation, when their own
measures had led to it. (Mr. HARPER denied that he had ever said the
nation was in a degraded state.) Mr. G. was not sure that he had said
it, but he believed he had frequently heard it. He believed we were in a
state which required the utmost vigor; but he thought every measure
should be avoided which might involve the country in war. For if we were
to go to war with the French at present, he knew not what ever could
take place which could produce peace; it must be a war of extermination.
Mr. G. did not know that the present question was very important; but
believing it strictly conformable to the Message of the PRESIDENT, he
should be in favor of it as it stood, and against the amendment.
Mr. NICHOLAS considered this amendment as defeating the resolution. Was
there nothing, he asked, which called for a declaration of the kind
proposed? Was it not clear to every one that the country was going fast
into a state of war, and (in the words of Mr. SITGREAVES) was it not to
be expected? Ought not the Legislature then, (who alone have the power
of declaring war,) to determine the state of the country, and say
whether they mean to go immediately to war or not? He thought the
necessity of the resolution was sufficiently evident, by the motion
which had been made to change the words from "resort to war," to declare
war; in the one case the mischief was met, whilst the other meant
nothing. And if gentlemen were ready to say we were not prepared to
declare war, and at the same were not ready to say it is not expedient
to resort to war, it proved that they thought war might be made without
being declared. He asked whether gentlemen did not believe the Executive
had taken measures which would lead to war? And that if he were at
liberty to act upon a change of circumstances between this country and
others, Congress were not brought into a situation in which they had no
choice? Many discussions had heretofore taken place on the constitution,
but he had never heard it doubted that Congress had the power over the
progress of what led to war, as well as the power of declaring war; but
if the PRESIDENT could take the measures which he had taken, with
respect to arming merchant vessels, he, and not Congress, had the power
of making war. He asked whether, when report went so far as to speak of
an alliance, offensive and defensive, with a foreign country, it was not
time to come to a declaration on the subject? Suppose such an alliance
was formed, would it not be said that Congress are bound to carry it
into effect? He knew it would, though he should resist the doctrine. Mr.
N. said, he should be as unwilling to submit to any foreign country as
the gentleman from South Carolina; but he could not, like that
gentleman, say he was not afraid of war. I am, said he, afraid of it.
This country affords me all the happiness I can wish or hope for, and I
know war will be destructive to it. What was the difference between
himself and that gentleman in this respect, he could not tell; it was to
him surprising that any gentleman should be without fear as to the
mischiefs of war. He was of opinion that the step taken by the
PRESIDENT, with respect to merchant vessels, went to declare that we
rested our cause on arms, which was not calculated to produce any good
effect in our favor. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to; if
it was, he should vote against the resolution itself; and he did not
think the gentleman from New Jersey, when he read the Message of the
PRESIDENT, could think there was as much danger of a war with any other
country as with the French Republic.
Mr. BROOKS agreed with the gentleman who brought forward this
resolution, so far as it declares we are not prepared to resort to war.
He believed no nation or man who had common understanding could be fond
of war. The people of this country have yet the recollection of the
fatal effects of the late war. But there are two kinds of war,
offensive and defensive. He wished gentlemen to distinguish between
them; for though he was ready to declare against offensive war, and to
submit to small injuries rather than make defensive war; yet he was not
willing to say he should not be ready to defend his country against the
attack of any foreign power whatever. He hoped he should be believed in
this declaration, as he had formerly been employed in the defence of it;
and if gentlemen meant that though foreign nations attempt to invade our
territory, and to reduce us again to the colonies of a foreign power,
they would not repel them, he could not join them in opinion. And though
he should vote for the resolution as moved to be amended, he should feel
himself at perfect liberty to defend his country in case of attack. He
wondered the gentleman from Virginia should object to vote for the
resolution, because it was general, as it included the French Republic
as well as all other nations.
Mr. RUTLEDGE trusted the sentiments which the gentleman from New York
had expressed would govern the committee, and that all were ready to
say, that though we value the blessings of peace, yet we are ready to
resist insult and injury from whatever quarter they come. He hoped this
would be the conduct of this country; and notwithstanding much had been
heard about British parties and French parties, that all would unite in
this determination. This being his opinion, he should vote for the
amendment; and he hoped gentlemen would be satisfied with this
declaration, and that no more would be heard of a party in the House in
favor of war. Though he meant to vote for the resolution, he thought it
unnecessary; but in these days of jealousy and suspicion, if he were not
to vote for it, he should expect to be told he was in favor of war.
Gentlemen asked whether war is not approaching? And whether the
Executive is not hastening it? To the latter question he would answer in
the negative; with respect to the other, he could not answer, as it
depended on France, and so versatile and uncertain is every thing in
that country, that no dependence can be had upon it. Mr. R. said, at the
last session, when we had no intercourse with France, he thought it
necessary we should have it: that intercourse had proved ineffectual;
and though he sincerely wished for peace, yet he saw something in the
conduct of France which almost precluded hope.
The gentleman from Virginia had said, that this country had frequently
been stated as in a degraded state. He did not recollect to have made
the declaration, but this was his opinion. When our national rights had
been violated; when our commerce had been depredated; when the vessels
of belligerent powers, which had sought an asylum in our waters, had
been plundered and burnt, he thought it necessary to go into measures of
defence. He thought our frigates ought not to have remained at the
wharves; that our extensive sea-coast on which is much wealth, should
not be unprotected: he thought our seaports, the principal depots of our
revenue, ought to have been fortified. He joined his friends in their
attempts to have carried these measures, and, when they failed, he could
not help thinking his country was in a degraded state and that she had
lost the spirit which animated her in the year 1775. He hoped, however,
that now, when France had gone to the lengths which she has gone to,
that there would have been only one sentiment as to the propriety of the
measures formerly proposed. But though he thought the nation in a
degraded state, he was not in favor of war. He believed the citizens of
this country were not for it. He believed the Government was averse to
war; and that no part of it was more so than the Executive. War would be
a loss to this country; and to no individual more than the Executive. He
is no warrior, and, consequently, war has no laurels in store for him.
The gentleman from Virginia has spoken of war as having something
dazzling in perspective; something which flattered pride and ambition.
But did the gentleman suppose that a war with France could be flattering
to pride or ambition? It could not; it would be a war of prudence; we
must shut ourselves up, and act on the defensive, and say, "when reason
returns, when an ebb shall take place in the affairs of France, when her
flow of victories shall be over, she will do us justice." In the mean
time, we must defend ourselves. Mr. R. repeated, that he did not believe
any man in that House could wish for war; when he looked around him and
saw gentlemen whose wounds are yet sore from former service; when he saw
them voting for measures of defence, he could not believe, nor could any
believe, that they wished to plunge the country in war. It would sooner
be believed that gentlemen who made the charges were mistaken.
Mr. SEWALL was opposed to the proposition as it now stood, and hoped it
would be amended. What effect it would then have, he left those to judge
who introduced it. Mr. S. said, he and those who, on all questions of
defence, had voted with him, had been endeavoring for some time to go
into some measures of that kind, and to determine whether these measures
should be confined to our own limits or be extended to the ocean. These
measures ought now to be decided upon, as this is a moment in which our
commerce is depredated upon in a most unprecedented manner. We are now,
said he, called upon to consider the hazards of our situation. [Mr. S.
then quoted a part of the PRESIDENT'S Message, as to the situation of
our affairs in France, and as to the decree which was proposed
respecting the taking of English goods on board of neutral vessels, and
the carrying of which was declared to make neutral vessels good prizes.]
This last regulation, Mr. S. said, was a direct violation of the law of
nations, and amounted to a declaration of war on the part of France
against this country. But, instead of making any defence, gentlemen call
upon the committee to declare we are not disposed to resort to war
against the French Republic; so that, after we have been injured and
abused, and denied the common rights of humanity, we are not to
complain, but make a declaration that we will not go to war. Was then,
he asked, a question of war a card of politeness? Did a nation ever make
a declaration that it was not at war? It could not say so, except it
were in so degraded a state that it had no rights capable of injury. To
say we are not at war was to say no more than it is light when the sun
shines; but to call upon the committee to say so at this time, was to
degrade the nation from its independence, and below its character. The
present state of things, Mr. S. said, ought to be considered as a state
of war, not declared by us, but against us, by the French Republic; and
if we want spirit to defend ourselves, let us not say so. We may refrain
from acting, but let us not say we receive injuries with thankfulness.
But this proposition goes still further. In a moment of public danger,
it goes to divide and separate this House from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. The gentleman from Virginia had well explained this
resolution, when he said, it was intended to interrupt the views of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That gentleman considered the Message of
the PRESIDENT as a declaration of war, and this resolution was to be in
contradiction to it. If this was the sense in which it was to be
understood, it was false in point of fact; for the PRESIDENT had neither
declared war nor called upon Congress to declare war; no such sentiment
could be found in the Message. To agree to the proposition as it stands,
would be to give countenance to the assertion of the French Government,
that we are a people divided from our Government; but, taking it with
the amendment, he looked upon it as a harmless thing. Mr. S. concluded,
by saying, that he considered the conduct of France in the light of war.
How far we would resent it, was the question; whether offensively or
defensively. He was in favor of defensive measures, as we are not equal
to offensive measures, (he wished to God we were.) It was our weakness,
and the division which had appeared in our councils, that had invited
these attacks. He trusted they should now unite and repel them.
Mr. GALLATIN said, before the speech of the gentleman who had just sat
down, he could not discover what was the meaning of the amendment, to
strike out the words "against the French Republic," as, when the House
were in a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for
considering the late Message of the PRESIDENT, the resolution was
perfectly consonant. Besides, we have no danger to apprehend from any
other power, since our dispute is settled with Spain. The intention of
the amendment was evidently to render the resolution as unmeaning as
possible.
Every gentleman who had spoken on this subject, had agreed that war is
not a desirable object for the United States. He gave them credit for
the assertion. But this was not the question; but whether we are
prepared to resort to war under existing circumstances. It is a question
of fact. Mr. G. took notice of the different modes which had been
attempted to defeat the resolution; but, though the present amendment
were agreed to, he should still vote in favor of the resolution; for it
would be effectual, in some degree, as it could only apply to the French
nation, though it was not so expressed.
Mr. G. believed the United States had arrived at a crisis at which a
stand ought to be made, in which it was necessary for Congress to say
whether they will resort to war or preserve peace. He was led to this
conclusion from a review of the conduct of France, and of the late
Message of the PRESIDENT.
In respect to France, we know, that some time ago, she declared our
treaty with her to be at an end; though not in words, the result was to
deprive us of the advantages derived from that treaty. In the next
place, she dismissed our Minister Plenipotentiary. Under these
circumstances, the PRESIDENT called the extraordinary session of
Congress, and when met together, after having related the reasons which
induced this call, he concluded with saying, "that it was his sincere
desire to preserve peace and friendship with all nations, and believing
that neither the honor nor the interest of the United States absolutely
forbade the repetition of advances for securing these desirable objects,
he should not fail to promote and accelerate an accommodation," &c. The
PRESIDENT accordingly sent Envoys to France, and the result of the
embassy was given to Congress in the last Message, which was now under
consideration, in which he says, "the object of the mission cannot be
accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, honor, or the
essential interests of the nation." The people of the United States are
therefore informed, that negotiations are at an end, and that we cannot
obtain redress for wrongs, but may expect a continuation of captures, in
consequence of the decree which it was supposed was passed, for seizing
all neutral vessels with British property, manufactures, or produce, on
board. Mr. G. said, he differed in opinion from the gentleman last up,
that this was a declaration of war. He allowed it would be justifiable
ground of war for this country, and that, on this account, it was
necessary to agree to, or reject the present proposition, in order to
determine the ground intended to be taken. For, though there may be
justifiable cause for war, if it is not our interest to go to war, the
resolution will be agreed to.
There was another reason why this resolution ought to be now decided,
which arose from the conduct of our Executive. He has declared that a
change of circumstances has taken place which has occasioned him to
withdraw his order forbidding merchant vessels to arm; which amounts to
this, that he now permits vessels of the United States to use means of
defence against any attack which may be made upon them. Mr. G. thought
it necessary, therefore, to declare, whether we were to pursue measures
of war or peace. Before measures are taken which will lead to war, the
House ought to decide whether it is their intention at present to go to
war.
The gentleman from New York had spoken of the difference between
offensive and defensive war. This related to the motives, more than to
the manner, of carrying on war; because when war is once entered into,
though it may be at first defensive, it cannot remain so. It would be
ridiculous, for instance, to say, that our frigates should prevent our
vessels from being taken; but that they should not take French
privateers.
But it was said, if the resolution was agreed to, it would confirm the
opinion which had been held that Congress and the Executive were divided
in opinion. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. SEWALL) told the House
that the question was war or peace; that the conduct of France was a
declaration of war, yet as the PRESIDENT had not called upon Congress to
go to war, they ought not to declare that it is not expedient to resort
to war. But if it be assumed as a principle, which that gentleman
asserts, that the conduct of the French is a declaration of war, and the
PRESIDENT has told us we are in war, the resolution could not be
improper. Or if his other principle be assumed, that the information of
the PRESIDENT does not amount to war, then an agreement to the
resolution would show that Congress concurred with him in opinion, that
it is not proper at present to resort to war. So that in both cases, the
resolution is proper.
Mr. G. said he was precluded by the amendment from going into the merits
of the resolution. His arguments went to show the propriety of agreeing
to it in one way or other. Nor did he mean to take any notice of what
had been said about a division of opinion in our councils having invited
the insults and injuries which France had committed against this
country. If he were to do this, he must have recourse to recrimination,
which he did not wish. He wished rather to take a serious view of our
present situation, and either meet it by war, or by measures which shall
avoid war. On both sides are difficulties; but the difficulties and
inconveniences of both ought to be weighed, and the least taken; and,
having determined, measures ought to be pursued accordingly. He did not
wish to adopt the resolution as proposed to be amended, and then go on
and act directly contrary to it. He thought it best to meet the
resolution at once, and say whether we are determined on war or peace.
If we go to war, we must expect to meet all the expense and evils of
such a state; and if we remain at peace, we must, in a certain degree,
_submit_. He meant to say, that we must submit to have a number of our
vessels taken. But whether we shall have more taken in adopting one
course than the other, he left to gentlemen to determine. He thought the
submission he had mentioned, very different from the submission which
had been spoken of by the gentleman from South Carolina, and others.
Mr. G. concluded, by observing, that the conduct of France must tend to
destroy that influence which gentlemen had so often complained of as
existing in this country. Indeed, he was convinced that at the
commencement of her revolution there was a great enthusiasm amongst our
citizens in favor of her cause, which naturally arose from their having
been engaged in a similar contest; but he believed these feelings had
been greatly diminished by her late conduct towards this country. He
thought, therefore, that whether we engaged in war, or remained in a
state of peace, much need not be apprehended from the influence of
France in our councils. The business had come to a mere matter of
calculation, as to what course will be best to be taken for the interest
and happiness of the country. If he could separate defensive from
offensive war at sea, he should be in favor of it; but he could not make
the distinction, and therefore he should be in favor of pursuing
measures of peace.
Several persons rose, but, being about three o'clock, a motion was made
for the committee to rise, which was negatived--46 to 44.
Mr. DANA did not conceive that the construction of language given by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, was to be taken as true, without
examination. He trusted not. The gentleman stated the question to be
peace or war; he could not conceive it to be such. It was unfortunate
that, in this important crisis, the House should be engaged, like a set
of rhetoricians, in disputing the meaning of words. Indeed, the decision
on the present motion, he thought wholly unimportant.
The gentleman last up had said there was no distinction between
offensive and defensive war, and that he was, therefore, opposed to
either. Mr. D. thought the distinction clear; offensive war, is when an
attack is made upon another; and defensive, when a nation has recourse
to war, merely for self-defence. But there was another state of things
which could not have the name of war, which was to have recourse to
measures of defence; to be prepared in cases of attack. It was clear, by
the law of nations, that to prepare for defence, was not to commit
hostility. To say that to take measure of defence is hostility, was a
new definition, and it was the mighty discovery of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Did gentlemen mean that if we should make use of force against lawless
violence, it is war? If not, what did all that had been said amount to?
He thought the proposition perfectly nugatory.
But the gentleman said, that his friend from Massachusetts had said,
that France had already declared war against us, and that, therefore, we
must resort to war. For his part, he did not know what gentlemen meant
by resorting to war. If they had adopted terms which had any legal
meaning, he could have understood them, but the present might mean every
thing, or nothing. If it meant any thing, it meant taking active
measures against France in the first instance. He was not only ready to
say he would not consent to do this with respect to France, but with
respect to every other nation.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, and two gentlemen from Virginia, had
said that the Message of the PRESIDENT amounted to a declaration that we
were now in war. This idea he thought was stated very incorrectly. They
did not seem to have understood the meaning of the language of the
PRESIDENT. The state of things which existed at the time orders were
issued to prevent the arming of merchant vessels was essentially
different from the present; then there was an evident disposition in the
owners of vessels to cruise against a foreign belligerent nation, and
the order was issued to prevent attack and plunder; but the desire to
arm at present is for the purpose of defence merely, and not to cruise
or plunder. There is a law forbidding vessels to arm for the purpose of
cruising; but none forbidding merchants to arm in their own defence.
This was the fair construction, he believed, of the meaning of the
PRESIDENT.
Mr. OTIS observed, that the opposers of this amendment could assign no
better reason for declaring a desire to keep peace with the French
Republic, to the exclusion of other nations, than their own construction
of the PRESIDENT'S last Message, which they considered as directed
against that Republic only; but the House having resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the resolution on the
table had no greater relation to that Message than to any former Speech
or Message, or to the affairs of the Union at large. If it was intended
as an answer to the Message, it should be moved in that form; but unless
it was in a particular manner connected with it, the public could not
connect it more naturally with this Message, than the Speech delivered
at the opening of the session. The House had been heretofore informed,
that France was not the only country with which a rupture was to be
apprehended. Spain might be considered, until lately, as having actually
invaded our territory; and though the presumption at present was, that
the causes of contention with that country were removed, yet they were
not officially informed of that fact, and without such information it
was not less proper to express their desire of maintaining peace with
Spain than with other countries. Again, gentlemen had often intimated
that a war with France would involve us in a war with the nations in
alliance with her. It was therefore inexpedient to show a contempt or
indifference for them, by leaving them out of our pacific manifesto.
He considered the Message in a different view from many gentlemen. But
admitting, for the sake of argument, that the PRESIDENT had declared an
opinion upon the facts stated by him, that war was inevitable; gentlemen
must consider the fact to be true; if they doubted it, they ought to
demand information. How would this resolution then stand? In reply to
assurances that negotiation had failed; that our Commissioners were
treated with neglect and contempt; that letters of marque and reprisal
were issued against our vessels; and that the most hostile appearances
were discernible on the part of France; it was proposed to declare, that
with them, and them only, it was inexpedient to resort to war. Such a
proposal would hardly be found in the annals of the most humble and
degraded nation.
He disapproved of the resolution, though he should vote for the
amendment, and would not, on the present occasion, follow gentlemen who
had gone at large into the merits of the resolution. Upon the extent of
the defensive measures proposed by gentlemen, his feelings inclined him
to enlarge; but this discussion would be more pertinent upon some other
question. He would merely hint, that actual invasion might not be the
worst calamity to this country. He could conceive of a partial invasion
of our territory that would be much less injurious, and attended with
much less loss than the total ruin of our commerce.
The call for the committee to rise being repeated,
Mr. N. SMITH hoped gentlemen would be satisfied to take the question,
which he thought very unimportant. The time consumed in discussing it
was, however, important, as other concerns called for attention. He knew
there were gentlemen who chose rather to address the people of the
United States than to legislate. He thought it better to legislate, than
to preach to the people. He looked upon the present resolution as a text
from which it was intended to alarm the people with respect to war, and
he wished not to indulge gentlemen in their design. He wished the
question to be taken for another reason. It was suggested by the
gentleman from Virginia, that the Message of the PRESIDENT was
considered by the people as a declaration of war, and that reports were
in circulation, that a treaty, offensive and defensive, was concluded
with Great Britain. After this, he would call the attention of the
committee to the resolution, which was, in effect, to say, we must
interfere, or war will be brought upon the country. Did not this go to
sanction a report which was as false and malignant as even jacobinism
could invent? It did; and he hoped, they would not so far sanction the
report, as to let the motion lie before them undecided.
Mr. DAYTON hoped the committee would rise. The gentleman last up began
with saying the proposition was of no importance; but, before he sat
down, showed that he thought differently. Mr. D. thought it was of
importance that the committee should come to a right decision upon it,
and say whether it ought to be agreed to in general terms, or rejected.
Mr. N. SMITH explained.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought the question trifling, and hoped a decision
would be had upon it.
Mr. GILES said, the question was a question of peace or war, and yet
gentlemen call it trifling. He did not mean to alarm the people of the
United States, but he wished them to understand their situation. He
acknowledged he was himself much alarmed. Gentlemen were willing to
engage in defensive, but not in offensive war; but when war was once
begun it would not be in the power of the United States to keep it
within the character of defensive war. Indeed the gentleman from
Massachusetts, when he spoke of defensive war, confessed our inability
for offensive war, and uttered a prayer to the Supreme Being that we
were able to engage offensively; and where, he asked, with such
sentiments, is the difference between offensive and defensive war? He
could see none; he deprecated war of every kind.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS hoped the question would be taken. As he before stated,
he thought it trifling, and the debate upon it only calculated to alarm
the people, which seemed to be the object of gentlemen. If the question
was not taken before they adjourned, much debate would be had, and much
time spent to very little purpose. He thought it very extraordinary, as
no one was found to bring forward a resolution to declare war, that a
gentleman would introduce a resolution of its being inexpedient so to
do. He was persuaded that this negative mode of proceeding was
calculated to draw on a debate, to set the people against the Executive.
Time, he said, was precious; they had sat near five months and done but
little, much remained to be done, and as all had declared their aversion
to a war, the people should be undeceived. He had himself seen gentlemen
write upon the late Message of the PRESIDENT, for the purpose of sending
to their constituents, "_A war message against France_."
Mr. MACON wished the gentleman would name who had thus written.
A call of order took place: and a motion was made for the committee to
rise, and carried.
WEDNESDAY, March 28.
_Relations with France._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, when the amendment to the first of Mr. SPRIGG'S
propositions, as to the inexpediency, under existing circumstances, of
resorting to war against the French Republic, being under
consideration; which amendment is to strike out the words "French
Republic,"
Mr. PINCKNEY rose and said, he was in favor of the amendment, because it
tended to make what he thought an improper proposition, in some degree,
nugatory; for he believed to agree to the resolution without it, would
be prejudicial to the interest and welfare of the country, as he did not
think the period had arrived which called for a decision on measures of
war or peace. If such a declaration had been necessary, he should have
expected it to come from gentlemen in favor of a war, declaring, that it
is expedient to go to war, as it was a very uncommon thing to declare we
will not do a thing. His strongest reason against coming to this
resolution, however, was, that at this period the House had not
sufficient information concerning the whole of this business, to enable
them to form a correct judgment upon it. The PRESIDENT told the House,
indeed, that he had little hope of a favorable termination of the
negotiation, but they knew nothing of the train of the negotiation, or
of the circumstances attending it. They knew that our Commissioners had
not been received; but they had not sufficient information as to the
manner in which they had been treated, to enable them to come to the
decision proposed.
The gentleman who proposed the resolution, said it was time to come
forward and declare whether we will have peace or war. Would to God,
said Mr. P., it was in our power, by any such declaration, to avert war,
or maintain peace; but he believed this did not depend upon any
declaration of ours. In questions of war there were always two parties,
one of whom was generally the aggressor, and the other generally
passive. In the present case, he considered this country as the passive
party, and, therefore, any declaration on our part would have little
effect. We know that individuals or nations induced to pursue measures
from interest or passion, are not easily diverted from their purpose. If
the French are actuated by either of these motives, no declaration of
ours will prevent the calamity. Such a proposition would rather
accelerate than prevent the evil. If our declarations could have
availed, they have not been wanting. From the first period of a
misunderstanding between the two countries, declarations have been made
deprecating war in general terms, but particularly with that nation. A
Minister Plenipotentiary had been sent to explain the views of this
Government, and to remove any jealousies which might exist, and to make
such specific propositions as were thought necessary; but our Minister
was rejected without a hearing. The next measure was, to send special
Commissioners, in order to settle our differences and avert the calamity
of war. We have, therefore, made sufficient declarations of our pacific
intentions. Indeed, he thought too much had been rested on these
declarations, as nothing had been done for our defence. When we looked
at our seaports, and saw their defenceless condition, he thought it
evident sufficient attention had not been paid to them, knowing that war
might, at least, be a possible event.
This resolution differed exceedingly from any thing which took place
when we had a misunderstanding with England in 1794. At that time, when
England issued her extraordinary Order of the 4th of November, and our
commerce was depredated upon, measures were spoken of for countervailing
the injuries which our citizens experienced, but no proposition like the
present was produced. We are now aggrieved and injured in a most
extraordinary manner, but we say we will not go to war. On a former
occasion he had heard of a variety of restrictive regulations, proposed
with a view of restraining the injuries committed upon us, and to bring
Great Britain to reason; and he did expect something similar would have
been proposed on the present occasion, but nothing of the kind had
appeared. It was true we had not so great hold of the French nation as
of the British, in this respect, but we had some; and he believed
measures might be taken which would induce the nation to hear reason.
But, instead of this, it was proposed that we should say, we have been
injured and aggrieved; but we will not oppose you, we will not go to war
with you.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had gone further than
perhaps the resolution on the table would warrant. He says, the adoption
of this resolution will go to prevent the taking of any measures which
may, in their tendency, lead to war. If gentlemen meant by this, that it
was to prevent any measures being taken for the protection of our
commerce, the adoption of the resolution would not only declare that we
will not go to war, but that we will not take any measures for the
defence of our property. It appeared to him that that gentleman had
himself given the best reasons for modifying this resolution, so as to
make it as little mischievous as possible. For he had told the committee
that France had set at naught her treaty with us; but though they have
done this, said Mr. P., they have endeavored to justify their
depredations, by insisting that, according to that treaty, it was
necessary for vessels to carry a _rôle d'equipage_. Mr. P. added, there
was another Order of the French Government which was so contrary to
right, so cruel in its consequences, so degrading to this country, and
so inhuman in its tendency, that he could not avoid noticing it. It was
the decree which declares that every American citizen found on board the
privateer of an enemy, shall be considered and treated as a pirate. They
pretended to found this Order on our treaty with Great Britain; but he
wished gentlemen who thought it justifiable, to turn to that treaty, and
see whether there was any thing there which countenanced so violent a
measure. But this is not all, the gentleman from Pennsylvania allowed
that a decree had lately been passed which violates all the laws of
neutral nations, viz; that if the property, manufactures, or produce,
of an enemy be found on board a neutral vessel, it shall be good prize.
Our Ministers, also, who were commissioned to conciliate, and even to
make concessions, though they had been in Paris three months, cap in
hand, had not been able to get a hearing. Under all these grievances,
what, said he, are we called upon to do? He should not have been
surprised if some one, fired with the injuries we have received, had
brought forward a proposition for war. But, instead of this, smarting as
we are under injuries, our commerce bleeding at every pore, and our
country deeply humiliated, we are called upon to say: You have done
every thing to injure, insult, and degrade us, but we have deserved it:
we will do nothing to oppose you. Though God and nature have given us
power, we will not go to war with you, neither on the present occasion,
nor on any other, whatever injury you may commit upon us.
However humiliating our conduct might be, he repeated, it would have no
effect upon that nation. He did not wish to animadvert upon the conduct
of any country; but there was one instance of the treatment which the
French Republic has exhibited to an independent State, which he could
not help noticing. It was in respect to Venice, which would show, that
no humiliation, no concession, would avert the calamity which threatens
us, if the rulers of the country are determined upon war. If he was not
misinformed, the circumstances of the case were as follows: The
Venetians were at peace, and endeavoring to pursue a line of neutrality.
A tumult arose in one of their towns, and the populace did, in a
barbarous and most unjustifiable manner, massacre a number of French
soldiers. This was an injury which called for and deserved atonement. A
retaliation took place fully commensurate with the crime. The Venetians
made every concession in their power. But the French commander was not
satisfied; he took vengeance upon them by overturning their
Government--a Government which had stood the test of five hundred years.
He should have supposed that the French would now have been satisfied;
but the matter did not stop here. The Government being overturned, the
people were promised a free Government, and an amelioration of their
condition. They were proceeding in the establishment of a Government;
but, when the treaty came to be made between the French Republic and the
Emperor, he supposed it was thought to be for the interest of that
Republic to sacrifice a part of this territory, and to give it up to the
Emperor, to take a part to themselves, and to annex another part to the
Cisalpine Republic. This was done; and he believed the very part which
had committed the offence against the French Government, had been
rewarded by being joined to a free Government.
This division of the Venetian territory was not the work of a young
officer, elated by victory and conquest, or enraged by the treatment
which his soldiers had received. The French Directory had come forward,
and, by their decree, had applauded the whole conduct of their General
in the most unqualified terms, particularly as to Venice and Genoa. He
would not take up the time of the committee by citing the conduct of the
French towards the latter Republic. The case of Venice was sufficient to
show how little was to be expected from a humiliating conduct.
Mr. GILES thought the gentleman who had just sat down had been less
correct in his statements than he usually was. He would allude
particularly to one instance. That gentleman says, whatever aggressions
and insults may be heaped upon us, the supporters of the resolution will
not go to war. The proposition held a directly contrary language. It
says: "That, under present circumstances, the United States deem it
advisable to remain in a state of peace." [Mr. PINCKNEY said the reason
why he had made this remark was, that yesterday the gentleman himself
had said, he should not be for going to war, unless the country was
invaded. He, therefore, connected the resolution and this declaration
together.] Mr. G. said, he still repeated the same thing; that we ought
not to resort to war beyond the limits of the United States. But he drew
a contrary inference from this, from that which that gentleman had
drawn, because he had accompanied the declaration with another, that he
was perfectly ready to prepare to that extent for defence. He would
explain the grounds of this opinion. Within our own limits we are
capable of making something like exertion, and there, he believed,
exertions might be made to advantage. Indeed, one of the propositions,
which is connected with the present, goes to this purpose, and therefore
with what propriety could the gentleman say, he and those who were of
his opinion were not for preparing for defence till the enemy is at the
door? Nor could he see any thing like humiliation in this. Nay, he was
convinced, if we carried our preparations for defence beyond our own
limits, instead of gaining glory or honor, we shall meet with nothing
but disgrace, as we are not prepared to make a defence at sea. Indeed,
the moment we get beyond our jurisdictional line, defence will become
offence, because there will be no evidence by which it can be
ascertained by whom the attack commenced. It would, therefore, be unwise
to permit ourselves to be placed in this situation. If any object was to
be effected by going out to sea, it must be the protection of our
commerce with Great Britain; but it was known that the two acts of the
British Parliament which took place in January last, if peace continues,
may take that trade in a great measure from us. He did not think,
therefore, that this was a sufficient object for which to incur so much
risk.
At present, said Mr. G. there is a pretty general opinion in the country
(and he thought there was much ground for the opinion) that there is a
disposition in a part of this House, and in part of the Government, for
war; and he thought it was proper to come to a declaration upon the
subject. This would not only have a good effect upon our own citizens,
but it would convince European powers, that though we were preparing for
defence, we were not preparing for war.
Mr. G. said, he was not satisfied with the construction which the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) had given to that part of the
Message which speaks of our situation being changed. He did not believe
the PRESIDENT had any reference to the dispositions of the people, but
to the state of things generally.
The apprehension of war had already begun to produce disagreeable
effects in his part of the country. He had received information that
produce had fallen in price, and that the sale was very dull. He was of
opinion, therefore, that the proposed declaration, if agreed to, would
appease the minds of the people. It was said it would have no good
effect upon the Executive Directory. He did not know that it would. But
it could have no bad effect; and it might have a good one, for he did
not think that body quite so abandoned as some gentlemen thought them.
The gentleman last up had spoken of the partition of Venice. He himself
saw it with concern; but where was the difference in crime between the
French Republic and the Emperor? Each took a part. But what was all this
to the United States? Were they to go to war to avenge this partition?
We heard nothing of this kind some years ago, when a partition of Poland
took place. For his own part, he wished to leave the powers of Europe to
themselves, and to draw ourselves within our own boundary, where we
should be fully equal to our defence against any power on earth.
Mr. HARPER.--When this resolution was first proposed, it appeared to him
to be one of those nugatory measures which might either be agreed to or
rejected, without producing any effect; and, until he saw the resistance
which was given to the amendment, he remained of the same opinion; but
now he found it was to say to the French nation, "you may commit against
us injury after injury, and insult after insult, we never will resist
you."
If this were not the intention, why resist the amendment? Taking this to
be the intention, he should bestow some observations upon it. Gentlemen
preached about peace. They cry, "peace, peace," as if we, holding the
scale of the world, had the power to preserve it. Do not gentlemen know
that peace or war is not in our power? They do know it, and that all in
our power is to resist, or submit. Was not the clamor which was heard
about peace, in so many words, saying, you must submit, not only to what
injuries you have received, but to what you may hereafter receive? Was
not every advance, on our part, for an adjustment of differences, met
with new injuries and new insults? It would not be denied. If peace was
all that gentlemen wanted, they would take the resolution in general
terms, as proposed to be amended; but their opposing it shows that they
have no objection to hostility, if it be not against the French
nation--he would not say whose servants they were desirous of being, but
against those whom they dread they are afraid to lift up their finger.
And this was the spirit of peace which they wished to preserve--a spirit
which he deemed vile submission--a spirit which was afraid to complain,
and which met every new insult without murmur.
Mr. H. rejoiced that this amendment was made, because it had unmasked
the intentions of the mover and supporters of the original proposition.
They were now obliged to avow, it is not peace with all the world which
we want, but peace with France--a servile and abject submission to one
nation; a nation in behalf of whom they have heretofore been eager of
war; for, notwithstanding all their cries at present for peace, peace,
when there is no peace, they have on a former occasion been equally
zealous for war. All their efforts were then used to involve this
country in war, upon the side of the French Republic; but now, when
measures of resistance are called for--not against France, but to
prevent her from wounding her enemy through our sides--their cry is
turned from war to peace. This he repeated, and, if they denied it, he
would refer to written accounts of their discourses at that time, which
would prove that they had sought war against England, and an alliance,
offensive and defensive, with the French Republic. At that time, he and
those who generally vote with him, desired peace; and it required all
their skill and firmness to preserve it, and much obloquy was thrown
upon them on account of their exertions. The ground which he and his
friends then took was--let us first try negotiation; if that fail, we
will then join you in the war. But these gentlemen were, at that time,
all in favor of war measures in the first instance. Whence now this
change of spirit? What has become of the spirit of 1794, when it was
said to be disgraceful to negotiate, and that it would be base to
surrender the independence of our country to a foreign power? He wished
he could see the breasts of gentlemen now glow with the patriotism which
then animated them; but, instead of this, what do we see? A spirit of
the most abject kind; a spirit that would leave all our property
unprotected beyond the limits of our territory, so that our commerce,
from which is derived five-sixths of our revenue, is to be abandoned,
lest, in defending it, we should give offence to the French Republic.
The committee were now told it would be time enough to prepare for war
when an invasion of our country was attempted. And why were they told
this? Because such an event is not likely to take place. Gentlemen know
that all the hostility which France wished to commit against this
country may be done by destroying our commerce. But they are disposed to
surrender this part of our rights, rather than resist; and what
security had we that, if the country were invaded, these gentlemen would
then resist? He apprehended that the same spirit which led them now to
submit, would continue to actuate them.
Last year gentlemen were opposed to doing any thing which should alter
the state of things. If this negotiation, said they, fail, we will then
join you in active measures. But now, when that time is come, they tell
us we must still sink lower, and become more degraded. We are to be
contented, not only to see our ships captured, our property destroyed,
our sailors led in chains, our revenue annihilated, but we must see the
army of the enemy attempt to land, before we will resist.
Mr. H. said he would bring his proofs, to show that those gentlemen who
are now so loud in their calls for peace, were heretofore the supporters
of a war system. For this purpose, he adduced Mr. Monroe's view of the
conduct of the Executive of the United States, which, he said, was a
publication which had met with the most unbounded and enthusiastic
applauses from all the party; and he read from it an extract of a letter
from Mr. Monroe to our Secretary of State, dated Paris, September 10,
1796, pages 209 and 210 of the book, in which he states it to be his
opinion, "that if a suitable attempt be made to engage the aid of the
French Government in support of our claims upon England, it may be
accomplished; and that to secure success, it will be necessary to take
the posts and invade Canada."
Would any man, said Mr. H., who shall read this passage, say that the
system of these gentlemen is a peace system? And besides this
proposition for taking the posts and invading Canada, the same gentleman
proposes an advance to France of five millions of dollars. Yet these are
the gentlemen who now are willing to say to France, "We will not fight
you; we give you license to do us all the injury you please. You may fit
out half a dozen frigates, which will be able to block up our ports; and
we give you this notice that you may effect your purpose with little
expense, and not prepare a large fleet for the purpose."
The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) whose zeal for keeping this
country in an absolutely defenceless state, has surpassed all the zeal
he ever before displayed, except that which he had shown on a former
occasion for bringing us into war, has told us that peace is the best
thing we can have; and that it would be knight-errantry to attempt to
defend our property at sea. After our Ministers have been sent off, and
a decree passed which must destroy our commerce, and which had been
already allowed to be just cause of war, this was the language of that
gentleman on the present occasion. To show this gentleman's consistency,
and because his language was at that time so spirited, so American, and
carried with it so much force and energy, he could not forbear reading
an extract from his speech on the 28th of March, 1794, upon Mr.
DAYTON'S motion to sequestrate British debts. The question was not then
whether we should arm for our defence, but whether we should make an
attempt at negotiation. The arguments of the gentleman were, it is true,
somewhat misplaced, though they were nevertheless patriotic and
admirable; and he could not account for the strange contrast of his
present sentiments on any other ground than that he believed the true
interest of this country was only to be effected by a treaty of alliance
with France and war with her enemy. Gentlemen who were on a former
occasion in favor of spirited measures in defence of our rights, and
were on this occasion the same, are consistent; though their arguments
might not altogether be properly timed, yet they were radically right.
Mr. H. said, he would bring another example to the view of the
committee. He meant that of Switzerland. Attempt after attempt had been
made by France on the independence of that country. After going a
variety of lengths, they effected their purpose of driving from thence
that unfortunate class of men, the emigrants, who had been persecuted by
those who had usurped all authority in France, and who sought the rights
of hospitality amongst them. New aggressions were made; they took
possession of a part of the Swiss territory, and displaced their
magistrates. Seeing that every submission invited fresh insult, they
united, hand in hand, took up arms, and reinstated the magistrates who
had been displaced, and resolved to live free or die. What was the
consequence of this spirited conduct? The French withdrew from their
territory, disavowed the measures of their General, and declared that
they desired nothing more than to leave the Swiss in full possession of
their rights.
Let us, said Mr. H., take warning by this energetic example of the
Swiss. Let us now begin to resist. Let us declare that we wish to
preserve peace with all the world; that we allow that peace is good, but
that we believe independence is better; that peace is desirable, but not
at any price--and then France will relinquish her aggressions.
At this point the committee rose and had leave to sit again.
THURSDAY, March 29.
_Relations with France._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, and the amendment to the first resolution moved by
Mr. SPRIGG, as to the inexpediency, under existing circumstances, of
resorting to war against the French Republic, which amendment is, to
strike out the words "French Republic," being under consideration,
Mr. GILES rose. It would be recollected, he said, that yesterday an
attack had been made upon him, as indecent in its manner as it was in
itself novel and unprecedented. He had been eight years in Congress, but
he never before heard so direct and personal an attack. He was pleased,
however, that it had been made, and only regretted that his state of
health was such as, he feared, would not suffer him to go so fully into
a refutation of the charges which had been brought against him as he
could wish. He should, however, state such circumstances as would not
only disprove the facts alleged against him, but also prove that the
reverse of them was true. In doing which, he begged to be corrected if
he should misstate any thing.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) had said "that it had
been the object of himself and his associates, but particularly of
himself, since the year 1794, to go to war with Great Britain, if
possible, and to enter into a treaty of alliance, offensive and
defensive, with France." This charge he declared to be entirely void of
truth. He knew that slanders of this kind had been circulated in an
artful manner through the United States from that time to the present,
but he never before heard the charge publicly made. Being made, he would
refute it, though it had been the foundation of two long speeches of
that gentleman; for, whenever slander assumes an erect front, it is
dissipated by the first ray of truth which meets it.
He trusted he should prove, by a reference to the debate which had
already been quoted, and to others, that he had never been in favor of a
war with Great Britain; and as to an alliance, offensive and defensive,
with France, he never heard such a proposition in private conversation,
and it will be allowed that no such proposition was ever publicly made.
The inconsistency of his conduct had been spoken of. The gentleman from
South Carolina said it was unaccountable to him how the author of such
animated sentiments as were delivered by him, (Mr. G.,) in 1794, could
now utter sentiments so grovelling and pitiful as those heard from him.
He wished the gentleman had selected the passages to which he alluded,
as he himself was unconscious of any difference between those which he
then delivered and his present sentiments. From the year 1794 to the
present period, he had uniformly declared it to be his opinion "that war
is justifiable only in case of self-defence."
If boldness of assertion and dogmatism of expression would have availed,
the gentleman from South Carolina must have been victorious; but he
would beg to turn the attention of the committee to facts. That
gentleman had first introduced the book of Mr. Monroe, the sentiments of
which, he said, certain gentlemen, by their approbation of it, had
adopted as their own. Mr. G. said he had read the book, and had found a
great deal to commend in it, and little to condemn. Human nature was
liable to err. If the gentleman himself were to review his own political
history, he doubted whether it would be found to be always consistent.
There might have been errors in Mr. Monroe's Ministry, but he believed
they would be found to be as few as ever attended a negotiation which
was encompassed with so many difficulties.
What, he asked, was the letter which the gentleman read from his book?
It was a letter dated December 5, 1794. This was not a letter from Mr.
Monroe to his associates, but to the Secretary of State; and, if any
conspiracy was intended, General Washington and his Secretaries must
have been the conspirators. He saw nothing more in this letter than a
suggestion of what might be done if the Government thought proper. Mr.
G. stated the situation of things at that time. In the autumn of 1794
the PRESIDENT laid before Congress a communication stating that nothing
further could be done between this country and Great Britain by way of
negotiation, and what remained to be done was left to Congress. There
never was so threatening a state of affairs between Great Britain and
this country, since the revolution, as at that period. At the time,
therefore, when Mr. Monroe wrote the letter in question, he could not
possibly know the state of affairs here, or whether they would come to
an amicable settlement, and it was right in him, and it would have been
criminal not to have done it, to state what it was likely might be done
by France in our favor in case of extremities. He would only add one
further remark, as he should have occasion to defend himself more than
Mr. Monroe, which was, that he was at least as honorable a character as
any of his calumniators; that while he was in France he effected much
good, and that since he came away we had experienced much injury. If
gentlemen would examine the state of things when he first went to
France, what our situation was when he came away, and what it is now, he
thought this would appear evident.
The gentleman from South Carolina, doubtless, after examining all the
remarks he could find of his, had brought forward a debate which took
place in 1794. To follow the gentleman would be a disagreeable task; but
as it would serve to elucidate a truth which it was necessary to unfold,
he should undertake it, and show that, instead of these remarks being in
favor of war, they were founded in the most zealous wish for peace, Mr.
G. proceeded to read his remarks on Mr. DAYTON'S motion for a
sequestration of British debts, which, as the mover would recollect, he
said, was a mere arrestation of British debts, which was proposed as a
preventive of war, by holding in our hands what was within our power, as
a pledge for the good behavior of that country, in order to preserve
peace. Mr. G. stated the situation of things to be different from that
which Mr. HARPER had represented it to be, as the Legislature had no
knowledge of any negotiation being set on foot with Great Britain at
that time. This debate took place on the 28th of March, when they had
been informed by the PRESIDENT that nothing further could be done by
him, and the negotiation was not heard from until the 19th of April
following. A part of the system proposed was an embargo, and another a
suspension of intercourse with Great Britain. This bill passed this
House, but was negatived in the Senate, by the casting vote of the VICE
PRESIDENT who is now the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; and if this
bill had been carried into a law, the other regulation for arresting the
British debts would evidently have been a proper measure.
Mr. G. did not believe that we stood upon such unequivocal ground with
respect to France as we formerly stood upon with respect to Great
Britain. This had long been his opinion; and though we have heavy
complaints to make against France, they were not without just complaints
against us, arising principally from the operation of the British
Treaty, that fatal instrument to the United States.
Mr. G. read some of the articles of the treaty, and his former remarks
thereon, and denied that there was any well-founded apprehension of war
at the time it was under discussion. He also noticed the assertion which
had frequently been made, of the French Directory receiving lessons from
this country, which, he said, was too absurd to be believed.
Though he thought France had just ground of complaint against this
country, he did not mean to justify her conduct towards us. He thought
she ought to have received our Ministers; and, if they had not agreed,
to have taken such measures as they thought proper. But this is
supposing our Ministers clothed with sufficient powers; if they were
not, there would be some ground of justification for their conduct. The
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is in the possession of information which
would satisfy the Congress and the people in this respect, but he has
thought proper to withhold it, and therefore he alone is responsible.
There was one circumstance, he said, very unaccountable in this
business. The PRESIDENT informed the House that he had received certain
papers, and says, "I have considered these papers; I have deliberated
upon them; I have not sent them to you, but require you to act upon
them; I call upon you to take energetic measures, and request you will
provide sufficient revenue." The House has been thus obliged to take up
the subject in the dark. Is this, said he, a desirable state for the
Legislature to be placed in? Is it not rather a degraded state? He
thought it was; and when party rage shall subside, and it shall be seen
that the Executive is pursuing hostile measures, and keeping back all
information from Congress, this conduct would be deemed extraordinary.
He was far from saying the Executive had not done what was proper. He
could not say so, because he had seen no evidence upon which to form a
judgment; but it left a strong impression on his mind that something was
not correct, which was the reason the expected papers were not sent.
He also again referred to what the PRESIDENT says in his late Message
with respect to the change of circumstances, which he still thinks he
meant to apply to a change from neutrality in the country to something
like war. And in these circumstances, said he, are the people of the
United States to be led on from step to step, until they are
irrevocably involved in war? And are the people to be told that this is
a trifling question? When all the country is in commotion, and when the
people are preparing their petitions for peace, (which he thought very
proper,) he was not willing to proceed until the present question was
decided.
He would suggest another idea. He had heard a variety of observations
from different quarters, that at a period not very far distant from the
present, a more intimate connection between this country and Great
Britain than at present exists, is likely to take place. And yet
gentlemen are perpetually crying, What! give up your independence! Do
you prefer peace to independence? He would answer, No; for independence
he should be ready at all times to make war. But are we, said he, called
upon to fight for speculative independence, and, at the same time,
willing to commit our real independence to the mercy of another nation?
Where, he asked, is the difference between depending upon the French or
British nation? Except, indeed, (as he believed was the speculative
opinion of some gentlemen,) there was an intention of assimilating the
British and American Governments.
Gentlemen talked of newspapers. He would say a word on that subject.
There are two papers, said he, printed in this city, which not only
breathe defensive, but offensive war of the worst kind. One of these
papers, he believed, was particularly countenanced by the Government;
the other was printed by an infamous scoundrel, a British subject--a
paper which he was sorry to find too much countenanced. This paper not
only breathes war, but exterminating war. And this paper issued from a
British press, spreads its baneful sentiments throughout the country. He
proclaimed this fact; and he should think himself a traitor to his
country, not to proclaim it.
Mr. G. would say a few words as to the effect which the late French
decree would be likely to produce upon this country. The committee had
been told, by the gentleman from South Carolina, that it would
effectually destroy our revenue. He believed he was mistaken in this. To
France and to those nations who may be supposed to be under her
influence, we last year exported to the amount of $36,000,000, and to
Great Britain $8,000,000; two-thirds of which are re-exported to the
countries above mentioned.
Against whom, then, are we to arm? Against those who receive
$36,000,000, for the protection of the $8,000,000, two-thirds of which
are re-exported. How, he asked, would this operate? Would the decree
stop the importation of British goods? No, it might lessen them, but
would not stop them, as the British would become, in some measure, their
own carriers; and, as their vessels paid a higher duty in our ports than
our own, it is probable our revenue would not be greatly lessened. It
was possible, however, that there might be some abuse of the decree in
carrying it into execution.
He was as much opposed to the decree of the Executive Directory as any
man, but not so much on account of any loss we shall sustain from it, as
from its being an attack upon our neutral rights, which he preferred to
money. The British Treaty had authorized two acts that took place in
January last, which will transfer the carrying trade from American to
British vessels; but those acts will not affect our vessels going to
France, Spain, or Holland. He supposed, therefore, that our commerce
would not be very materially injured by the French Decree. He did not
know but it would even be upon a better footing than at present, as
there would be more security for it. At any rate, no rash measures ought
to be taken, until we see how the decree is to be executed.
He trusted the gentleman from South Carolina was, by this time, pretty
well satisfied as to the inaccuracy of his statement. Before gentlemen
make charges of inconsistency against others, they should be sure that
they themselves stand firm in that respect. That gentleman ought to have
looked back upon his own conduct in 1792 and 1793. He had been informed
that that gentleman was at that time a member of an affiliated society
of Jacobins. [Mr. HARPER said it was not true.] He believed, however,
all the gentlemen who knew him at that time would do him the credit to
say, that he was one of the most eloquent declaimers of that day in
favor of the rights of man. But his inconsistency had even appeared
within these two days. When the present proposition was first laid on
the table, he rejoiced that there was a prospect of all uniting in
manifesting a disposition for peace; but the next day he used arguments
which went to the destruction of the resolution.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Gen. SHEPARD) had made a remark which
he must notice; it was, that he assumed to dictate to others what was
proper to be done. Of this he was not justly chargeable. That gentleman
told the committee he was a warrior; he venerated him as such--he was a
warrior in a glorious cause; but whilst he venerated him as a soldier,
he had to regret the political prejudices under which he labored, which
could suffer him to attribute a motive of that kind to him. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. BROOKS) had also told the committee he had
also been in service in the Revolution. This he did not know before he
heard it from the gentleman himself. But he had since been told he was
engaged in the honorable and humane employment of clothier to the army.
[Mr. BROOKS said, he had the honor of taking up arms in the defence of
his country, which he carried until he was taken prisoner. He was a
prisoner eighteen months, and when he was set at liberty he found his
vacancy was not preserved for him. He then served his country in a
different line, and he believed in a manner which entitled him to at
least as much merit as he had assumed. He believed that providing the
army with clothing was an essential part of the service; but, (said he,
with great warmth,) if the gentleman doubts my being a soldier, I am
here to answer him. A loud cry of order, and Mr. B. sat down.]
Mr. G. said, he had received this information from one of the
gentleman's friends. He made the inquiry, because he did not know what
services he had performed; and he assured him the information which he
had received had tended to raise, rather than to sink him in his
estimation; but he was not alarmed at being told he was a soldier.
It had been said of the resolution before the committee, that by stating
we are not ready to resort to war against the French Republic, that it
might be implied we are ready to go to war with some other nation. That
this idea might be done away, if gentlemen will permit the words
"against the French Republic" to remain. If the mover would give his
consent, he should have no objection to add the words, "or any other
nation."
Mr. HARPER hoped, as he had been particularly alluded to by the
gentleman who had just sat down, he should not be considered as
trespassing on the patience of the committee in an unreasonable manner,
if he made a few remarks in reply, though he did not mean to do it
generally, as he perceived others had undertaken to do that, whom he was
conscious were better able to do it than himself. He was called up
merely by the gentleman's personal observations.
In the first place, he was charged with great indecency in bringing
forward and commenting upon the gentleman's own speech. He left it to
the committee to determine with what propriety this complaint came from
a person who has omitted no opportunity of attributing the worst of
motives, not only to gentlemen in that House, but to others out of it;
neither age, character, nor absence, have preserved gentlemen from his
censure; from a person who has always indulged himself in the most
violent philippics against the Executive of the United States, and all
who concurred in his measures; from a person who, when gentlemen declare
they are for peace, says he does not believe them; from a person who has
continually charged all those with inconsistency who differed in opinion
from him, not by examining their conduct, but by making insinuations
against them as to their debts, or to the way in which they may have
acquired money, or by following them to their youth, before they became
members of this House? He thought the gentleman ought to attend to the
old, but just adage, "He who lives in a glass house ought not to be the
first to throw stones." If there could be a man more regardless than
that gentleman of all the rules of decorum in debate, he had never heard
him.
As to the charge of inconsistency in his conduct, it had often been made
in private, and as often contradicted; but as it is now brought into
public view, he would say a few words on that point.
It was said, that in 1791 and 1792, he was a member of a Jacobin
society, and a warm declaimer in favor of the rights of man. What was
said respecting his being a member of a Jacobin society, is one of those
falsehoods of party, which, though known to be unfounded, is still
reported.
The fact, Mr. H. said, was this, which he never concealed: In the year
1791, there were instituted in Charleston a variety of clubs, (there
were several before that time;) of many of these, being a young
practitioner of the law, and desirous of extending his acquaintance; and
procuring business, he was a member. Among these was a society called a
Patriotic Society. It was composed of French and American citizens; and
he and seven or eight other young practitioners became members, and
attended one or two evenings; but, finding it composed of persons from
whose society much improvement could not be expected, they never went
afterwards; and so anti-jacobinic was their conduct considered, that
they merited and received an expulsion from the society.
As to being a declaimer in favor of the rights of man in 1791 and 1792,
he owned he partook of that enthusiasm which at that time raged in
America, because he was deceived. He then believed the French had been
unjustifiably attacked, but he now found that they were the first
assailants. He then believed that the treaties of Pilnitz[30] and Pavia,
of which they had heard so much, were realities; but he now found them
contemptible forgeries. With respect to other parts of the French
Revolution, he then believed that the principal actors in it were
virtuous patriots, but he had since discovered that they were a set of
worthless scoundrels and mad-headed enthusiasts, who, in endeavoring to
reduce their fallacious schemes to practice, have introduced more
calamities into the world, than ages of good government will be able to
cure.
Mr. H. said, he never was a declaimer in favor of what gentlemen meant
by the rights of man. He held them and their author in merited contempt.
The pretended factitious rights of man to which gentlemen referred, were
the rights of a few noisy demagogues over the rights of the people.
Though he always believed this, he did not know it so well, in 1791 and
1792, as he knew it in 1794, and since. And, therefore, he was not a
declaimer in favor of what the gentlemen mean by the rights of man, but
he was a warm admirer of the French Revolution, when he thought the
object was the establishment of the true rights of man; but, since he
discovered that this was neither the object nor would it be the effect,
instead of viewing that Revolution as a blessing to the world, which he
once thought it, he now viewed it as the greatest curse that ever
afflicted mankind; as a phial of wrath from Heaven, the bitterest that
ever was poured out upon the earth.
There was a certain species of the rights of man of which he had always
been the defender, in favor of which his voice would always be heard. He
had, in a well-known instance, advocated the rights of his
fellow-citizens in the best manner he was able, and in a manner which
had obtained for him their thanks and their remembrance. How he
conducted that defence, was well known to some of his colleagues in that
House.
Mr. H. denied that he had been inconsistent with respect to the
proposition before the committee. He then noticed what had fallen from
Mr. GILES with respect to the decree of the French Directory not being
so inimical to this country as it had been supposed to be. Mr. H.
charged Mr. G. with being much mistaken in supposing that only the
amount of eight millions of dollars was exported to Great Britain and
her dominions, or that thirty-six millions of dollars were exported to
France, and to countries connected with her. Out of the fifty-one
millions exported from this country during last year, it appeared by the
statement before them that eight millions five hundred thousand were
sent to Great Britain; nine millions to the Hanse towns; to France and
her dominions eleven millions. But, he asked if the gentleman from
Virginia knew the reason why this amount to France appeared so large? If
not, he would tell him. All the produce shipped for the British West
Indies in 1797, was almost constantly cleared out for French ports, in
order to avoid the effects of the plundering decrees of the French West
Indies, and this was the reason why six or seven millions appeared under
this head, which ought to appear under another. But the gentleman seemed
to suppose that all which did not go to Great Britain went to France,
and countries connected with her. At least twenty millions, out of
fifty-one millions, went to countries over whom France had no power;
and, when to these were added what was sent to Great Britain, and six or
seven millions were deducted on the ground he had mentioned, the
gentleman would find the balance was not very considerable.
Mr. H. said he should not notice what the gentleman had chosen to say
respecting the British Minister, except as to the improper manner in
which he had called a confidential person a confidential agent of the
Minister, and to say that he could not see any analogy between this case
and that of the French Minister, who fitted out privateers and levied
troops in our country without permission from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
The gentleman from Virginia had entered fully, not only into a
justification of himself, but of his friends. How far he has acquitted
himself and them from the weighty charges which he had exhibited, he was
not the proper person to judge; he left the public to determine. He
must, however, beg leave to correct him in one of his facts. He informed
the committee that the letter of Mr. Monroe, which had been quoted, was
written in December, 1794, whereas it was dated Paris, September 10,
1795, long after that Minister had been officially informed by our
Minister in London, that the British Treaty was concluded and signed;
yet this letter recommends the taking of the posts, the invasion of
Canada, and the cutting up of the British commerce by privateers. He did
not say that this letter was a proof of conspiracy, but of a system of
policy which was very contrary to a peace system.
But the gentleman says, he (Mr. G.) never proposed war against Great
Britain. He knew it. The gentleman always spoke of peace, but pursued
measures which led to war. He did not speak of war when he recommended
sequestrations, confiscations, &c., because he loved peace. He did not
talk of war; but, whilst he and his friends opposed measures of defence,
they were in favor of every measure which led to war. While they were
irritating a nation to war, they opposed the building of the frigates.
He could not say what were the views of gentlemen in doing this, but he
would say what appearance it had on his mind, when he was far removed
from the seat of Government. He thought it seemed as if gentlemen
believed it would be well to get to war, and then rely upon their
favorite nation for support.
Mr. BROOKS again complained of the insinuation which Mr. GILES had
thrown out against him, which he said was not called for by any
circumstances under consideration.
Mr. GILES assured him he mentioned the fact alluded to, out of no
disrespect to him. With respect to the date of Mr. Monroe's letter, he
had been deceived by a leaf being folded down at the letter, the date of
which he had mentioned. The gentleman had said that he had attributed
improper motives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This he denied.
He had said, he took measures which he did not approve, and he hoped a
difference of opinion from any man would not be imputed to him as a
crime. With respect to the explanation which the gentleman had given of
his own conduct, he was glad to hear it. It was to obtain this
explanation, that he mentioned the reports which he had heard. Mr. G.
renewed the assertion, that he and his friends always had been willing
to put the nation in a state of defence. As to the frigates, he gloried
in his vote against them; but with respect to the use of them, the
gentleman was mistaken. They were intended to be sent against the
Algerines only.
FRIDAY, March 30.
_Relations with France._
Mr. ALLEN observed, that when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES sent
his first Message to the House, announcing the receipt of despatches
from our Commissioners in Paris, he stated that it would take some time
to decipher the despatches which he had received. Some days afterwards,
on the 19th instant, he sent another Message informing the House, "that
it was incumbent on him to declare that he saw no ground of expectation
that the object of their mission could be accomplished on terms
compatible with the safety, honor, or the essential interests of the
nation."
It had been observed, in the course of the debate in the Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union, and not in the most candid and
proper manner, that the papers received from our Commissioners ought to
have been laid before the House, and the PRESIDENT had been charged with
withholding them. He supposed gentlemen would have been satisfied, and
he was, with the information which the PRESIDENT had already
communicated, that our Commissioners are not received, and that France
refuses to hear us. But, though he was himself satisfied with the
information he had at present, he believed there were many gentlemen in
the House who wished for more, because there is a paper printed in this
city, which is continually insinuating that there is something in these
despatches which, if they were made known, would show that the conduct
of the Executive has been improper; because he found that paper often
speaking the language of gentlemen in this House, and which spoke it, he
believed, on this occasion; and because, if this is not true, he wished
the people to be undeceived; or if true, that he and those who thought
with him, that no such blame existed, might be convinced of their error;
he proposed the following resolution, to which he hoped there would be
no objection:
"_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
requested to communicate to this House the despatches from
the Envoys Extraordinary of the United States to the French
Republic, mentioned in his Message of the 19th instant, _or
such parts thereof as considerations of public safety and
interest_, _in his opinion_, _may permit_."
Mr. S. SMITH said, he should have no objection to the resolution, if the
latter part of it was struck out. If the PRESIDENT thought it necessary
that any part of the correspondence ought to be kept secret, he would,
as is usual in such cases, inform the House that this was the case, and
the galleries would accordingly be cleared. The communication would then
probably be referred to a select committee, and such parts of it
published as might appear proper.
Mr. ALLEN observed, that there might be parts of this correspondence
which it would not be proper to communicate to this House, even
confidentially. If this was not the case, the PRESIDENT could still
communicate such part of the correspondence in confidence as he may
think proper. He wished to leave the PRESIDENT to act according to his
discretion. Without some portion of this discretion being allowed him,
the Government could not proceed.
Mr. GILES said, no part of the correspondence ought to be kept from
Congress. He was not himself satisfied as to the sincerity of the
proceedings of the Executive of the United States towards France; he
wished, therefore, not only to have the correspondence of our Ministers,
but the instructions which were given to them. Mr. G. defended what he
had yesterday said about the PRESIDENT and these papers, and hoped if
the House called for the papers at all, they would call for all the
papers, and the instructions upon which our Ministers acted.
Mr. LIVINGSTON moved to amend the resolution by striking out all the
words after the 19th instant, and insert after the words "this House,"
"the instructions to and." This was not a time, Mr. L. said, to stand
upon trifling punctilios, which might be proper upon ordinary occasions.
They were now called upon to say whether the country should be preserved
in peace or go to war; yet the correspondence, which ought to convince
the House of the propriety of acting in this or that way, is withheld.
How could they say to their constituents, without this information, all
has been done that could be done to preserve the country in peace, but
war was inevitable? And if war is rushed into headlong, without due
consideration, and consequently without ascertaining whether it is just
or not, can it be expected that the wishes and aids of the people will
be heartily engaged in such a war? They certainly would not.
It would be no answer to say that our negotiation with a foreign power
would by this means be exposed. The communication might be made with
closed doors, and no one could suppose any thing would be exposed by the
members of the Legislature which the good of the country requires to be
kept secret. But gentlemen wish this House to repose the strictest
confidence in one branch of the Government, at the same time that they
say no confidence can be placed in the integrity of this House. [Mr.
ALLEN exclaimed, who said it?] Mr. L. replied, that this was a fair
inference from what had been said.
The latter part of the resolution proposed to transfer a right to the
PRESIDENT, which it ought itself to exercise, as to judging of what it
was proper to publish in consideration of the public safety and
interest. If this power was given to the PRESIDENT, he might withhold
such parts of the papers as might prevent a correct judgment being
formed upon them. He was not himself disposed to cede to the PRESIDENT
the right which he was sent there to exercise for his constituents, of
judging of so important a question, as a question of peace or war. He
could not basely surrender this right. If the papers were called for at
all, he hoped the whole would be called for, in order that the House
might form that sound and temperate judgment for which the present
crisis so loudly calls, and for which the people of the United States
so anxiously look. Indeed, to pass the resolution unamended, would, in
his opinion, be a shameful dereliction of their rights.
Mr. BAYARD thought the propriety of this call upon the PRESIDENT was
extremely doubtful, and, as it regarded the instructions given to our
Ministers, wholly improper. With respect to the communication of the
despatches, it was wholly a matter of Executive discretion to judge
whether it would be proper to communicate them or not. He was one of
those who had so much confidence in the Executive, as to trust to his
candor, understanding, and integrity, to determine upon the propriety of
what he should send to, or withhold from, this House. At a time when it
is not known that our negotiation with France is closed, it would be
extremely imprudent to have the instructions of our Ministers laid
before this House; as what was sent here, notwithstanding any vote of
secrecy, would not long be kept secret. It would soon be in Europe, and
might do us essential injury, by disclosing our ultimatum to France, and
by showing it also to the world. It was in vain, Mr. B. said, to suppose
that one hundred men could keep a secret for any length of time, however
important it might be. To elucidate that assertion, he referred to the
divulging the secret of the British Treaty by a Senator.
But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) has no confidence in the
Government of this country with respect to its negotiation with France;
and in order to try the sincerity of the Executive, he wishes for the
papers. Does the gentleman by this mean to give the lie to the
Executive? Because in his Message he has told the House that he has
given power to our Ministers to settle our disputes with the French
Republic, and to "make all reasonable concessions." What more does the
gentleman wish? Does he wish unreasonable concessions to be made? Surely
he does not. Did any thing appear in the conduct of the French Directory
to show that our Ministers were not possessed of ample powers? No; the
Directory never knew any thing about their powers, at least so far as
any official communications had been received on the subject. There
could not, therefore, be any ground upon which the gentleman could rest
his suspicions. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be negatived.
Two or three gentlemen were on the floor together.
The SPEAKER said, the amendment to insert "the instructions to and,"
would come first under consideration.
Mr. HARPER said, he did not mean at this time to enter into the merits
of the present question. It was important, and presented itself in a new
light to the House. The original motion he was ready to have voted for;
he did not know whether he might not vote for this. But he wished time
to consider of it. He therefore moved the further consideration of this
question be postponed till Monday.
Mr. ALLEN had no objection to the postponement, except the mover of the
amendment would permit it to be amended by a modification of this sort:
"Such parts of those communications as were communicated to the French
Government."
The question for postponement was put and carried--47 to 41.
MONDAY, April 23.
The SPEAKER attended to-day, and took the chair.
_Stephen Cantrill._