The report having been read--

Mr. PORTER said that the House were probably expecting from the

Committee of Foreign Relations some explanations of their views in

reporting the resolutions now under consideration, in addition to

the general exposition of them contained in the report itself. The

committee themselves felt that such explanations were due, inasmuch

as they had only reported in part, and had intimated their intention

to follow up these resolutions, should they be adopted, by the

recommendation of ulterior measures.

The committee, Mr. P. said, after examining the various documents

accompanying the President's Message, were satisfied, as he presumed

every member of the House was, that all hopes of accommodating our

differences with Great Britain by negotiation must be abandoned.

When they looked at the correspondence between the two Governments;

when they observed the miserable shifts and evasions (for they were

entitled to no better appellation) to which Great Britain resorted to

excuse the violations of our maritime rights, it was impossible not

to perceive that her conduct towards us was not regulated even by her

own sense of justice, but solely by a regard to the probable extent

of our forbearance. The last six years had been marked by a series of

progressive encroachments on our rights; and the principles by which

she publicly upheld her aggressions, were as mutable as her conduct. We

had seen her one year advancing doctrines, which the year before she

had reprobated. He had seen her one day capturing our vessels under

pretexts, which on the preceding day she would have been ashamed or

afraid to avow. Indeed, said Mr. P., she seems to have been constantly

and carefully feeling our pulse, to ascertain what potions we would

bear; and if we go on submitting to one indignity after another, it

will not be long before we shall see British subjects, not only taking

our property in our harbors, but trampling on our persons in the

streets of our cities.

Having become convinced that all hopes from further negotiation were

idle, the committee, Mr. P. said, were led to the consideration of

another question, which was--whether the maritime rights which Great

Britain is violating were such as we ought to support at the hazard and

expense of a war? And he believed he was correct in stating that the

committee was unanimously of the opinion that they were. The committee

thought that the Orders in Council, so far as they go to interrupt our

direct trade, that is, the carrying of the productions of this country

to a market in the ports of friendly nations, and returning with the

proceeds of them--ought to be resisted by war. How far we ought to go

in support of what is commonly called the carrying trade, although

the question was agitated in the committee, no definitive opinion was

expressed. It was not deemed necessary, at this time, to express such

an opinion, inasmuch as the injury we sustain by the inhibition of this

trade is merged in the greater one to our direct trade.

The Orders in Council, Mr. P. said, of which there seemed now to be

no prospect of a speedy repeal--certainly none during the continuance

of the present war--authorized the capture of our vessels bound to

and from ports where British commerce is not favorably received; and

as that nation is at war with most of the civilized world, the effect

was (as he understood from those who had much better information

on the subject than he could pretend to) to cut up, at once, about

three-fourths of our best and most profitable commerce. It was

impossible that the mercantile or agricultural interests of the United

States, which on the question of a right to the direct trade could

never be separated, could submit to such impositions. It was his

opinion, that going upon the ground of a mere pecuniary calculation, a

calculation of profits and loss, it would be for our interest to go to

war to remove the Orders in Council, rather than submit to them, even

during the term of their probable continuance.

But there was another point of view in which the subject presented

itself to the committee, and that was as regarded the character of the

country. We were a young nation, and he hoped we cherished a little

pride and spirit, as well as a great deal of justice and moderation.

Our situation was not unlike that of a young man just entering into

life, and who, if he tamely submitted to one cool, deliberate,

intentional indignity, might safely calculate to be kicked and cuffed

for the whole of the remainder of his life; or, if he should afterwards

undertake to retrieve his character, must do it at ten times the

expense which it would have cost him at first to support it. We should

clearly understand and define those rights which as a nation we ought

to support, and we should support them at every hazard. If there be any

such thing as rights between nations, surely the people of the United

States, occupying the half of a continent, have a right to navigate the

seas, without being molested by the inhabitants of the little island of

Great Britain.

It was under these views of the subject that the committee did not

hesitate to give it as their opinion, that we ought to go to war in

opposition to the Orders in Council. But as to the extent of the war

and the time when it should be commenced, there would of course be some

diversity of sentiment in the House, as there was, at first, in the

committee.

That we can contend with Great Britain openly and even handed on the

element where she injures us, it would be folly to pretend. Were it

even in our power to build a navy which should be able to cope with

her, no man who has any regard for the happiness of the people of

this country would venture to advise such a measure. All the fame and

glory which the British navy has acquired at sea, have been dearly

paid for in the sufferings and misery of that ill-fated people at

home--sufferings occasioned in a great measure by the expense of that

stupendous establishment. But without such a navy the United States

could make a serious impression upon Great Britain, even at sea. We

could have, within six months after a declaration of war, hundreds of

privateers in every part of the ocean. We could harass, if not destroy,

the vast and profitable commerce which she is constantly carrying on

to every part of this continent. We could destroy her fisheries to the

north; we could depredate upon her commerce to the West India Islands,

which is passing by our doors; we could annoy her trade along the

coast of South America; we could even carry the war to her own shores

in Europe.

Mr. P. said he had risen merely for the purpose of explaining to

the House the opinion and views of the committee in relation to the

resolutions now to be discussed, and he should be satisfied if he had

been so fortunate as to succeed.

The question was then taken on the first resolution for filling the

ranks of the present army, &c., and carried.

SATURDAY, December 7.

_Territorial Government in Upper Louisiana._

Mr. PLEASANTS presented a remonstrance and petition of sundry

inhabitants of St. Louis, in the Territory of Louisiana, stating the

many injuries and inconveniences which would result from a change in

their form of government, and praying that no alteration may be made in

their said form of government.--Referred to the Committee of the Whole

on the bill providing for the government of the said Territory.

MONDAY, December 9.

_Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of

Foreign Relations.

The question being on the agreement to the second resolution,

authorizing the raising an additional regular force--

Mr. GRUNDY, as a member of the committee stated his impression that

this was the vital part of the report; and although he had no desire

to prolong debate, invited those who were opposed to the report now to

come forward and state their objections to it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he was an old-fashioned politician. In the days

of terror, we shrunk at standing armies; and what is the object

now--defence? Who? Freemen who would not defend themselves. He would

ask, if seven millions of Americans were to be protected in their

lives and liberties by ten thousand vagabonds who were fit food for

gunpowder? It would be necessary to know the ulterior views of the

committee on this point. It would be proper, before a vote was taken

on this resolution, to know for what purpose these additional troops

were wanted. The House ought not to commit itself on a question of

such magnitude without detailed information. He was as much opposed to

raising standing armies now, as he had been in the reign of terror. He

had seen too much of the corruptions attendant on those establishments,

in the course of the investigation in which he was engaged, not to

disclaim all share in the creation of them. The people of the United

States could defend themselves, if necessary, and had no idea of

resting their defence on mercenaries, picked up from brothels and

tippling houses--pickpockets who have escaped from Newgate, &c., and

sought refuge in this asylum of oppressed humanity. He contended that

this resolution contained an unconstitutional proposition, and that the

standing army now in the service of the United States was maintained

in the very teeth of that part of the constitution which declares that

no money for the support of a standing army should be appropriated

for more than two years. He again called for information as to the

object of the army now proposed to be raised; declaring, that, if the

President should say they were necessary for the protection of New

Orleans, to be employed against the Indians, or to repel incursions

from Canada, (although this seemed not to be much thought of,) he

should not refuse to grant them. He declared the report to be a

negative position, which could not be combated except to disadvantage.

He wished to know the constitutional resources of the committee, and

expressed a hope that the remarks he had made would draw out the

talents of that body.

Mr. GRUNDY.--I did not expect that the gentleman from Virginia would

have made any inquiries into the motives or objects of that committee

of which he himself was a member. He, sir, attended faithfully to

his duty, and witnessed every step the committee took. He also saw

the report before it was made to this House, and must have heard the

exposition of our ulterior measures, as explained by our Chairman. Why,

then, sir, shall he now affect not to understand us? Our object, by

those who will listen, shall not be misunderstood. And, Mr. Speaker, as

I have no political secrets, I feel no hesitation in declaring to you,

to this House, and to the nation, the view I have taken of the subject.

But before I do this, it is due to the committee that an explanation of

their conduct should take place.

So soon as the Committee on our Foreign Relations was appointed, we

were forcibly impressed with the serious and highly responsible station

you had assigned us; to that committee, consisting of nine members

only, were not only the eyes of this House but of the nation turned;

and from us, in this, the most troubled season our world has ever

known, was it expected that a course of measures would be recommended,

calculated to protect the interests of seven millions of people. Under

this impression, Mr. Speaker, we deemed it a duty to take time for

deliberation; we thought it better to encounter the charge of having

acted in a tardy and dilatory way, than to take a rash step, by which

this nation might be plunged into difficulties, from which it could not

be easily extricated. We therefore took the necessary time to weigh

the arguments both for and against the measures we have recommended;

and, as far as we were able, we surveyed the consequences which were to

follow from the course we proposed. We foresaw, Mr. Speaker, that our

countrymen were to fall in the meditated conflict, and that American

blood was to stream afresh. Nor were we unmindful of the expenditure

of public treasure. And, sir, what cost me more reflection than every

thing else, was the new test to which we are to put this Government.

We are about to ascertain by actual experiment how far our Republican

institutions are calculated to stand the shock of war, and whether,

after foreign danger disappeared, we can again assume our peaceful

attitude, without endangering the liberties of the people.

Against these considerations, weighty in themselves, your committee

felt themselves constrained to decide, influenced by existing

circumstances of a character too imperious to be resisted: these I

will enumerate before I sit down. My business at present is to address

a particular portion of the members of this House--I mean, sir, the

Republican members--and although what I am about to say might be deemed

impolitic on ordinary subjects of legislation, yet, at this time and on

this occasion, it would be criminal to conceal a single thought which

might influence their determination. We should now, Mr. Speaker, forget

little party animosities, we should mingle minds freely, and, as far as

we are able, commune with the understandings of each other; and, the

decision once made, let us become one people, and present an undivided

front to the enemies of our country.

Republicans should never forget that some years ago a set of men of

different politics held the reins of this Government, and drove the

car of State; they were charged with being friendly to standing armies

in times of peace, and favorable to expensive establishments; not for

the purpose of opposing foreign enemies, but to encourage Executive

patronage, and to bring these forces to operate upon the people

themselves. These measures alarmed the Republicans; they remonstrated,

they clamored, they appealed to the people, and by a national sentence,

the men then in power were taken down from their high places, and

Republican men were put in their seats.

If your minds are resolved on war, you are consistent, you are

right, you are still Republicans; but if you are not resolved, pause

and reflect, for should this resolution pass, and you then become

faint-hearted, remember that you have abandoned your old principles,

and trod in the paths of your predecessors.

According to my view of this subject, Mr. Speaker, we now stand on the

bank; one movement more, the Rubicon is passed, we are in Italy, and we

must march to Rome.

As a member of the committee, I feel no hesitation in saying, that if

there be a member here, not determined to go with us to the extent of

our measures, I prefer now to take my leave of him, rather than be

deserted when the clouds darken, and the storm thickens upon us.

This admonition I owed to candor--I have paid it, not because I

doubted; my purpose is settled, my mind reposes upon it. I may be in an

error. If I am, I hope my country will forgive me. From my God I shall

never need it, because he knows the purity of my motives.

What, Mr. Speaker, are we now called on to decide? It is whether we

will resist by force the attempt made by that Government, to subject

our maritime rights to the arbitrary and capricious rule of her will;

for my part I am not prepared to say that this country shall submit to

have her commerce interdicted or regulated by any foreign nation. Sir,

I prefer war to submission.

Over and above these unjust pretensions of the British Government, for

many years past they have been in the practice of impressing our seamen

from merchant vessels; this unjust and lawless invasion of personal

liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government. To

those better acquainted with the facts in relation to it, I leave it to

fill up the picture. My mind is irresistibly drawn to the West.

Although others may not strongly feel the bearing which the late

transactions in that quarter have on this subject, upon my mind they

have great influence. It cannot be believed by any man who will reflect

that the savage tribes, uninfluenced by other powers, would think of

making war on the United States. They understand too well their own

weakness, and our strength. They have already felt the weight of our

arms; they know they hold the very soil on which they live as tenants

at sufferance. How, then, sir, are we to account for their late

conduct? In one way only; some powerful nation must have intrigued with

them and turned their peaceful disposition towards us into hostilities.

Great Britain alone has intercourse with those northern tribes; I

therefore infer, that if British gold has not been employed, their

baubles and trinkets, and the promise of support, and a place of refuge

if necessary, have had their effect.

If I am right in this conjecture, war is not to commence by sea or

land, it is already begun; and some of the richest blood of our country

has already been shed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in one individual has fallen,

the honest man, the orator and the soldier.[14] That he loved his

country none can doubt--he died to preserve its honor and its fame--I

mean the late commander of the cavalry; you, sir, who have often I

measured your strength with his in forensic debate, can attest that he

in a good degree was the pride of the western country, and Kentucky

claimed him as a favorite son. For his loss, with those who fell by his

side, the whole western country is ready to march; they only wait for

our permission; and, sir, war once declared, I pledge myself for my

people--they will avenge the death of their brethren.

TUESDAY, December 10.

Another member, to wit, JAMES COCHRAN, from North Carolina, appeared

and took his seat.

_Spanish American Colonies._

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee appointed on that part of the

President's Message which relates to the Spanish American Colonies,

made a report, in part, thereon; which was read and referred to a

Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The report is as

follows:

The committee to whom was referred so much of the President's

Message as relates to the Spanish American colonies, have, in

obedience to the order of the House, deliberately considered

the subject before them, and directed a report, in part, to be

submitted to the consideration of the House, in the form of a

public declaration, as follows:

Whereas several of the American Spanish provinces have

represented to the United States that it has been found

expedient for them to associate and form Federal Governments

upon the elective and representative plan, and to declare

themselves free and independent--Therefore be it

_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled_, That they

behold with friendly interest, the establishment of independent

sovereignties by the Spanish provinces in America, consequent

upon the actual state of the monarchy to which they belonged;

that as neighbors and inhabitants of the same hemisphere the

United States feel great solicitude for their welfare; and

that when those provinces shall have attained the condition

of nations, by the just exercise of their rights, the Senate

and House of Representatives will unite with the Executive, in

establishing with them as sovereign and independent States,

such amicable relations and commercial intercourse as may

require their Legislative authority.

_Foreign Relations._

The order of the day being called for, the SPEAKER observed, that the

gentleman from Virginia on the right of the Chair was entitled to the

floor.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose. He expressed his sense of the motive which had

induced the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) to move the

adjournment, yesterday, and of the politeness of the House in granting

it; at the same time declaring that in point of fact he had little

cause to be thankful for the favor, well intended as he knew it to have

been--since he felt himself even less capable of proceeding with his

argument, than he had been on the preceding day.

It was a question, as it had been presented to the House, of peace

or war. In that light it had been argued; in no other light could he

consider it, after the declaration made by members of the Committee of

Foreign Relations. Without intending any disrespect to the Chair, he

must be permitted to say that if the decision yesterday was correct,

"That it was not in order to advance any arguments against the

resolution, drawn from topics before other committees of the House,"

the whole debate, nay, the report itself on which they were acting, was

disorderly; since the increase of the military force was a subject at

that time in agitation by the select committee raised on that branch of

the President's Message. But it was impossible that the discussion of

a question broad as the wide ocean of our foreign concerns--involving

every consideration of interest, of right, of happiness and of safety

at home--touching in every point, all that was dear to freemen,

"their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!"--could be

tied down by the narrow rules of technical routine. The Committee

of Foreign Relations had indeed decided that the subject of arming

the militia (which he had pressed upon them as indispensable to the

public security) did not come within the scope of their authority. On

what ground, he had been and still was unable to see, they had felt

themselves authorized (when that subject was before another committee)

to recommend the raising of standing armies, with a view (as had been

declared) of immediate war--a war not of defence, but of conquest, of

aggrandizement, of ambition; a war foreign to the interests of this

country, to the interests of humanity itself.

He knew not how gentlemen, calling themselves republicans, could

advocate such a war. What was their doctrine in 1798-'9, when the

command of the army--that highest of all possible trusts in any

Government, be the form what it may--was reposed in the bosom of

the Father of his Country, the sanctuary of a nation's love, the

only hope that never came in vain! When other worthies of the

Revolution--Hamilton, Pinckney, and the younger Washington--men of

tried patriotism, of approved conduct and valor, of untarnished honor,

held subordinate command under him! Republicans were then unwilling to

trust a standing army, even to his hands who had given proof that he

was above all human temptation. Where now is the Revolutionary hero

to whom you are about to confide this sacred trust? To whom will you

confide the charge of leading the flower of our youth to the Heights of

Abraham? Will you find him in the person of an acquitted felon? What!

then you were unwilling to vote an army where such men as had been

named held high command! when WASHINGTON himself was at the head--did

you then show such reluctance, feel such scruples; and are you now

nothing loth, fearless of every consequence? Will you say that your

provocations were less then than now? When your direct commerce was

interdicted--your Ambassadors hooted with derision from the French

Court--tribute demanded--actual war waged upon you!

Those who opposed the army then were indeed denounced as the

partisans of France; as the same men--some of them at least--are

now held up as the advocates of England; those firm and undeviating

Republicans who then dared, and now dare, to cling to the ark of the

constitution, to defend it even at the expense of their fame, rather

than surrender themselves to the wild projects of mad ambition! There

was a fatality attending plenitude of power. Soon or late some mania

seizes upon its possessors--they fall from the dizzy height through

the giddiness of their own heads. Like a vast estate, heaped up by

the labor and industry of one man, which seldom survives the third

generation--power, gained by patient assiduity, by a faithful and

regular discharge of its attendant duties, soon gets above its own

origin. Intoxicated with their own greatness the Federal party fell.

Will not the same causes produce the same effects now as then? Sir, you

may raise this army, you may build up this vast structure of patronage,

this mighty apparatus of favoritism; but--"lay not the flattering

unction to your souls"--you will never live to enjoy the succession.

You sign your political death warrant.

Mr. R. here adverted to the provocation to hostilities from shutting up

the Mississippi by Spain in 1803--but more fully to the conduct of the

House in 1805-'6, under the strongest of all imaginable provocatives to

war; the actual invasion of our country. He read various passages from

the President's public Message of December 3, 1805.

Mr. R. said that the peculiar situation of the frontier, at that time

insulted, had alone induced the committee to recommend the raising of

regular troops. It was too remote from the population of the country

for the militia to act, in repelling and chastising Spanish incursion.

New Orleans and its dependencies were separated by a vast extent of

wilderness from the settlements of the old United States; filled with a

disloyal and turbulent people, alien to our institutions, language and

manners, and disaffected towards our Government. Little reliance could

be placed upon them, and it was plain, that if "it was the intention

of Spain to advance on our possessions until she should be repulsed by

an opposing force," that force must be a regular army, unless we were

disposed to abandon all the country south of Tennessee. That if "the

protection of our citizens and the spirit and the honor of our country

required that force should be interposed," nothing remained but for the

Legislature to grant the only practicable means, or to shrink from the

most sacred of all its duties--to abandon the soil and its inhabitants

to the tender mercies of hostile invaders.

Yet this report, moderate as it was, had been deemed of too strong

a character by the House. It was rejected: and, at the motion of a

gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BIDWELL,)--who had since taken a

great fancy also to Canada,[15] and marched off thither, in advance

of the committee of Foreign Relations--"$2,000,000, were appropriated

towards" (not in full of) "any extraordinary expense which might be

incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign

nations:" in other words, to buy off, at Paris, Spanish aggressions at

home.

Was this fact given in evidence of our impartiality towards the

belligerents?--that to the insults and injuries and actual invasion

of one of them we opposed not bullets, but dollars; that to Spanish

invasion we opposed money, whilst for British aggression on the high

seas we had arms; offensive war? But Spain was then shielded, as well

as instigated, by a greater power. Hence our respect for her. Had we at

that time acted as we ought to have done in defence of rights, of the

_natale solum_ itself, we should (he felt confident) have avoided that

series of insult, disgrace, and injury, which had been poured out upon

us in long unbroken succession. We would not then raise a small regular

force for a country where the militia could not act, to defend our

own Territory; now, we are willing to levy a great army, for great it

must be, to accomplish the proposed object, for a war of conquest and

ambition--and this, too, at the very entrance of the "Northern Hive,"

of the strongest part of the Union.

An insinuation had fallen from the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr.

GRUNDY,) that the late massacre of our brethren on the Wabash had

been instigated by the British Government. Has the President given

any such information? has the gentleman received any such, even

informally, from any officer of this Government? Is it so believed by

the Administration? He had cause to think the contrary to be the fact;

that such was not their opinion. This insinuation was of the grossest

kind--a presumption the most rash, the most unjustifiable. Show but

good ground for it, he would give up the question at the threshold--he

was ready to march to Canada. It was indeed well calculated to excite

the feelings of the Western people particularly, who were not quite so

tenderly attached to our red brethren as some modern philosophers; but

it was destitute of any foundation, beyond mere surmise and suspicion.

What would be thought, if, without any proof whatsoever, a member

should rise in his place and tell us, that the massacre in Savannah,

a massacre perpetrated by civilized savages, with French commissions

in their pockets, was excited by the French Government? There was an

easy and natural solution of the late transaction on the Wabash, in the

well-known character of the aboriginal savage of North America, without

resorting to any such mere conjectural estimate. He was sorry to say,

that for this signal calamity and disgrace the House was, in part, at

least, answerable. Session after session, their table had been piled up

with Indian treaties, for which the appropriations had been voted as a

matter of course, without examination. Advantage had been taken of the

spirit of the Indians, broken by the war which ended in the Treaty of

Greenville. Under the ascendency then acquired over them, they had been

pent up by subsequent treaties into nooks straitened in their quarters

by a blind cupidity, seeking to extinguish their title to immense

wildernesses, for which (possessing, as we do already, more land than

we can sell or use) we shall not have occasion, for half a century to

come. It was our own thirst for territory, our own want of moderation,

that had driven these sons of nature to desperation, of which we felt

the effects.

Mr. R., although not personally acquainted with the late Colonel

Daviess, felt, he was persuaded, as deep and serious regret for his

loss as the gentleman from Tennessee himself. He knew him only through

the representation of a friend of the deceased, (Mr. ROWAN,) some time

a member of that House; a man, who, for native force of intellect,

manliness of character, and high sense of honor, was not inferior to

any that had ever sat there. With him he sympathized in the severest

calamity that could befall a man of his cast of character. Would to God

they were both then on the floor! From his personal knowledge of the

one, he felt confident that he would have his support--and he believed

(judging of him from the representation of their common friend) of the

other also.

He could but smile at the liberality of the gentleman, in giving Canada

to New York, in order to strengthen the Northern balance of power,

while at the same time he forewarned her that the Western scale must

preponderate. Mr. R. said that he could almost fancy that he saw the

Capitol in motion towards the falls of Ohio--after a short sojourn

taking its flight to the Mississippi, and finally alighting on Darien;

which, when the gentleman's dreams are realized, will be a most

eligible seat of government for the new Republic (or Empire) of the two

Americas! But it seemed that "in 1808 we talked and acted foolishly,"

and to give some color of consistency to that folly, we must now commit

a greater. Really he could not conceive of a weaker reason offered in

support of a present measure, than the justification of a former folly.

He hoped we should act a wiser part--take warning by our follies, since

we had become sensible of them, and resolve to talk and act foolishly

no more. It was indeed high time to give over such preposterous

language and proceedings.

This war of conquest, a war for the acquisition of territory and

subjects, is to be a new commentary on the doctrine that Republics are

destitute of ambition--that they are addicted to peace, wedded to the

happiness and safety of the great body of their people. But it seems

this is to be a holiday campaign--there is to be no expense of blood,

or treasure, on our part--Canada is to conquer herself--she is to be

subdued by the principles of fraternity. The people of that country are

first to be seduced from their allegiance, and converted into traitors,

as preparatory to the making them good citizens. Although he must

acknowledge that some of our flaming patriots were thus manufactured,

he did not think the process would hold good with a whole community.

It was a dangerous experiment. We were to succeed in the French mode

by the system of fraternization--all is French! but how dreadfully it

might be retorted on the Southern and Western slaveholding States. He

detested this subornation of treason. No--if he must have them, let

them fall by the valor of our arms, by fair, legitimate conquest; not

become the victims of treacherous seduction.

He was not surprised at the war spirit which was manifesting itself

in gentlemen from the South. In the year 1805-'6, in a struggle for

the carrying trade of belligerent colonial produce, this country

has been most unwisely brought into collision with the great powers

of Europe. By a series of most impolitic and ruinous measures,[16]

utterly incomprehensible to every rational, sober-minded man, the

Southern planters, by their own votes, had succeeded in knocking down

the price of cotton to seven cents, and of tobacco (a few choice crops

excepted) to nothing--and in raising the price of blankets, (of which

a few would not be amiss in a Canadian campaign,) coarse woollens,

and every article of first necessity, three or four hundred per cent.

And now that, by our own acts, we have brought ourselves into this

unprecedented condition, we must get out of it in any way, but by an

acknowledgment of our own want of wisdom and forecast. But is war the

true remedy? Who will profit by it? Speculators--a few lucky merchants,

who draw prizes in the lottery--commissaries and contractors. Who must

suffer by it? The people. It is their blood, their taxes, that must

flow to support it.

But gentlemen avowed that they would not go to war for the carrying

trade--that is, for any other but the direct export and import

trade--that which carries our native products abroad, and brings back

the return cargo; and yet they stickle for our commercial rights, and

will go to war for them! He wished to know, in point of principle,

what difference gentlemen could point out between the abandonment of

this or of that maritime right? Do gentlemen assume the lofty port and

tone of chivalrous redressers of maritime wrongs, and declare their

readiness to surrender every other maritime right provided they may

remain unmolested in the exercise of the humble privilege of carrying

their own produce abroad, and bringing back a return cargo? Do you make

this declaration to the enemy at the outset? Do you state the minimum

with which you will be contented, and put it in her power to close with

your proposal at her option; give her the basis of a treaty ruinous

and disgraceful beyond example and expression? and this, too, after

having turned up your nose in disdain at the treaties of Mr. Jay and

Mr. Monroe! Will you say to England, "end the war when you please, give

us the direct trade in our own produce, we are content?" But what will

the merchants of Salem, and Boston, and New York, and Philadelphia,

and Baltimore, the men of Marblehead and Cape Cod, say to this? Will

they join in a war professing to have for its object what they would

consider (and justly too) as the sacrifice of their maritime rights,

yet affecting to be a war for the protection of commerce?

He was gratified to find gentlemen acknowledging the demoralizing

and destructive consequences of the non-importation law--confessing

the truth of all that its opponents foretold when it was enacted.

And will you plunge yourselves in war, because you have passed a

foolish and ruinous law, and are ashamed to repeal it? "But our good

friend the French Emperor stands in the way of its repeal," and as

we cannot go too far in making sacrifices to him, who has given such

demonstration of his love for the Americans, we must, in point of fact,

become parties to his war. "Who can be so cruel as to refuse him this

favor?" His imagination shrunk from the miseries of such a connection.

He called upon the House to reflect whether they were not about to

abandon all reclamation for the unparalleled outrages, "insults and

injuries" of the French Government, to give up our claim for plundered

millions; and asked what reparation or atonement they could expect

to obtain in hours of future dalliance, after they should have made

a tender of their person to this great deflowerer of the virginity

of republics. We had by our own wise (he would not say _wise-acre_)

measures, so increased the trade and wealth of Montreal and Quebec,

that at last we began to cast a wishful eye at Canada. Having done

so much towards its improvement by the exercise of "our restrictive

energies," we began to think the laborer worthy of his hire, and to

put in claim for our portion. Suppose it ours, are we any nearer to

our point? As his Minister said to the King of Epirus, "may we not as

well take our bottle of wine before as after this exploit?" Go! march

to Canada! leave the broad bosom of the Chesapeake and her hundred

tributary rivers--the whole line of seacoast from Machias to St. Mary's

unprotected! You have taken Quebec--have you conquered England? Will

you seek for the deep foundations of her power in the frozen deserts of

Labrador?

"Her march is on the mountain wave,

Her home is on the deep!"

Will you call upon her to leave your ports and harbors untouched, only

just till you can return from Canada to defend them? The coast is to be

left defenceless, whilst men of the interior are revelling in conquest

and spoil. But grant for a moment, for mere argument's sake, that in

Canada you touched the sinews of her strength, instead of removing a

clog upon her resources--an encumbrance, but one, which, from a spirit

of honor, she will vigorously defend. In what situation would you then

place some of the best men of the nation? As Chatham and Burke, and

the whole band of her patriots, prayed for her defeat in 1776, so must

some of the truest friends to their country deprecate the success of

our arms against the only power that holds in check the arch-enemy of

mankind.

Mr. R. declared that the committee had out-stripped the Executive. In

designating the power against whom this force was to be employed--as

had most unadvisably been done in the preamble or manifesto with which

the resolutions were prefaced--they had not consulted the views of the

Executive; that designation was equivalent to an abandonment of all our

claims on the French Government. No sooner was the report laid on the

table, than the vultures were flocking round their prey, the carcass of

a great Military Establishment--men of tainted reputation, of broken

fortunes (if they ever had any) and of battered constitutions, "choice

spirits, tired of the dull pursuits of civil life," were seeking after

agencies and commissions; willing to doze in gross stupidity over the

public fire; to light the public candle at both ends. Honorable men

undoubtedly there were ready to serve their country, but what man of

spirit, or of self-respect, would accept a commission in the present

army?

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) had addressed himself,

yesterday, exclusively to the "Republicans of this House." Mr. R.

knew not whether he might consider himself as entitled to any part of

the benefit of the honorable gentleman's discourse. It belonged not,

however, to that gentleman to decide. If we must have an exposition of

the doctrines of Republicanism, he should receive it from the fathers

of the Church, and not from the junior apprentices of the law. He

should appeal to his worthy friends from Carolina, (Messrs. MACON and

STANFORD,) "men with whom he had measured his strength," by whose side

he had fought during the reign of terror, for it was indeed an hour

of corruption, of oppression, of pollution. It was not at all to his

taste, that sort of Republicanism which was supported on this side of

the Atlantic by the father of the sedition law, John Adams, and by

Peter Porcupine on the other. Republicanism! of John Adams! and William

Cobbett! _Par nobile fratrum_, now united as in 1798, whom the cruel

walls of Newgate alone keep from flying to each other's embrace--but

whom, in sentiment it is impossible to divide! Gallant crusaders in the

holy cause of Republicanism! Such "Republicanism does indeed mean any

thing or nothing."

Our people will not submit to be taxed for this war of conquest and

dominion. The Government of the United States was not calculated to

wage offensive foreign war--it was instituted for the common defence

and general welfare; and whosoever should embark in a war of offence,

would put it to a test which it was by no means calculated to endure.

Make it out that Great Britain had instigated the Indians on the late

occasion, and he was ready for battle; but not for dominion. He was

unwilling, however, under present circumstances, to take Canada, at

the risk of the constitution--to embark in common cause with France

and be dragged at the wheels of the car of some Burr or Bonaparte. For

a gentleman from Tennessee or Genesee, or Lake Champlain, there may

be some prospect of advantage. Their hemp would bear a great price by

the exclusion of foreign supply. In that too the great importers were

deeply interested. The upper country on the Hudson and the Lakes would

be enriched by the supplies for the troops, which they alone could

furnish. They would have the exclusive market: to say nothing of the

increased preponderance from the acquisition of Canada and that section

of the Union, which the Southern and Western States had already felt so

severely in the apportionment bill.

Mr. R. adverted to the defenceless state of our seaports, and

particularly of the Chesapeake. A single spot only, on both shores,

might be considered in tolerable security--from the nature of the port

and the strength of the population--and that spot unhappily governed

the whole State of Maryland. His friend, the late Governor of Maryland,

(Mr. LLOYD,) at the very time he was bringing his warlike resolutions

before the Legislature of the State, was liable, on any night, to be

taken out of his bed, and carried off with his family, by the most

contemptible picaroon. Such was the situation of many a family in

Maryland and lower Virginia.

Mr. R. dwelt on the danger arising from the black population. He said

he would touch this subject as tenderly as possible--it was with

reluctance that he touched it at all--but in cases of great emergency,

the State physician must not be deterred by a sickly, hysterical

humanity, from probing the wound of his patient--he must not be

withheld by a fastidious and mistaken humanity from representing his

true situation to his friends, or even to the sick man himself, where

the occasion called for it. What was the situation of the slaveholding

States? During the war of the Revolution, so fixed were their habits

of subordination, that when the whole southern country was overrun by

the enemy, who invited them to desert, no fear was ever entertained

of an insurrection of the slaves. During the war of seven years,

with our country in possession of the enemy, no such danger was ever

apprehended. But should we therefore be unobservant spectators of the

process of society, within the last twenty years--of the silent and

powerful change wrought by time and chance, upon its composition and

temper? When the fountains of the great deep of abomination were broken

up, even the poor slaves had not escaped the general deluge. The French

Revolution had polluted even them. Nay, there had not been wanting men

in that House, witness their Legislative _Legendre_, the butcher who

once held a seat there, to preach upon that floor these imprescriptible

rights to a crowded audience of blacks in the galleries--teaching

them that they are equal to there masters; in other words, advising

them to cut their throats. Similar doctrines were disseminated by

peddlers from New England and elsewhere, throughout the southern

country--and masters have been found so infatuated, as by their lives

and conversation, by a general contempt of order, morality, and

religion, unthinkingly to cherish these seeds of self-destruction to

them and their families. What was the consequence? Within the last ten

years, repeated alarms of insurrection among the slaves--some of them

awful indeed. From the spreading of this infernal doctrine, the whole

southern country had been thrown into a state of insecurity. Men dead

to the operation of moral causes, had taken away from the poor slave

his habits of loyalty and obedience to his master, which lightened his

servitude by a double operation; beguiling his own cares and disarming

his master's suspicions and severity; and now, like true empirics in

politics, you are called upon to trust to the mere physical strength

of the fetter which holds him in bondage. You have deprived him of

all moral restraint, you have tempted him to eat of the fruit of the

tree of knowledge, just enough to perfect him in wickedness; you have

opened his eyes to his nakedness; you have armed his nature against

the hand that has fed, that has clothed him, that has cherished him in

sickness; that hand, which before he became a pupil of your school, he

had been accustomed to press with respectful affection. You have done

all this--and then show him the gibbet and the wheel, as incentives

to a sullen, repugnant obedience. God forbid, sir, that the Southern

States should ever see an enemy on their shores, with these infernal

principles of French fraternity in the van! While talking of taking

Canada, some of us were shuddering for our own safety at home. He spoke

from facts, when he said that the night-bell never tolled for fire in

Richmond that the mother did not hug her infant more closely to her

bosom. He had been a witness of some of the alarms in the capital of

Virginia.

Mr. R. then proceeded to notice the unjust and illiberal imputation

of British attachments, against certain characters in this country,

sometimes insinuated in that House, but openly avowed out of it.

Against whom were these charges brought? Against men, who in the war

of the Revolution were in the councils of the nation, or fighting the

battles of your country. And by whom were they made? By runaways,

chiefly from the British dominions, since the breaking out of the

French troubles. He indignantly said--it is insufferable. It cannot be

borne. It must, and ought, with severity, be put down in this House,

and, out of it, to meet the lie direct. We have no fellow feeling

for the suffering and oppressed Spaniards! Yet even them we do not

reprobate. Strange! that we should have no objection to any people or

Government, civilized or savage, in the whole world. The great Autocrat

of all the Russias receives the homage of our high consideration. The

Dey of Algiers and his Divan of Pirates are very civil, good sort of

people, with whom we find no difficulty in maintaining the relations

of peace and amity--"Turks, Jews, and Infidels;" Mellimelli, or the

Little Turtle; barbarians and savages of every clime and color, are

welcome to our arms. With chiefs of banditti, negro or mulatto, we

can treat and can trade. Name, however, but England, and all our

antipathies are up in arms against her. Against whom? Against those

whose blood runs in our veins; in common with whom we claim Shakspeare,

and Newton, and Chatham, for our countrymen; whose form of government

is the freest on earth, our own only excepted; from whom every valuable

principle of our own institutions has been borrowed--representation,

jury trial, voting the supplies, writ of habeas corpus--our whole civil

and criminal jurisprudence--against our fellow Protestants identified

in blood, in language, in religion with ourselves. In what school did

the worthies of our land, the Washingtons, Henrys, Hancocks, Franklins,

Rutledges of America learn those principles of civil liberty which were

so nobly asserted by their wisdom and valor? And American resistance

to British usurpation had not been more warmly cherished by these

great men and their compatriots; not more by Washington, Hancock, and

Henry, than by Chatham and his illustrious associates in the British

Parliament. It ought to be remembered, too, that the heart of the

English people was with us. It was a selfish and corrupt Ministry, and

their servile tools, to whom we were not more opposed than they were.

He trusted that none such might ever exist among us--for tools will

never be wanting to subserve the purposes, however ruinous or wicked,

of Kings and Ministers of State.

He acknowledged the influence of a Shakspeare and Milton upon his

imagination, of a Locke upon his understanding, of a Sidney upon his

political principles, of a Chatham upon qualities which, would to God!

he possessed in common with that illustrious man--of a Tillotson,

a Sherlock, and a Porteus, upon his religion. This was a British

influence which he could never shake off. He allowed much to the just

and honest prejudices growing out of the Revolution. But by whom had

they been suppressed when they ran counter to the interests of his

country? By Washington. By whom, would you listen to them, are they

most keenly felt? By felons escaped from the jails of Paris, Newgate,

and Kilmainham, since the breaking out of the French Revolution--who,

in this abused and insulted country, have set up for political

teachers, and whose disciples give no other proof of their progress in

Republicanism, except a blind devotion to the most ruthless military

despotism that the world ever saw. These are the patriots, who scruple

not to brand with the epithet of tory the men (looking towards the seat

of Col. STUART) by whose blood your liberties have been cemented. These

are they, who hold in so keen remembrance the outrages of the British

armies, from which many of them were deserters. Ask these self-styled

patriots where they were during the American war, (for they are for

the most part old enough to have borne arms,) and you strike them

dumb--their lips are closed in eternal silence. If it were allowable

to entertain partialities, every consideration of blood, language,

religion, and interest, would incline us towards England; and yet,

shall they be alone extended to France and her ruler, whom we are bound

to believe a chastening God suffers as the scourge of a guilty world!

On all other nations he tramples--he holds them in contempt--England

alone he hates; he would, but he cannot despise her--fear cannot

despise. And shall we disparage our ancestors?--shall we bastardize

ourselves by placing them even below the brigands of St. Domingo? with

whom Mr. Adams had negotiated a sort of treaty, for which he ought

to have been and would have been impeached, if the people had not

previously passed sentence of disqualification for their service upon

him. This antipathy to all that is English must be French.

But the outrages and injuries of England, bred up in the principles

of the Revolution, he could never palliate, much less defend them.

He well remembered flying with his mother, and her new-born child,

from Arnold and Phillips--and how they had been driven by Tarleton

and other British pandoors from pillar to post, while her husband was

fighting the battles of his country. The impression was indelible on

his memory--and yet (like his worthy old neighbor, who added seven

buck-shot to every cartridge at the battle of Guilford, and drew a fine

sight at his man) he must be content to be called a tory by a patriot

of the last importation. Let us not get rid of one evil (supposing

it to be possible) at the expense of a greater--_mutatis mutandis_.

Suppose France in possession of the British naval power--and to her

the trident must pass should England be unable to wield it--what would

be your condition? What would be the situation of your seaports and

their seafaring inhabitants? Ask Hamburg, Lubec. Ask Savannah. What,

sir! when their privateers are pent up in our harbors by the British

bull-dogs, when they receive at our hands every rite of hospitality,

from which their enemy is excluded, when they capture within our own

waters, interdicted to British armed ships, American vessels; when such

is their deportment towards you, under such circumstances, what could

you expect if they were the uncontrolled lords of the ocean? Had those

privateers at Savannah borne British commissions, or had your shipments

of cotton, tobacco, ashes, and what not, to London and Liverpool, been

confiscated, and the proceeds poured into the English Exchequer--my

life upon it! you would never have listened to any miserable wire-drawn

distinctions between "orders and decrees affecting our neutral rights,"

and "municipal decrees," confiscating in mass your whole property. You

would have had instant war! The whole land would have blazed out in

war.

And shall republicans become the instruments of him who had effaced

the title of Attila to the "Scourge of God!" Yet even Attila, in

the falling fortunes of civilization, had, no doubt, his advocates,

his tools, his minions, his parasites in the very countries that he

overran--sons of that soil whereon his horse had trod; where grass

could never after grow. If perfectly fresh, Mr. RANDOLPH said (instead

of being as he was--his memory clouded, his intellect stupefied, his

strength and spirits exhausted) he could not give utterance to that

strong detestation which he felt towards (above all other works of

the creation) such characters as Zingis, Tamerlane, Kouli-Khan, or

Bonaparte. His instincts involuntarily revolted at their bare idea.

Malefactors of the human race, who ground down man to a mere machine

of their impious and bloody ambition. Yet, under all the accumulated

wrongs, and insults, and robberies of the last of these chieftains, are

we not in point of fact about to become a party to his views, a partner

in his wars?

But before this miserable force of ten thousand men was raised to take

Canada, he begged them to look at the state of defence at home--to

count the cost of the enterprise before it was set on foot, not when it

might be too late--when the best blood of the country should be spilt,

and naught but empty coffers left to pay the cost. Are the bounty lands

to be given in Canada? It might lessen his repugnance to that part of

the system, to granting these lands, not to those miserable wretches

who sell themselves to slavery for a few dollars and a glass of gin,

but in fact to the clerks in our offices, some of whom, with an income

of fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars, lived at the rate of four

or five thousand, and yet grew rich--who perhaps at that moment were

making out blank assignments for these land rights.

He would beseech the House, before they ran their heads against this

post, Quebec, to count the cost. His word for it, Virginia planters

would not be taxed to support such a war--a war which must aggravate

their present distresses; in which they had not the remotest interest.

Where is the Montgomery, or even the Arnold, or the Burr, who is to

march to Point Levi?

He called upon those professing to be republicans to make good the

promises held out by their republican predecessors when they came

into power--promises which, for years afterwards, they had honestly,

faithfully fulfilled. We had vaunted of paying off the national debt,

of retrenching useless establishments; and yet had now become as

infatuated with standing armies, loans, taxes, navies, and war, as ever

were the Essex Junto. What republicanism is this?

WEDNESDAY, December 11.

_Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on

Foreign Relations.

Mr. RICHARD M. JOHNSON said he rose to thank the committee for the

report which was offered to the House, and the resolutions which

were recommended; though the measures fell short of his wishes, and,

he believed, of public expectation. The ulterior measures, however,

promised by the committee satisfied his mind, and he should give the

report his warm support. The chairman had given the views of the

committee. The expulsion of the British from their North American

possessions, and granting letters of marque and reprisal against Great

Britain are contemplated. Look at the Message of the President. At a

moment least to be expected, when France had ceased to violate our

neutral rights, and the olive branch was tendered to Great Britain,

her orders in council were put into a more rigorous execution. Not

satisfied with refusing a redress for wrongs committed on our coasts

and in the mouths of our harbors, our trade is annoyed, and our

national rights invaded; and, to close the scene of insolence and

injury, regardless of our moderation and our justice, she has brought

home to the "threshold of our territory," measures of actual war. As

the love of peace has so long produced forbearance on our part, while

commercial cupidity has increased the disposition to plunder on the

part of Great Britain, I feel rejoiced that the hour of resistance

is at hand, and that the President, in whom the people has so much

confidence, has warned us of the perils that await them, and has

exhorted us to put on the armor of defence, to gird on the sword, and

assume the manly and bold attitude of war. He recommends filling up

the ranks of the present military establishment, and to lengthen the

term of service; to raise an auxiliary force for a more limited time;

to authorize the acceptance of volunteers, and provide for calling out

detachments of militia as circumstances may require. For the first time

since my entrance into this body, there now seems to be but one opinion

with a great majority--that with Great Britain war is inevitable; that

the hopes of the sanguine as to a returning sense of British justice

have expired; that the prophecies of the discerning have failed;

and, that her infernal system has driven us to the brink of a second

revolution, as important as the first. Upon the Wabash, through the

influence of British agents, and within our territorial sea by the

British navy, the war has already commenced. Thus, the folly, the

power, and the tyranny of Great Britain, have taken from us the last

alternative of longer forbearance.

Mr. J. said we must now oppose the farther encroachments of Great

Britain by war, or formally annul the Declaration of our Independence,

and acknowledge ourselves her devoted colonies. The people whom I

represent will not hesitate which of the two courses to choose; and, if

we are involved in war, to maintain our dearest rights, and to preserve

our independence, I pledge myself to this House, and my constituents

to this nation, that they will not be wanting in valor, nor in their

proportion of men and money to prosecute the war with effect. Before

we relinquish the conflict, I wish to see Great Britain renounce the

piratical system of paper blockade; to liberate our captured seamen

on board her ships of war; relinquish the practice of impressment on

board our merchant vessels; to repeal her Orders in Council; and cease,

in every other respect, to violate our neutral rights; to treat us as

an independent people. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has

objected to the destination of this auxiliary force--the occupation of

the Canadas, and the other British possessions upon our borders where

our laws are violated, the Indians stimulated to murder our citizens,

and where there is a British monopoly of the peltry and fur trade. I

should not wish to extend the boundary of the United States by war if

Great Britain would leave us to the quiet enjoyment of independence;

but, considering her deadly and implacable enmity, and her continued

hostility, I shall never die contented until I see her expulsion from

North America, and her territories incorporated with the United States.

It is strange that the gentleman would pause before refusing this

force, if destined to keep the negroes in subordination--who are not in

a state of insurrection as I understand--and he will absolutely refuse

to vote this force to defend us against the lawless aggressions of

Great Britain--a nation in whose favor he had said so much.

But, he has a dislike to the Canadian French, French blood is hateful

to him. I have no doubt but the Canadian French are as good citizens

as the Canadian English, or the refugee tories of the Revolution; nor

have I any doubt but a great majority of that vast community are sound

in their morals and in their politics, and would make worthy members of

the United States.

But, open the sacred pages of the Journals of the Congress of

1774-'75--that Congress which commenced, and conducted to victory, the

American Revolution. Upon the pages of the first volume (from page 54

to 100) we will find letters addressed to the inhabitants of Canada

and the province of Quebec, containing the language of affectionate

respect, and, in the warmth of patriotism, inviting them to unite

against British tyranny, to make the cause of quarrel common, and to

enter into the union of the States on the principles of equality. The

encroachments of Great Britain are depicted in the most vivid colors,

and then they say "we shall consider the violation of your rights a

violation of our own, and you are invited to accede to the confederacy

of the States." Thus, the patriots of the Revolution styled the

inhabitants of the British provinces friends and fellow-sufferers in

1774: although then but a handful of men compared to their present

numbers, and only ten years had elapsed from their first incorporation

with the British dominions; and nothing but the want of physical power

and means prevented their independence in 1776. The misfortunes of our

arms at Quebec, and in that quarter, are well known. These overtures of

the Old Congress did not stop here. After the Articles of Confederation

had been adopted, the door was left open for the reception of the

Canadas, and the hope was not lost until British arms riveted the

chains of slavery upon them, which at that time could not be broken.

Now, sir, these people are more enlightened, they have a great American

population among them, and they have correct ideas of liberty and

independence, and only want an opportunity to throw off the yoke of

their taskmakers.

Let us not think so meanly of the human character and the human mind.

We are in pursuit of happiness, and we place a great value upon liberty

as the means of happiness. What, then, let me ask, has changed the

character of those people, that they are to be despised? What new order

of things has disqualified them for the enjoyment of liberty? Has any

malediction of Heaven doomed them to perpetual vassalage? Or, will the

gentleman from Virginia pretend to more wisdom and more patriotism than

the constellation of patriots who conducted the infant Republic through

the Revolution? In point of territorial limit, the map will prove

its importance. The waters of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi

interlock in a number of places, and the great Disposer of Human Events

intended those two rivers should belong to the same people.

But it has been denied that British influence had any agency in the

late dreadful conflict and massacre upon the Wabash; and this is said

to vindicate the British nation from so foul a charge. Sir, look to

the book of the Revolution. See the Indian savages in Burgoyne's army

urged on every occasion to use the scalping-knife and tomahawk--not

in battle, but against old men and women, and children; in the night,

when they were taught to believe an Omniscient eye could not see their

guilty deeds; and thus hardened in iniquity, they perpetrated the

same deeds by the light of the sun, when no arm was found to oppose

or protect. And when this crying sin was opposed by Lord Chatham, in

the House of Lords, the employment of these Indians was justified by

a speech from one of the Ministry. Thus we see how the principles of

honor, of humanity, of Christianity, were violated and justified in

the face of the world. Therefore, I can have no doubt of the influence

of British agents in keeping up Indian hostility to the people of the

United States, independent of the strong proofs on this occasion; and,

I hope it will not be pretended that these agents are too moral or too

religious to do the infamous deed. So much for the expulsion of Great

Britain from her dominions in North America, and their incorporation

into the United States of America.

The gentleman from Virginia says we are identified with the British

in religion, in blood, in language, and deeply laments our hatred to

that country, who can boast of so many illustrious characters. This

deep-rooted enmity to Great Britain arises from her insidious policy,

the offspring of her perfidious conduct towards the United States. Her

disposition is unfriendly; her enmity is implacable; she sickens at

our prosperity and happiness. If obligations of friendship do exist,

why does Great Britain rend those ties asunder, and open the bleeding

wounds of former conflicts? Or does the obligation of friendship exist

on the part of the United States alone? I have never thought that the

ties of religion, of blood, of language, and of commerce, would justify

or sanctify insult and injury--on the contrary, that a premeditated

wrong from the hand of a friend created more sensibility, and deserved

the greater chastisement and the higher execration. What would you

think of a man, to whom you were bound by the most sacred ties, who

would plunder you of your substance, aim a deadly blow at your honor,

and in the hour of confidence endeavor to bury a dagger in your bosom?

Would you, sir, proclaim to the world your affection for this miscreant

of society, after this conduct, and endeavor to interest your audience

with the ties of kindred that bound you to each other? So let it be

with nations, and there will be neither surprise nor lamentation that

we execrate a Government so hostile to our independence--for it is from

the Government that we meet with such multiplied injury, and to that

object is our hatred directed. As to individuals of merit, whether

British or French, I presume no person would accuse the people of the

United States of such hatred to them, or of despising individuals, who

might not be instrumental in the maritime despotism which we feel;

and this accounts for the veneration we have for Sidney and Russell,

statesmen of whom the gentleman has spoken; they are fatal examples why

we should love the British Government. The records of that Government

are now stained with the blood of these martyrs in freedom's cause,

as vilely as with the blood of American citizens; and certainly we

shall not be called upon to love equally the murderer and the victim.

For God's sake let us not again be told of the ties of religion, of

laws, of blood, and of customs, which bind the two nations together,

with a view to extort our love for the English Government, and more

especially when the same gentleman has acknowledged that we have ample

cause of war against that nation--let us not be told of the freedom of

that corrupt Government whose hands are washed alike in the blood of

her own illustrious statesmen, for a manly opposition to tyranny, and

the citizens of every other clime. But I would inquire into this love

for the British Government and British institutions, in the gross,

without any discrimination. Why love her rulers? Why kiss the rod of

iron which inflicts the stripes without a cause? When all admit we

have just cause of war, such attachments are dangerous, and encourage

encroachment. I will venture to say, that our hatred of the British

Government is not commensurate with her depredations and her outrages

on our rights, or we should have waged a deadly war against her many

years past. The subject of foreign attachments and British hatred

has been examined at considerable length. I did not intend to begin

that discussion, but I will pursue it, and though I make no charge of

British attachments, I will, at all times, at every hazard, defend the

Administration and the Republican party against the charge of foreign

partialities--French or Spanish, or any other kind, when applied to

the measures of our Government. This foreign influence is a dangerous

enemy; we should destroy the means of its circulation among us--like

the fatal tunic, it destroys where it touches. It is insidious,

invisible, and takes advantage of the most unsuspecting hours of social

intercourse. I would not deny the good will of France nor of Great

Britain to have an undue influence among us. But Great Britain alone

has the means of this influence to an extent dangerous to the United

States. It has been said that Great Britain was fighting the battles

of the world--that she stands against universal dominion threatened

by the arch-fiend of mankind. I should be sorry if our independence

depended upon the power of Great Britain. If, however, she would act

the part of a friendly power towards the United States, I should never

wish to deprive her of power, of wealth, of honor, of prosperity.

But if her energies are to be directed against the liberties of this

free and happy people, against my native country, I should not drop

a tear if the fast-anchored isle would sink into the waves, provided

the innocent inhabitants could escape the deluge and find an asylum

in a more favorable soil. And as to the power of France, I fear it as

little as any other power; I would oppose her aggressions, under any

circumstances, as soon as I would British outrages.

The ties of religion, of language, of blood, as it regards Great

Britain, are dangerous ties to this country, with her present hostile

disposition--instead of pledges of friendship they are used to paralyze

the strength of the United States in relation to her aggressions.

There are other ties equally efficacious. The number of her commercial

traders within our limits, her agents, &c., the vast British capital

employed in our commerce and our moneyed institutions, connected with

her language, ancestry, customs, habits, and laws. These are formidable

means for estranging the affections of many from our republican

institutions, and producing partialities for Great Britain. Now I shall

attend to the charge of partiality in our measures towards France.

It is an insinuation not founded in fact, and can only exist in the

imagination of those who may insinuate it. We are not driven to mere

declarations--the truth of the assertion is bottomed upon the statute

records of the United States; and we appeal to the character of every

measure relative to foreign relations, since the adoption of the

embargo, in consequence of the violation of neutral rights upon the

high seas. The direct object of the Berlin and Milan decrees was the

ruin of all trade to British ports--and the object of the Orders in

Council was the destruction of all commerce to French ports and ports

from which the British flag was excluded.

The gentleman from Virginia has called the military regular forces

mercenaries. If by this appellation any reproach or degradation is

intended, its justice and propriety is denied. In times like the

present, when dangers thicken upon us, at the moment when we are

compelled by most wanton tyranny upon the high seas, and upon land may

be added, to abandon our peaceful habits for the din of arms, officers

and soldiers in this country are governed by the noble feelings of

patriotism and of valor. The history of the world may be ransacked;

other nations may be brought in review before us, and examples of

greater heroism cannot be quoted, than shall be performed in battle by

our officers and soldiers, military and naval and marine. The deeds of

their ancestors would be before them; glory would animate their bosoms,

and love of country would nerve the heart to deeds of mighty fame. If,

therefore, there should not be a diminution of respect for those who

entertain an opinion so degrading to our army, it should at least be

understood that such opinions do not lessen the confidence due to those

who faithfully serve their country, and who would lay down their life

for it. This reflection brings to memory the late memorable conflict

upon the Wabash. Governor Harrison pitched his tents near the Prophet's

town; and although this fanatic and his followers collected, and the

American forces were anxious to finish the work by an open and daylight

engagement, if there was a necessity to resort to arms, their impetuous

valor was easily stayed, when they were informed that the white flag

of peace was to be hoisted next morning, and the effusion of blood was

to be spared. But in the silent watches of the night, relieved from

the fatigues of valor, and slumbering under the perfidious promises of

the savages, who were infuriated and made drunk by British traders,

dreaming of the tender smile of a mother, and the fond embraces of

affectionate wives, and of prattling children upon their knees, on

their return from the fatigues of a campaign!--the destroyers came with

the silent instruments of death, the war club, the scalping knife, the

tomahawk, and the bow and arrow; with these they penetrate into the

heart of our forces--they enter the tents of our officers--many close

their eyes in death--it was a trying moment for the rest of our heroes,

but they were equal to the dreadful occasion. The American forces flew

to arms; they rallied at the voice of their officers, and soon checked

the work of death. The savages were successively and successfully

charged and driven until daylight, when they disappeared like the mist

of morning. In this dreadful conflict many were killed and wounded on

both sides; and the volunteers and the regiment under Colonel Boyd

acted and fought with equal bravery and to their immortal honor. The

volunteers from Kentucky were men of valor and worth--young men of

hopeful prospects, and married men of reputation and intelligence,

governed by no mercenary views--honor prompted them to serve their

country. Some of these fallen heroes were my acquaintances, my friends:

one not the least conspicuous lived in my district--Colonel Owens;

Colonel Daviess, a neighbor. You, Mr. Speaker, know the worth of some

of these men; and I regret that you are not in my place to speak their

praise. So long as the records of this transaction remain, the 9th of

November will not be forgotten, and time shall only brighten the fame

of the deeds of our army, and a tear shall be shed for those who have

fallen. But the loss will not be felt by the public alone: the friends

of their social hours will regret their loss; the widow will mourn her

disconsolate situation; the orphan shall cry for the return of his

father in vain; and the mother carry her sorrow to the grave. Let this

ornamented hall be clothed with the symbols of mourning, although our

army proved victorious in war; and to their memory let a monument be

erected in the hearts of a grateful country.

Mr. WRIGHT.--Mr. Speaker, I must beg the indulgence of the House while

I deliver my opinion on the subject now under consideration, the

most important that has been submitted to the Congress of the United

States. I, sir, shall take the liberty of varying the question from

the honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) who yesterday

considered it a question of peace or war. I shall consider it as a

question of war or submission, dire alternatives, of which, however, I

trust no honest American can hesitate in choosing, when the question is

correctly stated and distinctly understood. The gentleman from Virginia

contends that it is a dispute about the carrying trade, brought on us

by the cupidity of the American merchants, in which the farmer and

planter have little interest; that he will not consent to tax his

constituents to carry on a war for it; that the enemy is invulnerable

on the "mountain wave," the element of our wrongs, but should they

violate the "_natale solum_," he would point all the energies of the

nation and avenge the wrong. Was that gentleman stricken on the nose

by a man so tall that he could not reach his nose, I strongly incline

to think his manly pride would not permit him to decline the conflict.

Sir, the honorable member is incorrect in his premises, and, of course,

in his conclusions. I will endeavor to convince him of this, and shall

be gratified if I can enlist his talents on the side of a bleeding

country. Sir, the violations of the commercial rights of which we

complain do not only embrace the carrying trade, properly so called,

but also the carrying of the products of our own soil, the fruits of

our own industry; these, although injurious only to our property, are

just causes of war. But, sir, the impressment of our native seamen is

a stroke at the vitals of liberty itself, and although it does not

touch the "_natale solum_," yet it enslaves the "_nativos filios_"--the

native sons of America; and, in the ratio that liberty is preferable

to property, ought to enlist the patriotic feelings of that honorable

member, and make his bosom burn with that holy fire that inspired the

patriots of the Revolution.

Sir, the carrying trade--by which I mean the carrying articles, the

growth, produce, or manufacture of a foreign clime--except articles

contraband of war--is as much the right of the American people as the

carrying the products of their own soil, and is not only secured by the

law of nations, but by the positive provisions of the British Treaty.

To us, sir, it is an all-important right. We import from the West

Indies, annually, property to the amount of forty millions of dollars,

for which we pay in the products of our own soil; of this, ten millions

only are consumed in the United States, and the surplus thirty millions

are exported to foreign countries, on which the American merchant pays

three per cent. on the duties to the United States, obtains the profits

on the freight of thirty millions of dollars, and furnishes a market

for American productions to the same amount. The honorable gentleman

from Virginia said, that that little spot in Maryland, Baltimore, which

was well fortified and secure from an attack, had unbounded influence;

"that the lords of Baltimore" governed the Representatives of Maryland

in their votes on this subject. No, sir, every district of Maryland

solemnly protests against submission to any foreign power, and I have

no doubt will approve the votes of their members on this floor, "to

prepare for war," or for war itself, rather than submission. Baltimore,

by the industry and commercial enterprise of her citizens, has grown

out of the sea into a great commercial city, has diffused the benefits

of commerce into every section of the State, by making a great demand

for the products of our soil and industry, and a consequent increase of

price, whereby every foot of land in Maryland is made more valuable,

and whereby the interest of every part of the State is identified with

theirs; for this she is justly entitled to our respect. But, sir, she

has no occasion to infuse her patriotic fire--so pre-eminent in the

case of the Chesapeake--into the Representatives of Maryland. They know

the wishes of their constituents, and will most certainly obey them.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia has declared that, if he could

believe that the late massacre of the troops, in the attack on Governor

Harrison by the Indians, under the Prophet, was the effect of British

agency, he would unite with us, heart and hand, and personally assist

to avenge the bloody deed. I feel a confidence, that if the gentleman

will attend to the circumstances of this case, and take a retrospective

view of the conduct of the British Government, he will feel no doubt of

the fact. I will take the liberty of pointing the gentleman's attention

to some of the prominent features of that government, which will go far

in establishing that fact. When Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, in 1775,

found it necessary to quit the seat of government, and go on board the

fleet for safety from the Revolutionary vengeance of the patriots of

Virginia--at a period, too, when the Americans were suing for justice

by their humble petitions to the King and Parliament; and when that

Chatham, the gentleman from Virginia has so highly extolled, was the

advocate of our violated rights--Dunmore issued a proclamation inviting

the negroes to his standard; to cut the throats of their masters; and

promised them a pardon. This fact I know, from having presented that

proclamation to a court at Northampton in Virginia, to induce them to

commute the punishment of death, passed on some of the victims of his

perfidy, to working in the mines; which they did. I will next remind

the gentleman of the speech of Lord Dorchester to the Indians after the

peace, in which he advises them to use the tomahawk and scalping-knife,

whereby numbers of the inhabitants of the frontiers, of all ages,

sexes, and conditions, were sacrificed. This was the cause of the

Indian war that shortly after took place. This fact was attested by the

newspapers of the day, which had universal credit.

These cases go to prove that the principles that ought to govern

civilized nations, have, at all times, been totally disregarded by the

officers and agents of that Government. After these cases, we shall

feel little hesitation in believing there was a British agency in the

case of the massacre by the Prophet's troops on Governor Harrison's

detachment, when the circumstances relied on are duly considered. At

the late great council with Governor Harrison, the chiefs of many

tribes were convened, all of whom, except Tecumseh, the Prophet's

brother, in their speeches avowed their friendly dispositions, and

their devotion to peace with the United States. Tecumseh, who, with a

number of his tribe, came from Fort Malden, in Canada, declared his

hostile intentions against the United States, left the council with

that avowed intention, and returned again to Fort Malden. Shortly after

this, the Shawanees assembled a large body in arms in the Indiana

Territory, under the Prophet, and committed the assault on the troops

of Governor Harrison, though they have paid for their temerity. This,

I trust, connected as it is with the immorality and extraordinary

pretensions of that Government at this crisis, will satisfy, not only

the gentleman from Virginia, but this House, of a British agency in the

case.