CARLOS DE GRANDPRE.

BATON ROUGE, _Dec. 22, 1802_.

These are the measures, Mr. President, that have been adopted; these are

the orders that have been issued by the Intendant General to every

district of the Spanish provinces, prohibiting the subjects of His

Catholic Majesty from having any commerce, dealing, intercourse, or

communion whatsoever with the citizens of the United States; excluding

us from their shores for the distance of two hundred and seventy miles;

treating us like a nation of pirates, or a banditti of robbers, who

they feared to trust in their country. And this day, sir, if a vessel

belonging to a citizen of the United States, engaged in a fair and legal

trade, was upon the waters of the Mississippi, within the Spanish lines,

and in a state of the most extreme distress, the Spaniard who should

yield her aid or comfort would do it at the peril of his life.

If it should be said, sir, that this important question will not long be

an affair of controversy between the United States and Spain; that

Louisiana, New Orleans, and this usurped claim of the Spanish Government

to the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi, will soon be found in

other hands; that whenever we may have to negotiate on this subject,

either in the cabinet or the field, it will not be with His Catholic

Majesty, but with the First Consul; not with a King, but with the King

of Kings--I answer that in these insults to our national dignity, we at

present know no power but Spain. Whatever agency Buonaparte may have had

in this business, he has been concealed from our view. It is Spain that

has violated her plighted faith; it is Spain that has trampled upon the

dearest interests of the United States, and insulted our Government to

our faces without the semblance of a cause, and she alone is responsible

to us for these outrages. And, under such circumstances, is it becoming,

politic, or honorable in us to treat her as a friend and as a neighbor;

to remonstrate with her on her acts of injustice, and wait till she

shall add insult to insult, and heap injury upon injury; or what is

perhaps even worse, if any thing worse than national degradation can

befall an independent people, till this golden opportunity shall have

passed away, and the facility of redress be wrested from our hands? No,

sir, we should now view her as our open enemy, as having declared war

against us, and do justice to ourselves. We can never have permanent

peace on our Western waters, till we possess ourselves of New Orleans,

and such other positions as may be necessary to give us the complete and

absolute command of the navigation of the Mississippi. We have now such

an opportunity of accomplishing this important object as may not be

presented again in centuries, and every justification that could be

wished for availing ourselves of the opportunity. Spain has dared us to

the trial, and now bids us defiance; she is yet in possession of that

country: it is at this moment within your reach and within your power;

it offers a sure and easy conquest; we should have to encounter there

now only a weak, inactive, and unenterprising people; but how may a few

months vary this scene, and darken our prospects! Though not officially

informed we know that the Spanish provinces on the Mississippi have been

ceded to the French, and that they will as soon as possible take

possession of them. What may we then expect? When in the last extremity

we shall be driven to arms in defence of our indisputable rights, where

now slumbers on his post with folded arms the sluggish Spaniard, we

shall be hailed by the vigilant and alert French grenadier, and in the

defenceless garrison that would now surrender at our approach, we shall

see unfurled the standards that have waved triumphant in Italy,

surrounded by impregnable ramparts, and defended by the disciplined

veterans of Egypt.

But, Mr. President, what is more than all to be dreaded, in such hands,

it may be made the means of access and corruption to your national

councils and a key to your Treasury. Your Western people will see in

Buonaparte, at their very doors, a powerful friend or a dangerous enemy;

and should he, after obtaining complete control over the navigation of

the Mississippi, approach them, not in the menacing attitude of an

enemy, but under the specious garb of a protector and a friend; should

he, instead of embarrassing their commerce by any fiscal arrangements,

invite them to the free navigation of the river, and give them

privileges in trade not heretofore enjoyed; should he, instead of

attempting to coerce them to his measures, contrary to their wishes,

send missionaries into their country to court and intrigue with them, he

may seduce their affections, and thus accomplish by address and cunning,

what even his force might not be equal to. In this way, having operated

upon their passions, having enlisted in his service their hopes and

their fears, he may gain an undue ascendency over them. Should these

things be effected, which God forbid--but Buonaparte in a few years has

done much more--what, let me ask honorable gentlemen, will be the

consequences? I fear even to look them in the face. The degraded

countries of Europe, that have been enslaved by the divisions and

distractions of their councils, produced by similar means, afford us

melancholy examples. Foreign influence will gain admittance to your

national councils; the First Consul, or his interests, will be

represented in the Congress of the United States; this floor may become

the theatre of sedition and intrigue. You will have a French faction in

the Government, and that faction will increase, with the rapidly

increasing population of the Western world. Whenever this period shall

arrive, it will be the crisis of American glory, and must result, either

in the political subjugation of the Atlantic States, or in their

separation from the Western country; and I am sure there is no American

who does not view as one of the greatest evils that could befall us, the

dismemberment of this Union. Honorable gentlemen may wrap themselves up

in their present imaginary security, and say that these things are afar

off, or that they can never happen; but let me beseech of them to look

well to the measures they are now pursuing, for, on the wisdom, the

promptness, and energy of those measures, will depend whether they shall

happen or not. And let me tell them, sir, that the want of firmness or

judgment in the cabinet, will be no apology for the disgrace and ruin of

the nation.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE observed, that he did not mean to wander in the field

of declamation, nor, after the example of the honorable gentleman who

had preceded him, endeavor to alarm or agitate the public mind; that he

should endeavor to strip the subject of all improper coloring, and

examine dispassionately the propriety of the measures which the Senate

were called upon to sanction. He would be very brief.

What is the true and undisguised state of facts? Early in the session,

the House of Representatives were informed, by a communication from the

President, of the conduct of the Intendant at New Orleans. This

communication stated, that he had taken measures to attempt a

restoration of the right which had been violated; and that there were

reasons to believe that the conduct of the Intendant was unauthorized by

the Court of Spain. Accompanying this message were official papers, in

which it appeared that the Governor of New Orleans had strongly opposed

the conduct of the Intendant, declared that he was acting without

authority in refusing the deposit, and indicated a disposition to oppose

openly the proceeding. The Spanish Minister who resides here, also

interposed on the occasion, and who stands deservedly high in the

confidence of his Government, was clearly of opinion, that the Intendant

was acting without authority, and that redress would be given so soon as

the competent authority could interpose. From this state of things, and

which is the actual state at this moment, what is the course any

civilized nation who respects her character or rights, would pursue?

There is but one course, which is admitted by writers on the laws of

nations, as the proper one; and is thus described by _Vattel_, in his

book, sec. 336, 338:

"A sovereign ought to show, in all his quarrels, a sincere

desire of rendering justice and preserving peace. He is

obliged before he takes up arms, and after having taken

them up also, to offer equitable conditions, and then alone

his arms become just against an obstinate enemy, who

refuses to listen to justice or to equity. His own

advantage, and that of human society, oblige him to

attempt, before he takes up arms, all the pacific methods

of obtaining either the reparation of the injury, or a just

satisfaction. This moderation, this circumspection, is so

much the more proper, and commonly even indispensable, as

the action we take for an injury does not always proceed

from a design to offend us, and is sometimes a mistake

rather than an act of malice: frequently it even happens,

that the injury is done by inferior persons, without their

sovereign having any share in it; and on these occasions,

it is not natural to presume that he would refuse us a just

satisfaction."

This is the course which the President has taken, and in which the House

of Representatives have expressed, by their resolution, their

confidence.

What are the reasons urged by the gentlemen to induce a different

proceeding, an immediate appeal to arms? You prostrate, say the

gentlemen, your national honor by negotiating, where there is a direct

violation of a treaty! How happens it that our national honor has, at

this particular crisis, become so delicate, and that the feelings of

certain gentlemen are now so alive to it? Has it been the practice of

this Government heretofore to break lances on the spot with any nation

who injured or insulted her? Or has not the invariable course been to

seek reparation in the first place by negotiation? I ask for an example

to the contrary; even under the Administration of WASHINGTON, so much

eulogized by the gentleman last up. Were not the Detroit, and several

other forts within our territory, held ten or a dozen years by Great

Britain, in direct violation of a treaty? Were not wanton spoliations

committed on your commerce by Great Britain, by France, and by Spain, to

the amount of very many millions; and all adjusted through the medium of

negotiations? Were not your merchants plundered, and your citizens

doomed to slavery by Algiers, and still those in power, even WASHINGTON

himself, submitted to negotiation, to ransom, and to tribute? Why then

do gentlemen, who on those occasions approved of these measures, now

despair of negotiation? America has been uniformly successful, at least

in settling her differences by treaty.

But the gentleman is afraid that if we do not immediately seize the

country, we shall lose the golden opportunity of doing it. Would your

national honor be free from imputation by a conduct of such

inconsistency and duplicity? A minister is sent to the offending nation

with an olive-branch, for the purpose of an amicable discussion and

settlement of differences, and before he has scarcely turned his back,

we invade the territories of that nation with an army of fifty thousand

men! Would such conduct comport with the genius and principles of our

Republic, whose true interest is peace, and who has hitherto professed

to cultivate it with all nations? Would not such a procedure subject us

to the just censure of the world, and to the strongest jealousy of those

who have possessions near to us? Would such a procedure meet the

approbation of even our own citizens, whose lives and fortunes would be

risked in the conflict? And would it not be policy inexcusably rash, to

plunge this country into war, to effect that which the President not

only thinks can be effected, but is now actually in a train of

negotiation? If, on the other hand, negotiation should fail, how

different will be the ground on which we stand! We stand acquitted by

the world, and what is of more consequence, by our own citizens, and our

own consciences. But one sentiment will then animate and pervade the

whole, and from thenceforth we will take counsel only from our courage.

But to induce us to depart from this proper, this safe, and honorable

course of proceeding, which is pursuing by the President, the gentleman

from Pennsylvania first, and the gentleman from Delaware again told you,

that by such pacific measures you will irritate the Western people

against you; that they will not be restrained by you, but will either

invade the country themselves, or withdraw from the Union and unite with

those who will give them what they want. Sir, said Mr. B., I did not

expect to hear such language held on this floor. Sir, the gentleman from

Pennsylvania best knows the temper and views of the Western people he

represents, but if he meant to extend the imputation to the State I have

the honor to represent, I utterly disclaim it. The citizens of Kentucky

value too highly their rights and character to endanger the one or

dishonor the other. They deal not, sir, in insurrections. They hold in

too sacred regard their federal compact to sport with it. They were

among the first to oppose violations of it, and will, I trust, be the

last to attempt its dissolution. The time indeed was, when not only

irritation but disgust prevailed in that country; when, instead of

sending fifty thousand men to seize on Orleans, an attempt was

meditated, and a solemn vote taken in Congress to barter away this right

for twenty-five years. The time indeed was, when great dissatisfaction

prevailed in that country, as to the measures of the General Government;

but it never furnished there, whatever it might have done elsewhere,

even the germs for treasons or insurrections. The people I have the

honor to represent are not accustomed to procure redress in this way.

Instead of trampling on the constitution of their country, they rally

round it as the rock of their safety. But, unhappily, these times have

passed away. Distrust and dissatisfaction have given place to confidence

in, and attachment to those in whom the concerns of the nation are

confided. I ask no reliance on my opinion for this fact, but appeal to

the memorial of the Legislature of Kentucky to the present Congress, for

the truth of this assertion. In this disposition of mind, therefore, and

from the sound sense and correct views and discernment of their true

interest, which the people of Kentucky possess, I have no hesitation in

pledging myself, that no such precipitate and unwarranted measures will

be taken by them, as predicted by the gentlemen in the opposition.

But he begged leave to ask gentlemen who hold such language, would the

Western people, admitting they were to withdraw from the Union, be able

to accomplish the object? Could they alone go to war with France and

Spain? Could they hold Orleans, were they to take possession of it,

without the aid of the United States? Admitting they could hold it, what

security would they have for their commerce? A single ship of the line

would be able completely to blockade that port. See, also, the Havana,

one of the safest and strongest of the Spanish ports, and so situated as

to possess every advantage in annoying our commerce. Are the gentlemen,

therefore, really serious when they endeavor to persuade us that the

Western people are in such a state of fury and mad impatience that they

will not wait even a few months to see the fate of a negotiation, and,

if unsuccessful, receive the aid of the whole nation, but that they will

madly run to the attack without a ship, without a single cannon, without

magazines, without money or preparation of any kind; and, what is worse,

without union among themselves; and what is still worse, in face of the

laws and constitution of their country? It is impossible. Such a

desperate project could not come to a successful issue; for should they

even obtain the right by their own exertions alone, they could not

expect long to enjoy it in peace, without descending from that exalted,

that enviable rank of one of the independent States of United America,

to the degraded, dependent condition of a colonial department of a

foreign nation.

Although he thought it incumbent on us, for the reasons he had stated,

to try the effect of negotiation, yet, should that fail, he thought it

incumbent on us also to be prepared for another resort. He considered

this right, and upon a different footing from what we ever enjoyed it,

so all-important, so indispensable to the very existence of the Western

States, that it was a waste of words and time to attempt to portray the

evils which a privation of it would produce; and he rejoiced to find

that gentlemen with whom he had not been in the habit of voting on most

political subjects so perfectly accord with him, that our precarious

tenure of it must be changed. He hoped they were sincere in their

declarations. If they were, the only difference between us now is, what

are the proper means to obtain this great end? The course pursued by the

President was, in his opinion, the only true and dignified course. It is

that, and that only, which will certainly attain the object; and is the

only one which will tend to unite cordially all parts of the Union. But

we ought to be prepared, in case of a failure, instantly to redress

ourselves. This, instead of having an evil, would, in his opinion, have

a good effect on the negotiation. It would show, that although we are

willing amicably to adjust our differences, yet that we are not only

resolved on, but prepared for that resort which cannot fail to restore

our violated rights. With that view, he would offer the following

resolutions, as substitutes for those proposed by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania.

He moved that the whole of the resolutions be struck out, excepting the

word "_Resolved_," and the following be substituted in their

place--after the word "_Resolved_:"

"That the President of the United States be, and he is

hereby authorized, whenever he shall judge it expedient, to

require of the Executives of the several States to take

effectual measures to organize, arm, and equip, according

to law, and hold in readiness to march at a moment's

warning, eighty thousand effective militia, officers

included.

_Resolved_, "That the President may, if he judges it

expedient, authorize the Executives of the several States,

to accept, as part of the detachment aforesaid, any corps

of volunteers; who shall continue in service for such time,

not exceeding ---- months, and perform such services as

shall be prescribed by law.

_Resolved_, "That ---- dollars be appropriated for paying

and subsisting such part of the troops aforesaid, whose

actual service may be wanted, and for defraying such other

expenses as, during the recess of Congress, the President

may deem necessary for the security of the territory of the

United States.

_Resolved_, "That ---- dollars be appropriated for erecting

at such place or places on the Western waters, as the

President may judge most proper, one or more arsenals."

Mr. CLINTON.--The importance of a free navigation of the Mississippi has

been duly appreciated by the Government, and a constant eye has been

kept upon it in our negotiations with foreign powers. An attempt was,

indeed, made under the Old Confederation to barter it away for

twenty-five years, which, however, was effectually controlled by the

good sense and patriotism of the Government. By the Treaty of Peace with

Great Britain in 1783, by the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation

with her in 1794, and by the Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and

Navigation with Spain, in 1795, the right of a free navigation of the

Mississippi is recognized, and declared to exist from its source to the

ocean, in the citizens of the United States. By the 22d article of the

Treaty with Spain, it is declared that, "in consequence of the

stipulations contained in the 4th article, his Catholic Majesty will

permit the citizens of the United States, for the space of three years

from this time, to deposit their merchandise and effects in the port of

New Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any other

duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores. And his Majesty

promises either to continue this permission if he finds during that time

that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain; or, if he should

not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them, on another part

of the lands of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment." The 22d

article, granting the right of deposit, is, therefore, founded upon the

4th article recognizing the right of free navigation, and is intended to

give full and complete efficacy to it. By a proclamation of the

Intendant of the Province of Louisiana, dated the 16th of October last,

the right of deposit is prohibited. The reason assigned for this daring

interdiction is, that the three years for which it was granted having

expired, it cannot be continued without an express order from the King

of Spain; and at the same time no equivalent establishment is assigned,

according to the stipulations of the Treaty.

There can be no doubt but that the suspension of the right of deposit at

New Orleans, and the assignment of another place equally convenient,

ought to have been contemporaneous and concurrent; that the conduct of

the Intendant is an atrocious infraction of the treaty, and that it aims

a deadly blow at the prosperity of the Western States; but it is

extremely questionable whether it was authorized by the Government of

Spain or not. On this subject I am free to declare that I entertain

great doubts, which can only be cleared up by the course of events, or

perhaps it will be enveloped in darkness. On the one hand, the terms of

the proclamation, indicating a misunderstanding of the treaty, the

remonstrances of the Governor of the Province, whose authority does not

extend to commercial and fiscal affairs, over which the Intendant has an

exclusive control, and the prompt and decided assurances of the Spanish

Minister near the United States, would induce a belief that the act of

the Intendant was unauthorized. On the other hand, it cannot readily be

believed that this officer would assume such an immense responsibility,

and encounter an event so big with important consequences, not only to

his country but to himself, without knowing explicitly the intentions of

his Government. Such, then, is the true state of the Spanish aggression:

an important right had been secured to our citizens by the solemnity of

a treaty. This right had been withdrawn by an officer of the Spanish

Government, and whether this aggression was directed by it or not, is

not as yet known. Other aggressions have, indeed, been stated by the

honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROSS,) in order to darken

the picture, and with the manifest design of exasperating our feelings,

inflaming our passions, and prompting an immediate appeal to the sword.

As to the nature, character, and tendency of the remedy proposed, there

can be but one opinion. It proposes to enter the country of a foreign

nation with a hostile force, and to seize a part of its territory. It is

not preceded by a formal declaration, and cannot, therefore, come under

the denomination of a solemn war, but it partakes of the character of a

war not solemn. It answers to the definition of war, by _Burlamaqui_, "a

nation taking up arms with a view to decide a quarrel;" to that given by

_Vattel_, who represents it to be "that state in which a nation

prosecutes its right by force." A state of general hostilities would as

necessarily follow as an effect would follow a cause; no nation would

submit to the irruption of a hostile army without repelling it by force;

the proud Castilian, as described by the gentleman from Delaware, would

revolt at the insult; the door of negotiation would be effectually

closed, and as the appeal would be to arms in the first instance, so the

controversy must be finally decided by the preponderance of force. It

would, therefore, not only have impressed me with a more favorable

opinion of the honorable mover's candor, but also of his decision and

energy as a statesman, if he had spoken out boldly, and declared his

real object. War is unquestionably his design--his wish. Why, then, mask

his proposition? Why combine it with considerations connected with

negotiation? Why not furnish the American people at once with the real

and the whole project of himself and his friends? If it is bottomed on

patriotism and dictated by wisdom, it need not shrink from the touch of

investigation--it will receive their approving voice, and be supported

by all their force. The resolution is then to be considered as a war

resolution; in no other light can it be viewed; in no other light ought

it to be viewed; and in no other light will it be viewed by the

intelligence of the country. In this point of view, I will proceed, said

Mr. C., to consider its justice and policy; its conformity with the laws

and usage of nations, and the substantial interests of this country.

I shall not attempt to occupy your attention by threadbare declamation

upon the evils of war, by painting the calamities it inflicts upon the

happiness of individuals, and the prosperity of nations. This terrible

scourge of mankind, worse than the famine or pestilence, ought not to be

resorted to until every reasonable expedient has been adopted to avert

it. When aggressions have been committed by the sovereign or

representatives of a nation, negotiation ought in all cases to be first

tried, unless the rights of self-defence demand a contrary course. This

is the practice of nations, and is enjoined by the unerring monitor

which the God of Nature has planted in every human bosom. What right

have the rulers of nations to unsheath the sword of destruction, and to

let loose the demon of desolation upon mankind, whenever caprice or

pride, ambition or avarice, shall prescribe? And are there no fixed laws

founded in the nature of things which ordain bounds to the fell spirit

of revenge, the mad fury of domination, and the insatiable thirst of

cupidity? Mankind have not only in their individual character, but in

their collective capacity as nations, recognized and avowed in their

opinions and actions, a system of laws calculated to produce the

greatest happiness of the greatest number. And it may be safely

asserted, that it is a fundamental article of this code, that a nation

ought not to go to war, until it is evident that the injury committed is

highly detrimental, and that it emanated from the will of the nation

charged with the aggression, either by an express authorization in the

first instance, or by a recognition of it when called upon for redress,

and a refusal in both cases to give it. A demand of satisfaction ought

to precede an appeal to arms, even when the injury is manifestly the act

of the Sovereign; and when it is the act of a private individual, it is

not imputable to his nation, until his Government is called upon to

explain and redress, and refuses; because the evils of war are too heavy

and serious to be incurred, without the most urgent necessity; because

remonstrance and negotiation have often recalled an offending nation to

a sense of justice, and a performance of right; because nations, like

individuals, have their paroxysms of passion, and when reflection and

reason resume their dominion, will extend that redress to the

olive-branch, which their pride will not permit them to grant to the

sword; because a nation is a moral person, and, as such, is not

chargeable with an offence committed by others, or where its will has

not been consulted, the unauthorized conduct of individuals being never

considered a just ground of hostility, until their sovereign refuses

that reparation for which his right of controlling their actions, and of

punishing their misconduct, necessarily renders him responsible. These

opinions are sanctioned by the most approved elementary writers on the

laws of nations.

If I were called upon to prescribe a course of policy most important for

this country to pursue, it would be to avoid European connections and

wars. The time must arrive when we will have to contend with some of the

great powers of Europe, but let that period be put off as long as

possible. It is our interest and our duty to cultivate peace, with

sincerity and good faith. As a young nation, pursuing industry in every

channel, and adventuring commerce in every sea, it is highly important

that we should not only have a pacific character, but that we should

really deserve it. If we manifest an unwarrantable ambition, and a rage

for conquest, we unite all the great powers of Europe against us. The

security of all the European possessions in our vicinity will eternally

depend, not upon their strength, but upon our moderation and justice.

Look at the Canadas--at the Spanish territories to the South--at the

British, Spanish, French, Danish, and Dutch West India islands--at the

vast countries to the West, as far as where the Pacific rolls its waves;

consider well the eventful consequences that would result if we were

possessed by a spirit of conquest; consider well the impression which a

manifestation of that spirit will make upon those who would be affected

by it. If we are to rush at once into the territory of a neighboring

nation, with fire and sword, for the misconduct of a subordinate

officer, will not our national character be greatly injured? Will we not

be classed with the robbers and destroyers of mankind? Will not the

nations of Europe perceive in this conduct the germ of a lofty spirit

and an enterprising ambition which will level them to the earth, when

age has matured our strength and expanded our powers of annoyance,

unless they combine to cripple us in our infancy? May not the

consequences be, that we must look out for a naval force to protect our

commerce; that a close alliance will result; that we will be thrown at

once into the ocean of European politics, where every wave that rolls,

and every wind that blows, will agitate our bark? Is this a desirable

state of things? Will the people of this country be seduced into it by

all the colorings of rhetoric, and all the arts of sophistry--by

vehement appeals to their pride, and artful addresses to their cupidity?

No, sir. Three-fourths of the American people (I assert it boldly, and

without fear of contradiction) are opposed to this measure. And would

you take up arms with a millstone hanging around your neck? How would

you bear up, not only against the force of the enemy, but against the

irresistible current of public opinion? The thing, sir, is impossible;

the measure is worse than madness; it is wicked beyond the powers of

description.

It is in vain for the mover to oppose these weighty considerations by

menacing us with an insurrection in the Western States, that may

eventuate in their seizure of New Orleans without the authority of

Government; their throwing themselves into the arms of a foreign power;

or in a dissolution of the Union. Such threats are doubly

improper--improper as they respect the persons to whom they are

addressed, because we are not to be deterred from the performance of our

duty by menaces of any kind, from whatever quarter they may proceed; and

it is no less improper to represent our Western brethren as a lawless,

unprincipled banditti, who would at once release themselves from the

wholesome restraints of law and order; forego the sweets of liberty, and

either renounce the blessings of self-government, or, like Goths and

Vandals, pour down with the irresistible force of a torrent upon the

countries below, and carry havoc and desolation in their train. A

separation by a mountain, and a different outlet into the Atlantic,

cannot create any natural collision between the Atlantic and Western

States; on the contrary, they are bound together by a community of

interests, and a similarity of language and manners--by the ties of

consanguinity and friendship, and a sameness of principles. There is no

reflecting and well-principled man in this country who can view the

severance of the States without horror, and who does not consider it as

a Pandora's box, which will overwhelm us with every calamity; and it has

struck me with not a little astonishment that, on the agitation of

almost every great political question, we should be menaced with this

evil. Last session, when a bill repealing a Judiciary act was under

consideration, we were told that the Eastern States would withdraw

themselves from the Union, if it should obtain; and we are now informed

that, if we do not accede to the proposition before us, the Western

States will hoist the standard of revolt and dismember the empire. Sir,

these threats are calculated to produce the evils they predict, and they

may possibly approximate the spirit they pretend to warn us against.

They are at all times unnecessary, at all times improper, at all times

mischievous, and ought never to be mentioned within these walls.

Mr. J. JACKSON, of Georgia.--Coming from a State, at the extreme of the

Union in the South, and excepting the States immediately interested in

the navigation of the Mississippi, the most concerned, on the present

occasion, of any in the Union, he hoped it would not be deemed improper

in him to offer his sentiments on the resolution before the Senate; for,

sir, no event can affect the settlers on the Mississippi, no change of

masters can take place there, without the shock being felt on the

frontiers of Georgia. The nation which holds New Orleans must eventually

possess the Floridas, and Georgia cannot remain an indifferent

spectator; in case of war, the blow struck on that river will be

vibrated on the Saint Mary's, and the attack on the one will be seconded

by an attack on the other.

The gentlemen from Kentucky and Tennessee have not those fears expressed

by the gentleman from Pennsylvania; they have declared their citizens

satisfied with negotiation in the first place, and the conduct pursued

by the Executive. He could say the same, as respects the citizens of the

State he represents, and begged leave to read a letter on the subject,

from a respectable gentleman of Georgia, applauding the appointment of

Mr. Monroe. [He here read a letter expressing the approbation generally

expressed at the nomination.]

That there has been an indignity offered to the United States by the

Spanish Government of New Orleans, he should not deny; so far, he joined

the gentlemen on the other side, as not only to declare that sense of

it, but to assert that the withdrawing the right of deposit, given under

the fourth article of our treaty with Spain, concluded at San Lorenzo el

Real, prior to the pointing out another place for that purpose, is such

a violation of our right, and such an insult to the dignity of the

nation, as ought not to be put up with in silence. We ought, we are

bound to demand a restoration of that right, and to secure it to our

Western citizens, let the risk be what it may, if it even extends to

life and fortune. He cordially agreed with the gentleman who had

preceded him, (Mr. MASON,) that it is a momentous subject; but could not

consent to go at once to war, without trying, in the first place, every

peaceable mode to obtain redress.

The first part of the resolution declares, that the United States have

an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi,

and to a convenient place of deposit for their produce and merchandise,

in the island of New Orleans. Now, sir, the former part of this

resolution is not affected by any proceedings of the Spanish Government.

You are as perfectly in possession of the right as you ever were; your

vessels are at this moment freely navigating that river; you have not

heard of a single interruption; you have not learnt that the Spaniards,

so far from interrupting that navigation, have ever doubted your right.

Why then, sir, resolve on the assertion of rights which are not

questioned, but of which you are completely in possession! He could

compare it to no other case than that of a man in private life, in

peaceable possession of his house, resolving on and publishing his own

right to it, and thereby rousing the suspicions of his neighbors to

doubt the title to it. Passing over the latter division of the first

resolution, and which he acknowledged to be the fact, let us consider

the second proposition, "That the late infraction of such their

unquestionable right, is an aggression hostile to their honor and

interest." Sir, after a declaration of this kind, can you retract? You

cannot; it is in fact a declaration of war itself. Many of the courts of

Europe would consider it so, and have engaged in war for less cause of

offence than this resolution contains. You pronounce at once, without

knowing whether the proceedings at New Orleans were sanctioned by the

Court of Spain, that that nation is in a state of hostility against your

honor and interest, which declaration, coupled with the following

resolution, "That it does not consist with the dignity or safety of this

Union to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain," is a

direct insult to that nation. But if war is not to be found in those

resolutions, is it not in the fifth resolution, "That the President be

authorized to take immediate possession of such place or places in the

said island, or the adjacent territories, as he may deem fit or

convenient." Is this not war? If it be not, he knew not what war was!

And now let us inquire, if we should be justified in adopting those

measures, on the grounds of public or private justice, or the laws of

nations.

Sir, the going to war has always been considered, even among barbarous

nations, a most serious thing; and it has not been undertaken without

the most serious deliberation. It was a practice among the Romans, prior

to undertaking a war, to consult the _faciales_ on the justice of it;

and, after it had been declared just, to refer it to the Senate, to

judge of the policy of it; and unless the justice and the policy were

both accorded in, the war was not undertaken. If this was the case then

among barbarous nations, shall we, who call ourselves a civilized

nation, not well weigh the justice and the policy of going to war,

before we undertake it?

As to national honor and dignity, he believed we have all a proper sense

of it, and he would be one of the last on this floor to put up with

insult and indignity from any nation; but, as much as we had heard of

it, he did not think we ought, without negotiation, to resent every

injury by war. In many cases, national honor is only a convertible term

for national interest; and he begged leave to relate an anecdote of a

celebrated soldier on this head. After the failure of the attempted

storm of Savannah, in the year 1779, Count D'Estaing, who was wounded in

the attack, and lay in that situation about five miles from Savannah,

was visited by Governor Rutledge and other gentlemen of South Carolina

and Georgia. The Governor having perceived some movements in camp

indicative of a retrogade motion, told the Count that his own honor and

the honor of France were concerned in his remaining and taking the city.

The Count very mildly replied, "Gentlemen, if my honor is to be lost by

not taking the city, it is lost already; but I deem my honor to consist

in the honor of my country, and that honor is my country's interest!"

The time of operation in the West Indies was arrived, and the Count

re-embarked his troops.

Now, sir, is it not our duty to consult our country's interest, before

we take this rash step, which we cannot recall? Peace is the interest of

all republics, and war their destruction; it loads and fetters them with

debt, and entangles not only the present race, but posterity. Peace,

sir, has been the ruling policy of the United States throughout all her

career. If we show the citizens that we are not willing to go to war,

and load them with taxes, they will all be with us, when a necessity for

war arrives. What, sir, was the policy of America, from the commencement

of the Revolution? At that day, did we hastily go to war? No; we tried

every peaceable means to avoid it, and those means induced a unanimity

in the people.

At the commencement many States were exceedingly divided, in some a

majority were against us; yet, seeing the moderation and justice of our

measures, and the rashness and tyranny of the British cabinet, they came

over to our side, and became the most zealous among us. At the present

moment, sir, the people are averse to war, they are satisfied with the

steps of the Executive, they wish negotiation. If you adopt these

resolutions, they will be still divided; if you negotiate, and fail in

that negotiation--if you cannot obtain a redress of the injury which

they feel as well as you, they will go all lengths with you, and be

prepared for any event; you will have this advantage, you will be

unanimous, and America united is a match for the world. In such a case,

sir, every man will be anxious to march, he would go himself if called

on, and whether the sluggish Spaniard or the French grenadier commands

New Orleans, it must fall; they will not be able to resist the brave and

numerous hosts of our Western brethren, who are so much interested in

the injury complained of. He was himself of opinion that New Orleans

must belong to the United States; it must come to us in the course of

human events, although not at the present day; for he did not wish to

use force to obtain it, if we could get a redress of injury; yet it will

naturally fall into our hands by gradual but inevitable causes, as sure

and certain as manufactures arise from increased population and the

plentiful products of agriculture and commerce. But let it be noticed,

that if New Orleans by a refusal of justice falls into our hands by

force, the Floridas, as sure as fate, fall with it. Good faith forbids

encroachment on a pacific ally; but if hostility shows itself against

us, interest demands it; Georgia in such case could not do without it.

God and nature have destined New Orleans and the Floridas to belong to

this great and rising empire. As natural bounds to the South, are the

Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mississippi, and the world at some

future day cannot hold them from us.

THURSDAY, February 24.

_Mississippi Question._

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate resumed the consideration

of the resolutions respecting the indisputable right of the United

States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, together with the

proposed amendments thereto.

Mr. WELLS, of Delaware, said,--Gentlemen have persuaded themselves that

the conduct of the Intendant is not authorized by the Spanish or French

Government; but what reason have they assigned us in support of this

opinion? They tell us of the friendly assurances received from the

Minister of His Catholic Majesty resident near our Government; and they

place considerable stress upon the circumstance of the Governor of New

Orleans disapproving of what the Intendant has done. I will not stop to

speak of the imprudence of reposing themselves upon the assurances of a

Minister, perhaps expressly instructed to mislead them. But why have

they trusted to the imaginary collision of sentiment between the

Governor and Intendant of New Orleans? Do not gentlemen know that our

Government is in possession of testimony, demonstrating beyond all kind

of doubt, that this is not the fact? Have they not seen the letter of

the Governor of New Orleans to the Governor of the Mississippi

Territory? In this letter I learn that the Governor comes out and

acknowledges his co-operation with the Intendant, justifies the breach

of the treaty, and declares that these instruments cease their binding

force the moment it suits the interest of either party to break through

them. Alas! the history of the world furnishes us too many evidences of

this melancholy truth. But this is the first time that any nation has

had the hardihood to avow it. No, sir, even Carthage herself, who became

proverbial for her disregard of treaties, never attained to a point so

profligate. If I am incorrect in my statement, honorable gentlemen, who

have easier access to the sources of official information than is

permitted to us, will set me right. Why has this document been so

sedulously kept from the public eye? Why it should be even now so

carefully locked up, is a mystery not for me to unravel.

I see no other course for us to pursue than that pointed out by the

resolutions. Our interests, our honor, and our safety, require it to be

adopted. I am aware that the alarm of war will be rung through the

country. I know full well the pains that will be taken to impress an

opinion upon our fellow-citizens that we are the friends of war. This we

cannot help: the danger with which our country is threatened, will not

permit us to shrink from the discharge of our duty, let the consequences

to ourselves be what they may. Let me ask you with my honorable friend

from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) what stronger evidence can we give you of

the sincerity of our intentions than the resolutions themselves? So far

from cramping, or diminishing the power of gentlemen opposed to us, in a

crisis like the present, we only offer to strengthen their own hands.

Had the advice of an honorable gentleman near me (Mr. MORRIS) been

listened to, when you were disbanding your army, this crisis would not

have happened. Had you then posted at the Natchez, as he recommended, a

thousand soldiers, the navigation of the Mississippi would not now have

been interrupted. He foretold you what would happen, and his prediction

has been literally fulfilled.

There is but one fault I find with these resolutions, which is, they do

not go far enough. If I could obtain a second, I would move an amendment

explicitly authorizing the taking possession of both the Floridas as

well as the island of New Orleans. In one respect I entirely accord with

the honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) and I admire the

manly and decisive tone in which he has spoken upon this subject. We

both agree that the Floridas must be attached to the United States; but

we differ in point of time. The violent aggression committed upon our

rights, and the extent of the danger with which we are threatened, in my

humble opinion, would amply justify our taking possession of them

immediately. Look at the relative situation of Georgia, the Mississippi

Territory, and the Floridas, and it will require very little of the

spirit of prophecy to foretell that we shall, ere long, be compelled to

possess ourselves of them in our own defence.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.--Mr. President, my object is peace. I could

assign many reasons to show that this declaration is sincere. But can it

be necessary to give this Senate any other assurance than my word?

Notwithstanding the acerbity of temper which results from party strife,

gentlemen will believe me on my word. I will not pretend, like my

honorable colleague, (Mr. CLINTON,) to describe to you the waste, the

ravages, and the horrors of war. I have not the same harmonious periods,

nor the same musical tones; neither shall I boast of Christian charity,

nor attempt to display that ingenuous glow of benevolence so decorous to

the cheek of youth, which gave a vivid tint to every sentence he

uttered; and was, if possible, as impressive even as his eloquence. But,

though we possess not the same pomp of words, our hearts are not

insensible to the woes of humanity. We can feel for the misery of

plundered towns, the conflagration of defenceless villages, and the

devastation of cultured fields. Turning from these features of general

distress, we can enter the abodes of private affliction, and behold the

widow weeping, as she traces, in the pledges of connubial affection, the

resemblance of him whom she has lost for ever. We see the aged matron

bending over the ashes of her son. He was her darling; for he was

generous and brave, and therefore his spirit led him to the field in

defence of his country. We can observe another oppressed with

unutterable anguish: condemned to conceal her affection; forced to hide

that passion which is at once the torment and delight of life; she

learns that those eyes which beamed with sentiment, are closed in death;

and his lip, the ruby harbinger of joy, lies pale and cold, the

miserable appendage of a mangled corpse. Hard, hard indeed, must be that

heart which can be insensible to scenes like these, and bold the man who

dare present to the Almighty Father a conscience crimsoned with the

blood of his children.

Yes, sir, we wish for peace; but how is that blessing to be preserved? I

shall here repeat a sentiment I have often had occasion to express. In

my opinion, there is nothing worth fighting for, but national honor; for

in the national honor is involved the national independence. I know that

a State may find itself in such unpropitious circumstances, that

prudence may force a wise government to conceal the sense of indignity.

But the insult should be engraven on tablets of brass, with a pencil of

steel. And when that time and chance, which happen to all, shall bring

forward the favorable moment, then let the avenging arm strike him. It

is by avowing and maintaining this stern principle of honor, that peace

can be preserved. But let it not be supposed that any thing I say has

the slightest allusion to the injuries sustained from France, while

suffering in the pangs of her Revolution. As soon should I upbraid a

sick man for what he might have done in the paroxysms of disease. Nor is

this a new sentiment; it was felt and avowed at the time when these

wrongs were heaped on us, and I appeal for the proof to the files of

your Secretary of State. The destinies of France were then in the hands

of monsters. By the decree of Heaven she was broken on the wheel, in the

face of the world, to warn mankind of her folly and madness. But these

scenes have passed away. On the throne of the Bourbons is now seated the

first of the Gallic Cæsars. At the head of that gallant nation is the

great--the greatest--man of the present age. It becomes us well to

consider his situation. The things he has achieved, compel him to the

achievement of things more great. In his vast career, we must soon

become objects to command attention. We too, in our turn, must contend

or submit. By submission we may indeed have peace, alike precarious and

ignominious. But is this the peace which we ought to seek? Will this

satisfy the just expectation of our country? No. Let us have peace

permanent, secure, and, if I may use the term, independent. Peace which

depends, not on the pity of others, but on our own force. Let us have

the only peace worth having, a peace consistent with honor.

Before I consider the existing state of things, let me notice what

gentlemen have said in relation to it. The honorable member from

Kentucky has told us, that indeed there is a right arrested, but

whether by authority or not is equivocal. He says the representative of

Spain verily believes it to be an unauthorized act. My honorable

colleague informs us there has been a clashing between the Governor and

Intendant. He says we are told by the Spanish Minister it was

unauthorized. Notwithstanding these assurances, however, my honorable

colleague has, it seems, some doubts; but nevertheless he presumes

innocence, for my colleague is charitable. The honorable member from

Maryland goes further. He tells us the Minister of Spain says, the

Intendant had no such authority, and the Minister of France, too, says

there is no such authority. Sir, I have all possible respect for those

gentlemen, and every proper confidence in what they may think proper to

communicate. I believe the Spanish Minister has the best imaginable

disposition to preserve peace; being indeed the express purpose for

which he was sent among us. I believe it to be an object near to his

heart, and which has a strong hold upon his affections. I respect the

warmth and benevolence of his feelings, but he must pardon me that I am

deficient in courtly compliment; I am a republican, and cannot commit

the interests of my country to the goodness of his heart.

What is the state of things? There has been a cession of the island of

New Orleans and of Louisiana to France. Whether the Floridas have also

been ceded is not yet certain. It has been said, as from authority, and

I think it probable. Now, sir, let us note the time and the manner of

this cession. It was at or immediately after the treaty of Lunéville, at

the first moment when France could take up a distant object of

attention. But had Spain a right to make this cession without our

consent? Gentlemen have taken it for granted that she had. But I deny

the position. No nation has a right to give to another a dangerous

neighbor without her consent. This is not like the case of private

citizens, for there, when a man is injured, he can resort to the

tribunals for redress; and yet, even there, to dispose of property to

one who is a bad neighbor is always considered as an act of unkindness.

But as between nations, who can redress themselves only by war, such

transfer is in itself an aggression. He who renders me insecure; he who

hazards my peace, and exposes me to imminent danger, commits an act of

hostility against me, and gives me the rights consequent on that act.

Suppose Great Britain should give to Algiers one of the Bahamas, and

contribute thereby to establish a nest of pirates near your coasts,

would you not consider it as an aggression? Suppose, during the late

war, you had conveyed to France a tract of land along Hudson's River,

and the northern route by the Lakes into Canada, would not Britain have

considered and treated it as an act of direct hostility? It is among the

first limitations to the exercise of the rights of property, that we

must so use our own as not to injure another; and it is under the

immediate sense of this restriction that nations are bound to act

toward each other.

But it is not this transfer alone. There are circumstances both in the

time and in the manner of it which deserve attention. A gentleman from

Maryland (Mr. WRIGHT) has told you, that all treaties ought to be

published and proclaimed for the information of other nations. I ask,

was this a public treaty? No. Was official notice of it given to the

Government of this country? Was it announced to the President of the

United States, in the usual forms of civility between nations who duly

respect each other? It was not. Let gentlemen contradict me if they can.

They will say perhaps that it was the omission only of a vain and idle

ceremony. Ignorance may indeed pretend that such communication is an

empty compliment, which, established without use, may be omitted without

offence. But this is not so. If these be ceremonies, they are not vain,

but of serious import, and are founded on strong reason. He who means me

well acts without disguise. Had this transaction been intended fairly,

it would have been told frankly. But it was secret because it was

hostile. The First Consul, in the moment of terminating his differences

with you, sought the means of future influence and control. He found and

secured a pivot for that immense lever, by which, with potent arm, he

means to subvert your civil and political institutions. Thus, the

beginning was made in deep hostility. Conceived in such principles, it

presaged no good. Its bodings were evil, and evil have been its fruits.

We heard of it during the last session of Congress, but to this hour we

have not heard of any formal and regular communication from those by

whom it was made. Has the King of Spain, has the First Consul of France,

no means of making such communication to the President of the United

States? Yes, sir, we have a Minister in Spain; we have a Minister in

France. Nothing was easier, and yet nothing has been done. Our First

Magistrate has been treated with contempt; and through him our country

has been insulted.

With that meek and peaceful spirit now so strongly recommended, we

submitted to this insult, and what followed? That which might have been

expected; a violation of our treaty. An open and direct violation by a

public officer of the Spanish Government. This is not the case cited

from one of the books. It is not a wrong done by a private citizen,

which might, for that reason, be of doubtful nature. No; it is by a

public officer,--that officer, in whose particular department it was to

cause the faithful observance of the treaty which he has violated. We

are told indeed that there was a clashing of opinion between the

Governor and the Intendant. But what have we to do with their domestic

broils? The injury is done, we feel it. Let the fault be whose it may,

the suffering is ours. But, say gentlemen, the Spanish Minister has

interfered to correct this irregular procedure. Sir, if the Intendant

was amenable to the Minister, why did he not inform him of the step he

was about to take, that the President of the United States might

seasonably have been apprised of his intention, and given the proper

notice to our fellow-citizens? Why has he first learnt this offensive

act from those who suffer by it? Why is he thus held up to contempt and

derision? If the Intendant is to be controlled by the Minister, would he

have taken a step so important without his advice? Common sense will say

no. But, the bitter cup of humiliation was not yet full. Smarting under

the lash of the Intendant, the Minister soothes you with assurances, and

sends advice-boats to announce your forbearance. But while they are on

their way, new injury and new insult are added. The Intendant, as if

determined to try the extent of your meekness, forbids to your citizens

all communication with those who inhabit the shores of the Mississippi.

Though they should be starving, the Spaniard is made criminal who should

give them food. Fortunately, the waters of the river are potable, or

else we should be precluded from the common benefits of nature, the

common bounty of heaven. What then, I ask, is the amount of this savage

conduct? Sir, it is war. Open and direct war. And yet gentlemen

recommend peace, and forbid us to take up the gauntlet of defiance. Will

gentlemen sit here and shut their eyes to the state and condition of

their country? I shall not reply to what has been said respecting

depredations on commerce, but confine myself to objects of which there

can be no shadow of doubt. Here is a vast country given away, and not

without danger to us. Has a nation a right to put these States in a

dangerous situation? No, sir. And yet it has been done, not only without

our consent previous to the grant, but without observing the common

forms of civility after it was made. Is that wonderful man who presides

over the destinies of France, ignorant or unmindful of these forms? See

what was done the other day. He directed his Minister to communicate to

the Elector of Bavaria, his intended movements in Switzerland, and their

object. He knew the Elector had a right to expect that information,

although the greater part of Swabia lies between his dominions and

Switzerland. And this right is founded on the broad principles already

mentioned.

Having thus considered the effect of this cession upon the United

States, in a general point of view, let us now examine it more

particularly, as it regards the greater divisions of our country, the

Western, the Southern, the Middle, and the Eastern States. I fear, sir,

I shall detain you longer than I intended, certainly longer than the

light of day will last, notwithstanding my effort to comprise what I

have to say in the smallest compass. As to the Western States, the

effects will be remote and immediate. Those more remote may be examined

under the twofold aspect of peace and war. In peace they will suffer

the diminution of price for their produce. The advantage of supplying

the French, Dutch, and Spanish colonies, may at first sight lead to a

different opinion; but when the port of New Orleans is shut to all but

French ships, there will no longer be that competition which now exists,

and which always results in the highest price that commodities can bear.

The French merchants have neither the large capital, nor have they the

steady temper and persevering industry which foster commerce. Their

invariable object in trade, is to acquire sudden wealth by large profit;

and if that cannot be done, they abandon the pursuit for some new

project. Certain of the market, and certain of the increasing supply,

they will prescribe the price, both to those who cultivate, and to those

who consume. Such will be the effect in peace.

In a war with Great Britain, the attention of her fleets to cut off

supplies from her enemies, must necessarily affect the price of produce

in a still greater degree; and in a war with France it will bear no

price at all, until New Orleans shall be wrested from their grasp. Add

to this the danger and the devastation from the troops of that country,

aided by innumerable hosts of savages from the Western wilds. Such being

the evident effects to be produced in times not far remote, the present

evil follows from the anticipation of them. The price of land must be

reduced, from the certainty that its produce will become less valuable.

The flood of emigration to those fertile regions must cease to flow. The

debts incurred in the hope of advantageous sales, must remain unpaid.

The distress of the debtor must then recoil on his creditor, and, from

the common relations of society, become general.

What will be the effect on the Southern States? Georgia, Carolina, and

the Mississippi Territory are exposed to invasion from the Floridas and

New Orleans. There are circumstances in that portion of America which

render the invasion easy, and the defence difficult. Pensacola, though

the climate be warm, is among the healthiest spots on earth. Not only a

large garrison, but an army may remain there without hazard. At

Pensacola and St. Augustine, forces may be assembled to operate in that

season of the year, when the morasses which separate them from our

southern frontier no longer breathe pestilence. By what are those armies

to be opposed? Will you call the militia from the North to assist their

Southern brethren? They are too remote. Will you secure their seasonable

aid, bring them early to the fields they are ordered to defend? They

must perish. The climate, more fatal than the sword, will destroy them

before they see their foe. The country adjoining to our Southern

frontier is now in possession of the most numerous tribes of savages we

are acquainted with. The access to it from New Orleans and the Floridas

is easy and immediate. The toys and gewgaws manufactured in France, will

be scattered in abundance, to win their affections, and seduce them

from their present connection. The talents of the French to gain the

good will of the savages is well known, and the disposition of those

uncultured men for war, is equally notorious. Here then is a powerful

instrument of destruction, which may be used against you with ruinous

effect. Besides, what is the population of the Southern States? Do you

not tremble when you look at it? Have we not within these few days

passed a law to prevent the importation of certain dangerous characters?

What will hinder them from arriving in the Floridas, and what can guard

the approach from thence to our Southern frontier? These pernicious

emissaries may stimulate with a prospect of freedom the miserable men

who now toil without hope. They may excite them to imitate a fatal

example, and to act over those scenes which fill our minds with horror.

When the train shall be laid; when the conspiracy shall be ripe; when

the armies of France shall reach your frontier, the firing of the first

musket will be a signal for general carnage and conflagration. If you

will not see your danger now, the time must soon arrive when you shall

feel it. The Southern States being exposed to such imminent danger,

their Representatives may be made to know, that a vote given in Congress

shall realize the worst apprehensions. You will then feel their danger

even on this floor.

Let us now consider the consequence of the cession we complain of, to

other nations, and this we may do generally, and then more especially as

to those who have a direct and immediate interest in the transaction. In

a general view, the first prominent feature is the colossal power of

France. Dangerous to Europe and to the world, what will be the effect of

a great increase of that power? Look at Europe! One half of it is

blotted from the list of empire. Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Britain,

are the only powers remaining, except Sweden and Denmark, and they are

paralyzed. Where is Italy, Switzerland, Flanders, and all Germany west

of the Rhine? Gone; swallowed up in the empire of the Gauls. Holland,

Spain, Portugal, reduced to a state of submission and dependence. What

is the situation of the powers that remain? Austria is cut off from

Italy, the great object of her ambition for more than three centuries;

long the rival of France, long balancing with the Bourbons the fate of

Europe, she must now submit, and tacitly acknowledge to the world the

superiority of her foe, and her own humiliation. Prussia, under the

auspices of the Great Frederick, was at the head of a Germanic league to

balance the imperial power. Though united with Austria for a moment in

the hollow league of the coalition, she has, like Austria, been actuated

by a blind jealousy, and favoring the operations of France for the ruin

of her rival, expected to share largely in the general spoil. In this

fond hope she is disappointed; she now sees the power of France at her

door. There is not a fortress from the Rhine to the Baltic, except

Magdeburgh, which the First Consul may leave on his left. The fertile

plains near Leipsic contain the magazines for his armies when he shall

think proper to march to Berlin. Westphalia and Lower Saxony are open on

the side of Flanders and Holland. The Maine presents him a military road

to the borders of Bohemia. By the Necker he approaches Ulm, and

establishes himself on the Danube.[71] These rivers enable him to take

the vast resources of his wide domain to the point where he may wish to

employ them. Menacing at pleasure his neighbors, he is himself secured

by a line of fortresses along his whole frontier. Switzerland, which was

the only feeble point of his defence, and which separated his Gallic and

Italian dominions, has lately been subjected. The voice you now hear,

warned the Swiss of their fate more than eight years ago. The idea

seemed then extravagant; but realized, it appears but as a necessary

incident. Russia is deprived of her influence in Germany, and thereby of

a principal instrument by which her policy might operate on the great

powers of the South. The Germanic body is indeed in the hand of the

First Consul. Three new Electors along the Rhine are under the mouths of

his cannon. They dare not speak. Speak! None dare speak. They dare not

_think_ any thing inconsistent with his wishes. Even at their courtly

feasts they sit like Damocles, destruction suspended over their heads by

a single hair. Would you know the sentiment of England? Look at the

debates. In the two Houses of Parliament they speak their fears. Such

being the general sentiment of Europe, can it be supposed that they will

view without anxiety a new extension of that power and dominion, the

object of their hatred and apprehension?

Will it be said that there is a security to the freedom of mankind from

the moderation with which this enormous power is to be exercised? Vain

delusion! This power is not the result of accident. At the moment when

France dethroned her sovereign, it was easy to foresee that a contest

must ensue in which her existence would be staked against the empire of

the world. If not conquered by surrounding princes, (and the hope of

such conquest, unless by the aid of her own citizens, was idle,) her

numerous armies acquiring discipline must eventually conquer. She had

the advantages of situation, and those which result from union, opposed

to councils uncertain and selfish. It was easy also to foresee that, in

the same progress of events, some fortunate soldier would seat himself

on the vacant throne; for the idea of a French Republic was always a

ridiculous chimera. Buonaparte has placed himself at the head of that

nation by deeds which cast a lustre on his name. In his splendid career

he must proceed. When he ceases to act he will cease to reign. Whenever

in any plan he fails, that moment he falls. He is condemned to

magnificence. To him are forbidden the harmonies and the charities of

social life. He commands a noble and gallant nation, passionately fond

of glory. That nation stimulates him to glorious enterprise, and,

because they are generous and brave, they ensure his success. Thus the

same principle presents at once the object and the means. Impelled by

imperious circumstances, he rules in Europe, and he will rule here also,

unless by vigorous exertion you set a bound to his power.

I have trespassed on your patience more than I wished, although, from

the lateness of the hour, much has been omitted of what I ought to have

said. I have endeavored to show that, under the existing circumstances,

we are now actually at war, and have no choice but manly resistance or

vile submission. That the possession of this country by France is

dangerous to other nations, but fatal to us. That it forms a natural and

necessary part of our empire; that, to use the strong language of the

gentleman near me, it is joined to us by the hand of the Almighty, and

that we have no hope of obtaining it by treaty. If, indeed, there be any

such hope, it must be by adopting the resolutions offered by my

honorable friend. Sir, I wish for peace--I wish the negotiation may

succeed, and therefore I strongly urge you to adopt those resolutions.

But though you should adopt them, they alone will not ensure success. I

have no hesitation in saying that you ought to have taken possession of

New Orleans and the Floridas the instant your treaty was violated. You

ought to do it now. Your rights are invaded--confidence in negotiation

is vain; there is therefore no alternative but force. You are exposed to

imminent present danger. You have the prospect of great future

advantage. You are justified by the clearest principles of right. You

are urged by the strongest motives of policy. You are commanded by every

sentiment of national dignity. Look at the conduct of America in her

infant years, when there was no actual invasion of right, but only a

claim to invade. She resisted the claim; she spurned the insult. Did we

then hesitate? Did we then wait for foreign alliance? No; animated with

the spirit, warmed with the soul of freedom, we threw our oaths of

allegiance in the face of our sovereign, and committed our fortunes and

our fate to the God of battles. We then were subjects. We had not then

attained to the dignity of an independent Republic. We then had no rank

among the nations of the earth. But we had the spirit which deserved

that elevated station. And now that we have gained it, shall we fall

from our honor?

Sir, I repeat to you that I wish for peace--real, lasting, honorable

peace. To obtain and secure this blessing, let us by a bold and decisive

conduct convince the Powers of Europe that we are determined to defend

our rights; that we will not submit to insult; that we will not bear

degradation. This is the conduct which becomes a generous people. This

conduct will command the respect of the world. Nay, sir, it may rouse

all Europe to a proper sense of their situation. They see that the

balance of power on which their liberties depend, is, if not destroyed,

in extreme danger. They know that the dominion of France has been

extended by the sword over millions who groan in the servitude of their

new masters. These unwilling subjects are ripe for revolt. The empire of

the Gauls is not like that of Rome, secured by political institutions.

It may yet be broken. But whatever may be the conduct of others, let us

act as becomes ourselves. I cannot believe with my honorable colleague,

that three-fourths of America are opposed to vigorous measures. I cannot

believe that they will meanly refuse to pay the sums needful to

vindicate their honor and support their independence. Sir, this is a

libel on the people of America. They will disdain submission to the

proudest sovereign on earth. They have not lost the spirit of

seventy-six. But, sir, if they are so base as to barter their rights for

gold, if they are so vile that they will not defend their honor, they

are unworthy of the rank they enjoy, and it is no matter how soon they

are parcelled out among better masters.

FRIDAY, February 25.

_Mississippi Question._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions respecting the

indisputable right of the United States to the free navigation of the

Mississippi, together with the proposed amendment thereto.

Mr. ANDERSON (of Tennessee) said he rose with much diffidence, after the

very able discussion which the subject had already undergone; after so

many men distinguished among the first in our country had treated it

with so much ability, he could not expect to furnish many new facts or

observations on the subject. But coming from that part of the country

which is particularly interested in the discussion, he felt himself

particularly bound to offer a few remarks, which some erroneous

statements that had fallen in debate, from the gentleman from Delaware,

(Mr. WHITE,) particularly called for. He would, while he was up,

endeavor to add a few observations on the resolutions.

The first of the resolutions appeared to him to be introduced merely

with a view to involve the members who were opposed to hostile measures

in a dilemma. It was the assertion of a truth which no one would deny,

but it was connected with other resolutions or assertions, which must

from propriety bring the whole under a negative vote. Taking the naked

proposition that we have a right to the place of deposit, we all agree;

that it has been suspended, we are equally agreed; but there we stop; by

prefacing their resolutions with these truths, they expect either to

induce us to vote for other things repugnant to our judgment, or afford

room for the imputation of wrong motives and clamor abroad. But we are

not to be led astray in this way, nor are the people of this country to

be so deceived. On the first organization of the Government, the most

earnest attention was directed to that river; and it is now as much an

object of the care of Government as at any period since we have been an

independent people. Gentlemen have not, therefore, represented the

matter with that candor which the seriousness of the subject demanded.

The navigation of the Mississippi has not been infringed on the present

occasion, though the arguments of all, and the assertions of some, went

to the extreme on that point. The river, he repeated, was and continues

to be open, and he could not discover the utility of our declaring our

right to the free navigation when we are in full unmolested possession

of the right. He could indeed discover something beside utility; he

could see a design nowise founded. The gentlemen expected with them the

votes of the Western members; they expected to play upon our passions,

and to place us between the danger of unpopularity and the sense of

personal feeling, in a case of a critical nature. But gentlemen would

find themselves mistaken to the utmost; though he felt himself, in

common with other Western members, responsible to his constituents, yet

he would on all occasions where the sense of right impressed itself

strongly on him, risk popularity to do right. On this occasion he saw no

danger of his popularity, because, although he was aware that the people

whom he represented were dissatisfied, they respected their Government

and themselves too much to countenance any means that were not honorable

and just, to obtain the deposit right.

The resolutions called upon us to declare the deprivation of the right

of deposit to be hostile to our honor and interests. On this there were

a variety of opinions; and it appears to be agreed (for it was not

contradicted by any) that the act of an individual unauthorized cannot

be either a cause of war, or the act of the government of which he is an

officer. No gentleman has positively declared the act to be authorized

by Spain. We have the best evidence that the case will admit of, that it

has not been authorized. As the act of an individual, therefore, it

cannot affect the honor of this country. That her interests are affected

is agreed on all hands; but then the due course of proceeding has been

adopted, and redress is to be expected. If it should be denied us, we

have our remedy, and it is then that it will become a point of honor.

But now, as had been well said by his friend from Georgia, (Mr.

JACKSON,) if we were to rashly declare the act of the individual

contrary to our national honor, we could not retrograde; and if Spain

should not do us justice, he trusted that we should then take our strong

ground, and not give way a step. This would be the effect. Gentlemen do

not know the American character--they underrate it: there is not that

levity in it which gentlemen suppose, capable of being lightly led

astray. The character of America is fixed, and when real necessity calls

for their exertions, the people will require no artificial excitement.

From time to time, he had heard in that House and in other places, the

most wanton and cruel aspersions cast upon the people of the Western

country. He knew not how gentlemen could reconcile their pretensions of

regard for the Western people with the odious imputations which were

constantly cast upon their attachment. The whole of the opposition

appeared to concur in their illiberality towards the Western people, at

the very moment they were professing so much zeal for their good. The

late President of the United States had in the most unwarrantable manner

told him, that the Western people were ready to hold out their hands to

the first foreigner that should offer them an alliance; the same

sentiment is echoed here, only in different terms. But such vile

imputations attach not to the Western people, but to those who employed

them. The Western people are Americans, who wasted the spring-tide and

summer of their days in the cause of their country; men who, having

spent their patrimony in establishing their country's independence,

travelled to the wilderness, to seek a homestead for themselves and

children. Was it honorable, was it consistent with those labored efforts

for their good, which we are told actuate gentlemen, to calumniate them

in so unworthy a fashion? Gentlemen appear by their gestures to deny

that they have been guilty of this calumny. But my charge against them

is not of that evasive or double character which they deal in; the words

they have used I have taken down--they are; "The French would draw the

Western people into an alliance," "The Western people would be

influenced by the insidious emissaries of France," "Corruption would

find its way among them, and be transferred even to that floor." Is this

not calumny of the darkest hue? Is this the way in which six hundred

thousand men are to be stigmatized? Men, a greater proportion of whom

are soldiers who fought for the independence of America, than ever was

to be found in the whole State (Delaware) to which the gentleman

belongs.

During twelve years, eight of which one of the first men the world ever

saw, or perhaps ever will see, presided over our affairs, the policy of

pacific negotiation prevailed in our councils; a policy somewhat more

hostile in its aspect was attempted by his successor, but still

negotiation succeeded negotiation, and success attended perseverance. In

the early stages of our existence, before we were yet a nation, it is

indeed true that we drank of the cup of humiliation, even to the dregs;

it was the natural effect of our dependent situation; of the prejudices

that bound us, and from which great violence was necessary, and was

employed to detach us. Such humiliation would not befit us now; no

motives exist to demand or justify it: we were then a part of another

nation, and connected with another Government; we began by petition in

the terms of abjectness and humility, which are incidental to subjects

of monarchs; which are always necessary, in order to conceal the spirit

and the presumption, of which monarchs are always jealous in their

subjects; but abject as we appeared, the very temper and phrase of

humility deceived our oppressor into a belief that we were too lowly to

entertain the manly temper of resistance against oppression. Yet our

precursory and reiterated humility did not unnerve our arms nor subdue

our minds, when it became necessary to fling off the trammels of

oppression. The result, we now enjoy. When that very power from which we

had detached ourselves, refused to carry her treaty into execution, did

we then go to war? She held several of our fortresses; we were entitled

by every right of nature, and the usage of nations, to seize upon them;

not like the right of deposit, a privilege enjoyed on the territory of

another, but fortresses held, and in military array on our own

territory. Did we then make war? No, we negotiated; and when another

power subsequently attacked us, we pursued the same course with the like

success. The gentleman (Mr. ROSS) has told us that when President

WASHINGTON came into office, he would not have negotiated for the

Mississippi, had he not found the negotiation already begun. The

gentleman has not told us upon what authority he states this, or how he

came to possess the knowledge of a fact of which all others are

ignorant; a fact, too, contradictory of his practice through life, and

of the principles of that legacy which he left to his country.

Mr. S. T. MASON, said, that if he were to consult the state of his

health, he should not trouble the Senate with any remarks on the

resolutions before them. But he had heard in the course of debate,

certain observations, such strange and paradoxical arguments;

insinuations and assertions of such a nature as ought not to be passed

unnoticed. Doubtful whether his strength would sustain him through the

whole scope which in better health he should take, he would endeavor to

limit his arguments to a few of the most prominent particulars, which

excited his attention, and to the delivery of his reasons for preferring

the substitute propositions of his friend from Kentucky, (Mr.

BRECKENRIDGE,) to the original resolutions of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania.

He had heard, in the debate, many professions of confidence in the

Executive. He was very glad to hear such unusual expressions from that

quarter. However, it was entitled to its due weight--what that was he

would not inquire; but this he would say, that this unexpected

ebullition of confidence went very much farther than he should be

disposed to carry his confidence in any man or any President whatever.

Gentlemen tell us that they are willing to intrust to the Executive the

power of going to war, or not, at his discretion. Wonderful indeed is

this sudden disposition to confidence? Why do not gentlemen give away

that which they have some authority or right to bestow? Who gave them

the power to vest in any other authority than in Congress the right of

declaring war? The framers of this constitution had too much experience

to intrust such a power to any individual; they early and wisely

foresaw, that though there might be men too virtuous to abuse such a

power, that it ought not to be intrusted to any; and nugatory would be

the authority of the Senate, if we could assume the right of

transferring our constitutional functions to any man or set of men. It

was a stretch of confidence which he would not trust to any President

that ever lived, or that will live. He could not as one, without treason

to the constitution, consent ever to relinquish the right of declaring

war to any man, or men, beside Congress.

We are told that negotiation is not the course which is proper for us to

pursue. But to this he should reply, that such was the usage of all

civilized nations; and, however gentlemen might attempt to whittle away

the strong ground taken by his friend from New York, he had shown, in a

manner not to be shaken, that negotiation before a resort to the last

scourge of nations, is the course most consistent with good policy, as

well as with universal practice. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had

indeed told us that Great Britain had departed from that practice;

unfortunately for Great Britain and the gentleman's argument, he told

us, at the same time, that she had sustained a most serious injury by

her injustice and precipitation. She went to war to seek retribution,

and after fighting a while, she left off, and forgot to ask the

retribution for which she went to war! And this is the example held up

for our imitation; because Great Britain violated the law of nations, we

are called upon to do so too! We are told also that Great Britain

commenced war during our Revolution, against the Dutch, without any

previous notification; that she did the same in the late war with

France, and in both cases seized on the ships in her harbors; that is,

like a professional bully, she struck first, and then told them she

would fight them--and this is the gracious example held up to us.

The merits of the different propositions consisted in this, that by the

amendments we propose to seek the recourse of pacific nations--to follow

up our own uniform practice; we pursue, in fact, the ordinary and

rational course. The first resolutions go at once to the point of war.

This was openly and fairly acknowledged by the gentleman from New York

(Mr. G. MORRIS.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROSS,) indeed,

told us that it is not war--it was only going and taking peaceable

possession of New Orleans! He did not before think the gentleman felt so

little respect for the Senate, or estimated their understandings so much

inferior to his own, as to call such a measure an act of peace! How did

the gentleman mean to go, and how take peaceable possession? Would he

march at the head of the _posse comitatus_? No! he would march at the

head of fifty thousand militia, and he would send forth the whole naval

and regular force, armed and provided with military stores. He would

enter their island, set fire to their warehouses, and bombard their

city, desolate their farms and plantations, and having swept all their

habitations away, after wading through streams of blood, he would tell

those who had escaped destruction, we do not come here to make war on

you--we are a very moderate, tender-hearted kind of neighbors, and are

come here barely to take peaceable possession of your territory! Why,

sir, this is too naked not to be an insult to the understanding of a

child!

But the gentleman from New York (Mr. MORRIS) did not trifle with the

Senate in such a style; he threw off the mask at once, and in a

downright manly way, fairly told us that he liked war--that it was his

favorite mode of negotiating between nations; that war gave dignity to

the species--that it drew forth the most noble energies of humanity!

That gentleman scorned to tell us that he wished to take peaceable

possession. No! He could not snivel; his vast genius spurned

huckstering; his mighty soul would not bear to be locked up in a petty

warehouse at New Orleans; he was for war, terrible, glorious havoc! He

tells you plainly, that you are not only to recover your rights, but,

you must remove your neighbors from their possessions, and repel those

to whom they may transfer the soil; that Buonaparte's ambition is

insatiable; that he will throw in colonies of Frenchmen, who will settle

on your frontier for thousands of miles round about, (when he comes

there;) and he does not forget to tell you of the imminent dangers which

threaten our good old friends the English. He tells you that New Orleans

is the lock and you must seize upon the key, and shut the door against

this terrible Buonaparte, or he will come with his legions, and, as

Gulliver served the Lilliputians, wash you off the map. Not content, in

his great care for your honor and glory, as a statesman and a warrior,

he turns prophet to oblige you--your safety in the present year or the

next, does not satisfy him--his vast mind, untrammelled by the ordinary

progressions of chronology, looks over ages to come with a faculty

bordering on omniscience, and conjures us to come forward and regulate

the decrees of Providence at ten thousand years distance.

We have been told that Spain had no right to cede Louisiana to France;

that she had ceded to us the privilege of deposit, and had therefore no

right to cede her territory without our consent! Are gentlemen disposed

to wage war in support of this principle? Because she has given us a

little privilege--a mere indulgence on her territory--is she thereby

constrained from doing any thing for ever with her immense possessions?

No doubt, if the gentleman (Mr. MORRIS) were to be the negotiator on

this occasion, he would say: "You mean to cede New Orleans; no,

gentlemen, I beg your pardon, you cannot cede that, for we want it

ourselves; and as to the Floridas, it would be very indiscreet to cede

that, as, in all human probability, we shall want that also in less than

five hundred years from this day; and then, as to Louisiana, you surely

could not think of that, for in something less than a thousand years, in

the natural order of things, our population will progress towards that

place also."

If Spain has ceded those countries to France, the cession has been made

with all the encumbrances and obligations to which it is subject by

previous compact with us. Whether Buonaparte will execute these

obligations with good faith, he could not say; but to say that Spain has

no right to cede, is a bold assertion indeed. The people of America will

not go along with such doctrines, for they lead to ruin alone. We are

also told, that the power of the Chief Consul is so great, that he puts

up and pulls down all the nations of the Old World at discretion, and

that he can do so with us. Yet we are told by the wonderful statesman,

who gives us this awful information, that we must go to war with this

maker and destroyer of Governments. If, after the unceasing pursuit of

empire and conquest, which is thus presented to us, we take possession

of his territory, from the gentleman's own declarations, what are we to

expect, only that this wonderful man, who never abandons an object--who

thinks his own and the nation's honor pledged to go through whatever he

undertakes--will next attack us? Does the gentleman think that this

terrible picture, which his warm imagination has drawn, is a conclusive

argument for proceeding to that war which he recommends?

The Senate, Mr. PRESIDENT, at this moment, presents a very extraordinary

aspect; and by those not acquainted with our political affairs, it would

appear a political phenomenon. Here we see a number of people from the

Eastern States and the seaboard, filled with the most extreme solicitude

for the interest and rights of the Western and inland States; while the

representatives of the Western people themselves appear to know nothing

of this great danger, and to feel a full confidence in their Government.

The former declaring that the Western people are all ready for revolt

and open to seduction; the latter ignorant of any such disposition, and

indignant at the disgrace which is thrown on their character. In their

great loving-kindness for the Western people, those new friends of

theirs tell them that they are a simple people, who do not know what is

good for them, and that they will kindly undertake to do this for them.

From the contiguous States of South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and

Kentucky, (those States from which the gentleman from Pennsylvania, by

his resolutions, proposes to draw the militia,) every member of this

House is opposed to war; but from the East, (and one can scarcely

refrain from laughing, to hear of the all-important representatives of

the State of Delaware in particular,) such is the passion for the

wonderful, or the absurd, there prevails the liveliest sensibility for

the Western country!

Mr. NICHOLAS said,--When the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. ROSS)

opened his war project, his resentment appeared to be confined wholly to

Spain; his sole object the securing the navigation of the Mississippi,

and our right to a convenient place of deposit on that river. We were

told by that gentleman, that we are bound to go to war for this right,

which God and nature had given the Western people. What are we to

understand by this right, given by God and nature? Surely not the right

of deposit, for that was given by treaty; and as to the right of

navigation, that has been neither suspended nor brought into question.

But we are told by the same gentleman, that the possession of New

Orleans is necessary to our complete security. Leaving to the

gentleman's own conscience to settle the question as to the morality of

taking that place, because it would be convenient, he would inform him

that the possession of it will not give us complete security. The island

of Cuba, from its position, and the excellence of its harbors, commands

the Gulf of Mexico as completely as New Orleans does the river

Mississippi, and to give that complete security that he requires of the

President, the island of Cuba must likewise be taken possession of. It

has been shown that the measures proposed by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, and he would again demonstrate it, if it was necessary,

are calculated to bring upon the Western country all the mischiefs that

gentleman has depicted as resulting to them from a loss of the

navigation of the river Mississippi. If we are driven to war to assert

our rights, the Western people must make up their minds to bear that

loss during the war; for without a naval superiority, which we have not

and cannot obtain, or the possession of Cuba, we shall not be able to

avail ourselves of the navigation to any useful purpose. Although we may

take possession of the Floridas and New Orleans, it is from a conviction

of its pernicious effects upon the Western country, as well as other

reasons, that he was averse to appealing to arms as long as there is a

prospect of attaining our object in another way.

The gentleman from New York, finding the weight of argument against him,

and that a resort to arms would not be justifiable upon the ground taken

by his friends, with a boldness and promptitude that characterizes

veteran politicians, has not only assigned new and different causes for

war, but new objects, and a new and more powerful enemy to cope with. He

no doubt felt the force of the arguments that have been used to show the

improbability that Spain would authorize an act that would produce a

rupture with this country, at the moment that she was parting with

Louisiana, and when she could not possibly derive any advantage from the

wrong that she could do us by that act; and at a time when we knew from

unquestionable evidence that it is the desire of Spain to cultivate a

good understanding with this country. He could give no credit to the

suggestion, that the First Consul had required Spain to take that step.

He knew that character too well to believe that he would attempt to

throw a responsibility upon others, for his measures, nor indeed could

it be shown that the First Consul would be in any way benefited by it;

he knows the American character too well to believe that any of the

reasons that have been assigned by his friends who have preceded him in

this argument, would form a justification for a declaration of war,

without a previous demand for a redress of the wrongs that we have

sustained. He knows that our countrymen, with a courage and perseverance

that does promise success in any war, are at all times ready when it is

necessary to assert their rights with arms, but that they will not be

employed in wars of ambition or conquest; and above all, he sees the

folly of going to war with Spain, and taking from her a country that we

should be obliged in honor and justice to give up to the French, perhaps

the instant after we had taken possession of it; for if France would

reinstate us in the rights and privileges that we hold under our new

treaty with Spain, I demand of the gentleman from New York, if he would

wish this country to hold possession against France; and if he would,

upon what ground he would justify it?

The cession was made to France before the injury done us by the Spanish

officer; knowing this, we take the country; upon France demanding it of

us, we should be bound by every principle of honor and justice to give

her possession, upon her engaging to respect properly our rights. Spain

having injured us surely will not justify our committing an outrage of

the most injurious and insulting nature upon France. Would conduct like

this comport with the gentleman's ideas of national honor, about which

we have heard so much in the course of this debate? Can it be, that an

act, which, if perpetrated by an individual, would be robbery, can be

justifiable in a nation? And can it be justifiable in the eyes of men,

who believe there is nothing so precious or important as national honor?

Can the usefulness or convenience of any acquisition justify us in

taking from another by force what we have no sort of right to?

There were not in America men more attached or more faithful to the

Government of the United States than they were; and I will venture to

predict, from my knowledge of them, that they will be the last to submit

to the yoke of despotism, let it be attempted to be imposed upon them by

whom it may. If there is one part of America more interested than any

other in preserving the union of these States, and the present

Government, it is the Western. Important as the Mississippi is to them,

their free intercourse with the Atlantic States is more important--all

their imports are received through that channel, and their most

valuable exports are sold, and will continue to be so, in the Atlantic

States. The same gentleman (Mr. MORRIS) says, we must line our frontier

with custom-house officers, to prevent smuggling. If there is any force

in what he says upon this subject, we ought not only to take New Orleans

and the Floridas, but Louisiana, and all the British possessions on the

continent. Another reason urged with great earnestness by the gentleman

from New York, (Mr. MORRIS,) is, that France, without this acquisition,

is too powerful for the peace and security of the rest of the

world--that half the nations that lately existed are gone--that those

that are left are afraid to act, and nation after nation falling at her

nod--that, if France acquires the Floridas and New Orleans, it will put

England and Spain completely in her power, giving to those places an

importance that they do not merit; and yet that gentleman and his

friends have repeatedly asserted that war would not result from our

taking immediate possession of those places; indeed, they say, it is the

only way to avoid war. At one moment the country is represented as so

important as to make the First Consul the sovereign of the world; at the

next, we are told that we may take it without any sort of risk, and

without a probability that either France or Spain will go to war with us

for the recovery of a country so all-important to them. In the language

of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I say, this idle tale may amuse

children, but will not satisfy men.

Mr. PRESIDENT, we have nothing to fear from the colony of any European

nation on this continent; they ought rather to be considered as a pledge

of the good conduct of the mother country towards us; for such

possessions must be held only during our pleasure.

Can France, in fifty years, or in a century, establish a colony in any

part of the territories now possessed by Spain, that could resist the

power of the United States, even at this day, for a single campaign?

What has been our progress since the year 1763, in settling our Western

country? In forty years, under the most favorable circumstances that a

new country could be settled, we have only a population of between five

and six hundred thousand souls, and this country is settled by men who

knew it perfectly--by men who either carried all their friends with

them, or who knew that change of residence would not prevent their

frequently seeing and hearing from their nearest relatives. Can it be

expected that any country will be peopled as fast, from a nation at the

distance of three thousand miles, as our Western country has been? And

yet we are taught to be apprehensive of a colony to be landed to-morrow

or next day from Europe. Sir, if we are wise and true to ourselves, we

have nothing to fear from any nation, or combination of nations, against

us. We are too far removed from the theatre of European politics, to be

embroiled in them, if we act with common discretion. Friendship with us,

is the interest of every commercial and manufacturing nation. Our

interest is not to encourage partialities or prejudices towards any, but

to treat them all with justice and liberality. He should be sorry to

reproach any nation--he would rather suffer former causes of reproach to

be buried in oblivion; and he was happy to perceive that prejudices

which were incidental to the war that we had been forced into in defence

of our liberties, with a nation from which we are principally sprung,

were fast wearing off. Those prejudices had been very powerfully

revived, soon after our Revolution had established our independence, by

the aggressions of that nation, in various ways, more flagrant and

atrocious than any thing we have to complain of at this day.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania said that this is not an apposite case;

that at that time there was no blockade. It is true there was not a

blockade of one of our ports, nor is there now, (the river Mississippi

is open for the passage of our boats and vessels,) but we were injured,

in a commercial point of view, in a more material manner than we should

have been by the blockade of the Delaware or the Chesapeake; for all the

countries (except Great Britain) to which it was desirable for us to

trade were declared to be in a state of blockade, and all our vessels

going to those countries were subject to seizure. Let gentlemen call to

mind what was the conduct of our Government at that time. The House of

Representatives had the subject under consideration, when the then

President appointed an Envoy Extraordinary to demand satisfaction of

Great Britain. What was the conduct of the members of the House of

Representatives, who were acting upon the subject, before it was known

to them that the Executive had taken any measures to obtain satisfaction

for the injury sustained? Did they attempt to counteract the Executive?

No; they suspended all Legislative discussions and Legislative measures.

And even the injuries done us by the actual invasion of our territory,

the erection of fortifications within our limits, the withholding the

posts that belonged to us by treaty, and the robbery and abuse of our

citizens on the high seas, did not provoke us to declare war, nor even

to dispossess the invaders of our territory of what actually belonged to

us. The Executive proposed to negotiate, and it was thought improper to

obstruct it. How gentlemen who approved of the interference of the

Executive upon that occasion, can justify their attempt to defeat the

efforts of the present Administration to obtain redress for the injury

that we now complain of, they must answer to their consciences and their

country. Fortunately for the United States, not only the President, but

a majority of both Houses of Congress, upon the present occasion, have

put themselves in the gap between the pestilence and the people.

If the gentleman from New York had exerted his ingenuity as much to

state the grounds upon which an expectation of the complete success of

our Envoy might be founded, he would have been at least as usefully

employed for his country as he has been in his attempt to show that it

will not succeed, and he would have avoided the palpable contradictions

of his own arguments that he has run into. The gentleman himself,

without intending it, has assigned sufficient reasons why we might

expect entire satisfaction. He has said, truly, that America, united,

holds the command of the West Indies in her hands. This must be known to

all the nations that have colonies there; it must likewise be known to

the proprietors of Louisiana and the Floridas, that, circumstanced as we

at present are, there will be perpetual sources of contention between

them and us. Every thing that has happened as to the Mississippi will be

reacted as to the great rivers that head in what is now the Mississippi

Territory, and empty themselves into the Gulf of Mexico, after passing

through West Florida. In the infancy of the colonies that may be settled

in Florida or Louisiana, the mother country can count upon nothing but

expense, particularly if they are to be the causes of perpetual quarrels

with this country. In twenty years, the population of the United States

will be nine or ten millions of people; one-third of that population

will probably be on the Western waters. This will give a force in that

quarter of the Union equal to that with which we contended with Great

Britain; and our united force will be such that no nation at the

distance of three thousand miles will be able to contend with us for any

object in our neighborhood. These considerations, with a belief that, if

we are treated with justice and liberality, we shall never violate the

rights of other nations, or suffer ourselves to be involved in the wars

that may take place among the great European nations, are arguments that

cannot be withstood, if the Governments of France and Spain are in the

hands of wise men; for they must see that they have nothing to hope from

a contest with us, and that a union of our force with a rival nation

would be productive of very serious danger and inconvenience to them.

Mr. DAYTON said, he lamented exceedingly the indisposition of the

honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) not only because it had

compelled him to abridge his arguments, which always entertained, even

when they failed to convince, but because to that distraction of mind

which sickness often produces, could alone be ascribed the doubts

expressed by that member, respecting the views of the advocates of the

original resolutions. The difficulty of the opposers of the resolutions,

would, he said, have been less, if the gentlemen who supported them had

settled among themselves what was their object, and had ascertained with

whom we were to make war. To both these points, Mr. D. said, the fullest

and clearest answers had been given. Our object, says he, is to obtain a

prompt redress of injuries immediately affecting our Western brethren,

who look to us for decisive and effectual measures, and have told us

that a delay of remedy will be ruinous to them; and our views and

wishes are to take possession of the place of deposit guaranteed by

treaty, whether it be in the hands of the one nation or the other, and

to hold it as a security that the trade of so important a river should

not be liable to similar interruptions in future. We are not, as the

gentleman from Virginia would insinuate, for rushing into a war, but we

are for repelling insults, and insisting upon our rights, even at the

risk of one. It was easy to foresee that the opposers of the resolutions

offered by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, must resort to

other means than fair argument, to justify them in the course which they

were about to pursue. Our most precious rights flagrantly violated,

treaties perfidiously broken, the outlet or road to market of half a

million of our fellow-citizens obstructed, our trade shackled, our

country grossly insulted, were facts too notorious, and too outrageous

to allow them the least plausible ground of reasoning. Deprived of every

other means of attack, they have resorted to that of alarm. They charge

us with a thirst for war, and enter into a description of its horrors,

as if they supposed that it was in our power to produce, or in theirs to

prevent it. That which requires the concurrence of two parties, viz:

contract or negotiation, they consider most easy; and war, which may

always be produced by one party only, they consider as most difficult.

Nay, sir, they do what is more extraordinary and unpardonable, they shut

their eyes to the fact that hostility has already been commenced against

us. Attacked and insulted as we had been, do we now, asked Mr. D., call

for war? Let the resolutions give the answer. They begin with a

declaration of certain rights, indisputable in their nature,

indispensable in their possession, to the safety, peace, and union of

this country. Not a member opposed to us has controverted them, except

the honorable gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. WRIGHT.) He denied the truth

of all except one of them, and even of a part of that one. His honorable

friends from the Western country, who are in the habit of acting with

him, cannot thank him for such defence. The formerly well applied words,

"_Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis egent_," must be applicable on

this occasion, and it may be as well to leave them with each other to

settle the question of their rights. But there is one article of the

Maryland member's creed which ought not to escape comment, because, if

adopted, it would be fatal to the Union. I understood him, said Mr. D.,

as stating, that inasmuch as the produce which descends the Mississippi

bears a proportion of about a twentieth only to the exports of the whole

Union, it was not reasonable to expect that the other portion should be

endangered to protect that minor part. If maxims like this were to

actuate our councils, short indeed would be the duration of our

independence. Our enemies would have only to attack us by piecemeal,

State by State, to make us an easy prey. The honorable member from

Maryland could not hope for even that gloomy consolation which we heard

of on a former melancholy occasion. He could not flatter himself that he

and his State would be left to be the _last victim_.

But, Mr. PRESIDENT, every other gentleman appears to admit the truth of

the prefatory declaration of rights; they admit, too, that if we cannot

be possessed of them otherwise, we must seize on them by force; but they

refuse to give the means and the power to the President, in whom they

have told us, over and over again, they repose implicit confidence. Is

any one of the resolutions too imperative on the President, we will

agree so to alter as to make it discretionary, if desired by any

gentleman on the other side; for without their leave, we cannot now

amend our own resolutions.

It is my consolation, Mr. PRESIDENT, said Mr. D., and it ought to be

matter of triumph to my honorable friend, the mover of these

resolutions, that, whatever may be their fate, the introduction and

discussion of them will have produced no little benefit. They have

brought forward gentlemen to pledge themselves, in their speeches, to

employ force on failure of negotiation; which, though late, is better

than never. They must be allowed the merit, too, of producing the

resolutions which they offer as a substitute. These milk-and-water

propositions of Mr. BRECKENRIDGE will at least serve to show that

something should be done, some preparations made; and therefore even to

these, feeble as they are, I will agree, if more cannot be carried. But

let the relative merits of the two be compared. _Ours_ authorize to call

out of those militia nearest to the scene, and most interested in the

event, a number not exceeding fifty thousand, and to give them orders to

act, when the occasion requires it, in conjunction with the army and

navy; _theirs_ authorize an enrolment of eighty thousand, dispersed over

the whole Continent, without any authority to act with them, however

pressing the danger, nor even to march them out of their own State.

_Ours_ authorize the President to take immediate possession of some

convenient place of deposit, as guaranteed by treaty, in order to afford

immediate vent for the Western produce, and relief to our suffering

fellow-citizens, and thereby put it out of the power of a Spanish

Intendant, whether acting from caprice, or orders from his Court, to

obstruct so important an outlet; _theirs_ give no such authority, but

leave to the slow progress and uncertainty of negotiation that remedy,

which, to delay, is almost as fatal as to refuse.

The question being at length called for, on the motion of Mr.

BRECKENRIDGE, for striking out the first section of the resolutions

proposed by Mr. ROSS, the yeas and nays were required, and stood, 15 to

11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,

Clinton, Cocke, Ellery, T. Foster, Jackson, Logan, S. T.

Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Dayton, Hillhouse, Howard, J. Mason, Morris,

Olcott, Plumer, Ross, Tracy, Wells, and White.

On the question for striking out the remaining parts of the resolutions,

the question was also taken, and carried by the same votes on each side.

The question being then called for on the adoption of the amendments

proposed by Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, the yeas and nays were called for, and the

votes were as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,

Clinton, Cocke, Dayton, Ellery, T. Foster, Hillhouse,

Howard, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris,

Nicholas, Olcott, Plumer, Ross, Stone, Sumter, Tracy,

Wells, and Wright.

NAYS.--None.