On motion of Mr. PORTER, the Message was referred to the committee
appointed on that part of the President's Message at the commencement
of the session, which relates to Foreign Relations.
And, after a short lapse of time, Mr. Porter, from the Committee on
Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the above-cited Message of the
President of the United States, presented a bill laying an embargo on
all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States;
which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the whole House
to-day.
The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the said bill; and,
Mr. BOYD then moved to amend it by striking out of the first section
sixty days, and insert one hundred and twenty days. He said a gentleman
declared the measure to be a precursor to war--the time will be much
too short for the great amount of American property now abroad to
return; the motion was negatived.
Mr. SEYBERT viewed the subject as of vast importance; he considered
that the proposition came to the House in a very questionable shape;
he wanted information, and he called upon the Committee of Foreign
Relations to say whether it is to be considered as a peace measure or a
precursor to war.
Mr. GRUNDY (one of the committee) said he was willing to answer the
very proper inquiry of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SEYBERT,)
that he understands it as a war measure, and it is meant that it shall
lead directly to it; that with any other view there can be no propriety
in it; as a peace measure, he had no idea that the President would have
recommended it, nor would the committee have agreed to it. He hoped the
gentleman from Pennsylvania would now be satisfied, and prepare his
mind to vote for it.
Mr. MCKEE objected to the last section, on account of the penalties
which it proposed, which he considered altogether unimportant, as it is
to be a precursor to war, it being merely precautionary and for a short
time. He made some other inquiries respecting the section, and why such
provisions were in it.
Mr. PORTER said the bill was draughted according to the wishes and
directions of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. STOW said the subject before the committee ought to be considered
of very great importance. If, as some gentlemen say, it is a precursor
to war, there were some very serious questions to be asked--What is
the situation of our fortresses? What is the situation of our country
generally? He would answer, they are defenceless, particularly the
fortifications in New York, which are unmanned and unarmed. He said
this fact appeared by a letter now in possession of a member of the
House, which has very lately been received from Judge Livingston, of
New York. Mr. S. said, that to try the question whether we will now lay
an embargo, he moved that the first section of the bill be stricken out.
Mr. CLAY (the SPEAKER) then warmly expressed his satisfaction and
full approbation of the Message, and the proposition now before the
Committee. He approved of it because it is to be viewed as a direct
precursor to war. He did not wish upon this occasion to hear of the
opinion of Brockholst Livingston or any other man. No gentleman can
question the propriety of the proposition. Gentlemen who said so much
about the want of preparation are not for war. He considered this a
war measure, and as such he should discuss it. Sir, said Mr. C., after
the pledges we have made, and the stand we have taken, are we now to
cover ourselves with shame and indelible disgrace by retreating from
the measures and grounds we have taken? He then stated our measures,
our pledges, and the great injuries and abuses we have received. He
said, what would disgrace an individual under certain circumstances
would disgrace a nation. And what would you think of one individual
who had thus conducted to another, and should then retreat? He did
not think we were upon this occasion in the least embarrassed by the
conduct of France in burning our vessels; that may be a subject of
future consideration. We have complete evidence as to the enemy whom we
have selected. As weak and imbecile as we are, we would combine France
if necessary. He said there was no intrinsic difficulty or terror in
the war: there was no terror except what arises from the novelty. Where
are we to come in contact with our enemy? On our own continent. If
gentlemen please to call these sentiments Quixotic, he would say he
pitied them for their sense of honor. We know no pains have been spared
to vilify the Government. If we now proceed we shall be supported
by the people. Many of our people have not believed that war is to
take place. They have been wilfully blinded. He was willing to give
them further notice. It remains for us to say whether we will shrink
or follow up the patriotic conduct of the President. As an American
and a member of this House, he felt a pride that the Executive had
recommended this measure.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he was so impressed with the importance of the
subject and the solemnity of the occasion, that he could not be silent.
Sir, said Mr. R., we are now in conclave; the eyes of the surrounding
world are not upon us. We are shut up here from the light of Heaven;
but the eyes of God are upon us. He knows the spirit of our minds.
Shall we deliberate upon this subject with the spirit of sobriety and
candor, or with that spirit which has too often characterized our
discussions upon occasions like the present? We ought to realize that
we are in the presence of that God who knows our thoughts and motives,
and to whom we must hereafter render an account for the deeds done in
the body. He hoped the spirit of party and every improper passion would
be exorcised, that our hearts might be as pure and clean as fall to the
lot of human nature.
He was confident in declaring that this was not a measure of the
Executive--that it was engendered by an extensive excitement upon the
Executive. He agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SEYBERT)
that it comes to us in a very _questionable shape_, or rather in an
_unquestionable shape_--whose ever measure it is, the people of the
United States will consider it as a subterfuge for war; as a retreat
from the battle. We some years ago resolved that we must have _war_,
_embargo_, or _submission_--we have not had war or submitted--we must
therefore have embargo. It appears to be limited to sixty days; at the
expiration of that time will any one say we shall be prepared for war?
Sir, we are in the situation of a debtor who promises to pay his note
at the bank in sixty days--we shall prolong the time sixty days, and
sixty days after that, until deferred hope makes the heart sick. He
would tell the honorable Speaker that, at the end of sixty days, we
shall not have war, and the reason is, the Executive dare not plunge
the nation into a war in our unprepared state.
Mr. BOYD, of New Jersey, said, while he admitted the fire and spirit of
the honorable Speaker, he thought he would do well to be considerate.
He asked whether we were prepared to assail our enemy, or repel her
attacks? He asked, whether it is wise in an unarmed nation, as we are,
to commence hostilities against one so completely prepared?
The motion to strike out the first section was lost--ayes 35, noes 70.
Mr. SEYBERT said, that in voting for the several important measures
which Congress have agreed to this session, he felt himself pledged
to go to war; that he was in favor of an embargo as a precautionary
measure and precursor to war. When we voted for the twenty-five
thousand men he supposed the Executive intended war--but he has now
such information from a friend in whom he confides, as leads him to
believe that offensive operations are not meant. We ought to be better
prepared before we engage in war. He had observed in the Baltimore
papers that the British have ordered a squadron and twenty thousand men
for our coast.
Mr. SMILIE expressed his surprise at the observations of his friend
and colleague: he did not know from what quarter he had obtained his
information, that the President does not mean war. Does he believe
he has all this time been deceiving the Legislature? He had heard but
one sentiment from the President, which is, _that we must make war_
unless Great Britain relents. The President had always supposed that
the embargo must precede war--the only difference has been as to the
time, which has been finally compromised. The embargo is intended as
a war measure. He would assure his colleague it was intended by both
the Executive and the Committee of Foreign Relations. That being now
up, he would observe that, at the beginning of the session, he was not
so warm for war as many were, but he was for commercial restrictions.
He was not for the twenty-five thousand men; but as the House have
determined otherwise he would now go to war--if we now recede we shall
be a reproach among all nations.
Mr. SEYBERT then said, that his intention was to resist seriously Great
Britain; he would be plain; but he was not for going to war unprepared.
When the bill for raising the twenty-five thousand men was before
the House, it was then declared to be according to the wishes of the
Secretary at War--since that time the Secretary has said it was not his
wish, from which he concluded it was not the wish of the President.
Mr. RANDOLPH proposed to read, from memoranda in his possession, of
what occurred in the Committee of Foreign Relations, and a conference
between them and the Secretary of State; which was objected to.
Mr. BASSETT (Chairman) considered it in order.
Mr. CALHOUN appealed.
The Chairman's decision was confirmed--yeas 60.
Mr. RANDOLPH said, it will appear that the embargo is not preparatory
to war, that is to say, it was not necessarily so, and of course
not of the character which the Speaker has considered it. From his
minutes (among other facts) it appeared that Mr. Monroe said to the
committee that the President thought we ought to declare war before we
adjourn, unless Great Britain recedes, of which there was no prospect.
That there was conversation about an embargo. Mr. Monroe was asked
by some of the committee whether the President would recommend it by
message; he answered that he would, if he could be assured it would be
acceptable to the House. He also said Mr. Barlow had been instructed to
represent to the French Government our sense of the injuries received,
and to press upon them our demands for reparation--that if she refused
us justice, the embargo would leave the policy as respects France, and
indeed of both countries, in our hands. He was asked if any essential
alterations would be made within sixty days, in the defence of our
maritime frontier or seaports? Mr. M. answered that pretty considerable
preparations would be made. He said New York was in a respectable state
of defence, but not such as to resist a formidable fleet; but that it
was not to be expected that such a kind of war would be carried on. It
was replied that we must expect what commonly happens in wars. Mr. M.
said that, although a great distress and injury might take place in
one part of the Union, it would not essentially affect the population
or resources of the Union at large. As to the prepared state of the
country, he said, in case of a declaration of war, the President would
not feel himself bound to take upon himself more than his share of the
responsibility. Mr. M. said that the unprepared state of the country
was the only reason why ulterior measures should be deferred.
Mr. R. then said that the step we are about taking is too high a price
to pay for the consistency of gentlemen who think they have gone too
far to recede; it is too expensive to bolster them up in this way. He
asked what will be the situation of this people in sixty days? Put your
note into the bank, and see how soon it will be out. What will be the
situation of this unhappy, misguided country? What would it have been
for sixty, one hundred, or three hundred and sixty-five days past? He
had hoped not to have seen the old story of the dog worrying the cat,
&c., realized. Are the majority, in consequence of having been goaded
by the presses, to plunge the people into a war by bringing them first
to the whipping-post and then by exciting their spirit? He would assure
the House the spirit of the people is not up to it at this time; if so,
there would be no necessity of those provocations to excite this false
spirit--this kind of Dutch courage. If you mean war, if the spirit of
the country is up to it, why have you been spending five months in idle
debate?
Messrs. GRUNDY and CALHOUN said they were not impressed with a
recollection of the facts which occurred before the Committee of
Foreign Relations in the same manner as had been stated by Mr.
RANDOLPH. They did not recollect that Mr. Monroe said the embargo would
leave the policy, as respects both belligerents, in our hands.
Mr. PORTER said he was in favor of an embargo, as a measure which ought
to precede war; but it was very important that we should be prepared
before we commence war. He did not believe it was possible to commence
it with safety within four months from this time. Such a measure as an
embargo would be of immense injury to the State of New York, on account
of their flour which has gone to market.
The committee rose and reported the bill without amendment, and the
question was, Shall it be engrossed for a third reading?
Mr. QUINCY then moved that the injunction of secrecy be taken off from
the proceedings.
Mr. PITKIN said there was but one precedent of an embargo being passed
with closed doors.
The ayes and noes were agreed to be taken on Mr. QUINCY'S motion.
Mr. WRIGHT then made a question of order on Mr. QUINCY'S motion.
The SPEAKER decided it was not in order, another question being before
the House.
Mr. LITTLE then moved the previous question, which he soon withdrew.
Mr. STOW then expressed his alarm and astonishment at the course we
are taking. He said the country was wholly unprepared to enter into
a war within the time which had been mentioned. He warned gentlemen
of their danger, and the ruin which threatened our defenceless towns.
The authority which he had cited ought to have more weight than the
hear-says of some young members in this House. The elections of the
maritime parts of the country will put your places into the possession
of your political adversaries. You may be assured you tread on
deceitful ground. The intelligent party of the community at the North
are against the war. There is no calculating the injury it will be to
the State of New York.
Mr. BASSETT spoke in favor of the measure, and respecting the injuries
we have received from Great Britain.
Mr. ROBERTS then moved for the previous question.
Mr. SHEFFEY called for the ayes and noes.
The motion for the previous question was carried--ayes 66, noes 40.
The question was, Shall the bill be engrossed for a third
reading?--Carried--ayes 71, noes 30.
The question was then, on what day shall it be read?
Mr. GRUNDY moved it be read immediately.
Mr. MACON proposed to-morrow.
Mr. QUINCY said (it then being half-past seven o'clock in the evening)
he had not been able to take any part in the debate; that the measure
which had been thus hurried, was extremely interesting to his immediate
constituents, and he was very anxious to express his sentiments upon
it--but he was so fatigued with the tedious sitting, that he was unable
to do it this evening, and hoped the House would indulge him until
to-morrow. He would not condescend to debate such a question in the
present state of the House, and he asked for the ayes and noes on Mr.
MACON'S motion, which were agreed to be taken.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he was desirous to grant the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts. It was in his opinion a very reasonable
one. The deportment of the other side of the House had, during the
whole of the session, been very gentlemanly towards the majority;
and, sir, said he, will you now refuse to give them an opportunity
to express their sentiments upon a measure which, in their view, is
important? He said that policy on the part of the majority ought to
dictate the indulgence asked for. The majority now stand on high
ground--what will be said, and what will be the consequence of a
refusal? We shall lose the ground on which we now stand.
Mr. MACON was of the same opinion; he thought the minority had acted
with more propriety than he ever knew in a minority.
Mr. WRIGHT objected, although he was willing to acknowledge the
minority had conducted with propriety.
Mr. NELSON said it appeared to him that according to the importance of
subjects, so is our precipitancy. Is the minority thus to be dragooned
into this measure? For one, he wished to reflect upon it. The first
intimation he had of this measure, was the Message. If it is intended
as a precautionary measure, as the precursor to war, as some gentlemen
have treated it, it is a question of doubt in his mind. He thought it
better to arm our merchantmen; to grant letters of marque and reprisal;
and repeal our non-importation law. We have already suffered enough
under our restrictive system. If we pass the bill to-night, it cannot
be a law until the other branch act upon it. When we are going to war,
it will be well known that we have the spontaneous support of more than
one-half the community.
Mr. ALSTON said he would have voted on the motion, if the gentleman had
not asked for the ayes and noes; but as he appears desirous to marshal
one side of the House against the other, he was not disposed to gratify
him in his request.
Mr. WIDGERY declared war to be inevitable, and it ought not to be
delayed; on this account he was against postponing the bill until
to-morrow. If we do it at all, it ought to be speedily. It is not to be
believed that argument will change a single vote. The responsibility is
on the majority.
The question on reading to-morrow was negatived--57 to 54.
It was then read a third time; and on the question, Shall the bill
pass? it was carried--ayes 70, noes 41.
_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act laying an embargo on all ships
and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States for a limited
time."
Mr. GRUNDY and Mr. WRIGHT were appointed a committee to carry the
said bill to the Senate, and to inform them that the House of
Representatives have passed the same, in confidence, and to desire
their concurrence therein.
And the doors were then opened.
THURSDAY, April 2.
On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the House was cleared of all persons except
the members, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeeper, and the doors
were closed.
Mr. GRUNDY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a bill
"in addition to the act, entitled 'An act to raise an additional
military force, passed the eleventh of January,'" 1812, which was read
twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-day.
A question was made and taken, whether the provisions contained in the
bill were of such a nature as to require secrecy in the discussion,
and passed in the affirmative--yeas 71, nays 34.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
said bill; and, after some time spent therein, the bill was reported
without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time
to-day.
The said bill was accordingly engrossed, and read the third time;
and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 73, nays 20.
_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act in addition to the act, entitled
'An act to raise an additional military force, passed on the eleventh
of January, 1812.'"
Messrs. CALHOUN and WILLIAMS were appointed a committee to carry
the said bill to the Senate, and to inform them that the House of
Representatives have passed the same, in confidence, and to desire
their concurrence therein.
The doors were then opened.
FRIDAY, April 3.
On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the House was cleared, and the doors were
closed.
A motion was then made by Mr. GRUNDY, that the House do come to the
following resolution:
_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether
there has been any, and if any, what violation of the secrecy
imposed by this House during the present session, as to certain
of its proceedings, and that the said committee have power to
send for persons, papers, and records.
And the question thereon being taken, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 106, nays 3.
Messrs. GRUNDY, TROUP, ROBERTS, BRECKENRIDGE, and TALLMADGE, were
appointed the committee.
Mr. PORTER, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a bill
authorizing the President of the United States to appoint additional
Brigadier Generals, in certain cases; which was read the first time:
When a message was received from the Senate, by a committee of that
body, appointed for the purpose, consisting of Messrs. BIBB and
CAMPBELL, of Tennessee, notifying the House that the Senate have passed
the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels
in the ports and harbors of the United States, for a limited time,"
with amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of the House.
On motion of Mr. PORTER, the bill reported by the Committee on Foreign
Relations, this day, was ordered to lie on the table.
The House proceeded to consider the amendments of the Senate to the
bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in
the ports and harbors of the United States;" and the said amendments
being read at the Clerk's table, a motion was made by Mr. LEWIS, that
the said bills and amendments be postponed indefinitely.
Mr. QUINCY expressed in strong terms his abhorrence of the measure. He
said that if he believed it to be a preparation for war, he should have
a less indignant sense of the injury than he felt now, as he deemed it
pure, unsophisticated, reinstated embargo. The limitation of sixty or
ninety days gave little consolation or hope to him, because he knew how
easily the same power which originated could continue this oppressive
measure.
He said that his objection was, that it was not what it pretended
to be; and was what it pretended not to be. That it was not embargo
preparatory to war; but, that it was embargo as a substitute for the
question of declaring war. It was true that it was advocated as a
step incipient to a state of war, and by way of preparation for it,
by gentlemen whose sincerity he was bound to respect. He could not,
however, yield the conviction of his senses and reflections to their
asseverations; nor declare, in complaisance to any, let them be as
respectable as they might, that he saw in this measure more or less
than its features indicated.
Is this embargo what it pretends to be--preparation for war? In the
first place, no sudden attack is expected from Great Britain. It is not
suggested that we have a tittle of evidence relative to any hostility
of her temper which is not possessed by the whole community. The
President has not communicated to us one document or reason for the
measure. His Message merely notifies to us his will and pleasure.
An embargo, as preparatory to war, presupposes some new and hidden
danger, not known to the mercantile community. In such case, when
the Government sees a danger of which the merchant is unapprised, it
may be wise to stay the departure of property until the nature and
extent of it can be explained, but not a moment longer. For, let the
state of things be that of war or peace, the principle is precisely
the same. The interest which the community has in the property of
individuals is best preserved by leaving its management to the interest
of the immediate proprietor, after he is made acquainted with all
the circumstances of the times which have a tendency to increase its
exposure.
The reason of an embargo, considered as an incipient step to war, is
either to save our property from depredation abroad, or keep property
which we want at home. Now it happens that the nature of the great mass
of our exports is such that there is little danger of depredation from
the enemy we pretend to fear abroad, and little want of the articles
most likely to be exposed at home. The total export of last year
amounted, as appears by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
to $45,000,000. It also appears by that report, our exports to Great
Britain and her dependencies, and also to those of Spain and Portugal,
were $38,500,000. Nearly seven-eighths in value of our whole exports
have been, and continue to be, to the dominions of that very power from
which so much is pretended to be apprehended. Now, it is well known
that these articles are of very great necessity and importance to her,
and whether, even in the case of actual war between our countries,
Great Britain would capture them, might be questionable. But that she
would capture them on the mere preparation, before one really hostile
act was committed on our part, is not only unreasonable, but absolutely
absurd to expect. This very commerce which, by the passing of this
bill, you indicate it is her intention to prohibit or destroy, it is
her obvious and undeniable policy to unite and cherish; besides, the
articles are in a very great proportion perishable, which, by this
embargo, are to be prohibited from going to market. Which is best--to
keep them at home, to a certain loss and probable ruin, or adventure
them abroad to a possible loss and highly probable gain? Ask your
merchant. Ask common sense.
But it is said "we must protect our merchants." Heaven help our
merchants from _embargo-protection_! It is also said that "the present
condition of things has been brought upon the country by the merchants;
that it was their clamor, in 1805 and 1806, which first put Congress
upon this system of coercive restriction, of which they now so much
complain." It is true that, in those years, the merchants did petition;
not for embargo, not for commercial embarrassment and annihilation, but
for protection. They, at that time, really thought that this national
Government was formed for protection, and that it had at heart the
prosperity of all the great interests of the country. If "it was a
grievous fault, grievously have _the merchants_ answered it." They
asked you for relief, and you sent them embarrassment. They asked you
for defence, and you imposed embargo. They "asked bread, _and you_ gave
them a stone." They "asked a fish, _and you_ gave them a serpent."
Grant that the fault was great, suppose that they did mistake the
nature and character of the Government, is the penalty they incurred
by this error never to be remitted? Permit them once to escape, and my
word for it, they will never give you an apology for this destructive
protection. If they do, they will richly deserve all the misery which,
under the name of protection, you can find means to visit upon them.
Your tender mercies are cruelties. The merchants hate and spurn this
ruinous defence.
Mr. Q. then took notice of an intimation which had been thrown out in
relation to an express, sent off on the day preceding the Message of
the President, giving notice that the embargo would be proposed the
ensuing day. He said that there was no necessity of speaking of that
matter by distant allusions, as if there was any thing that sought
concealment. That is not an affair, said Mr. Q., that shuns the light.
I had the honor and the happiness, in conjunction with another member
of this House, from the State of New York, (Mr. EMOTT,) and a Senator
from Massachusetts, (Mr. LLOYD,) to transmit that intelligence to
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, by an express which started on
Tuesday afternoon. In doing this, we violated no obligation, even of
the most remote and delicate kind. The fact that the Committee of
Foreign Relations had decided that an embargo should be proposed on
Wednesday, was openly avowed here on Tuesday, by various members of
that committee, to various members of this House. Among others, I was
informed of it. I shall always be grateful to the gentleman who gave
me that information. Indeed, the whole commercial community are under
great obligations to the Committee of Foreign Relations for their
feeling and patriotism in resolving on that disclosure. It enabled
us, by anticipating the mail, to give an opportunity for great masses
of property to escape from the ruin our Cabinet was meditating for
them. Yes, sir; to escape into the jaws of the British lion, and of
the French tiger, which are places of refuge, of joy and delight, when
compared with the grasp and fangs of this hyena embargo. What was the
effect of this information? When it reached Philadelphia, the whole
mercantile class was in motion, and all that had it in their power
were flying in all directions from the coming mischief, as if it were
a plague and a pestilence. Look, at this moment, on the river below
Alexandria, and the poor seamen, towing down their vessels against wind
and tide, anxious only to escape from a country which destroys under
the mask of preserving.
Mr. GOLD.--The first object with a wise Legislature is, Is the
law expedient? The second object, which should never for a moment
escape attention, Can the law be executed? Under the first head, the
advocates of embargo disclaim the measure as appertaining to the odious
restriction system: they present it as the old-fashioned, legitimate
precursor of war, as the provident measure of Government to protect
your merchants against reprisals resulting from meditated hostilities.
In this view can you be prepared for war at the expiration of the
embargo? Will you open your campaign at mid-summer? Whatever appearance
this measure may now assume, the country have grounds to fear a relapse
into the old system--you will go again back into Egypt.
But, on the second head, can your law be executed? Does the history of
the past in our own, or any other country, warrant such an expectation?
Can you watch the extended line, of forty-five degrees north, for
hundreds of miles, so as to prevent a transit for commercial exchange,
indispensable to the necessities of the country? No, sir, it is a vain
expectation; your army of 25,000 could not prevent the intercourse:
their sympathies would rather lead them to connive at what they could
not fail to see. Great Britain, with a canvas that whitens every sea,
her revenue boats always in motion, and tide waters at every inlet or
avenue, has not been able to prevent the smuggling in of about one-half
the tea consumed in that Kingdom. Such is the conviction of English
writers! It may be found in the appendix to McCartney's Embassy, and in
the Life of the second Pitt. Where men have expended their substance in
purchasing and collecting an article for export, under the subsisting
faith of your laws permitting such export, it is not mere injustice,
but cruelty in the Government towards its citizens to arrest such a
commerce by an _ex post facto_ law, and consign those concerned to the
prison walls, and their families to beggary. Nothing short of the most
imperious necessity, the safety of the community, can justify so severe
a proceeding. But, sir, with a single exception of timber, the commerce
between the northern frontiers and Canada, will, for the ninety days
of this embargo, be little else than the mere exchange of articles
indispensably necessary to the poor frontier settlers. How are they to
be supplied with the article of salt? Believe me, sir, the morality of
no part of the United States, or of any nation on earth, will restrain
persons under such circumstances from eluding the laws. Does any man
believe that this frontier traffic is not as beneficial to us as to our
enemies? Can your law fail of producing more injury and loss to the
United States, than benefit? Have you not witnessed, sir, that while
you was exercising paternal care in enacting an embargo by water, for
the seaboard, that our merchants and navigators, roused as by a shock
of thunder, escaped from your shores, with their vessels, as from a
destroying angel--from pestilence and death?
Mr. BLEECKER, in a speech of about twenty minutes, made an able,
solemn, and impressive address to the House, urging them to ponder, and
desist from the dangerous course they were pursuing, and forewarned
them of the calamitous consequences that would inevitably result.
Mr. MITCHILL said, in viewing political subjects and dangers, some
are inclined to look through political microscopes, which diminish
them; others, misled by their imaginations, look through political
telescopes, and are apt to magnify and enhance them. He, for one,
was for viewing our situation with his naked optics--for looking at
it as it really is. He could not be considered as less alive to the
interests and happiness of the inhabitants of that city, respecting
whom so much sensibility has been expressed, than any other gentleman.
There were his intimate friends, connections, and what little property
he possessed. No one could feel more for their sufferings under
commercial restrictions, or in case of an assault upon it by the
enemy. And if he was to consult only his personal sensibilities, they
were all in favor of the people of that country with whom we are to
enter into a conflict. He has no prejudice against them. He there
received his education. He has lived in North and South Britain. From
actual residence, he knows them from the Grampian Hills to Dover. He
knows them, however, to be a proud, overbearing nation. From former
residence, and also from recent intelligence, (and that within a few
days, by late arrivals,) he knows that they consider us a sort of a
generation whom they have a right to despise. We are viewed in this
unworthy, degraded situation, not on account of our want of resources,
or population; but because they believe we cannot stand together--that
we have no confidence in ourselves--that we cannot lead armies into
their countries. Their object has been, since the year 1806, to divide
and distract us, and to prevent our taking efficient measures. Sir,
what has been the cause of our present condition? It is well known
that, in 1806, he was made the organ of his constituents, as other
gentlemen were for Salem and other commercial places, to present to
Congress their plaints and wailings, on account of the grievances
they suffered upon the subject of carrying colonial produce, and the
continuity of voyage. The archives of this House will prove this.
They declared they should be ruined if the British doctrine should be
countenanced. The Government were goaded by these applications for
relief. The Government began, and continued pacific measures, until we
have got into our present situation.
Mr. WIDGERY spoke with much warmth in favor of the embargo and war.
Mr. STUART said, if it was in order, he would ask the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. WIDGERY) a few questions. He would ask that
gentleman if he was, during the last embargo, a ship owner? If so, did
he not go to England during the embargo? If so, how did he go?
Mr. WIDGERY answered that he went by water.
The SPEAKER observed these questions were not in order.
Mr. STUART said if they were not in order he would sit down.
The question was now taken on indefinite postponement, and determined
in the negative--yeas 42, nays 72.
On motion of Mr. ROBERTS, the previous question was demanded by
a majority of the members present: Whereupon the question was
taken, in the form prescribed by the rules and orders of the House,
to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?" and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 67, nays 44.
The SPEAKER then decided that the main question to now put, was: "Will
the House concur with the Senate in the amendments made to the bill?"
and not upon the proposition for postponement.
From which decision Mr. RANDOLPH moved an appeal; which being seconded,
the question was put, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and
decided in the affirmative.
SATURDAY, April 4.
The House was cleared of all persons, and the doors were closed.
_Additional Brigadier Generals._
The House resumed the consideration of the bill authorizing the
President of the United States to appoint additional Brigadier
Generals, &c.
Mr. SAMMONS.--Mr. Speaker: If those officers are intended to command
the militia, I trust in God this bill will not pass. What! shall our
militia be commanded by officers commissioned by the President? Can the
President be as well acquainted with the qualifications and abilities
of officers in the militia as the Governors of the States? It cannot be
expected. What spirit can be in the people to support the war if the
Federal Government takes away the right of the States to appoint the
officers for commanding their militia? If our Government takes away
our liberty, is it necessary to contend with a foreign Government for
our rights? In former times the officers were appointed in such parts
as the men were raised: that is not the case now. Some time in the
session, I was told by some of the Southern members, "we will give you
officers if you will find the men." It is a fact, that, before our New
York troops were raised, a Major from North Carolina was appointed;
and was ordered to take the command of troops enlisted in New York.
Governor Hull's son, from Detroit, is appointed to the command of one
of our companies, and is on command with his father as his aid. Where
is the justice? Shall we have companies without captains, or shall the
United States pay for two captains? (for Hull is returned in Colonel
Schuyler's regiment as captain.) He cannot belong there. In such
proceedings I almost tremble for the consequence to my country.
There is no necessity or propriety in appointing more Generals, in my
opinion, at present, for our regulars--for the President is directed
to appoint eight Brigadiers and two Major Generals. I believe they
are not all appointed, and of those that are appointed, I hear one is
sent home because they have no command for him. If this bill passes,
our Government will be as bad as that of Great Britain before the
Revolution. In the Declaration of Independence we complain of the King,
that "he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms
of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." But if
those ten Generals are not sufficient, this House has passed a bill at
the request of the President of the United States to commission and
appoint the officers for fifty thousand militia volunteers. There are
limits empowering how many he shall appoint--he may appoint twelve
Brigadiers and four Major Generals--will not that be as many as he
wanted?
MONDAY, April 13.
A confidential message was received from the Senate by a committee of
that body appointed for the purpose, consisting of Mr. VARNUM and Mr.
ANDERSON, notifying the House that the Senate have passed the bill,
entitled "An act to prohibit the exportation of specie, goods, wares,
and merchandise, for a limited time," with amendments; in which they
desire the concurrence of the House.
The said amendments were read at the Clerk's table: When a motion was
made by Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH that the said bill be _postponed indefinitely_.
And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 35, nays 62.
The question was then taken to concur in the said amendments, and
passed in the affirmative.
Mr. SMILIE and Mr. PLEASANTS were appointed a committee to deliver
a message to the Senate, and inform them that the House of
Representatives have concurred in their amendment to the bill aforesaid.
The doors were then opened.
TUESDAY, April 14.
Mr. CRAWFORD, from the Joint Committee for Enrolled Bills, reported
that the committee had examined an enrolled bill "to prohibit the
exportation of specie, goods, wares, and merchandise, for a limited
time," and had found the same to be truly enrolled: When, the SPEAKER
signed the said bill.
Mr. CRAWFORD and Mr. TURNER were appointed a committee to carry the
said bill to the Senate for the signature of their President.
The doors were then opened; and having remained so for some time, they
were again closed;.
When, Mr. TURNER, from the above-mentioned committee, reported that the
committee had presented to the President of the United States the said
bill, and that they were instructed by the President to inform the two
Houses that he had approved and signed the same.
On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the injunction of secrecy imposed upon the
said bill and the proceedings thereon, were then removed.
The doors were then opened.
MONDAY, June 1.
A confidential Message, in writing, was received from the President
of the United States, by Mr. Edward Coles, his Secretary; which he
delivered in at the Speaker's table.
The House was then cleared of all persons, except the Members, Clerk,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeepers, and the doors were closed; and the
said Message was read, and is as follows:
[Confidential.]
_To the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States_:
I communicate to Congress certain documents, being a
continuation of those heretofore laid before them on the
subject of our affairs with Great Britain.
Without going back beyond the renewal, in one thousand eight
hundred and three, of the war in which Great Britain is
engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude,
the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts,
hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral
nation.
British cruisers have been in the continued practice of
violating the American flag on the great highway of nations,
and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it;
not in the exercise of a belligerent right, founded on the
law of nations against an enemy, but a municipal prerogative
over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended
to neutral vessels, in a situation where no laws can operate
but the law of nations, and the laws of the country to which
the vessels belong; and a self-redress is assumed, which, if
British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned,
is that substitution of force, for a resort to the responsible
Sovereign, which falls within the definition of war. Could the
seizure of British subjects, in such cases, be regarded as
within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged
laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be
adjudged, without a regular investigation before a competent
tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial, where
the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a
trial, these rights are subjected to the will of every petty
commander.
The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects
alone, that, under the pretext of searching for these,
thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public
law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their
country, and from every thing dear to them; have been dragged
on board ships of war of a foreign nation, and exposed, under
the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most
distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles
of their oppressors, and to be melancholy instruments of taking
away those of their own brethren.
Against this crying enormity which Great Britain would be so
prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United
States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations;
and that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory
dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the
practice, the British Government was formally assured of the
readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such
as could not be rejected, if the recovery of British subjects
were the real and the sole object. The communication passed
without effect.
British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating
the right and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and
harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most
insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless
proceedings in our very harbors; and have wantonly spilt
American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial
jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation,
when a neutral nation, against armed vessels of belligerents
hovering near her coasts and disturbing her commerce, are well
known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States, to
punish the greater offences committed by her own vessels, her
Government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of
honor and confidence.
Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate
force, and sometimes without the practicability of applying
one, our commerce has been plundered in every sea; the great
staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate
markets; and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and
maritime interests. In aggravation of these predatory measures,
they have been considered as in force from the dates of their
notification; a retrospective effect being thus added, as has
been done in other important cases, to the unlawfulness of the
course pursued. And to render the outrage the more signal,
those mock blockades have been reiterated and enforced in the
face of official communications from the British Government,
declaring, as the true definition of a legal blockade, "the
particular ports must be actually invested, and previous
warning given to vessels bound to them, not to enter."
Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste
our neutral trade, the Cabinet of Britain resorted, at length,
to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of Orders
in Council; which has been moulded and managed as might best
suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the
avidity of British cruisers.
To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendent
injustice of this innovation, the first reply was, that
the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain, as a
necessary retaliation on decrees of her enemy, proclaiming a
general blockade of the British Isles, at a time when the naval
force of that enemy dared not issue from his own ports. She
was reminded, without effect, that her own prior blockades,
unsupported by an adequate naval force actually applied and
continued, were a bar to this plea: that executed edicts
against millions of our property could not be retaliation
on edicts confessedly impossible to be executed: that
retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party setting the
guilty example, not on an innocent party, which was not even
chargeable with an acquiescence in it.
When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our
trade with her enemy, by the repeal of his prohibition of
our trade with Great Britain, her Cabinet, instead of their
corresponding repeal, or a practical discontinuance of its
orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them
against the United States, until the markets of her enemy
should be laid open to British products; thus asserting an
obligation on a neutral power to require one belligerent
to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of
another belligerent; contradicting her own practice towards
all nations, in peace as well as in war; and betraying the
insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief,
that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was
anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them.
Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of
the United States, and for its own consistency, the British
Government now demands, as prerequisite to a repeal of its
orders as they relate to the United States, that a formality
should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees, no wise
necessary to their termination, nor exemplified by British
usage; and that the French repeal, besides including that
portion of the decrees which operate within a territorial
jurisdiction, as well as that which operates on the high seas,
against the commerce of the United States, should not be a
single and special repeal in relation to the United States,
but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations,
unconnected with them, may be affected by those decrees. And,
as an additional insult, they are called on for a formal
disavowal of conditions and pretensions advanced by the French
Government, for which the United States are so far from having
made themselves responsible, that, in official explanations
which have been published to the world, and in a correspondence
of the American Minister at London with the British Minister
for Foreign Affairs, such a responsibility was explicitly and
emphatically disclaimed.
It has become, indeed, sufficiently certain, that the commerce
of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering
with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as supplying
the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but
as interfering with the money which she covets for her own
commerce and navigation. She carries on a war against the
lawful commerce of a friend, that she may the better carry on
a commerce with an enemy; a commerce polluted by the forgeries
and perjuries which are, for the most part, the only passports
by which it can succeed.
Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of
injured nations, the United States have withheld from Great
Britain, under successive modifications, the benefits of a free
intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but
outweigh the profits accruing from her restrictions of our
commerce with other nations. And to entitle these experiments
to the more favorable consideration, they were so framed as
to enable her to place her adversary under the exclusive
operation of them. To these appeals her Government has been
equally inflexible, as if willing to make sacrifices of every
sort, rather than yield to the claims of justice, or renounce
the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were the attempts
carried to overcome the attachments of the British Cabinet to
its unjust edicts, that it received every encouragement within
the competence of the Executive branch of our Government, to
expect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between
the United States and France, unless the French edicts should
also be recalled. Even this communication, although silencing
forever the plea of a disposition in the United States to
acquiesce in those edicts, originally the sole plea for them,
received no attention.
If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British
Government against a repeal of its orders, it might be found
in the correspondence of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States at London, and the British Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, in one thousand eight hundred and ten, on the question
whether the blockade of May, one thousand eight hundred and
six, was considered as in force, or as not in force. It had
been ascertained that the French Government, which urged this
blockade as the ground of its Berlin decree, was willing,
in the event of its removal, to repeal that decree; which,
being followed by alternate repeals of the other offensive
edicts, might abolish the whole system on both sides. This
inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so important
to the United States, and professed, so often, to be the
desire of both the belligerents, was made known to the British
Government. As that Government admits that an application of
an adequate force is necessary to the existence of a legal
blockade, and it was notorious that, if such a force had
ever been applied, its long discontinuance had annulled the
blockade in question, there could be no sufficient objection
on the part of Great Britain to a formal revocation of it;
and no imaginable objection to a declaration of the fact that
the blockade did not exist. The declaration would have been
consistent with her avowed principles of blockade; and would
have enabled the United States to demand from France the
pledged repeal of her decrees; either with success, in which
case the way would have been opened for a general repeal of
the belligerent edicts; or without success, in which case
the United States would have been justified in turning their
measures exclusively against France. The British Government
would, however, neither rescind the blockade, nor declare its
non-existence; nor permit its non-existence to be inferred and
affirmed by the American Plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by
representing the blockade to be comprehended in the Orders in
Council, the United States were compelled so to regard it, in
their subsequent proceedings.
There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of
the British Cabinet was justly considered as established.
The Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty here,
proposed an adjustment of the differences more immediately
endangering the harmony of the two countries. The proposition
was accepted with the promptitude and cordiality corresponding
with the invariable professions of this Government. A
foundation appeared to be laid for a sincere and lasting
reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly vanished. The
whole proceeding was disavowed by the British Government,
without any explanations, which could, at that time, repress
the belief, that the disavowal proceeded from a spirit of
hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United
States. And it has since come into proof, that at the very
moment when the public Minister was holding the language of
friendship, and inspiring confidence in the sincerity of the
negotiation with which he was charged, a secret agent of his
Government was employed in intrigues, having for their object a
subversion of our Government, and a dismemberment of our happy
Union.
In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards the United
States, our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare, just
renewed by the savages, on one of our extensive frontiers; a
warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex, and to be
distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It
is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which
have for some time been developing themselves among tribes
in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons,
without connecting hostility with that influence, and without
recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions,
heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that
Government.
Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have
been heaped on our country; and such the crisis which its
unexampled forbearance and conciliatory efforts have not been
able to avert. It might at least have been expected, that
an enlightened nation, if less urged by moral obligations,
or invited by friendly dispositions on the part of the
United States, would have found, in its true interest alone,
a sufficient motive to respect their rights and their
tranquillity on the high seas; that an enlarged policy would
have favored that free and general circulation of commerce
in which the British nation is at all times interested,
and which, in times of war, is the best alleviation of its
calamities to herself, as well as to other belligerents; and,
more especially, that the British Cabinet would not, for
the sake of a precarious and surreptitious intercourse with
hostile markets, have persevered in a course of measures which
necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market of a great and
growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of
an active commerce.
Other councils have prevailed. Our moderation and conciliation
have had no other effect than to encourage perseverance and to
enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafaring citizens still
the daily victims of lawless violence, committed on the great
common and highway of nations, even within sight of the country
which owes them protection. We behold our vessels, freighted
with the products of our soil and industry, or returning
with the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful
destinations, confiscated by prize courts, no longer the
organs of public law, but the instruments of arbitrary edicts,
and their unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced,
or inveigled in British ports into British fleets, whilst
arguments are employed in support of these aggressions, which
have no foundation but in a principle equally supporting a
claim to regulate our external commerce in all cases whatsoever.
We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of
war against the United States; and on the side of the United
States, a state of peace towards Great Britain.
Whether the United States shall continue passive under these
progressive usurpations, and their accumulating wrongs, or,
opposing force to force in defence of their national rights,
shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty
Disposer of events, avoiding all connections which might
entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and
preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable
re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question,
which the constitution wisely confides to the Legislative
Department of the Government. In recommending it to their early
deliberation, I am happy in the assurance, that the decision
will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a
virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.
Having presented this view of the relations of the United
States with Great Britain, and of the solemn alternative
growing out of them, I proceed to remark, that the
communications last made to Congress on the subject of our
relations with France, will have shown, that since the
revocation of her decrees, as they violated the neutral
rights of the United States, her Government has authorized
illegal captures by its privateers and public ships; and that
other outrages have been practised on our vessels and our
citizens. It will have been seen, also, that no indemnity had
been provided, or satisfactorily pledged, for the extensive
spoliations committed under the violent and retrospective
orders of the French Government against the property of our
citizens, seized within the jurisdiction of France. I abstain,
at this time, from recommending to the consideration of
Congress definitive measures with respect to that nation, in
the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions between
our Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris and the French Government
will speedily enable Congress to decide, with greater
advantage, on the course due to the rights, the interests, and
the honor, of our country.