Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from Virginia should ascribe

to gentlemen of the West, a disposition for war, with a view to raise

the price of their hemp; or to the gentlemen of the North, with a view

to raise the price of their beef and flour. These, sir, are selfish

motives, and such I cannot for a moment believe will be taken into

consideration; they will, with every other section of the Union, unite

in deciding it on its merits.; they will count the wrongs we have

sustained; they will reflect that the honor, the interest, and the very

independence of the United States, is directly attacked; they will,

as guardians of the nation's rights, agreeably to the advice of the

Administration, "put the United States into an armor and an attitude

demanded by the crisis, and correspondent with the national spirit and

expectations;" they will prepare to chastise the wrongs of the British

Cabinet, which the President tells us, "have the character as well

as the effect of war, on our commercial rights, which no independent

nation can relinquish." They will decide with the President, the

Executive organ of the nation's will, "that these wrongs are no

longer to be endured." They will decide with the Committee of Foreign

Relations, "that forbearance longer to repel these wrongs has ceased

to be a virtue," and, I hope they will decide with me, that submission

is a crime; and, sir, if they will examine a document on that table,

I mean the returns of the twelfth Congress, and compare them with the

eleventh, they will find nearly one-half of the eleventh Congress

removed. This, sir, may correctly be considered as the sentence of

the nation against the doctrine of submission; it is certainly an

expression of the nation's will, in a language not to be misunderstood,

and too serious in its application not to be respected. We have also,

sir, the expression of Maryland, through her Senate, who unanimously

approved the spirited resolutions introduced by the late Governor,

who did not suffer his exposed situation, so alarming in the opinion

of the gentleman from Virginia, to deter him from doing his duty. We

have also, sir, the resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, an

honest test of their non-submission principles. Mr. Speaker, I cannot

forbear the remark that, while the gentleman from Virginia ascribes to

the West and to the North interested motives, he confesses that the

situation of the blacks in the State he represents, impressed as they

are with the new French principles of liberty, and their desire for the

fraternal hug, are seriously to be feared; that these new principles

have been taught them by the peddlers from the East, who, while they

sell their trinkets, inculcate these doctrines. He suffers his fears

for the State he represents, in the event of a war, on account of the

blacks, to _interest_ him; and had he not told us that, if the "_natale

solum_" was touched, or that, if there was a British agency in the

late attack on Governor Harrison, he would go to war, I should have

been ready to conclude that, as the state of the blacks would be a

permanent objection, no cause could occur that would induce him to go

to war.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia says he expects to be charged

with being under British influence; however, he disregarded it. I

assure him I shall not be one of his accusers; I believe him governed

by _himself_, and influenced by pure American motives, and that, if he

saw the subject as I do, his bosom would burn with the same sacred fire

to avenge our wrongs; and were I to hear him charged in his absence

with British influence, I should repel it, notwithstanding he has told

us, in a prideful manner, that he had descended from British ancestors;

that, from a Shakspeare he had formed his taste, from a Locke, his

mind, from a Chatham, his politics, from a Sydney his patriotism,

from a Tillotson his religion. Mr. Speaker, had I been that honorable

member, I should have boasted a nobler line of ancestry; I should

have claimed my descent from the beardless Powhatan, and the immortal

Pocahontas; and I should have taken as models, from my own State, a

Henry for my eloquence, a Jefferson for my politics, a Washington for

my patriotism, and a Madison, or rather the Oracles of Revolution, for

my religion. But, sir, I am myself so much a Roman, that I can truly

say, in their language,

"_Aut genus aut proavos, aut qua non fecimus ipse, vix

ea nostra voco_."

"Honor and shame from no condition rise,

Act well your part, there all the honor lies."

Sir, the charge of foreign influence, and the recrimination of one

political party by the other, are unpleasant things. I should rejoice

to see the curtain of oblivion drawn over them, and all uniting under

the nobler distinction of American.

THURSDAY, December 12.

_Foreign Relations._

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

Foreign Relations.

Mr. CALHOUN.--Mr. Speaker: I understood the opinion of the Committee

of Foreign Relations differently from what the gentleman from Virginia

(Mr. RANDOLPH) has stated to be his impression. I certainly understood

that committee as recommending the measures now before the House as

a preparation for war; and such in fact was its express resolve,

agreed to, I believe, by every member except that gentleman. I do not

attribute any wilful misstatement to him, but consider it the effect

of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, the report could mean nothing but

war or empty menace. I hope no member of this House is in favor of

the latter. A bullying, menacing system has every thing to condemn

and nothing to recommend it; in expense, it is almost as considerable

as war; it excites contempt abroad, and destroys confidence at home.

Menaces are serious things; and, if we expect any good from them,

they ought to be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness as

war itself, and should, if not successful, be invariably followed by

it. It was not the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) that made

this a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular

force; a measure confessedly improper but as a preparation for war,

but undoubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, I am not insensible of

the weighty importance of this question, for the first time submitted

to this House, as a redress of our long list of complaints against

one of the belligerents; but, according to my mode of thinking on

this subject, however serious the question, whenever I am on its

affirmative side, my conviction must be strong and unalterable. War,

in this country, ought never to be resorted to but when it is clearly

justifiable and necessary; so much so, as not to require the aid of

logic to convince our reason, nor the ardor of eloquence to inflame our

passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort

to it but for causes the most urgent and necessary. It is sufficient

that, under a Government like ours, none but such will justify it

in the eye of the nation; and were I not satisfied that such is the

present case, I certainly would be no advocate of the proposition now

before the House.

Sir, I might prove the war, should it ensue, justifiable, by the

express admission of the gentleman from Virginia; and necessary, by

facts undoubted and universally admitted, such as that gentleman

did not pretend to controvert. The extent, duration, and character

of the injuries received; the failure of those peaceful means

heretofore resorted to for the redress of our wrongs, is my proof

that it is necessary. Why should I mention the impressment of our

seamen; depredation on every branch of our commerce, including the

direct export trade, continued for years, and made under laws which

professedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations;

negotiation resorted to time after time, till it is become hopeless;

the restrictive system persisted in to avoid war, and in the vain

expectation of returning justice? The evil still grows, and in each

succeeding year swells in extent and pretension beyond the preceding.

The question, even in the opinion and admission of our opponents, is

reduced to this single point--which shall we do, abandon or defend our

own commercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberties of our

citizens employed in exercising them? These rights are essentially

attacked, and war is the only means of redress. The gentleman from

Virginia has suggested none--unless we consider the whole of his speech

as recommending patient and resigned submission as the best remedy.

Sir, which alternative this House ought to embrace, it is not for me to

say. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority than

the voice of any man. It is not for the human tongue to instill the

sense of independence and honor. This is the work of nature--a generous

nature, that disdains tame submission to wrongs.

This part of the subject is so imposing, as to enforce silence even on

the gentleman from Virginia. He dared not to deny his country's wrongs,

or vindicate the conduct of her enemy.

Only one point of that gentleman's argument had any, the most remote,

relation to this point. He would not say we had not a good cause of

war, but insisted that it was our duty to define that cause. If he

means that this House ought, at this stage of the proceeding, or any

other, to enumerate such violations of our rights as we are willing to

contend for, he prescribes a course which neither good sense nor the

usage of nations warrants. When we contend, let us contend for all our

rights; the doubtful and the certain, the unimportant and essential. It

is as easy to struggle, or even more so, for the whole as a part. At

the termination of the contest, secure all that our wisdom and valor

and the fortune of the war will permit. This is the dictate of common

sense; such also is the usage of nations. The single instance alluded

to, the endeavor of Mr. Fox to compel Mr. Pitt to define the object of

the war against France, will not support the gentleman from Virginia

in his position. That was an extraordinary war for an extraordinary

purpose, and could not be governed by the usual rules. It was not for

conquest, or for redress of inquiry, but to impose a Government on

France, which she refused to receive; an object so detestable, that

an avowal dare not be made. Sir, here I might rest the question. The

affirmative of the proposition is established. I cannot but advert,

however, to the complaint of the gentleman from Virginia the first time

he was up on this question. He said he found himself reduced to the

necessity of supporting the negative side of the question, before the

affirmative was established. Let me tell that gentleman, that there

is no hardship in his case. It is not every affirmative that ought

to be proved. Were I to affirm the House is now in session, would it

be reasonable to ask for proof? He who would deny its truth, on him

would be the proof of so extraordinary a negative. How, then, could

the gentleman, after his admissions, with the facts before him and the

nation, complain? The causes are such as to warrant, or rather make

it indispensable in any nation not absolutely dependent to defend its

rights by force. Let him, then, show the reasons why we ought not so

to defend ourselves. On him, then, is the burden of proof. This he

has attempted; he has endeavored to support his negative. Before I

proceed to answer the gentleman particularly, let me call the attention

of the House to one circumstance: that is, that almost the whole of

his arguments consisted of an enumeration of evils always incident to

war, however just and necessary; and that, if they have any force,

it is calculated to produce unqualified submission to every species

of insult and injury. I do not feel myself bound to answer arguments

of the above description; and if I should touch on them, it will be

only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious refutation.

The first argument of the gentleman which I shall notice, is the

unprepared state of the country. Whatever weight this argument might

have, in a question of immediate war, it surely has little in that of

preparation for it. If our country is unprepared, let us remedy the

evil as soon as possible. Let the gentleman submit his plan; and, if

a reasonable one, I doubt not it will be supported by the House. But,

sir, let us admit the fact and the whole force of the argument, I ask

whose is the fault? Who has been a member for many years past, and

has seen the defenceless state of his country even near home, under

his own eyes, without a single endeavor to remedy so serious an evil?

Let him not say "I have acted in a minority." It is no less the duty

of the minority than a majority to endeavor to serve our country.

For that purpose we are sent here, and not for that of opposition.

We are next told of the expenses of the war, and that people will

not pay taxes. Why not? Is it a want of capacity? What, with one

million tons of shipping, a trade of near $100,000,000, manufactures

of $150,000,000, and agriculture of thrice that amount, shall we be

told the country wants capacity to raise and support ten thousand or

fifteen thousand additional regulars? No; it has the ability, that is

admitted; but will it not have the disposition? Is not the course a

just and necessary one? Shall we, then, utter this libel on the nation?

Where will proof be found of a fact so disgraceful? It is said, in the

history of the country twelve or fifteen years ago. The case is not

parallel. The ability of the country is greatly increased since. The

object of that tax was unpopular. But on this, as well as my memory

and almost infant observation at that time serve me, the objection was

not to the tax, or its amount, but the mode of collection. The eye

of the nation was frightened by the number of officers; its love of

liberty shocked with the multiplicity of regulations. We, in the vile

spirit of imitation, copied from the most oppressive part of European

laws on that subject, and imposed on a young and virtuous nation all

the severe provisions made necessary by corruption and long growing

chicane. If taxes should become necessary, I do not hesitate to say

the people will pay cheerfully. It is for their Government and their

cause, and would be their interest and duty to pay. But it may be, and

I believe was said, that the nation will not pay taxes, because the

rights violated are not worth defending, or that the defence will cost

more than the profit. Sir, I here enter my solemn protest against this

low and "calculating avarice" entering this hall of legislation. It is

only fit for shops and counting-houses, and ought not to disgrace the

seat of sovereignty by its squalid and vile appearance. Whenever it

touches sovereign power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted

to defend itself. It is an unpromising spirit, always ready to yield a

part to save the balance. It is too timid to have in itself the laws

of self-preservation. It is never safe but under the shield of honor.

Sir, I only know of one principle to make a nation great, to produce

in this country not the form but real spirit of union, and that is,

to protect every citizen in the lawful pursuit of his business. He

will then feel that he is backed by the Government; that its arm is

his arms; and will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity.

Protection and patriotism are reciprocal. This is the road that all

great nations have trod. Sir, I am not versed in this calculating

policy; and will not, therefore pretend to estimate in dollars and

cents the value of national independence, or national affection.

I cannot dare to measure, in shillings and pence, the misery, the

stripes, and the slavery of our impressed seamen; nor even to value

our shipping, commercial, and agricultural losses, under the Orders in

Council and the British system of blockade. I hope I have not condemned

any prudent estimate of the means of a country, before it enters on a

war. This is wisdom, the other folly. Sir, the gentleman from Virginia

has not failed to touch on the calamity of war; that fruitful source

of declamation, by which pity becomes the advocate of cowardice; but I

know not what we have to do with that subject. If the gentleman desires

to repress the gallant ardor of our countrymen by such topics, let me

inform him, that true courage regards only the cause--that it is just

and necessary--and that it despises the pain and danger of war. If

he really wishes to promote the cause of humanity, let his eloquence

be addressed to Lord Wellesley or Mr. Percival, and not the American

Congress. Tell them, if they persist in such daring insult and injury

to a neutral nation, that, however inclined to peace, it will be bound

in honor and interest to resist; that their patience and benevolence,

however great, will be exhausted; that the calamity of war will ensue;

and that they, in the opinion of wounded humanity, will be answerable

for all its devastation and misery. Let melting pity, and regard to the

interest of humanity, stay the hand of injustice, and, my life on it,

the gentleman will not find it difficult to call off his country from

the bloody scenes of war.

We are next told of the danger of war! I believe we are all ready to

acknowledge its hazard and accidents; but I cannot think we have any

extraordinary danger to contend with, at least so much as to warrant

an acquiescence in the injuries we have received. On the contrary, I

believe no war can be less dangerous to internal peace, or national

existence. But, we are told of the black population of the South.

As far as the gentleman from Virginia speaks of his own personal

knowledge, I will not pretend to contradict him; I only regret that

such is the dreadful state of his particular part of the country. Of

the Southern section, I too have some personal knowledge, and can

say that, in South Carolina, no such fears in any part are felt.

But, sir, admit the gentleman's statement; will a war with Great

Britain increase the danger? Will the country be less able to repress

insurrection? Had we any thing to fear from that quarter, which I

sincerely disbelieve, in my opinion, the precise time of the greatest

safety is during a war in which we have no fear of invasion--then

the country is most on its guard; our militia the best prepared; and

standing force the greatest. Even in our Revolution no attempts were

made by that portion of our population; and, however the gentleman may

frighten himself with the disorganizing effects of French principles,

I cannot think our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful

influence. I dare say more than one-half of them never heard of the

French Revolution. But, as great, as is the danger from our slaves,

the gentleman's fears end not there--the standing army is not less

terrible to him. Sir, I think a regular force, raised for a period

of actual hostilities, cannot be called a standing army. There is

a just distinction between such a force, and one raised as a peace

establishment. Whatever may be the composition of the latter, I hope

the former will consist of some of the best materials of the country.

The ardent patriotism of our young men, and the reasonable bounty in

land which is proposed to be given, will impel them to join their

country's standard and to fight her battles; they will not forget

the citizen in the soldier, and, in obeying their officer, learn to

contemn their constitution. In our officers and soldiers we will find

patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the private citizen; but,

if they should be depraved, as represented, what have we to fear from

twenty-five or thirty thousand regulars? Where will be the boasted

militia of the gentleman? Can one million of militia be overpowered

by thirty thousand regulars? If so, how can we rely on them against a

foe invading our country? Sir, I have no such contemptuous idea of our

militia--their untaught bravery is sufficient to crush all foreign and

internal attempts on their country's liberties. But we have not yet

come to the end of the chapter of dangers. The gentleman's imagination,

so fruitful on this subject, conceives that our constitution is not

calculated for war, and that it cannot stand its rude shock. This is

rather extraordinary--we must depend upon the pity or contempt of other

nations, for our existence. The constitution, it seems, has failed

in its essential part, "to provide for the common defence." No, says

the gentleman from Virginia, it is competent for a defensive, but

not an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to expose the error

of this opinion. Why make the distinction in this instance? Will he

pretend to say, that this is an offensive war; a war of conquest? Yes,

the gentleman has dared to make this assertion; and for reasons no

less extraordinary than the assertion itself. He says, our rights are

violated on the ocean, and that these violations affect our shipping,

and commercial rights, to which the Canadas have no relation. The

doctrine of retaliation has been much abused of late by an unnatural

extension; we have now to witness a new abuse. The gentleman from

Virginia has limited it down to a point. By his system, if you receive

a blow on the breast, you dare not return it on the head, you are

obliged to measure and return it on the precise point on which it

was received. If you do not proceed with mathematical accuracy, it

ceases to be just self-defence; it becomes an unprovoked attack. In

speaking of Canada, the gentleman from Virginia introduced the name

of Montgomery with much feeling and interest. Sir, there is danger in

that name to the gentleman's argument. It is sacred to heroism! It

is indignant of submission! This calls my memory back to the time of

our Revolution; to the Congress of '74 and '75. Supposing a speaker

of that day had risen and urged all the arguments which we have heard

on this subject; had told that Congress, "your contest is about the

right of laying a tax; and that the attempt on Canada had nothing to do

with it: that the war would be expensive; that danger and devastation

would overspread our country, and that the power of Great Britain was

irresistible." With what sentiment, think you, would such doctrines

have been received? Happy for us, they had no force at that period of

our country's glory. Had they been then acted on, this Hall would never

have witnessed a great nation convened to deliberate for the general

good; a mighty empire, with prouder prospects than any nation the sun

ever shone on, would not have risen in the West. No; we would have been

vile, subjected colonies; governed by that imperious rod which Great

Britain holds over her distant provinces.

Mr. DESHA said--Mr. Speaker, the report of the Committee on Foreign

Relations, of which the resolution now under consideration forms a

part, is not what I thought would have been the most advisable to

adopt, in order to meet the emergency; not that I was for immediate

war, as we are unprepared for that event; but, sir, in addition to the

force recommended, and authorizing the arming the merchant vessels, I

was for adopting the convoy system. But, sir, as the report is of a

character different from the temporizing policy heretofore pursued, and

one, if not decisive in itself, which will lead to something decisive;

and as I am now perfectly satisfied that it is the intention of the

Government to follow it up by ulterior measures, calculated to prove

the necessity of these preparatory steps, and as union, under existing

circumstances, is all-important, as one of the committee, I am bound to

give it my support.

Sir, discovering no disposition on the part of Britain to relax in her

Orders in Council, to cease her oppression, or to make restitution

for the damages we have sustained; but, on the contrary, a manifest

disposition to persist in her lawless aggressions, it therefore becomes

necessary not to depend any longer on countervailing restrictive

systems, but to adopt something of a character more energetic, and more

congenial to the wishes of the American people. Sir, while I thought

there was the most distant probability of obtaining justice by peace

measures, I was an advocate for peace; but, sir, when I see not the

least prospect of a revocation of her destructive Orders in Council,

of the releasement of our impressed countrymen, a relinquishment of

the principle of impressment, nor restitution for damages, I am for

assuming a war attitude--consequently shall vote for the report of the

committee, because I believe the force there contemplated will be an

efficient force, and adequate to the purposes intended, to wit, the

subjugation of the British North American Provinces.

Sir, to enumerate the aggressions committed on our rights by Britain,

the depredations on our commerce, the murder and impressment of our

countrymen, and the indignities offered our flag, would be taking up

your time unnecessarily--particularly, sir, as those enormities must be

recent in the mind of every member present; and as it is time to lay

aside the war of words and proceed to actions, I shall not detain you

long with any remarks of mine.

Sir, remonstrances against atrocities have been made in vain;

experience has taught us nothing can be expected from negotiations.

We have been negotiating for fifteen or twenty years, at an enormous

expense, say nearly half a million of dollars, and the causes of which

we complained have regularly increased; insult has been heaped upon

injury, we have suffered ourselves to be buffeted, kicked, and treated

with all kind of indignities with impunity. Yes, sir, insult has been

the result of all late attempts at negotiation; for instance, sir,

Mr. Roset was sent for no other purpose than to gull the Government,

and because Erskine was disposed to do us justice in part, he was

recalled and disgraced. The conduct of the Copenhagen gentleman, Mr.

Jackson, demonstrated that he was sent for the purpose of bullying

the Government. And pray, Mr. Speaker, what has Mr. Foster been sent

for? why, sir, in my opinion, for no other purpose than to operate

as an opiate on the Government; to lull us to sleep. As a proof of

which, about the commencement of the session, a session convened by

proclamation, which was naturally calculated to agitate the public

mind, he comes forward with offers of reparation as he calls them, but

which in my estimation is no more than a patch, calculated to cover one

corner of the wound the nation received, in that wanton and dastardly

outrage, the attack on the Chesapeake; but, sir, in his soporifics I

trust he will be disappointed. I have no hesitation in saying, that

when the letters from this Minister to our Government are examined by

the people, that independent of the arrogance bordering on insolence,

in which they are couched, so characteristic of that nation, they will

have a different effect from that of conciliation; the illiberal and

disingenuous demands made preliminary to the revocation of the Orders

in Council, will have a tendency to rouse the public mind; they will

be looked on with an indignant frown by all real Americans.

Sir, we have been constantly annoyed, assaulted openly and insidiously;

we have been plundered, oppressed, and insulted; we thought it

preferable to forbear while forbearance was possible, than to plunge

into the evils of war, to redress the evil of plunder and partial and

dastard-like courage; we judged it better to abandon the wealth which

the afflictions of the world held out to the avidity of commercial

speculation, and consequently withdrew from the ocean, by the adoption

of the embargo--a measure of all others the best calculated to meet

the then emergency, and which would, I have no hesitation in saying,

have produced the desired effect if we had have had firmness enough to

have adhered to it, and virtue and patriotism enough to have enforced

it. But, sir, partyism was our ruin; it proved that we had as much to

fear from our domestic enemies as our foreign foes, and apparently

the greatest evil we had to apprehend was in falling a victim to our

own political dissensions, occasioned by the deeply-laid plans of our

deadly foe, Britain. Sir, during embargo times our domestic enemies,

encouraged by a proclamation issued under the authority of the King

of England--I say, sir, those minions of royalty concentrating in the

East, talked of the violation of laws as a virtue, they demoralized

the community by raising the floodgates of civil disorder; they gave

absolution to felons, and invited the commission of crimes by the

omission of duty. But, sir, the day of retribution is (I trust) not far

distant, when those among us who to gain the favor of our enemy have

betrayed their country, will sink into insignificance and contempt; the

wages of iniquity will not shield them from due infamy.

Mr. TROUP rose to make an effort to put an end to the debate; a debate

in which the great mass of the House were enlisted on one side, against

the solitary gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) on the other;

and declared that he would call for the previous question if it was

persevered in.

Mr. MACON considered the present, from the turn the debate had taken,

the most important question which had come before the National

Government for many years past, because it was evidently discussed as

a war question, though the real question before the House, if adopted,

did not declare war. It was not now a question by what means or by

whose measures the nation was brought into its present situation; it

must, however, be satisfactory to all, that the Administration has done

every thing that could have been expected, to avoid the present crisis,

and to keep the nation at peace. If the British Government would

cease to violate our neutral and national rights, our difficulties

would be at an end. It was no longer a question about the colonial

carrying trade--that was at an end; because Great Britain might now be

considered as possessing all the West India Islands, and as we have now

neither sugar nor coffee to carry, she has determined to execute with

rigor her unjust orders against our carrying the productions of our

own soil to any market except her own, or that of her allies. This is

attacking the best interests of the country; indeed, it is taking the

profits of both planter and merchant. Hence, none of our exports bring

a price by which we can live, except flour; and that would be no better

than any other article of export, was it not that Great Britain and her

allies, Spain and Portugal, want it for the support of their armies;

it is their wants, and the great difficulty of getting their wants

supplied anywhere else, that keeps up the price of wheat.

Notwithstanding these were his sentiments, he thought it would be

going too far to consent, by the vote he was about to give, that he

pledged himself to vote for any measure which the Committee of Foreign

Relations might hereafter bring forward, when he did not intend to

vote for all the resolutions contained in the report which was now

under consideration. Our affairs must now command the serious attention

of every man in the nation. We must either prepare to maintain the

right to carry our produce to what market we please, or to be content

without a market; to attempt another negotiation would be useless;

every effort has been made in that way that could be made. Indeed, no

one has yet said that he wished another. He was as desirous of peace

as he ever was; and if any plan shall be proposed by which the peace

of the country can be preserved, and the right to export our native

produce maintained, he should still prefer it to war; but if no such

plan can be devised, he was willing to go to war for that right. He

was also willing to declare the points to the nation for which we went

to war, and rather than not succeed, he would carry it on for fifty

years, and longer if necessary. He felt no hesitation in declaring,

that he would not go to war to encourage the nation, or any part of

it, to become manufacturers, (and it may not be amiss to observe that,

from the day that this report was laid on the table, we have heard

nothing about manufactures;) nor would he go to war for the purpose of

building a navy. He mentioned this, because he had heard a good deal

said of late about increasing the fleet and building seventy-fours.

If, therefore, it was to be a war either to encourage manufactures or

to build a fleet, he should be opposed to it; he would rather remain

as we are awhile longer, bad as our situation is, than to stick these

two set-fasts to the back of the nation, neither of which it could

ever get clear of. A peace in Europe might free us from our present

embarrassments, but from the other, once established, we can never

expect to get free.

He could not agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) that

the House ought now, by the previous question, to put an end to the

debate; on the contrary, he wished every member might have full time to

deliver his sentiments on this great question; for his part, he wished

to hear the opinions of those who lived on the Eastern frontier; he

was gratified that several of the members of the Western had favored

the committee with theirs. He expressed this wish, because the part

of the country which he represented was in the middle country, about

the same distance from the mountains and the Atlantic Ocean, in no

danger of being surprised or injured by any plundering party; but if

the House was to do that which the gentleman from Georgia seemed to

desire, it would do no good; because if our object be to invade Canada,

it can scarcely be expected that this could be done with our utmost

exertions by regular troops, hereafter to be raised, sooner than June

or July. Hitherto, our proceedings have been carried on not only with

good humor, but with great urbanity also; to stop the debate, might

have a tendency to change this, which no one would regret more than

the gentleman himself. Before we raise an army, and provide it with

every thing necessary for marching, we have much to do. We have now

no Washington to command, and since the days of Joshua, I have read

of no such man; such men do not appear every century, and a thousand

years will hardly produce one. It is quite probable, except the

Commander-in-chief, as good or better appointments may be now made,

than were made at the beginning of the Revolution; because there are

now more men of experience in the country than there were at that time;

and, also, because the men of talents and experience are much better

known to the National Government now than they then were; besides

the selection of officers, the wagons, carts, and provisions, are to

purchase, and almost every other article necessary for a marching army.

It may not be improper here to remark, that this is not a Government

of confidence; and that, before we go too far, we ought, by some means

or other, to know who is to command the army. There cannot be much

difficulty in this, especially as every department of the Government

seems willing to raise a force adequate to the purpose for which it is

wanted. And here, sir, permit me to say, that I hope this is to be no

party war, but a national war, in which every person in the nation may

have a fair chance to participate in the honor and glory to be acquired

in the field of battle, and in defence of the rights of his country.

Such a war, if war we shall have, can alone, in my judgment, obtain the

end for which we mean to contend, without any disgrace.

FRIDAY, December 13.

_Foreign Relations._

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

Foreign Relations.

Mr. DAWSON.--When we are about to take a step, to assume an attitude

which must change all our foreign relations, and may produce a change

in our political character, it becomes us to summon all our wisdom--to

collect all our moderation and firmness, and to unite all our energies

and exertions. It becomes us to be "neither rash nor diffident," or,

to use the language of one of the greatest men who ever lived in

the tide of times, "Immoderate valor swells into a fault, and fear

admitted into public councils betrays like treason." Such, sir, is the

situation of the United States at this moment. We are about to take

such a step--every sentiment therefore which can be offered demands

its proportion of public attention, and renders that apology from me

unnecessary, which, on any other occasion, common propriety would

justify.

After the select Committee on our Foreign Relations had made their

report, it seemed to me to be their particular duty to give to this

House a full exposition of their present and ulterior views and

objects, and of those of the Administration, as far as they had

ascertained them, founded on the information which, it is presumed,

they possessed. For this I waited with patience, and have listened with

attention and with pleasure--it has been given with promptness, with

ability, and with candor; and with that perspicuity which frees the

mind from all doubt as to the course which, in their judgment, we ought

to pursue. And it now rests with us, sir, to determine whether we shall

sanction their recommendation--whether we shall adopt those measures

necessary and preparatory to a war in which it is probable our country

will be engaged. Sir, in the course of my political life, it has been

my duty to meet and to decide on some of the most important questions

which have been agitated in our public councils, and deeply involving

the best interests of our country; these duties I have performed with

fidelity and without fear, and I pledge myself never to depart from

that line of conduct; and, sir, at no period of my life, nor upon any

occasion, have I met any question with more serious deliberation and

more undaunted firmness than I do the present.

For several years past I have been an advocate for the adoption of

every measure, the object of which was to place our country in a

complete state of defence, and prepare us to meet any state of things.

I have thought, and do think that preparatory and vigorous measures

are best calculated to maintain the dignity and secure the peace and

happiness of our country--that to be prepared to meet danger is the

best way to avert it. These preparations have not been carried to the

extent which I have wished--and yet, sir, I am far from thinking that

my country is in that feeble state which some gentlemen seem willing

to represent it. I feel myself authorized to state, that we have all

the necessaries; all the implements; all the munitions necessary for a

three years' close war against any force which any power can send to

this continent.

All that we want, are men. No, sir, pardon the expression--all which

we want is an expression of the will of the nation. Let this House,

let the constituted authorities declare that will--let them declare

"the Republic to be in danger," and thousands and tens of thousands of

our fellow-citizens will rally round the standard of their country,

resolved to support her rights, avenge her wrongs, or perish in her

ruin. Yes, sir, should that awful moment ever arrive, which may Heaven

avert!--should we be forced into a war in the defence of our just

rights, I trust and believe that there is not a man in the nation,

whose situation will permit, who will not be ready to march at his

country's call. No man more devoutly prays for peace than I do; no man

deprecates large standing armies in the time of peace more than I do.

I consider them the bane of society and the danger of republics; but,

sir, as peace, honorable peace, is not always at our command, they must

be resorted to in time of war.

Mr. NELSON protested against the doctrine that in the vote he was about

to give he should pledge himself to the support of whatever ulterior

measures the Committee of Foreign Relations might choose to adopt. He

was sensible that he should hazard the censure of his associates in

the Republican cause by the observations he proposed to submit. Nay,

his Republican friends might have the audacity to denounce him as an

apostate, but the people had intrusted him with their dearest rights

and interests, and he was resolved to pursue these according to his

best judgment, regardless of the strictures of friends, and of the

contumacious abuse of the press. Proscription should have no influence

on his conduct. And hence he must express his astonishment at those

gentlemen who had threatened the House with the previous question,

when they themselves admitted the vast importance of the subject

under discussion. Tacitus informs us that even the semi-barbarian

Germans, when war was to be decided on, took two several occasions to

debate upon it--one, when they were in the full possession of their

natural faculties; and, second, when they were excited by extravagant

circumstances. But in these enlightened days it seems that we are to

decide this all-important question without debate! He begged gentlemen

to divest themselves of passion. It was not a time to bow to the

influence of improper feelings. They ought calmly and coolly to meet

the subject. They were to decide upon a question which was of no

momentary nature. If they did go to war, it would be a lasting war;

and he agreed with the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. TROUP,) that if

war-speeches were necessary to bring the House to the sticking point,

it was much too soon to begin war.

He proposed to consider these resolutions as a measure of hostility,

according to the views of its advocates, and then as a measure

of defensive preparations, agreeable to the spirit of Executive

recommendation, which was favorable to peace. What were the objects

of the war? To establish our neutral rights, to exempt our seamen

from imprisonment, the repeal of the Orders in Council, and of the

blockades, and the security of the American flag. What would be the

effects of war, the tocsin of which was for the first time sounded

through the land? Our country had been blessed by Providence with more

than thirty years of peace and plenty. The habits of the people were

pacific. The trifling hostilities with England were of no consequence.

But now the yeomanry of the country were to be called to arms as if our

own territory were to be invaded. He sympathized with the sufferings of

his impressed and incarcerated fellow-citizens; but would a territorial

war exempt them from impressment? Would it establish our neutral

rights? Certainly not. The way to enforce these rights was by a great

maritime force, which the nation were incompetent to raise and support.

But the advocates of immediate war said that if they could not obtain

their objects by direct hostility on the ocean, they could do it by a

_succedaneum_--by the exercise of the _lex talionis_ in an indirect

way. After issuing letters of marque, they would resort to the invasion

of the enemies' territorial provinces. He contended that this would

be inefficacious, and maintained that to convert our merchants into

privateers would be to turn them loose upon the seas as highway

robbers. They would not be competent to carry on a war in this way.

They would have abandoned their peaceful pursuits; they would accept a

fraternal embrace of French subjects; fight side by side with them, and

submit themselves to the will of the French Emperor. However scrupulous

gentlemen might now be, when the hour of danger came they would accept

the alliance of France. The national interests would be identified

with those of the European continent. We should adopt the continental

system, in which our liberties and independence would be jeopardized.

He deprecated the invasion of Canada as an act of foreign conquest. We

could not suppose that Great Britain would slumber over our occupation

of it, and where should we find a stationary force able to keep

possession of it as a conquered province? Admit it as a sister into the

Union, we dare not abandon it at the peace, and therefore we could not

give it back for the restoration of our maritime rights. But suppose

that Great Britain should be brought to her knees, (and this was all

the most valiant of us would ask,) what have we to expect, if the power

and the commerce of England should be thrown into the arms of France,

from the high, the mighty, the imperial Napoleon? Would he respect

us more than England would? They both follow their own interest, as

we ought to follow ours. What would be the effect of this war upon

ourselves?

He feared a war, not from a puerile fear of its expenses or of death,

but from a manly dread of the consequences of this war, which must

last as long as England had a ship at sea, or a man to man it. It must

link us to the destinies of continental Europe; it would place us

under complete foreign influence and foreign dominion; it would change

our political institutions. The sages who framed the constitution,

and illumined it by their commentaries, had predicted that it would

not suit to stand the shock of war. The Republic would be ruined by

war. We do not want courage. The Revolution had shown proofs of the

greatest valor ever exhibited by human nature. But few circumstances

besides invasion would justify war. It would strengthen the Executive

arm at the expense of the Legislature. The Chief Magistrate would have

to carry on the war. He would, upon the plea of necessity, change our

appropriations from one object to another. The constitution would be

sapped. The legislative power would be destroyed. He cared not for the

prices of cotton and tobacco as compared with the constitution. War

would introduce a slavish subordination among the people. They would

lose their republican simplicity and their republican independence.

They would neglect their homespun for the military plume and the gilded

epaulette. Their morals would become depraved. Love of idleness,

extravagance, and neglect of the dull pursuits of common life, would

take place. The desire would again prevail of acquiring large fortunes

by aid of invasion, at the expense of the war-worn soldier whose fruits

would be taken away for a mere song, as they had been at the close of

the Revolution. Cupidity would be introduced, and pervade the public

mind.

I have made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, to repel the declarations of

gentlemen, that to vote for this resolution would pledge me to embark

in war. If war is necessary, I would not shrink from it, big as it is

with calamity and ruin. It will be the duty of Government to obviate

some of its evils.

I am in hopes, too, sir, that I have been so fortunate as to check the

intemperance of the youth of my country. They will excuse me. I trust

we may not be led away by the ardor of youth or of old age. I shall

vote for the increase of the regular force, to go hand in hand with my

friends, even in a war, if necessary and just. I have not made this

speech to prove that I am against war.

Mr. FINDLAY said he had frequently observed members, after a question

had undergone a very tedious discussion, say that if the yeas and nays

had not been called they would not have spoken on the question, but

these having been called, they must assign the reasons for their votes.

He did not approve of that principle, because if it was to be reduced

to practice every member would speak to every such question, and there

would be no end of the debate. However, on this question, though he

thought it had been sufficiently discussed, yet he deemed it proper to

express a few thoughts, not so much to give the reasons for the vote he

designed to give, as to explain the principles on which he designed to

give his vote. He designed to vote for the resolution before the House,

but not surely for the same reasons or with the same determined views

that some honorable members have expressed. He would not dwell on the

tyrannies and robberies of either the more ancient or modern despots

or Governments, of the old world, but confine himself to such as had a

direct relation to the question depending before the House.

That the aggressions and bad faith of the British Government, and

the recommendations of the Executive, were the foundation of the

resolutions before the House, was admitted by all that have spoken

on the question. In order to be understood he would take a concise

retrospect of our relations with Britain since nearly the commencement

of the present Government of the United States.

During the First Congress an Indian war was commenced on our western

frontier, and conducted as usual with savage ferocity; but, believing

that it only resulted from the combination of a few tribes, our

defensive measures at first were weak, and our first attempts

unfortunate. But it soon became such a tedious and expensive war as to

require for several years the exertion of all our resources. It had at

last a fortunate conclusion; but during its progress our Government and

the citizens were fully convinced that the Indians were encouraged and

supported by the British Government.

We all knew that for several years past Indian councils have been

convened by British agents, who influenced them by presents, and

employed them as emissaries to excite the peaceable Indians in our own

territories to go to war against our new and dispersed settlements. It

would be infidelity to doubt the truth of the Indians having received

their arms, &c., from British agents, and though these British allies

have got a check in the late engagement, yet it also has cost us dear.

We have no ground to conclude that the danger is over; revenge is the

predominant passion of savages, and though we have not such unequivocal

proofs of the British in the present instance exciting the Indians

to war, and supplying them for that purpose, as we had in 1793, when

President WASHINGTON received a copy of Lord Dorchester's speech to

the Indian tribes, encouraging them to war against our settlements,

and promising them a co-operation of the British force--the copy of

which gracious speech several members yet in Congress saw at that

time, and every member has heard of it--through a kind Providence that

co-operation was prevented by the defeat of the British armies in

Europe. Though we have not at present such explicit proofs that the

Indians at present are acting as British allies, yet we have as much

proof as the nature of the case can afford, and it would be very unwise

if we did not act accordingly.

From the above view of the subject, if we had no other cause, I deduce

the expediency of increasing our regular force agreeable to the

recommendation of the President and of our committee. I think more

has been said about taking Canada than was necessary. It is true,

that during the same Indian war, it was the opinion of our most sage

politicians that we never could be secure against Indian war till we

had possession of Canada, and by that means have it in our power to cut

off the communication between foreign nations and the Indians on our

frontiers and in our own territory. They said that neither our revenue,

our credit or population would at that time justify the attempt; but

that we were rapidly increasing in population and all other resources,

while the nations of Europe are wasting their own strength, but the

time was fast approaching when we must repel national insults or

surrender our independence. This was said particularly with respect to

the impressment of our seamen. At the commencement of this outrage,

never committed by any other nation but Britain, the public mind was

very sensibly affected by it, but time and the frequent repetition of

the injury seems to have rendered the public feelings callous. This put

him in mind of what he had sometimes observed, that when the savages

scalped a few families on the frontier, the whole country was terribly

alarmed, but that after the savage butchery had continued and extended

itself for some time, the sensibility seemed to abate. This had been

evidently the effect of the continued impressment of our seamen.

Mr. ROBERTS observed he should offer no apology for rising so late

in this discussion, as the short time for which he was about to ask

attention would not justify it. The eloquence and talents which had

been so abundantly exhibited on this occasion, would not admit of

more than a concise expression of his opinion, without subjecting

him, justly, to the charge of presumption. When the report now under

consideration came first before the House, I was, said he, of the

number of those who were disposed to decide upon it without debate. I

have frequently been in the minority on the question of adjournment,

from a wish to reach the question on the resolutions. Under these

impressions I confess I viewed the challenge, or rather the invitation,

given by the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. GRUNDY,) "to debate this

subject now, if it was to be debated at all," more as the impulse of an

ingenuous mind, preferring, on all occasions, an open course, than the

dictates of prudence or necessity. Nor was it till after the gentleman

from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) had invited and urged discussion, that

I became disposed to join in opinion with them, the correctness of

which the debate of this day has very much strengthened.

By the adoption of this report, we are entering on a system of

operations of the utmost national moment; the effects of which the

wisest amongst us cannot fully foresee, and on which we have no choice

but to act. The discussion has already elicited opinions, which it

is well to know exist; and the more so, since some of them admit the

holders to vote for the report, while they allow them to be adverse to

the measures which are necessarily to follow it. A little time may be

well spent in comparing sentiments in this stage of the business, as it

may be conducive to celerity of movement in the sequel, and give more

certain effect to the measures which must ultimately be followed.

Every political community must, of necessity, possess rights, which it

may enjoy independently of, and in common with, every other. One of

those rights is an uncontrolled jurisdiction over its own territory. It

has long ago been found necessary for nations to settle by convention

on the great scale where the limits of territory shall cease, and where

the high seas shall commence. This convention, or law, has determined

that the ships of neutrals shall be a part of the national territory;

so long as they are careful to preserve a pacific character. Through

the intervention of vessels navigating the high seas, nations in amity

are enabled to overcome the want of proximity, and all the purposes of

trade and commercial intercourse may thereby be extended, as well to

the inhabitants of the remotest corners of the earth, as to those only

divided by a geometrical line. An attempt to interrupt this intercourse

by a third nation, is so serious an act of hostility and wrong, as not

only always to justify, but to demand, resistance. The gentleman from

Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has said the Government would not, on a former

occasion, go to war, when their trade, which consisted in carrying the

produce of one foreign country to another, was annoyed and cut up; and

why not, he says, be pacific now, as well as then? While I agree that

our national rights extend to both alike, admitting, however, every

Government to make her own municipal regulations, I must be allowed

to consider our direct export and import trade much better worth

contending for, than what has been denominated our carrying trade. The

cultivators and owners of the soil have never shown any disposition

to fight for the latter trade; and for a very plain and consistent

reason. War is sure to bring on its train of evils and expense; and

where it is obvious that these will amount to more than the loss of

the exercise of a right in its nature of but transitory use and minor

interest, a free people may with propriety refuse to hazard them for

its support. It is not for such a people to war for a speculative

right or an empty name. The carrying trade, it must be owned, was

profitable in exercise, but it was a profit that could be given up

without vital prejudice to the national interests. Not so with our fair

export trade. To yield this would be absolute recolonization. It must

not only affect us in the great resources of national strength, but it

must break the spirit of our citizens, and make them infidels in the

principle of self-government. It would, at the same time, add means

and facilities to the aggressing nation to multiply her outrages. Give

up the export trade to Great Britain, and you will next be required

to give up the coasting trade, and to admit her navigation act to as

complete operation in our bays and harbors, as it now has round the

limited shores of the British isles. The spirit of commercial monopoly

she has so pertinaciously manifested, proves that her ambition craves

more than her means can aspire to. The wrongs she has long been and

still is committing towards these States, have assumed a character that

imperiously calls for a resistance, made by all for the benefit of all.

I cannot with some gentlemen doubt the sufficiency of this Government

to conduct a war. However congenial a state of peace may be to a

Republic, the Constitution of the United States must have been

framed with a view to war as well as peace. The members of the grand

convention had almost all been active characters in the Revolutionary

war. On the subject of war they were certainly more than mere

theorists. Honest apprehensions have, too, been entertained in times

back of the Government being too strong; I think, however, that we may

look with well-grounded confidence for complete sufficiency in it;

without being alarmed at the reverse of the picture. While the power

of declaring war is vested in Congress; while levies and supplies

are within its control; while a check on the appointing powers is

vested in the Senate, and a periodical termination of the President's

office exists; the Executive arm, though sufficiently untrammelled

for necessary and useful command, is effectually paralyzed as to

the exercise of power to affect or change the free features of the

Government; unless indeed the representation should become utterly

corrupt, an event no one can believe possible. I feel much satisfaction

at this moment in seeing a man at the head of the Government who had

a conspicuous concern in framing the constitution, and whose official

duties have since closely connected him with the administration of

Government under it. In the Message out of which the report before you

has sprung, not the slightest doubt is discoverable of the efficiency

of our institutions to sustain us under every exigency that may

overtake us. My own reflections on this subject (and they have neither

been light nor transitory) have neither served to alarm nor intimidate.

I repose in safety on the saving maxim, "never to despair of the

Republic."

Mr. MCKEE.--Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House, at this late hour

of the debate, with reluctance; but the importance of the question must

be my apology.

Some gentlemen, in felicitating themselves on account of the temper of

the House, evidenced by the determination to adopt vigorous measures

against England, have expressed a regret that measures of a similar

character had not been resorted to long since.

In this sentiment I cannot agree. In reviewing past times, we cannot

but perceive that it has been the desire of the Government to avoid

being involved in the war with which Europe has been so long desolated,

and by dealing out justice to the belligerents, respectively, with an

impartial hand, to preserve our neutrality, permitting our citizens

peacefully to pursue their private avocations, reaping the rich harvest

arising from our neutral commerce.

This was certainly a wise policy, and the distinguished success with

which it was attended is a clear evidence of its wisdom and propriety.

Why, then, should it be condemned? Have any people ever acquired

individual wealth with so much rapidity; or have any been more happy in

the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity than the people of the United

States? None. The wish of the late and the present Administrations

was to continue this state of happy prosperity as long as it was

practicable, by making acts of wrong and vexation of a minor sort,

growing out of the violence of the times, the subject of negotiation,

rather than a cause of war. And, is this course of policy now to be

condemned, and regrets entered up that we have not been at war years

ago?

At the opening of the session of Congress, in December, 1809, after

the disavowal of Erskine's arrangement, when our relations with

England assumed a more unfavorable aspect than at the close of the

summer session, the Committee on Foreign Relations, with a desire to

preserve our neutrality, presented to the House a measure usually

termed Macon's bill, No. 1; a measure which it is now known was

approved by the Administration, and had the sanction even of a higher

authority, (if such there be.) This measure was calculated in its

operation to present serious difficulties to those nations by whom

the rights of our neutral flag were disregarded; and, at the same

time, it left open to the enterprise of our citizens those channels of

trade, not included within the scope of the orders and decrees of the

belligerents, as they then stood; a commerce as extensive and valuable

as we can expect to enjoy in times of general peace. It was, however,

opposed, and successfully, too, by war speeches. It fell, and by its

fall the Administration were driven from their ground, and the hopes of

maintaining much longer the neutrality of the United States also fell

with it. This unfortunate event was succeeded by the act of May, 1810.

By this act, the belligerents were invited, in a new form, to withdraw

their orders and decrees; promising, on our part, in case either of

them should accept the invitation thus given to both, to put in force

the non-importation sections of the non-intercourse law against the

party persevering in their orders or decrees for three months after

their adversary had accepted the invitation thus given. The law of May,

1810, was enacted with a hope that the terms thereby offered to the

belligerents, respectively, would induce the one or the other to accept

them, and withdraw their orders or decrees. And an expectation was also

entertained, that if one of the parties could be induced to relinquish

their orders or decrees, the other party would follow the example; and,

if this just expectation should be met by a perseverance of either

of the parties in their orders or decrees, after their adversary had

accepted the invitation thus given, it would test the sincerity of the

various and repeated declarations made by them, respectively, that

their orders and decrees, affecting our commerce, were reluctantly

issued in their own just defence.

Those also who preferred war to the preservation of our neutrality,

and by whom Macon's bill was rejected, would be relieved from the

embarrassment of going to war with two of the most powerful nations in

the world, or of selecting which of the two should be made our enemy,

at a time when we had just cause of war against both. The fixed and

determined hostility of one of the parties towards the United States

would be (as it certainly now is) most clearly proved; and thereby our

measures of hostility rendered the more necessary, and more likely to

receive the unanimous approbation of the American people.

My opinion, therefore, is, that it was wise to preserve our neutrality

as long as possible, making an appeal to force the last reluctant

resort; and, inasmuch as the majority of Congress, in 1809, resolved to

change the peaceful character of this country, the intervening period

has been employed in a last effort to avert the calamities of war; the

result of which has relieved this Government from any liability to the

charge of partiality to either of the belligerents, by compelling one

of them, by their own act, to present themselves as the object of our

just hostility.

Mr. STANFORD said, as the resolution before the House contemplated

an additional army, and from the avowal of its friends, involved in

it the question of peace or war, he felt the desire to assign the

reasons of his vote upon so important a subject. He was the more

disposed to do so as he should probably find himself in a very small

minority upon the question. He was not flattered, he said, with using

arguments which would convince others; but for himself he felt their

force strong enough to fix his mind against the measure. If he were to

vote, he said, for the proposed army, he should vote inconsistently

with all his former opinions and principles upon the subject, and he

never could think of acting a part inconsistent with himself, and

that more especially when all his experience had gone to confirm his

first impressions, his honest prejudices against standing armies. Such

establishments had always proved the bane of free Governments, and he

could not see how we were to get along with them, and remain, as he

believed we were, the freest and happiest people upon earth.

But, sir, we are told war is to be declared in certain events, and

that the army proposed is to invade and take the Canadas. We are then

to pass out of the limits of the United States and wage a war of the

foreign offensive kind! If such was the contemplated use of this army

when raised, he was still the more opposed to the measure. He was

against the war itself, and the policy of it, and could by no means

yield his vote to bring it about. That there were sufficient cause of

war, he was ready to acknowledge, and he was not disposed in any the

least degree to palliate the offences of Great Britain, or that of any

of the other belligerents, committed on the persons and property of

our citizens. All of them had deserved war at our hands, but we had

at no time since the commencement of our present Government seen it

our interest or policy to give into it, in the open and declared form,

nor that of any other form, except that of a _quasi_ character which

happened under Mr. Adams's administration. The question never had been

whether we had or had not cause of war, but whether the true interest

of the United States did not, under all circumstances, call aloud upon

us to cherish peace, and to avoid war and its evils as the last of the

alternatives before us; and this, said Mr. S., he would be able to show

was the Republican doctrine, as well in the old minority times as since

that minority grew into a majority.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) had made a direct appeal

to the Republican party, and endeavored to rally and unite them in

this, to them at least, new doctrine of war. If the appeal of the

gentleman had any reference to him, he would beg leave to deny some

of his positions. He had himself had some small share to act in the

political scenes of '98-9, and he was glad to find from the gentleman's

declaration that he had joined in the "clamor" of the day, to pull down

the then Federal Administration for the unjustifiable war which they

had gone into with France. Mr. S. said he knew he had joined in it most

heartily. He believed he then acted right in all he did to supersede

that Administration, and he still believed he was right. The best

interests of the country forbade the war, and so the people determined,

when ultimately they came to decide the question. That party thus

ousted by the public voice, the present Republican majority was brought

in upon their own professions of better principles, the love of peace

and economy. But now, forgetting our old professions under a French

crisis, we had raised the cry of war under a British one, and nothing

short of it was to save our honor. Mr. S. declared if there was any

difference in the causes of war then and now, he thought it turned most

decidedly in favor of the former period, since the more intolerable

outrage in the case of the Chesapeake had been at length atoned for.

What were the facts? French decrees existed at that time against your

rightful commerce--he spoke of the arrêttes or decrees of the French

directory--these had the same practical effect on our maritime neutral

rights that the British orders have now. French cruisers waylaid the

mouths of your harbors, and captured your vessels; and the first

successful act of the United States after the quasi-war commenced, was,

the taking of one of these cruisers in the mouth of one of our harbors.

But, said Mr. S., the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,)

tells us it is a principle of honor in a nation, as in an individual,

to resist a first insult. If such doctrine is to be admitted, when

should we have had a moment's peace? From one or the other belligerents

of Europe, since their late wars commenced, we have never been without

just complaints against them for some violation of our neutral rights,

and of course must have taken an early share in their wars. The truth

is, we cannot liken, nor will the similitude hold good between an

individual's honor, or his sensibility to it, and that of a nation's.

A single impressment or capture may be well admitted to form a ground

of reprisal and war; but we should have been a ruined country long ere

now, if, under the existing circumstances of the world, and belligerent

Europe, we had yielded to this quickness of sensibility, and had gone

to war for a first and single instance of aggression from either of

the belligerents. The same gentleman argues that every thing now calls

upon us to make a stand; that there was no danger to our liberties in a

standing army of twenty or thirty thousand men, and that all admitted

there was justifiable cause of war, and he believed it had now become

necessary. This was declaiming, Mr. S. said, very handsomely upon

the subject of war, he would agree; and he very well recollected we

had heard the same doctrines precisely, and he thought he might be

permitted to say, a strain of declamation, at least equally handsome,

upon the same subject, and from the same State, in 1798-'9.[17] Mr. S.

contended as the then doctrines of war, (and it must be admitted the

causes of it were also alike in their character,) it was fair to expect

that in due time public opinion would come to be the same in both cases.

But, Mr. S. said, he could not perceive how the present, of all others,

had become the necessary and accepted time for war with Great Britain.

The attack on the Chesapeake frigate had been lately atoned for, to

the satisfaction of our Government; and, he trusted, had not been so

done as to aggravate the crisis of affairs between the two countries.

If calculated to do so, our Government could not have received it. The

impressment of our seamen was a just complaint against the British

Government; but it commenced under the Administration of General

WASHINGTON, and no one would say he was less sensible to national honor

and independence than ourselves. Under all the circumstances of that

cause of complaint, he did not think it a cause sufficient for him to

depart from the neutral ground he had assumed; nor was the annoyance of

our commerce less vexatious in his time than since. In like manner,

under Mr. Adams's Administration, the same complaints existed, though

in that of the latter, not, perhaps, to the same degree; and, under

the eight years of Mr. Jefferson's Administration, the same state of

things continued, certainly with an increased degree of violence, to

which was also added the more aggravating insult upon the Chesapeake.

Mr Jefferson had never been suspected of partiality for Great Britain,

and then, indeed, the accepted time had come for a war with that

Government; all parties were united, and pledged themselves to support

him in the war. The pulse of the nation beat high for it. But he felt,

because he knew, that peace was the best interest of his country, and

forbore to call Congress together. He had always admired the man; but,

upon that occasion, he felt more than a sentiment of admiration toward

him. When, at length, wrongs had thus accumulated, and called for

some system of counteraction and resistance till negotiation could be

farther tried, the embargo was resorted to in preference to war; and,

when that was done away, a system of non-intercourse was substituted,

and to that again succeeded the present alternative law of the same

kind; the non-importation system which has grown out of this with Great

Britain has not been tried one whole year yet. If gentlemen will have

it that this is the accepted time for war, how has it happened that we

have not had it before? Our Councils may be presumed to have been as

sensible to aggression, and as patriotic to redress it, as we now are.

But, Mr. Speaker, said Mr. S., opposed as he was to the idea of the

United States becoming one of the belligerent nations--to the linking

our destinies with those of the European Powers; to the taking any

share in their present conflicts, if his country once determined upon

it, he would not then hesitate to vote any force, or other means to

bring it to as speedy and as happy an issue as possible: until then he

should preserve his own consistency; and contribute in no way to bring

about that state of things which, he believed, would prove most ruinous

to his country.

Mr. KING.--Mr. Speaker, I should not have troubled this House with any

remarks of mine, had it not been for the observations which have just

fallen from my colleague from North Carolina. I shall not attempt,

sir, to follow that gentleman in the history which he has given of

the progress of party in this country, but shall content myself with

stating, that, in our sentiments, we entirely differ; his is the

doctrine of submission; yes, sir, the most abject submission; mine, I

trust, is not. I am in favor of the resolution now on your table. I am

aware, sir, of the many important considerations which will naturally

suggest themselves to the mind of every real friend of his country,

when he views the consequences which may result from the adoption

of the measure now contemplated. When, sir, the habits of a nation,

ingrafted, as it were, in its very nature, are about to be departed

from; when the destinies of the country are about to be launched on

an untried ocean, and when the doubt is about to be solved, whether

our Republican Government is alike calculated to support us through

the trials and difficulties of war, and guide us in safety down the

gentle current of peace, I am aware, sir, that we should pause and

ponder well the subject; that we should divest ourselves of those

warm feelings which most generally take possession of our minds on

viewing the unjust prostration of the rights of our country. Sir, that

interest which I feel, in common with others, on the decision of a

question of such magnitude and importance, will, I trust, induce this

House to bear with me a moment, while, in a few words, I explain the

motives by which I am actuated in giving my decided approbation to the

resolution now under consideration. If, sir, I were merely to turn my

attention to the local situation of that portion of the country which

I have the honor particularly to represent; its extensive and exposed

seacoasts, combined with its present commercial advantages; I should,

without hesitation, give my vote to the proposed measure. But, sir,

as in my individual capacity, I feel at all times willing to make not

only pecuniary sacrifices, but to expose my person in vindicating the

rights and interests of my country, in my Representative capacity, I

will undertake to say, that my constituents will do no less. Sir, the

demon Avarice, which benumbs every warm emotion of the soul, has not

yet gained the ascendency in the South: the love of country animates

every breast, and burns with inextinguishable ardor. Sir, they feel

in common, I trust, with a great majority of every portion of this

Union, the degradation of our country, in submitting for a moment

longer to the dishonorable terms proposed directly or indirectly by

the British Government. Mr. Speaker, I hold it to be correct, that, in

discussing a subject of such importance, a view of the various matters

necessarily connected with it, will not be considered irrelevant:

but, sir, I will not weary the patience of this House with a detail

of injuries, unparalleled in the history of former times, wantonly

inflicted on a nation which manifested to the whole world her sincere

desire to support the neutral stand which had been taken at the

earliest period of her Government, and most tenaciously adhered to. We

have carefully avoided, Mr. Speaker, any participation in that system

of politics which has convulsed and distracted the European world. We

have restricted ourselves in the full enjoyment of our rights, lest

by strictly enforcing them, we might produce a collision with any

nation, however little her conduct might be guided by the principles of

equity. Sir, we have borne with injury, until, in the language of your

committee, forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. We have remonstrated,

we have appealed to the justice, to the interest, of the two great

contending powers of Europe; every effort proved abortive; our calls

for justice were drowned in the declaration that their measures were

merely retaliatory, and not intended to interfere with neutral rights;

thus, sir, the matter rested, when specific propositions were submitted

to each. Yes, sir, by an act which has placed the impartiality of

our country beyond the reach of suspicion, we demanded of each the

revocation of her obnoxious edicts as the only means of preserving our

friendship. We all know what has been the consequence: France has met

our advances, has embraced our propositions. Great Britain not only

refuses a repeal on her part, but, while she affects to lament the

effects produced on neutral rights, takes the most effectual methods

to render them perpetual. Sir, blindness and ignorance itself can no

longer be deceived by British policy.

We have been told, sir, that this will be a war for the support of

the carrying trade; let me here remark, and I wish to be distinctly

understood, as avowing my determination never to give a vote, so long

as I have the honor of a seat on this floor, which will involve this

country in a war, for the recovery or support of this extraneous

species of commerce. I believe I shall not be incorrect when I assert,

that nine-tenths of this country never did and never will derive the

smallest benefit from it. But, sir, the right to carry in our own ships

the produce of our own country to any quarter, not thereby violating

the laws of nations, or contravening legitimate municipal regulations,

is one which I never will yield; for, sir, in doing so, we paralyze the

industry of our citizens; we give a fatal blow to the best interests

of our country. Yes, sir, we yield the principle, we invite to further

encroachments. Our country, sir, is agricultural, but so intimately

blended with commerce, that the one cannot long exist unaided by the

other. Sir, I will not yield an inch of ground, when, by so doing,

I destroy an essential right of my country--or sap the foundation

of that independence cemented by the blood of our fathers. We were

told by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) a few days since,

that we have sufficient cause for war. I ask you, then, sir, why do

we hesitate? Shall we always yield? Shall we always shrink from the

contest? The adoption of this resolution is the touchstone--by it we

rise or fall. We have been asked, Mr. Speaker, why not lay upon your

table a proposition to go to war? It is there, sir; it is contained

in this resolution; the moment we give it our sanction we declare

our fixed resolve to render effective the force contemplated to be

raised. Yes, sir, unless Great Britain manifests a disposition speedily

to do us justice--by her acts, sir, not by her words. The gentleman

from Virginia calls upon the Representatives of the seacoasts, of the

slaveholding States, and asks if they are willing to say to England

"we intend to go to war with you." Does the gentleman mean to excite

our fears for the loss of our property? As one of the many on this

floor who stand in the situation mentioned by that gentleman, I step

forth to declare for myself and my constituents, that, when loss of

national honor is placed in the scale, and attempted to be balanced

by pecuniary interest, we will, without hesitation, kick the beam.

But, sir, we are now contending for the restoration of our rights, the

deprivation of which strikes at the very foundations of our prosperity.

Sir, to us, it matters little whether our cities tumble into ruin by

desertion for want of employment, by poverty produced by British wrongs

and aggression, or, in vindicating the cause of our country, fall by a

quicker process. Sir, I have no fear of invasion, and, therefore, have

no fears arising from the black population, which strikes with so much

horror on the sensitive mind of the gentleman from Virginia. For my

country, Mr. Speaker, I lament its existence; I view it as the bane,

the curse of the land, and most sincerely, sir, do I wish that a second

Moses could take them by the hand, and lead them in safety to a distant

land, where their cries would never more strike on the ear of sympathy.

We have been told, sir, that this will be a war of aggrandizement, a

war of conquest. I am as little disposed to extend the territory as

any other individual of this House. I know that dissimilar interests

must and will prevail from a too great extension of our dominion. But,

sir, we will not here enter into a discussion, whether an accession of

country would or would not conduce to the interests of the Government.

Sir, this will be a war forced upon us; we cannot, under existing

circumstances, avoid it. To wound our enemy in the most vulnerable

part should only be considered. Sir, I trust, if our differences with

Great Britain are not speedily adjusted, (of which, indeed, I have no

expectation,) we shall take Canada. Yes, sir, by force; by valor; not

by seduction, as the gentleman from Virginia expresses it. I have no

reliance on their friendship--I hope it will not be calculated on. Sir,

I am not deterred from the firm purposes of my mind, by the predictions

of the gentleman from Virginia. I have no fears, sir, that the people

of our country will desert their Government while asserting the rights

of the country; and I must believe, that gentleman's assertion to the

contrary notwithstanding, that Virginia will not be the last to afford

supplies.

Mr. BOYD.--Mr. Speaker, I should not have risen, on the present

occasion, had not the honorable Committee of Foreign Relations

requested all those that did not intend to vote for such ulterior

measures as they might hereafter find necessary to bring forward,

would not vote for the present resolutions, as they were a part of a

system that might eventuate in war, &c. From those observations, I feel

myself, and those that I in part have the honor to represent, called

on to say how far I will go, and how far I will not go. Sir, when we

talk about war, we ought to know for what we are going to wage it,

and to see that the means are commensurate to the end. Let it not be

thought by this that I have any apology to make for Great Britain, or

her manifold wrongs. I have none. I say, perish the heart, the head and

the tongue, that will attempt her justification or apology? No, sir,

they are a nation of pirates, and have committed many wrongs on us; and

it becomes us to look for our remedy, and how it is to be obtained. We

are told that these resolutions are a part of a war measure. I do not

receive them as such, but as preparatory to what may happen or become

necessary. But, for argument sake, suppose it so, and that we are to

have war--your army raised, and ready to march to the Canadas; with how

many are you going to take them? In my opinion, not less than fifty

thousand men will be required. Suppose the English should be driven

out of Spain and Portugal, (which may by this time be the case, or

it may soon be so,) what number of troops can she send to reinforce

her possessions and meet you? But, say some gentlemen, American blood

has been spilt, and we must avenge it. How is that to be done? For

gallons will you spill torrents; or am I to understand that we shall

have war without bloodshed? Sir, let those that think so turn their

attention to the Revolutionary war--the Sugarhouse in New York, the

Prevost, the Prison-ship, the Wallabout, Fort Washington, White Plains,

Princeton, Trenton, Monmouth, Brandywine, Guildford, and many other

places. New Jersey has had her full share of the fighting--other States

the benefit; and if we have war again, we shall have our share of

fighting--others the loaves and fishes. But, sir, I will not complain:

we obtained our liberty, and I am willing to support it in the best

possible manner. But here another question arises. You go to war for

the right to export our surplus produce--tobacco, cotton, flour, with

many other articles. Let me ask, what will be your export while that

war continues? Will you have any? I think not. But I will suppose

that you could export without interruption; would the whole of the

exportable produce pay for the war during the continuance of it? No,

it would not. Sir, it would take less money from the Government to

pay for it, and make a fire of it. Nearly thirty years have elapsed

since the Revolutionary war, and that war not half paid for. Is not

the war-worn soldier calling on us every day with his demands? You

are about to drain your Treasury, borrow money, enlarge your pension

list, build additional hospitals, increase our national debt, not to

be extinguished or paid off, but to be a lasting burden on the people.

But, say the honorable committee, our honor requires it. It is well; I

honor the spirit and magnanimity of the committee, and have no doubt

of their courage and zeal for our country's rights. But, sir, you must

take young men for action--old men for counsel. It is an easy matter

to go to law or war, but it is a hard matter to get out of it. The

gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. WRIGHT,) in defending the character of

the soldier, has given us a quotation, viz:

"Honor and shame from no condition rise,

Act well your part, there all the honor lies."