w

^ <• cC.t.c £-.

• *• «

-V '£ •

^^m?r «

(

tr> ;> } 7> aJI

'3&r

> > :

>.>••:

No. Division

Range.

Sfot/ . Received L

> » >^» > » ^>'j»

j >•> > >*

>:X> » ->- ^ 3 i> ^>>» >j»oj> :>**»•

;> •>> :>

.>*>!>.>

»•>• -iS* ^>

> > ) » :» m ) »;x> ) >">

> ? > >y> )>s

> > >j>^> > o

>;>,>>;^)v,x> ^ > > ' )> ' ) ) ~»

^»> )

>:> > . ) 2> >

.-> » ^.

~> 5> >

> ^> >^

"^:* H

^ ^2>> )

»

THE WORKS

OF

JOHN C. CALHOUN.

YOL II,

NEW YORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,

S46 & 348 BROADWAY. M.DCCO.LX.

<**

SPEECHES

JOHN C. CALHOUN

DELIVERED IN THE

HOUSE OF KEPBESENTATIVES,

AND IN THE

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

EDITED BY

EICHAED K. CKALLE.

NEW YOKK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,

846 & 348 BKOADWAT. M.DCCO.LX.

ENTERED, according to act of Congress, by JAMES E. CALHOUN,

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE collection of the Speeches of Mr. Calhoim, here offered to the public, includes, it is believed, all delivered by him in Congress of any general interest — or rather, all, of which any reliable reports have been preserved. Many, no doubt, especially during the war of 1812, through carelessness and the want of competent reporters in the House of Representatives, have been lost — a fact the more to be re gretted, as the period was marked by events of much moment to the country. For the comparatively few which have been preserved, the public is chiefly indebted to the Hon. Mr. Simkins, at that time a member of the House from South Carolina, who, for his own gratifi cation, took notes and drew out the sketches (for they are by no means full reports) which appear in this collection. For the use of these, the Editor is indebted to the kindness of the Hon. Francis W. Pickens — to whom he takes this occasion to return his acknowledg ments. Others, belonging to the same period, have been copied from manuscripts found among the papers of Mr. Calhoun, though not in his handwriting.

Of the Speeches delivered in the Senate, between the years 1833 and 1850, a much larger number has been preserved. They are, for the most part, better reported ; and not a few were published in pam phlet form at the time, under his own inspection. Still, so constant and pressing were his engagements — so incessant the demands on his

VI ADVERTISEMENT.

time, that it is impossible he could have bestowed much attention, except on those connected with the more important subjects of discus sion. Many were left to be drawn out by the reporters ; and his pe culiar position, in regard to the two great contending parties of the country, was any thing but favorable to fulness and fidelity. Not a few (and among them some on questions of much interest) were never reported at all, or otherwise so mangled and garbled, — to serve a tem porary purpose, — as to render them unworthy of this collection. A suffi cient number, however, it is hoped, has been preserved from the ravages of time, and the still more ruthless spirit of party, to insure, as a tribute to his virtues, the love of the Patriot, the admiration of the Statesman, and the gratitude of the Historian and the Philosopher.

As many of the questions discussed during the war of 1812, both of a foreign and domestic character, have probably, to some extent, faded from the public memory, the Editor has prepared a brief intro ductory note to the Speeches delivered in the House of Representa tives, which he hopes will be acceptable to the general reader. It was deemed unnecessary to adopt the same course in regard to Speeches of a more recent date.

April 8, 1853.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.

Speech on the Resolution of the Committee on

Foreign Relations, . . . • - . . Dec. 12, 1811. 1

Speech on the Petition of the Citizens of Albany, May 6, 1812. 13

Speech on the Repeal of the Non-importation Act, June 24, 1812. 20 Speech on the subject of Merchants' Bonds, . Dec. 4, 1812. 31

Speech on the new Army Bill, • . . A . Jan. 14, 1813. 43 Speech on the Bill to encourage Enlistments, . Jan. 17, 1814. 56 Speech on the Loan BUI. . . . . .. Feb. 25, 1814. 69

Speech on the Repeal of the Embargo, . ^ . April 6, 1814. 103 Speech on the Increase of the Direct Tax, . . Oct. 25, 1814. 110 Speech on the Military Peace Establishment, . Feb. 27, 1815. 117 Speech on the Commercial Convention with Great

Britain,

Speech on the Repeal of the Direct Tax, Speech on tne United States Bank Bill, . Speech on the Tariff Bill, . Speech on the Compensation Bill, Speech on the Internal Improvement Bill, . Speech on the Revenue Collection (Force) Bill, *•**• Speech on his Resolutions in support of State

Rights, ....... Feb. 26, 1833. 262

V Speech on the Remova*' of the Public Deposits, . Jan. 13, 1834. 309

Jan, 9, 1816. 123 Jan. 31, 1816. 135 Feb. 26, 1816. 153 April 6, 1816. 163 Jan. 17, 1817^- 173 Feb. 4, 1817. __. 186 Feb. 15-16, 1833. 197

^

VU1

CONTENTS.

Speech on the Bill to recharter the United States

Bank,

^Speech on the Bill to Repeal the Force Act.

••Speech on the President's Protest, Speech on the subject of Removals from Office, Speech on the Report relating to Executive Pa tronage,

--f-i Speech on Abolition Petitions, .

Speech on the Bill to preserve the Public Records, o Speech on the Power of the States in respect to

Aliens,

-4— > Speech on the Circulation of Incendiary Papers, Speech on the Bill to regulate the Public Deposits, Speech on the Bill to extend the provisions of the

Deposit Act,

Speech on the Application of the Surplus Revenues,

* Speech on the Bill for the Admission of Michigan,

* Speech on the same subject, .. . . . » Speech on the Motion to recommit the Land Bill,

I- -.Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions, Speech on the Bill to cede the Public Lands, .

Page

March 21, 1834.	344
April 9, 1834. _	376 -~~___
May 6, 1834.	"405
Feb. 1835.	426
Feb. 13, 1835.	446
March 9, 1836.	465
March 26, 1836.	490
April 2, 1836.	496
April 12, 1836.	509
May 28, 1836.	534
Dec. 21, 1836.	569
Dec. 28, 1836.	581
Jan. 2, 1837.	586
Jan. 5, 1837.	597
Feb. 4, 1837.	617
Feb. 6, 1837.	625
Feb. 7, 1837.	634

SPEECHES.

SPEECH

On the second Resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, delivered in the House of Representatives, Dec. 12, 1811.

[NOTE. — The Committee on Foreign Relations, on the 29th of November, 1811, submitted a report, which, after an able examination of the causes of war with Great Britain, concluded by recommending to the House the adoption of a series of resolutions, among which was the following :

" 2. Resolved, That an additional force of ten thousand >regulai troops ought to be immediately raised to serve for three years ; and that a bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistments."

This resolution having been amended in committee of the Whole, by striking out the word " ten" was reported to the House, where an animated debate ensued. A majority of the committee avowed their object to be a preparation for war ; and the discussion took the widest range, embracing almost every topic of foreign and domestip policy. The principal speaker, on the part of the opposition, was Mr. Randolph"* . of Virginia, to whose remarks Mr. Calhoun seems to have confined his reply. The resolution was finally adopted — Yeas, 109 ; Nays, 22.]

MR. SPEAKER : — I understood the opinion of the Com mittee on Foreign Relations, differently from what the gen tleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has stated to be his

VOL. II. — 1

2 SPEECHES.

impression. . I. certainly understood that the committee re- • comraerxleck the measures now before the House, as a pre paration for war; -and such, in fact, was its express resolve. -Agreed 'to3-i Belie1 ve, 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 Keport 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 almost rivals war. It excites contempt abroad, and destroys confidence at home. Menaces are serious things ; and 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) who made this a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular force ; a measure confessedly improper but as a pre paration for war, but undoubtedly necessary in that event.

Sir, I am not insensible to the weighty importance of the proposition, for the first time submitted to this House, to compel a redress of our long list of complaints against one of the belligerents. According to my mode of thinking, the more serious the question, the stronger and more unalter able ought to be our convictions before we give it our support. War, in our 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 understand ings, nor the ardor of eloquence to inflame our passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort to war 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 eyes of the people ; and were I not satis fied 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,

SPEECHES. 3

by the express admission of the gentleman from Virginia ; — and necessary, by facts undoubted, and universally admitted ; such as he 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, are my proofs that it is necessary. Why should I mention the impressment of our seamen ; depredations on every branch of our commerce, including the direct export trade, continued for years, and made under laws which pro fessedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations ; negotiation resorted to, again and again, till it is become hope less ; 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 by the admission of our opponents is reduced to this single point — Which shall we do, abandon or defend our own com mercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberties of our citizens employed in exercising them ? These rights are vitally 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 al ternative this House will 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 instil the sense of independence and honor. This is the work of nature ; a generous nature that disdains tame sub mission to wrongs.

This part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce silence even on the gentleman from Virginia. He dared / not deny his country's wrongs, or vindicate the conduct of her enemy. Only one part of his argument had any, the most remote relation to this point. He would not say, we had not a good cause for war ; but insisted, that it was

SPEECHES.

our duty to define that cause. If lie means that this House ought, at this stage of its proceedings, or any other, to specify any particular violation of our rights to the exclusion of all others, 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 for 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 allu ded 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 ex traordinary war for an extraordinary purpose, and was not governed by the usual rules. It was not for conquest, or for redress of injury, but to impose a government on France, which she refused to receive ; an object so detestable that an avowal dared not be made.

Sir, I might here rest the question. The affirmative of the proposition is established. I cannot but advert, however, to the complaint of the gentleman from Virginia when he was first up on this question. He said he found himself reduced to the necessity of supporting the negative side of the ques tion, before the affirmative was established. Let me tell the gentleman, that there is no hardship in his case. It is not every affirmative that ought to be proved. Were I to affirm, that the House is now in session, would it be reason able 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 country, 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 whv we ought not so to defend

SPEECHES. 5

ourselves. On him lies the burden of proof. This he has attempted ; he has endeavored to support his negative. Be fore I proceed to answer hint particularly, let me caUrthe at tention of the House to one circumstance ; that is, — that almost the whole of his arguments consisted of an enumera tion of evils always incident to war, however just and neces sary ; and which, if they have any force, are calculated to produce unqualified submission to every species of insult and injury. I do not feel myself bound to answer arguments of this description ; and if I should touch on them, it will be only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious refuta tion.

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 seen the defenceless state of his country even near home, under his own eyes, without a single en deavor to remedy so serious an evil ? Let him not say, " I have acted in a minority/' It is no less the duty of the minor ity than a majority to endeavor to defend the 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 the people will not pay taxes. Why not ? Is it from want of means ? What, with 1,000,000, tons of shipping ; a com merce of $100,000,000 annually ; manufactures yielding a yearly product 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 ; and

6 SPEECHES.

will it not have the disposition ? Is not the cause a just and necessary one ? Shall we then utter this libel on the people ? Where will proof be found of a fact so disgrace ful ? It is answered ; — 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 whiskey-tax was unpopular. But on this, as well as my memory serves me, — the objection was not to the tax or its amount, but the mode of collection. The people were startled by tKe number of officers ; their love of liberty shocked with the multiplicity of regulations. We, in the spirit of imitation, copied from the most oppressive part of European laws on the subject of taxes, and imposed on a young and virtuous people all the severe provisions made necessary by corruption and long- practised evasions. 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 it would be their interest and their duty to pay. But it may be, and I be lieve was said, that the people will not pay taxes, because the rights violated are not worth defending ; or that the de fence will cost more than the gain. 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 power by its squalid aspect. Whenever it touches sovereign power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted to defend itself. It is a compromising spirit, always ready to yield a part to save the residue. It is too timid to have in itself the laws of self-preservation. It is never safe but under the shield of honor. There is, Sir, one principle necessary to make us a great" people, — to produce not the form, but real spirit of union ; — and that is, to protect every citizen in the lawful pur suit of his business. He will then feel that he is backed by the government ; — that its arm is his arm ; and will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity. Protection and patriot-

SPEECHES. I

ism are reciprocal. This is the way which has led nations to greatness. 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. I cannot measure in shillings and pence the misery, the stripes, and the slavery of our impressed seamen ; nor even the value of our shipping, commercial and agricultural losses, under the orders in coun cil, and the British system of blockade. In thus expressing myself, I do not intend to condemn any prudent estimate of the means of a country, hefore it enters on a '/par. This is wisdom, — the other folly. The gentleman from Virginia has not failed to touch on the calamity of war, that fruitful source of declamation by which humanity is made the advocate of submission. If he 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 contemns the sufferings and dangers of war. If he really wishes to promote the cause of humanity, let his elo quence 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 safety to resist ; that their patience and endurance, however great, will be exhausted ; that the calamity of war will ensue, and that they, in the opinion of the world, will be answerable for all its devastation and misery. Let a regard to the interests of humanity stay the hand of injustice, and my life on it, the gentleman will not find it difficult to dissuade his country from rushing into the bloody scenes of war.

WeL.are. next told of the dangers of war. I believe we are all ready to acknowledge its hazards and misfortunes ; but I cannot think we have any extraordinary danger to apprehend, at least none to warrant an acquiescence in the injuries we have received. On the contrary, I believe, no war can be less dangerous to the internal peace, or safety

8 SPEECHES.

of the country. But we are told of the black population of the Southern States. As far as the gentleman from Virginia speaks of his own personal knowledge, I shall not question the correctness of his statement. I only regret that such 'is the state of apprehension in his particular part of the country. Of the Southern section, I, too, have some personal know ledge ; and can say, that in South Carolina no such fears in any part are felt. But, Sir, admit the gentleman's state ment ; will a war with Great Britain increase the danger ? Will the country be less able to suppress insurrection ? Had we any thing to fear from that quarter (which I do not be lieve), in my opinion, the period of the greatest safety is dur ing a war ; unless, indeed, the enemy should make a lodg ment in the country. Then the country is most on its guard ; our militia the best prepared ; and our standing army the greatest. Even in our revolution no attempts at insurrection were made by that portion of our population ; and however the gentleman may alarm himself with the disorganizing ef fects 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 he regards 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 properly be called a standing army. There is a just distinction between such a force, and one raised as a permanent peace establishment. . Whatever would 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 pro posed to be given, will impel them to join their country's stan dard and to fight her battles ; they will not forget the citizen in the soldier, and in obeying their officers, learn to contemn their government and constitution. In our officers and sol diers we will find patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the

SPEECHES. 9

private citizen ; but if they should be depraved as represented, what have we to fear from twenty-five thousand or thirty thou sand regulars ? Where will be the boasted militia of the gen tleman ? 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 lib erties.

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. If true, we must then depend upon the commiseration or contempt of other nations for our existence. The constitution, then, it seems, has failed in an essential ob ject, " to provide for the common defence." No, says the gentle man from Virginia, it is competent for a defensive, but not for an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to expose the er ror 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 as sertion ; and for reasons no less extraordinary than the asser tion 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 re taliation has been much abused of late by an unreasonable extension ; we have now to witness a new abuse. The gentle man from Virginia has limited it down to a point. By his rule if you receive a blow on the breast, you dare not re turn 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 this mathematical accuracy, it ceases to be just self-defence ; it becomes an unprovoked attack.

In speaking of Canada the gentleman from Virginia intro-

10 SPEECHES.

duced the name of Montgomery with much feeling and inter- est. Sir, there is danger in that name to the gentleman's argu ment. It is sacred to heroism. It is indignant of submis sion ! It calls our memory back to the time of our revolu tion, to the Congress of '74 and "75. Suppose a member 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 then received ? Happy for us, they had no force at that period of our country's glory. Had such been then acted on, this hall would never have witnessed a great people 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 base subjected colonies ; governed by that impe rious rod which Britain holds over her distant provinces.

The gentleman from Virginia attributes the preparation for war to every thing but its true cause. He endeavored to find it in the probable rise in the price of hemp. He re presents the people of the Western States as willing to plunge our country into war from such interested and base motives. I will not reason on this point. I see the cause of their ardor, not in such unworthy motives, but in their known patriotism and disinterestedness.

No less mercenary is the reason which he attributes to the Southern States. He says that the Non-Importation Act has reduced cotton to nothing, which has produced a feverish impatience. Sir, I acknowledge the cotton of our plantations is worth but little ; but not for the cause assigned by the gentleman from Virginia. The people of that section do not reason as he does ; they do not attribute it to

SPEECHES. 11

the efforts of their government to maintain the peace and in dependence of their country. They see, in the low price of their produce, the hand of foreign injustice ; they know well without the market to the continent, the deep and steady current of supply will glut that of Great Britain ; they are not prepared for the colonial state to which again that pow er is endeavoring to reduce us, and the manly spirit of that section of our country will not suhmit to be regulated by any foreign power.

The love of France and the hatred of England have also been assigned as the cause of the present measures. France has not done us justice, says the gentleman from Virginia, and how can we, without partiality, resist the ag gressions of England. I know, Sir, we have still causes of complaint against France ; but they are of a different charac ter from those against England. She professes now to re spect our rights, and there cannot be a reasonable doubt but that the most objectionable parts of her decrees, as far as they respect us, are repealed. We have already formally acknow ledged this to be a fact. But I protest against the princi ple from which his conclusion is drawn. It is a novel doc trine, and nowhere avowed out of this House, that you can not select your antagonist without being guilty of partiality. Sir, when two invade your rights, you may resist both or either at your pleasure. It is regulated by prudence and not by right. The stale imputation of partiality for France is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper, than for the walls of this House.

The gentleman from Virginia is at a loss to account for what he calls our hatred to England. He asks how can we hate the country of Locke, of Newton, Hampden, and Chatham ; a country having the same language and cus toms with ourselves, and descending from a common ances try. Sir, the laws of human affections are steady and uni form. If we have so much to attach us to that country,

12 SPEECHES.

potent indeed must be the cause which has overpowered it. Yes, there is a cause strong enough ; not in that oc cult courtly affection which he has supposed to be enter tained for France ; but it is to be found in continued and unprovoked insult and injury — a cause so manifest, that the gentleman from Virginia had to exert much ingenuity to overlook it. But; the gentleman, in his eager admira tion of that country, has not been sufficiently guarded in his argument. Has he reflected on the cause of that admi ration ? Has he examined the reasons of our high regard for her Chatham ? It is his ardent patriotism, the heroic courage of his mind, that could not brook the least insult or injury offered to his country, but thought that her in terest and honor ought to be vindicated at every hazard and expense. I hope, when we are called upon to admire, we shall also be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman does not wish a monopoly of those great virtues for England. The balance of power has also been introduced, as an argument for submission. England is said to be a barrier against the military despotism of France. There is, Sir, one great error in our legislation. We are ready, it would seem from this argument, to watch over the interests of for eign nations, while we grossly neglect our own immediate concerns. This argument of the balance of power is well calculated for the British Parliament, but not at all suited to the American Congress. Tell the former that they have to contend with a mighty power, and that if they persist in insult and injury to the American people, they will compel them to throw their whole weight into the scale of their enemy. Paint the danger to them, and if they will desist from injuring us, we, I answer for it, will not disturb the balance of power. But it is absurd for us to talk about the balance of power, while they, by their conduct, smile with contempt at what they regard our simple, good-natured vanity. If, however, in the contest, it should be found that

SPEECHES. 13

they underrate us — which I hope and believe — and that we can affect the balance of power, it will not be difficult for us to obtain such terms as our rights demand.

I; Sir, will now conclude by adverting to an argument of the gentleman from Virginia, used in debate on a preceding day. He asked, why not declare war immediately ? The answer is obvious : because we are not yet prepared. But, says the gentleman, such language as is here held, will pro voke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such fears. She knows well that such a course would unite all parties here — a thing which, above all others, she most dreads. Besides, such has been our past conduct, that she will still calculate on our patience and submission, until war is actually commenced.

SPEECH

On the Petition of the Citizens of Albany to repeal the Embargo, delivered in the House of Repre sentatives, May 6th, 1812.

[NOTE. — On the 4th of April, 1812, a bill, on the recommenda tion of the President, was passed by Congress, laying an embargo, for sixty days, on all vessels then in port, or thereafter arriving. Soon after its passage, petitions were presented from various parts of the Union for its repeal or modification. Among these, was one from the citizens of Albany, presented by Mr. Bleecker of New- York, praying a repeal of the act. Motions were made to postpone it indefinitely, and to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Kelations. On these motions, a debate of considerable interest ensued, involving the whole course of policy recommended by the Executive, and pursued by the majority during the session. The principal speakers for the postpone ment were, Messrs. Calhoun, Rhea of Tennessee, Johnson of Ken tucky, Grundy of Tennessee, and Wright of Maryland. In opposi-

14 SPEECHES.

tion, were Messrs. Randolph of Virginia, Bleecker of New-York, and Fisk of Vermont. On the motion to postpone indefinitely, Mr. Calhoun submitted the following remarks.]

MR. SPEAKER : — It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the embargo law, or to follow the gentleman from Virginia in that maze of arguments and assertions through which he has thought proper to wander. The House must be wearied, and can receive no additional light on a subject which, through the zeal of some gentlemen in opposition, has been so frequently dragged into discussion. I cannot suppose that our opponents, in their importunity, are gov erned by an expectation that a change will be made in the opinions of any individual of the majority. This, they must see, is hopeless. The measure has been too recently adopted, and after too much deliberation, to leave to the most san guine any hope of change. To reply, then, to the arguments of gentlemen on the general merits of the embargo, would be an useless consumption of time, and an unwarranted in trusion on the patience of the House. This, as I have already stated, is not my intention ; but it is my object to vindicate the motion now under discussion from unmerited censure, and to prove that it cannot be justly considered as treating the petitioners with contempt. I am aware that the right to petition this body is guaranteed by the Consti tution, and that it is not less our interest than our duty to receive petitions expressed in proper terms, as this is, with respect.

Two propositions have been made relative to the dis position of the petition now before us : one, to refer it to a committee ; the other — that now under consideration — to postpone the further consideration to a day beyond the termination of the embargo. It is contended, not by argu ment, but assertion, that the former would have been more respectful to the petitioners ; but the reasons have been left to conjecture. I ask, then, why would it be more respect-

SPEECHES. 15

ful ? Would it present stronger hopes of success, or admit as great latitude of discussion on its merits ? Gentlemen know that it would not ; they well know, when the House wishes to give the go-by to a petition, it has been usual to adopt the very motion which, in this instance, they advocate. On a motion of reference, debate on the merits is precluded ; and, when referred, the committee, where there are no hopes of success, usually allow it to sleep. But, Sir, I ask what is the necessity for referring this petition to a committee ? What are the objects of a reference ? I conceive them to be two : one to investigate some matter of fact, and the other when a subject is much tangled with detail, to digest and arrange the parts, so the House may more easily com prehend the whole. This body is too large for either of those operations, and therefore a reference is had to smaller ones. In the present case, neither of these furnishes a good reason for the reference asked for. The facts are not denied, and as to detail, there is none ; it ends in a point — the repeal of the embargo law — and it has been so argued in opposition. This House is as fully competent to discuss its merits now, as it would be after the report of any committee, and the motion to postpone admits of the greatest latitude of discus sion on its merits. This, the speech of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has proved. He has argued not only on the merits of the petition, but on the embargo, and almost every subject, however remotely connected. I know that the motion is tantamount to that of rejection, in the present instance. In fact, it has been vindicated by the mover on that ground. He has justly said : as we cannot grant the relief prayed for, we ought to act with promptitude and decision, so that the petitioners may know what to ex pect. This motion has that character ; it leaves no expecta tion where there can be no relief. I know, Sir, we might have acted very differently : we might have spun out the hopes of the petitioners. Some may think that it would b<-

16 SPEECHES.

sound policy ; but, in my opinion, it would be unworthy of this House. Candor, in our government, is one of the first of political virtues. Let us always do directly, what we in tend shall finally be done.

Since there can be no objection to the motion now before the House, it remains to be considered whether the relief prayed for ought to be granted. I am sensible that the maxim is generally correct, that individual profit is national gain ; and that the party interested is the best judge of the hazard and propriety of a speculation. But there are ex ceptions ; there are cases in which the government is the best judge ; and such are those where the future conduct of gov ernment is the cause of the hazard. It certainly is the best judge of what it intends ; and, in those cases, where it -fore sees a hazard, it ought, in humanity to the party interested, to restrain speculations. Such is the present case. Many of our merchants labor under a delusion as to the measures of government : nor can this seem strange, since some gentle men, even in this House, have taken up such mistaken views of things. With such conceptions of the course of events, as the gentleman from New- York (Mr. Bleecker) entertains, I am not surprised that he should advocate the prayer of the petition. He believes that the embargo will be permitted to expire without any hostile measure being taken against Great Britain ; and that, in the present state of our preparations, it would be madness to think of war in sixty days, or any short period. When I hear such language on this floor, I no longer wonder that merchants are petitioning you to aid them in making speculations, which in a short time must end in their ruin. I ask the gentleman from New- York, who are the true friends to the petitioners — the majority who, foreseeing the hazard to which they would be exposed, re strain them from falling into the hands of British cruisers, — or the minority, who, by suppressing the evidences of danger, induce them to enter into the most ruinous speculations ?

SPEECHES. 17

By the one, the merchants still retain their property, depre ciated, it is true, in a small degree ; by the other, it will be lost to themselves and their country, and will go to augment the resources of our enemy. For, Sir, let me assure the gen tleman that he makes a very erroneous estimate of our pre parations, and of the time at which we will act. Our army and measures are not merely on paper, as he states. And were this the proper time and subject, it could be shown that very considerable advances have been made to put the coun try into a posture of defence, and to prepare our forces for an attack on our enemy. We will not, I hope, wait the ex piration of the embargo to take our stand against England — that stand which the best interests and honor of this coun try have so loudly demanded. With such a prospect, I again ask, would it be humanity or cruelty to the petitioners to grant their prayer, and, by relaxing the embargo in their fa vor, to entice them to certain destruction ?

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eandolph) stated, — to induce us to repeal the embargo law, and to make it odi ous, I suppose, with the community, — that it operated less severely on the merchant than on the farmer and miller. He did not prove very distinctly how this unequal pressure was produced. But I understood him to say, that eastern vessels could be had with so much facility to make shipments to any European port, and that flour had risen so much already in consequence of the embargo, that the rise in price nearly compensated for the additional risk and costs of exportation, I observe the gentleman shakes his head in disapprobation of the statement. I suppose I misunderstood him. How ever, I could not mistake the conclusion which he drew, — that the merchants, by eluding the embargo, had prevented the depreciation of the price of wheat and flour on hand. This, Sir, is sufficient for my purpose. The gentleman from Virginia must know that, from the character of trade, the profit of such trade, if it really exists, cannot be confined to VOL. n. — 2

18 SPEECHES.

the merchant. It would soon raise the price of breadstuff's in the hands of the other classes of the community, and would prove that his statement of the distressed condition of the millers and farmers cannot be correct.

In his zeal against the embargo, the gentleman from Vir ginia says, it was engendered between the Committee on For eign Kelations and the Executive. Engendered ! The gen tleman must be sensible of the impropriety of such language, as applied to the Executive, or a Committee of this House. No, Sir, it was not engendered, but adopted by both the Ex ecutive and committee, from its manifest propriety as a pre lude to war. There is no man in his reason, and uninflu enced by party feelings, but must acknowledge that a war, in this country, ought, almost invariably, to be preceded by an embargo. The very persons most loud against that mea sure, would be the most clamorous had it not preceded the war. There has been, Sir, much false statement in rela tion to the embargo. I remember, when it was under dis cussion on a former occasion, that a gentleman then observed, he had certain information that the French minister had been importuning our government to stop the exportation of breadstuff's to the Peninsula. I know not whether he in tended to insinuate this as one of the causes of the embargo. Be it as it may, I assert, from the highest authority, that no such application has ever been made, directly or indirectly, on the part of the French government. The statement was of such a nature as induced me to inquire into its correct ness ; and the result is such as I have declared. I can scarcely suppose, that the gentleman intended to convey the idea that French influence had any thing to do with the measure. He must know that the Executive, as well as a majority of this body, would resist, with the greatest indig nation, any attempt to influence the measures of govern ment. But such has been the use made of it by certain prints, either from the manner in which it was connected in

SPEECHES. 19

debate with the embargo, or the very imperfect and unfair reports of the secret proceedings of Congress.

One would suppose, from the language of the gentleman from Virginia, that he was much in the secrets of govern ment. He says, the plan now is, to disband the army and carry on a predatory war on the ocean. I can assure him, if such is the plan, I am wholly ignorant of it ; and that, should it be proposed, it will not meet with my approbation. I am decidedly of opinion that the best interests of the coun try will be consulted by calling out the whole force of the community to protect its rights. Should this course fail, the next best would be to submit to our enemy with as good a grace as possible. Let us not provoke where we cannot resist. The mongrel state — neither war nor peace — is much the worst.

The gentleman from Virginia has told us much of the signs of the times. I had hoped, that the age of superstition was past, and that no attempt would be made to influence the measures of government, — which ought to be founded in wisdom and policy, — by the vague, I may say, supersti tious feelings of any man, whatever may be the physical ap pearances which may have given birth to them. Are we to renounce our reason ? Must we turn from the path of jus tice and experience, because a comet has made its appear ance in our system, or the moon has passed between the sun and the earth ? If so, the signs of the times are bad in deed. It would mark a fearful retrograde in civilization — it would show a dreadful declension towards barbarism. Sir, if we must examine the auspices ; if we must inspect the entrails of the times, I would pronounce the omens good. It is from moral, and not from brutal or physical omens, that we ought to judge ; and what more favorable could we desire than that the country is, at last, roused from its lethargy, and that it has determined to vindicate its interest and honor. On the contrary, a nation so sunk in avarice, and so corrupt-

20 SPEECHES.

ed by faction, as to be insensible to the greatest injuries, and lost to all sense of its independence, would be a sight more por tentous than comets, earthquakes, eclipses, or the whole cata logue of omens, which I have heard the gentleman from Virgi nia enumerate. I assert, and gentlemen know it, if we submit to the pretensions of England, now openly avowed, the inde pendence of this country is lost — we will be, as to our com merce, re-colonized. This is the second struggle for our lib erty ; and if we but do justice to ourselves, it will be no less glorious and successful than the first. Let us but exert our selves, and we must meet with the prospering smile of Heaven. Sir, I assert it with confidence, a war, just and necessary in its origin, wisely and vigorously carried on, and honorably terminated, would establish the integrity and pros perity of our country for centuries.

SPEECH

On the proposition to repeal the Non-Importation Act, delivered in the House of Eepresentatives, June 24th, 1812.

[NOTE. — On June 23d, 1812, immediately after the Declaration of War, Mr. Cheves, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a Bill, " Partially to suspend, for a limited time, the several acts prohibiting importations from Great Britain, her dominions, colonies, and dependencies; and of the produce and manufactures thereof:" which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. Richardson of Massachusetts moved to amend the first sec tion, by striking out all the words after the enacting clause, and in serting others proposing a total repeal of the whole restrictive system, as being no longer applicable to the existing state of the

SPEECHES. 21

country. This proposition was negatived by a vote of 69 to 53, when Mr. Williams of South Carolina moved to strike out the first section of the Bill, without proposing to insert. Mr. Johnson opposed, and Mr. Macon supported the motion ; when the committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again ; which the House refused to grant. Mr. Eichardson then renewed his motion to amend ; and Mr. Williams moved an indefinite postponement of the Bill. This latter motion was lost by the same vote, and the House adjourned.

June 24. — The House resumed the consideration of the Bill — Mr. Richardson's proposition being under consideration. It was sup ported by Messrs. Pearson, Widgery, and Calhoun, and opposed by Mr. Wright of Maryland, and finally negatived — Ayes, 58; Noes, 61.

On the failure of Mr. Richardson's proposition, Mr. Goldsborough moved to amend the Bill, so as to permit the importation of all goods not owned by British subjects. This was lost by a vote of 59 to 60. Mr. McKini then moved to postpone the Bill to 1st of February, 1813 (a virtual rejection), and the motion prevailed. Mr. Richardson, how ever, on the day following, offered a resolution for the appointment of a Select Committee to bring in a Bill to repeal the Non-Importa tion Act ; which, after a warm debate, was lost by the casting vote of the speaker, Mr. Clay.]

MR. SPEAKER : — I am in favor of the amendment pro posed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Richard son) ; and, as I differ from many of my friends on the sub ject, I feel it a duty to present the reasons that will govern my vote. But, before I proceed to discuss the question, I wish it to be distinctly understood that, to avoid taxes, forms no part of my inducement to advocate the proposed repeal. I am ready to meet them. We are at war. It is wisdom to make it efficient ; and that system will meet with my hearty support which renders it the most so, be it more or less burthensome. I fear not the effect of taxes on the public mind. The people will support any taxes short of oppression. Sir, I am not disposed to deny that the Non- Importation Act has a very sensible effect on the resources of the enemy : and am willing to admit, that restrictions on

22 SPEECHES.

commerce, as a means of annoyance, ought not to be neglect ed. I cannot, however, agree with the gentlemen who op pose this amendment, that a repeal of this act would leave the trade with Great Britain unembarrassed, or would afford a great relief to her manufacturers. A state of war is itself a severe restriction on commerce. The new and circuitous channel through which trade is compelled to flow ; the ad ditional hazard and expenses incident to that state ; and the double duties proposed to be laid on imports, present very serious impediments — equal, or nearly so, to the Non-Impor tation Act itself. If, Sir, in some parts of this country, English goods can now be had at 60 per cent, on the invoice price, — as I have been informed by some commercial gentle men, — by repealing this act you will produce no relaxation ; for the expense and hazard of introduction will, at least, equal that per cent. By the repeal, the price of such goods will not sink ; the consumption will not be increased ; nor will the manufacturer be relieved. We are in the habit of think ing that prohibition in law is prohibition in fact. It is a great mistake, which I daily see contradicted in our mer chants' shops, lined with English manufactures. So far from entirely preventing their introduction, I believe that to prohibit is not the most effectual mode to exclude them. I venture the assertion with confidence, that duties are, at least, equally effectual. The greatest commercial pressure that can be obtained, I believe, will be found in duties as high as the articles introduced can bear, that is, as high as possible without smuggling. Goods can be introduced cheaper (of course more abundantly and with a greater con sumption) under the Non-Importation Act by smuggling, than under such duties. It is a fact of importance, that smuggling is more easy under the former than the latter sys tem ; and, consequently, can be carried on at a less cost. I beg the attention of the House while I establish this point. The hazard of smuggling depends on the laws against it, —

SPEECHES. 23

their rigid execution, — the public sentiment, and the in terests of the mercantile class to permit it. I begin with the last, for it is the most important, as it controls the others. Where duties are not so high as to drive the honest trader from the market, the merchants, as a body, have an interest to prevent smuggling'. Goods, so introduced, not only defraud the revenue, but the honest and regular trader. The higher the duty, the more powerful this principle ; and in this country, where there is not much competition between many articles of foreign supply and of domestic manufacture, the duties may be made very high. In this state of things every honest merchant becomes a vigilant custom-house officer, stimulated by a sense of interest. It was this principle which made smuggling unknown to your laws, previous to the commence ment of the restrictive system. It was not the number, or vigilance of your officers. They bore no proportion to the extent of your coast. But it was hard to smuggle, where every merchant considered each bale of goods, or cask of wine, so introduced, as so much loss to his profit. Very different is the effect of entire prohibition. I cannot speak of it more concisely or justly than to say, it is the reverse. Under it, the honest trader of necessity disappears. The desperate adventurer supplies his place. Commerce ceases to be a trade — a business of fair and regular gain ; it be comes a matter of hazard and adventure. The whole class concerned in carrying it on have one common interest — to discover flaws in your revenue laws, or elude their operation ; to lull the vigilance of your custom-house officers, or corrupt their integrity. Smuggling ceases to be odious. It is no longer the occupation of an insulated individual, who care fully conceals from all the world his violation of the laws. JSTo, it becomes the business of a society, of an entire class of men, who make a jest of fraud, and consider ingenuity, in this lawless occupation, as the highest honor. The corrup tion ends not here ; its infectious influence spreads and con-

24 SPEECHES.

taminates public opinion. But, Sir, under the operation of heavy duties only, it is reversed. Interest, it is true, con trols opinion in this, as well as in the other cases, but it pro duces the opposite effect. Here the smuggler is ranked with the thief, or with that description of men, who, in violation of the law, live on the honest gains of others. From the merchant, the rest of the community takes the impression, and the smuggler becomes universally odious. Interest has wonderful control over sentiment. Even the more refined and elevated — the moral and religious senti ment — may be considered as ultimately resting on it ; not, it is true, on that of any one individual, or class of men, but on the enlarged interest of our kind. Correspondent to public sentiment will be the laws, or, what is of more import ance, their execution. In all free governments the laws, or their execution, cannot be much above the tone of public opinion. Under the restrictive system, the laws are either cried down for oppression, or are not executed. Under the operation of duties only, the merchant himself demands severe laws, and aids in their rigid execution. He is a party concerned with his country, and has a common interest with government. He sees in the laws a friend and pro tector, and not an oppressor.

Sir, I think the conclusion is strong, that you cannot extend your commercial pressure on the enemy, beyond, or at least much beyond, the operation of high duties. It seems to me to be the ultimate point ; and, if it is a fact that the double duties are as high as can be borne (of which I pretend not to have certain knowledge), then, the con tinuation of the Non-Importation Act will not give much additional pressure. The repeal, so far from relieving the English manufacturer, will be scarcely felt in that country. It is by no means like a repeal in peace, and, without addi tional burthens, would be unfelt.

But, Sir, I may be asked. Why change, why repeal the

SPEECHES. 25

Non-Importation Act ? If it does not produce any good, it will not much harm. As it regards our enemy, I readily admit there is not much reason for its repeal or continuation, I feel not much solicitude on that point. But, Sir, as it regards ourselves, the two systems are essentially different. In the one, the whole gain is profit to the adventurer and smuggler. The honest dealer is driven out of employment, and government is defrauded of its revenue. In the other, an honest and useful class of citizens is maintained in com fort and ease, and the treasury enriched. Even suppose the difference in the pressure on the enemy to be considerable, yet these incidental advantages ought not to be disregarded. I would not give up for revenue what I suppose to be a good system ; but when the effects of two measures are nearly equal in other respects, I would not overlook the exchequer. It is there, after all, we will find the funds, the sinews of war. I know the zeal and resources of the country are great ; but we have not been in the habit of paying taxes ; we have no system of internal revenue ; and the nature of the country, and the conflict between the States and general government, render it difficult, I may say impossible, to originate one that will not excite discontent. The measure I advocate will yield you more additional revenue than the whole of the internal taxes ; and this on goods which would be introduced in spite of your laws. Consider the relief it would afford you. The internal taxes might, in a great measure, be dispensed with ; or, if we choose to give it to our gallant little navy, the millions thus gained from com merce, would add to it considerable strength. Bestowed on our army, it would be better appointed, and enabled to act with greater vigor and promptitude. Or, if you choose a different destination, you might keep down the increas ing volume of public debt ; a thing that ought so nearly to interest each one of us. The sum of my opinion then is, that a repeal of the Non-Importation Act will not,

26 SPEECHES.

under existing circumstances, afford much relief to the dis tresses of England ; and that a commercial pressure, equally sure and as entire prohibition, and far more salutary for this country, may be produced by the operation of heavy duties. There are many who are ready to acknowledge the truth of this opinion, but fear that the effect on the public mind both here and in England would be unfortunate. They dread a change. But I will not admit, that the repeal would be a material change. Our fixed determination is to resist England. Can war, can all the impediments to trade incidental to that state, be considered a change, a yielding ? No, if they imply a change, it is a wise one — one advancing from a lower to a higher degree of resistance. We need not fear any evil effect on public opinion. If there should be any, it will be but momentary. Our duty is, to pursue the wisest and the most efficient measures ; — it is the duty of the people to understand their character — to condemn the pernicious, and to approve the wise. This they will finally do. Delusion cannot long exist. As to the impression on our enemy, he will not find much relief to his starving manufacturers in a war with this country. He will under stand the impediments in the way of commerce, — and they present but little to encourage his hopes.

But, Sir, I condemn this mode of legislating, which does not adopt or reject measures because in themselves good or bad, but because of some supposed effect they may produce on the opinion of our enemy. In all games it is hazardous to play on the supposed ignorance of your opponent. In a few instances, it may succeed ; but, in most, he sees your intention and turns it against yourself.

Sir, I am in hopes, if the measure I advocate should succeed, it will tend to produce harmony at home. It will go far to reconcile the mercantile class. Your restrictive measures have become odious to them ; and though they may not approve the war, yet they cannot but respect the

SPEECHES. 27

motives which dictated it. The merchants, I hope, will come to reflect that this is the favorable moment to assert their rights. The single fact that the parts of the country most remote from the ocean and least connected with commerce have entered into this contest for commercial rights with an ardor and disinterestedness which does them the greatest honor, proves it to be, of all others the most auspicious moment. It more than counterbalances all want of prepa ration. For it is more easy to prepare for war than to obtain union ; and the former is not more necessary to victory than the latter. I now tell the commercial gentle men, if their rights are not protected, theirs is the fault. With hearty co-operation on their part, victory is certain.

It now remains for me to touch on another and far more interesting topic ; one which, I confess, has the principal weight in the formation of my opinions on this subject. The restrictive system, as a mode of resistance, and a means of obtaining a redress of our wrongs, has never been a favorite one with me. I wish not to censure the motives which dictated it, or to attribute weakness to those who first resorted to it for a restoration of our rights. Though I do not think the embargo a wise measure, yet I am far from thinking it a pusillanimous one. To lock up the whole commerce of this country ; to say to the most trading and exporting people in the world, " You shall not trade ;— You shall not export ; " — to break in upon the schemes of almost every man in society, is far from weakness, very far from pusillanimity. Sir, I confess while I disapprove this more than any other measure, it proves the strength of your government and the patriotism of the people. The arm of despotism, under similar circumstances, could not have coerced its execution more effectually, than the patience and zeal of the people. But, I object to the restrictive system ; and for the following reasons : — Because it does- not suit the genius of our people, — or that of our govern-

28 SPEECHES.

ment, — or the geographical character of the country. We are a people essentially active. I may say we are pre eminently so. Distance and difficulties are less to us than any people on earth. Our schemes and prospects extend every where and to every thing. No passive system can suit such a people ; — in action superior to all others ; — in patience and endurance inferior to many. Nor does it suit the genius of our institutions. Our government is founded on freedom and hates coercion. To make the restrictive system effectual, requires the most arbitrary laws. Eng land, with the severest penal statutes, has not been able to exclude prohibited articles ; and even Bonaparte, with all his power and vigilance, was obliged to resort to the most barbarous laws to enforce his continental system. Burning has furnished the only effectual remedy. The peculiar geography of our country, added to the freedom of its government, greatly increases the difficulty. With so great an extent of sea- coast ; with so many rivers, bays, harbors and inlets ; with neighboring English provinces, which stretch for so great an extent along one of our frontiers, it is impossible to prevent smuggling to a large amount.

Besides, there are other and strong objections to this system. It renders government odious. People are not in the habit of looking back beyond immediate causes. The farmer, who inquires why he cannot get more for his produce, is told that it is owing to the embargo, or to commercial restrictions. In this he sees only the hands of his own gov ernment. He does not look to those acts of violence and injustice, which this system is intended to counteract. His censures fall on his government. To its measures he at tributes the cause of his embarrassment, and in their removal he expects his relief. This is an unhappy state of the public mind ; and even, I might with truth say, in a government resting essentially on opinion, a dangerous one.. In war it is different. The privation, it is true, may be equal, or

SPEECHES. 29

greater ; but the public mind, under the strong impulses of such a state, becomes steeled against sufferings. The differ ence is great between the passive and active state of mind. Tie down a hero, and he feels the puncture of a pin ; but, throw him into battle, and he is scarcely sensible of vital gashes. So in war. Impelled, alternately, by hope and fear ; stimulated by revenge ; depressed with shame, or ele vated by victory, — the people become invincible. No priva tions can shake their fortitude ; no calamity can break their spirit. Even where equally successful, the contrast is striking. War and restriction may leave the country equally exhausted ; but the latter not only leaves you poor, — but, even when successful, dispirited, divided, discontented, with diminished patriotism, and the manners of a considerable portion of your people corrupted. Not so in war. In that state the common danger unites all ; strengthens the bonds of society, and feeds the flame of patriotism. The national character acquires energy. In exchange for the expenses of war you obtain military and naval skill, and a more perfect organization of such parts of your government as are connected with the science of national defence. You also obtain the habits of freely advancing your purse and strength in the common cause. Sir, are these advantages to be counted as trifles in the present state of the world ? Can they be meas ured by a moneyed valuation ?

But, it may be asked, why not unite war and restriction, and thus call the whole energy of the country into action ? It is true there is nothing impossible in such an union ; but it is equally true, that what is gained to the latter is lost to the former ; and, Sir, the reverse is also true, — that what is lost to restrictions is gained to the war. My objections to restrictions without war, equally hold against them in con junction with it. Sir, I would prefer a single victory over the enemy, by sea or land, to all the good we shall ever derive from the continuation of the Non-Importation Act.

30 SPEECHES.

I know not that it would produce an equal pressure on the enemy ; but I am certain of what is of greater consequence, — it would be accompanied with more salutary effects on ourselves. The memory of a Saratoga or Eutaw is immortal. It is there you will find the country's boast and pride : the inexhaustible source of great and heroic actions. But what will history say of restrictions ? What examples worthy of imitation will it furnish posterity ? What pride, what pleasure will our children find in the events of such times ? Let me not be considered as romantic. This nation ought to be taught to rely on its own courage, its fortitude, its skill, and virtue, for protection. These are the only safe guards in the hour of danger. Man was endowed with these great qualities for his defence. There is nothing about him that indicates that he must conquer by enduring. He is not incrusted in a shell ; he is not taught to rely on his insensibility, his passive suffering, for defence. No, no ; it is on the invincible mind ; on a magnanimous nature, that he ought to rely. Herein lies the superiority of our kind ; it is these that make man the lord of the world. It is the destiny of our condition, that nations should rise above nations, as they are endued, in a greater degree, with these shining qualities. Sir, it is often repeated, that if the Non- Importation Act is continued, we shall have a speedy peace. I believe it not. I fear the delusive hope. It will debilitate the springs of war. It is for this reason, in part, that I wish it repealed. It is the fountain of fallacious expectations. I have frequently heard another remark, with no small mor tification, from some of those who have supported the war ; viz., that it is only by restrictions we can seriously affect our enemies. Why then declare war ? Is it to be an ap pendage only of the Non-Importation Act ? If so, I disclaim it. It is an alarming idea to be in a state of war, and not to rely on our courage or energy, but on a measure of peace. If the Non-Importation Act is our chief reliance, it will soon

SPEECHES. 31

direct our council. Let us strike away this false hope ; let us call out the resources of the country for its protection. England will soon find that seven millions of freemen, with every material of war in abundance, are not to be despised with impunity. I would be full of hope if I saw our sole reliance placed on the vigorous prosecution of the war. But if we are to paralyze it ; if we are to trust, in the moment of danger, to the operation of a system of peace, I greatly fear. If such is to be our course, I see not that we have bettered our condition. We have had a peace like a war. In the name of Heaven, let us not have the only thing that is worse — a war like a peace. I trust my fears will not be realized.

SPEECH

On the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means, in reference to Merchants' Bonds, delivered in the House of Representatives, Dec. 4th, 1812.

[NOTE. — This speech so fully explains the circumstances under which it was delivered, as to make a note unnecessary. It will suffice to say, for the satisfaction of the reader, that the Committee of the Whole refused to agree to the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means, by a vote of 52 to 49: and that, subsequently (Dec. 15th, 1812), a Bill was passed by the Senate, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to remit the forfeitures incurred by the merchants, — which, after considerable opposition, was finally agreed to by the House — Yeas, 64; Nays, 61.]

MB. CHAIRMAN : — The subject now under discussion was first brought to the notice of Congress, by the following para graph in the President's Message at the commencement of the present session :

32 SPEECHES.

" A considerable number of American vessels, which were in England when the revocation of the Orders in Council took place, were laden with British manufactures under an erroneous impression that the Non-Importation Act would immediately cease to operate, and have arrived in the United States. It did not appear proper to exercise on unforeseen cases of such magnitude, the ordinary power vested in the Treasury Department, to mitigate forfeitures, without pre viously affording to Congress an opportunity of making, on the subject, such provision as they may think proper. In their decision they will doubtless equally consult what is due to equitable considerations and the public interest."

So much of the message as has been just read, was re ferred to the Committee of Ways and Means. Their report constitutes the subject of present deliberation, the material part of which is as follows :

" On a view of the whole subject, the committee are of opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury has full power to remit or mitigate the penalties and forfeitures incurred, should an interposition, in either way, be called for by the circum stances of the case ; and, therefore, recommend that it be

" fiesolved, That it is inexpedient to legislate upon the subject, and that the petitions with the accompanying docu ments be referred to the Secretary of the Treasury."

My object in presenting to the view of this committee the President's Message and the Keport, is, to call their at tention to a total want of accordance between them. It is almost an abuse of language to call it a report. A report ought to comprehend the subject of reference, and be, to it, as a conclusion is to its premises. On reading the report only, the natural conclusion would be, that we were consulted as lawyers, and not as statesmen ; that the point of doubt, in the Executive mind, turned on the construction of our acts, and not on what justice, humanity, and sound policy demand. The report informs us, that the Secretary of the

SPEECHES. 33

Treasury has power to remit or mitigate the penalties incur red ; and, from this fact, it draws that negative proposition on which we are now deliberating. It is not a little curious to observe how formally and fully the committee have decid ed on this power of the Treasury Department, — doubted neither by the President nor Secretary, — nor, indeed, by any one ; — while they overlook those interesting considerations, towards which the Executive has directed the attention of Congress, viz. : — " What is due to equitable considerations and to the public interest," in relation to " unforeseen cases of such magnitude" They are, in truth, cases of magnitude. Twenty millions of property await your decision ; — a sum equal nearly to half of the annual exports of this country ; — and quite equal to the entire export, in the best years, of the whole country between Washington and New Orleans. It is difficult to realize magnitude when expressed in numbers only. To form a just conception, we must aggregate the whole annual products of cotton, rice and tobacco, with a large proportion of the breadstuffs of this country. I would be happy to know on what principle of policy or reason so large an amount is to be left to the decision of any individual. Is more wisdom, more virtue, or public confidence to be found in the Treasury Department, than in the assembled represen tatives of the Union ? What constitutes a feature in this report, still more extraordinary and objectionable, is, the apparent understanding between the committee and the Treasury Department. They coyly refuse to recommend any positive act of legislation ; while they, indirectly, intimate what they wish and expect the Secretary of the Treasury to do ; — or, in other words, we are called on, really and virtually, to legislate ; while, at the same time, we are informed that it is improper for us so to do. For, among the documents reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, as forming the basis of their opinion, is a letter of the Secretary of the

VOL. II. — 3

34 SPEECHES.

Treasury of the 23d of November, which contains the follow* ing paragraph :

" Upon the whole, I continue in the opinion, submitted with great deference to the committee, — that one-half of the forfeitures which would otherwise fall to the collectors, ought to be remitted ; but that, with respect to the one-half belonging to the United States, justice to the community re quires, that, when remitted, at least an equivalent may be secured to the public for the extra profit beyond that on common importations, which arises from the continuation of the Non-Importation Act."

Here, Sir, the opinion of the Secretary is explicitly stated relative to these unforeseen cases of such magnitude, and the conclusion is irresistible, that the committee, in referring them to his decision, must have known and approved of it.

The true question, then, before the committee, is not to be found in that negative resolution reported by the Commit tee of Ways and Means,- — that it is inexpedient to legislate on these cases, — but in that part of the letter of the Secre tary of the Treasury which I have just read. Yes, Sir ; we are now deliberating, in effect, on the proposition whether it is proper to exact of the merchants their extra profit ; and whether, in such case, this ought to be done through the agency of the Treasury Department. I presume the truth of this opinion will not be controverted ; should it be, how ever, ample proof will be found in almost every sentence of the report of the speeches of the gentlemen in support of it. They are literally compounded of laborious investigations to ascertain the extra profit of the merchants on their late im portations.

Now, Sir, — without pretending to controvert the policy of taking extra profit, — I assert that it cannot be legally ef fected through the Secretary of the Treasury. It exceeds liis powers. The Non-Importation Act, under which the for feitures accrued, refers to the Act of 1797 to ascertain the

SPEECHES. 35

powtrs of the Secretary in relation to cases of this kind. On reference to that act, his power will be found to be strictly a mitigating and remitting power, and has for its object the remedy of an imperfection incidental to all human laws. The best worded act must comprehend many cases within the let ter, that are not within its spirit or intention. In every well regulated government, an equity exists somewhere to remedy this defect — to mitigate the rigor of the law. The act of '97, for greater security of the revenue, vests this power, in relation to our revenue laws, in the head of the Treasuiy Department. The real object of those laws is, to punish only the negligent or wilful violators ; but, like other penal acts, they are couched in general terms, and comprehend those who by necessity or ignorance violate them. That the Treasury might be secured, and the law, at the same time, administered in its spirit and intention only, and not in its letter merely, this power was delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury. To establish the correctness of this exposi tion, I will read the Act of '97.

[Here Mr. C. read the Act.]

Now, Sir, though I admit, with the report, "that the Secretary of the Treasury has power to mitigate or remit," I do most unequivocally deny, that he has legal power to ef fect what is proposed to be done by the committee ; — viz. : — to levy the extra profit. The two powers are essentially dif ferent. The one is of a judicial and equitable character, and has for its object guilt or innocence ; — the other that of as sessment or taxation, and has for its object, not guilt or innocence, but profit. The latter is strictly a moneyed trans action ; the former relates to the administration of the penal laws of the country. The one is fully and faithfully administered, when due regard is had to all the circumstan ces as they constitute guilt or innocence, and the law applied accordingly ; — the other, when a proper and correct estimate

36 SPEECHES.

is made of the actual profits of trade, compared with those on the late importations, and the difference only levied.

The power of the Secretary, under the Act of '97, is not arbitrary ; — to be exercised or not according to his pleasure ; but he is bound to exercise it according to the rules of a sound discretion. If guilt appear, he cannot arrest the law ; if innocence, he cannot apply it. The effects of the two powers strangely mark their contrariety. When circum stances of guilt or innocence only, govern the Treasury in the exercise of this power, the consequence is, love and rev erence for the laws ; — but if they are disregarded, and the profits of the merchants only considered, in the place of such sentiments, there will be disgust and hatred. You may, in deed, have a full treasury, but you will find empty affections. More need not be said, I hope, to prove that the extra pro fits cannot be taken from the merchants, under the power of the Treasury Department to mitigate or remit forfeitures. If it be essentially a taxing power, it not only has not been delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Act of '97, but cannot be by any act of ours. It is a power which the con stitution has sacredly deposited in Congress. It is incommu nicable. I am aware, that the extra profit may be taken under the semblance of the mitigating power ; — that the forfeiture may be made subject to its operation. But this cannot change the nature of the transaction. The question will still be, — Is it a moneyed transaction, or a fair administration of the penal laws of the country ? Is the object profit, or the execution of the laws ? The circumstances of the case will readily decide its character. Profit and justice are not easily confounded. It is not an unusual thing for power to assume a guise ; and even to appear to be the very opposite of what it really is. I impute no blame to the Committee of Ways and Means. They have overlooked the character of the power which they wish the Secretary of the Treasury to exercise. It is an act of inadvertence ; but not the less, on that account, to be re-

SPEECHES. 37

sisted. Precedent is a dangerous thing ; and it is not unu sual for executive power, unknown even to those who exercise it, to make encroachments of this kind. What has heen the end of all free governments, but open force, or the gradual undermining of the legislative by the executive power ? The peculiar construction of ours by no means exempts it from this evil ; but, on the contrary, were it not for the habits of the people, would naturally tend that way. The operation of this government is an interesting problem. I wish to see the whole in full possession of its primitive power, but all of the parts confined to their respective spheres. These, Sir, are my reasons for rejecting the report of the committee. I know, it will be said, that it is much easier to censure than to advise — to reject the report, than to point out what ought to be done. I am ready to acknowledge it, and to confess, that I have felt much solicitude and difficulty on this subject. But the view which the committee has pre sented, has constituted no part of my embarrassment. I am entirely averse to taking any part of the extra profit, whe ther through the agency of the Treasury Department, or of this House.

If our merchants are innocent, they are welcome to their good fortune ; if guilty, I scorn to participate in their profits. I will never consent to make our penal code the basis of our Ways and Means, or to establish a partnership between the Treasury and the violators of the Non-Importation Act. The necessity of causing our restrictive system to be respected, while in existence, and the difficulty of applying its penal ties to " cases of such magnitude" constitute my embarrass ment. On the one hand, if the law should be rigidly en forced, thousands will be involved in ruin ; on the other, if an act of grace should be done, your restrictive system will be endangered. Had the conduct of the merchants been dictated by any open contempt of the laws, or had it been entirely free from blame, our course would have been plain.

38 SPEECHES.

No one would have hesitated, in the one case, to have let the vengeance of the law fall on the guilty ; or, in the other, to extend its protection to the innocent. I am ready to ac knowledge that the importers were not sufficiently circum spect and guarded. The nature of the restrictive system, the posture of affairs, the decision of this House on a motion to repeal the Non-Importation Act, ought to have put them on their guard. Candor also compels me to state, that I cannot admit any arguments on this question to prove the impolicy of the Non-Importation Act, or the advantages to the community from the late importations. I can never ad mit, as an apology for the violation of the law, what was considered as an insufficient reason for its suspension. Neither can I doubt that even the worst of laws ought to be respected, while they remain laws. But, Sir, the difficulty on the other side appears to me more formidable. An indis criminate forfeiture would not, I fear, be considered as pun ishment. It would be thought oppression. Punishment, by the infliction of a partial evil, proposes to avoid a greater — by making some the subjects of its pains, to make all the subjects of its terrors. The culprits, in this case, are too nu merous for example ; particularly as the infraction of the law is of a doubtful character. This is by no means an unusual case ; numbers have often brought impunity. It is so in the worst of crimes, even in treason, where, in some instances, a considerable portion of the community is involved. Some gentlemen who have felt this embarrassment, have proposed to distinguish for punishment the head and leaders of this infraction of the law. My friend from Kentucky (the Speaker) has designated two classes to be favored — the pur chasers of British goods before the 2d of February, 1811, and the shippers before the first of August last ; that is, be fore the declaration of war had reached England. The first class is to be favored, from a supposed innocence of pur chase ; the other, from innocence of shipments. It is not

SPEECHES. >

necessary to prove the error of the discrimination. If true, it does not extend as far as it ought to do. For, if innocence of purchase is a sufficient reason for exemption, how can we condemn the goods purchased before the first of August ? If shipments might be made before that period, surely pur chases might ; and if the last, then, according to the dis tinction in favor of purchases before the 2d of February, they also ought to be exempted from the forfeitures. The cases, then, are too uniform for discrimination, and nothing remains but to condemn or acquit the whole. I feel myself compelled to yield to the magnitude of the case. I cannot find it in me to reduce thousands to beggary by a single stroke, nor do I suppose there is one in this House in favor of so stern a policy. I am ready to acknowledge that an act of grace will weaken the non-importation law ; but this is a less evil than the alienation of the whole mercantile class. It is left us to regret, that the wise foresight of my two honorable friends and colleagues was not adopted at the last session. It was then proposed to suspend the law for the introduction of this very property ; but the proposition was borne down by the clamor of the day. Had that been done, we would not have been reduced to our present state. Our laws would have been saved, and our merchants con tented.

A subject not necessarily involved in that under dis cussion, has been introduced by those who have preceded me in the debate. In imitation of the example, I will be ex cused, I hope, in offering my sentiments on the restrictive system. It is known that I have not been a friend to that system to the extent to which it has been carried. My ob jection, however, is neither against the inequality nor the greatness of its pressure. It is the duty of every section to bear whatever the general interest may demand ; and I, Sir, am proud in representing a people pre-eminent in the exer cise of this virtue. Carolina makes no complaint about the

40 SPEECHES.

difficulties of the times. If she feel embarrassments, she turns her indignation not against her own government, but against the common enemy. She makes no comparative estimate of her sufferings with those of the other States. She would be proud to stand pre-eminent in suffering, if, by this, the general good could be promoted ; and she, this day, pre sents the noble spectacle of a people acquiring increased union and energy from the force of the pressure ; and, so far from growing tired of the restrictive system, or war, as inti mated by the gentleman from Kentucky, she would willingly bear a superadded embargo, if the public interest should de mand it. But, Sir, my- objections are of a general and national character. Your character, your government and country, forbid a resort to this system for a redress of wrongs. It requires a sternness of execution approaching despotism. It first offers a vast premium for its violation, and then has to combat with the spirit of speculation, the cupidity and capital of the mercantile classes. To render its execu tion perfect, you must not only remove the inducement, but arrest speculations, particularly those which are founded on the probable course of political events. The subject before us is in point ; and you will, from the same causes, be in volved in this very dilemma annually ; nay, more frequently, should the treasury participate in the profits. To render your system perfect, you must imitate its successful execu tion in another country. Bonaparte is the only man who has a perfect knowledge of its genius. Burning and confis cation are the only effectual securities. A partial execution involves the most pernicious consequences. The conclusion is irresistible. The system does not suit you. You are too enterprising, too free, and your coast too extended, with too many indentations of rivers, bays, and harbors. The effects of a few years' operation will change your mercantile charac ter. In such a state of things, the honest merchant must retire. He cannot live ; but his place will not be unoccu-

SPEECHES. 41

pied. The desperate adventurer and the smuggler •will suc ceed him. Unaided by the virtue of the citizen, no law, however severe its sanctions, will be able to stem the torrent. There is, indeed, one species of restriction, which, in a British war, ought never to be neglected. Whatever pressure can be produced on her manufacturing and commercial interests, through heavy duties, ought to be effected. The reason is obvious : it is both restriction and revenue. So much of the capital of this country is turned towards foreign com merce, that you cannot safely neglect this source of revenue. Nor is its restrictive character inconsiderable. The assertion may seem strange ; but, in my opinion, this system secures the highest practical and continued pressure that can be pro duced. To say nothing of the perpetual violations of pro hibitory acts by smuggling, they are subject to occasional re laxations, by which the country becomes inundated with British goods. At the end of the last session, I recommended high duties as a substitute for the Non-Importation Act. Un der that system, the quantity of goods imported would not have been greater than it now is ; but your treasury would have been in a much better condition ; nor should we have had the present contest about extra profits ; they would have passed into the treasury in the shape of duties. High duties have no pernicious effects, and are consistent with the genius of the people and the institutions of the country. It is thus we would combine, in the greatest degree, the active resources of the country with pressure on the manufactures of the enemy. Your army and navy would feel the invigorating effect. The war would not sicken the patriot's hope, and de feat some of its most valuable anticipated consequences. You would have the means of filling the ranks of the regular army, and be no longer compelled to rely on the hazardous aid of volunteers and militia. Victory, peace, and national honor, — I was going to say, glory, — (but experience has taught me how that word is received in this House), would

42 SPEECHES.

be the welcomed result of a vigorous war. But, Sir, if we must have one or the other, — either all war or all restrictions. — I would prefer the former. Suppose either would bring the enemy to our terms. Even in victory they are unequal. By restriction, you have nothing but the success ; while the assertion of our national rights by arms, creates those quali ties which amply compensate for the privation and expense incidental to that state. Admit that the Tripolitans could have been coerced to terms by non-importation acts, and that we had resorted to restriction rather than arms, could we have this day boasted of our naval victories ? The Mediterranean war was the school of our naval virtue. It has elevated the hopes of our country. We may now look forward to the day, with confidence, when we shall be no longer insulted and in jured on the high road of nations, with impunity. Besides, the non-importation system, as a redress of wrongs, is radi cally defective. You may meet commercial restrictions with commercial restrictions ; but you cannot safely confront pre meditated insult and injury with commercial restrictions alone. I utter not this from the fervor of my feelings, but it is the deliberate result of my best judgment. It sinks the nation in its own estimation ; it counts as nothing what is ultimately connected with our best hopes — the union of- these States. Our Union cannot safely stand on the cold cal culations of interest alone. It is too weak to withstand politi cal convulsions. We cannot, without hazard, neglect that which makes men love to be members of an extensive com munity — the love of greatness — the consciousness of strength. So long as American is a proud name, we are safe ; but the day we are ashamed of it, the Union is more than half destroyed.

SPEECHES. 43

SPEECH

On the New Army Bill, delivered in the House of Representatives, January 14th, 1813.

[NOTE.— Dec. 14th, 1812. The Committee on Military Affairs reported to the House, a Bill to raise twenty additional regiments of infantry to serve for one year, unless sooner discharged. This Bill, both in Committee of the Whole and in the House, had a very full discussion, which, as usual, turned more on questions connected with the policy and expediency of the war, than on its own intrinsic merits. Mr. Calhoun delivered this speech near the close of the debate. The Bill passed by a vote of ayes, 77 ; nays, 42.]

MR. SPEAKER : — I can offer nothing more acceptable, I presume, to the House, than a promise not to discuss the Orders in Council, French decrees, blockades, or embargoes. I am induced to avoid these topics for several reasons. In the first place, they are too stale to furnish any interest to this House or the country. Gentlemen who have attempted it, with whatever abilities, have failed to command attention ; and it would argue very little sagacity on my part, not to be admonished by their want of success. Indeed, whatever interest may have been at one time attached to these sub jects is now lost. They have passed away ; and will not soon, I hope, return into the circle of politics. Yes, Sir, reviled as have been our country's efforts to curb belligerent injustice — weak and contemptible as she has been repre sented to be in the scale of nations, she has triumphed in breaking down the most dangerous monopoly ever attempted by one nation against the commerce of another. I will not stop to inquire whether their triumph is attributable to the Non-Importation Act, or to the menace of war, or, (what is more probable,) to the last, operating on the pressure pro-

44 SPEECHES.

duced by the former, — the fact is certain that the Orders in Council of 1807 and 1809, — which our opponents have often said, that England would never yield, as they made a part of her commercial system, — are now no more. The same firmness, if persevered in, which has carried us thus far with success, will, as our cause is just, end in final victory. A further reason why I shall not follow our opponents into the region of documents and records, is, that I am afraid of a decoy ; as I am induced to believe, from appearances, that their object is to draw our attention from the merits of the question. Gentlemen have literally buried their arguments under a huge pile of quotations ; and wandered so far into this realm of paper, that neither the vision of this House has been, nor that of the country will be, able to follow them. There the best and worst reasons share an equal fate. The truth of the one, and the error of the other, are covered in like obscurity.

Before I proceed further, I will make a few observations in reply to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Kandolph), who spoke yesterday. He complained of the desertion of his former associates from the minority principles of "98. These principles, he said, consisted in an opposition to the general government, in relation to the States, — and to poli tical rights, in relation to individuals.

I was, at one moment, almost induced to suspect the gentleman of a desertion of his own principles ; for scarcely had he finished this part of his subject, before he passed a highly-wrought eulogy on the Father of his Country — on that man whose whole life indicated the strongest leaning on the side of the government of his country. I beg the gentleman to reflect whether his definition of minority principles suits the character of Washington's administration ? and if not, with what propriety both can be praised almost in the same breath. Whether, indeed, the principles of "98 are such as the gentleman has represented them to be, I will not inquire,

SPEECHES. 45

because not necessary to my argument. But if they are, in truth, those of the gentleman and his present associates, I should be happy to know with what countenance they can request the people of this country to put the government into their hands. Trust the government to those who are hostile to it ! who prefer their own interest and rights, to its interest and rights ! If our opponents are, in reality, in favor of such principles, patriotism ought to persuade them to add one other, — and that is, ever to remain in a minority. There they may, perhaps, be of some use ; at least, they will not be dangerous ; but put them in power, and let them act up to what they profess, and destruction would be cer tain. If the gentleman from Virginia is anxious to know the real cause of the separation of his former associates from him, he must look for it in his present political creed, and that of those with whom he is now united. He will there find an article which had no place in his, in '98 : and which, then, as well as now, was reprobated by those who consti tute the present majority. This article is only an enlarge ment of the minority principles, as defined by the gentleman ; — it is, opposition to our country in relation to England. The proof of this article is of the same kind, and no less clear than the others. For, what encroachment of England on our neutral rights, from the interruption of our carrying trade, down to the moment that war was declared — which one of the innumerable insults and injuries to which we have been subjected, has the opposition either not palliated or justified ? and what effort of our country to resist, which has not been reprobated and opposed ?

I will not multiply proofs on a course of conduct, the bad effect of which was too sensibly felt to be easily for gotten, and the continuation of which was but too apparent in the present discussion. For what is the object of the opposition in this debate ? To defeat the passage of this bill ? It has been scarcely mentioned ; and contains no-

46 SPEECHES.

thing to raise that storm which has been excited against it. The bill proposes to raise twenty thousand men only, and that for one year ; and surely there is nothing in that calcu lated to lay such strong hold on the jealousies or fears of the community. What, then, is the object of the opposition ? Gentlemen certainly do not act without an intention ; and wide as has been the range of debate, it cannot tte so lawless as to be without an object. It is not, I repeat, to defeat the passage of this bill ; no, but what is much more to be dreaded, to thwart that which the bill proposes to advance — the final success of the war ; and, to effect this purpose, I must do the opposition the credit to say, they have resorted to the most effectual means. In a free government, — in a government of laws, — two things are necessary for the effec tual prosecution of any great measure : the law, by which the executive officer is charged with the execution, and vested with suitable powers ; and the co-operating zeal and union of the people, who are always indispensable agents. Opposition, to be successfttl, must direct its efforts against the passage of the law ; or, what is more common, and gen erally more effectual, to destroy the union and the zeal of the people. Either, if successful, is effectual. The former would, in most cases, be seen and reprobated ; the latter, much the more dangerous, has, to the great misfortune of republics, presented, at all times, a ready means of defeating the most salutary measures. To this point the whole argu ments of opposition have converged. This gives a meaning to every reason and assertion which has been advanced, however wild and inconsistent. No topic has been left un touched ; no passion unessayed. The war has been repre sented as unjust in its origin, disastrous in its progress, and desperate in its further prosecution. As if to prevent the possibility of doubt, a determination has been boldly asserted not to support it.

Such is the opposition to the war, which was admitted,

SPEECHES. 47

on all sides, to be just ; and which, in a manner, received the votes even of those who now appear to be willing to ruin the country in order to defeat its success. For, let it be ever remembered, that the bill to raise twenty-five thousand men passed this House (January, 1812) almost unanimously, though it was distinctly announced for what object it was intended. How will gentlemen relieve themselves from this dilemma ? Was it their object to embarrass the adminis tration ? Will they dare to make a confession, which would so strongly confirm the motive that has been assigned to them ? A gentleman from New- York (Mr. Emmot) felt the awkwardness of the situation ; and, in his endeavor to explain, has made an admission which ought ever to exclude him and his friends from power. He justified his vote on the ground that he was in favor of the force as a peace es tablishment. A peace establishment of thirty-five thousand men ! [Mr. E. explained that he did not mean as a peace establishment ; but that the posture of affairs, at that time, demanded it.] At any rate (continued Mr. C.), I hope to hear nothing more about the enormous expense of the war ; since the principal expense ought to have been incurred, in the gentleman's opinion, even had it not been resorted to. Well might the opposition admit the justice of the war. For years the moderation of the government (I might almost say), its excessive love of peace, strove to avoid the contest. We bore all that an independent nation could bear ; not, indeed, with patience, but in the hopes of returning justice on the part of our enemy.

I cannot omit noticing the attempt made by the gentle man from New-York, to palliate the conduct of England in relation to one of the causes of the war. I allude to the blockade of 1806. The gentleman contended that it was a relaxation of the law of nations in our favor ; and, of conse quence, must be considered by us in the light of a benefit. It surely cannot be necessary to trace the gentleman through

48 SPEECHES.

his laborious discussion on this point, in order to expose the error of so extraordinary a conclusion. What ? That an advantage to this country, which we have struggled so much to avoid ! That a relaxation on the part of England, which she has so obstinately refused to yield ! Flushed with his supposed victory on this subject, the gentleman undertook, what might be considered even a more difficult task, to remove the Orders in Council as a cause of war. Sir, I de spair o'f replying to such arguments.

But it is objected, that the report of the Committee on Foreign Kelations has stated the orders of 1807, as a cause of war, though repealed by those of 1809. It is a sufficient justification of the report, that it has stated the facts on this, as well as all other points, precisely as they existed ; and well might the report enumerate the orders of 1807 as a cause of war, when those of 1809 openly avow the principles of the former, and only modify their operation to the then existing circumstances. But, says another gentleman from New- York (Mr. Bleecker), we were inveigled into the war by the perfidy of France. She did not fairly repeal her decrees. Be it so ; and what then ? Were we bound *to submit to England, because France refused to do us justice ? Have we no power of election between ruffians ? Where will the absurdity of such arguments end ? The right to select was perfect in us ; and, without reference to the conduct of France, the selection might, and ought to have fallen on England.

If, Sir, the origin of the war furnish no sufficient justifi cation for opposition to it, in vain will our opponents fly for refuge to its continuation. The Orders in Council, say they, are now no more ; and why should the war be persisted in, after its cause is removed ? My reply to the question is, — that it is continued from no project of ambition, or desire of conquest ; but from a cause far more sacred, — the liberty of our sailors, and their redemption from slavery. Yet the war

SPEECHES. 49

is opposed — even attempted to be defeated — by the friends, connections and neighbors of these brave defenders of our national rights and honor. It is even asked, why should we feel so lively an interest in their fate ? In vain are such ar guments urged. The country will not forget its duty, — the first of political duties, — that of protection. Our opponents may find no motive in connection or neighborhood ; but the country will in its obligations. The friends of commerce may evince their attachment to its profits and luxuries only ; but the government will not, on that account, cease to respect the liberty of the citizen, and the enlarged in terests of commerce, by protecting from English slavery the sailors, by whose toil and peril it is extended to every sea. Provided they have commerce and profit, it seems the injury and insult go for nothing with the opposition. Such a commerce may, indeed, bloat the country, but it will not contribute to its real strength. It subtracts more from the spirit, than it adds to the wealth of the community.

But, say our opponents, as they were opposed to the war, they are not bound to support it ; and so far has this opin ion been carried, that we have been accused almost of vio lating the right of conscience in denying the position as sumed by gentlemen. The right to oppose the efforts of our country, while in war, ought to be established beyond the possibility of doubt, before it can be justly adopted as the basis of conduct. How conscience can be claimed in this case, cannot be very easily imagined. We propose no Bill of pains and penalties ; we only assert, that the opposition experienced cannot be dictated by love of country ; and that it is inconsistent with the obligation which every citizen is under to promote the prosperity of the republic. Its neces sary tendency is, to prostrate the country at the feet of the enemy, and to elevate a party on the ruins of the republic. Until our opponents can prove that they have a right which is paramount to the public interest, we must persist in deny- VOL. n. — i

50 SPEECHES.

ing that they are justified in their attempts to thwart the success of the war. War has been declared by a law of the land ; and what would be thought of similar attempts to defeat any other law, however inconsiderable its object ? Who would dare to avow an intention to defeat its opera tion ? Can that, then, be true in relation to war which would be reprobated in every other case ? Can that course be right, which, when the whole physical force of the country is needed, withdraws half of that force ? Can that be true which gives the greatest violence to party animosity ? What would have been thought of such conduct in the war of the Kevolution ? Many good citizens, friendly to the liberty of the country, were opposed to the declaration at the time ; but could they have been justified in such opposition as we now experience ? To terminate the war through discord and weakness is a hazardous experiment. But, in the most un just and inexpedient war, it can scarcely be possible that disunion and defeat can have a salutary operation. In the numerous examples which history furnishes, let an instance be pointed out, in any war, where the public interest has been promoted by divisions, or injured by concord. Hun dreds of instances may be cited of the reverse. Why, then, will gentlemen persist in that course where danger is almost unavoidable, and shun that where safety is almost certain ?

But, Sir, we are told that peace is in our power without a farther prosecution of the war. Appeal not, say our oppo nents, to the fear, but to the generosity of our enemy. Eng land yields nothing to her fears ; stop, therefore, your prepa rations, and throw yourself on her mercy, and peace will be the result. We might indeed have pardon, but not peace on such terms. They, who think the war a sacrilege or a crime, might consistently adopt such a course ; but we, who know it to be in maintenance of the just rights of the communitj', never can. We are further told, that impressment of sea men was not considered a sufficient cause of war ; and are

SPEECHES. 51

asked, why should it be continued on that account ? Indi vidually (said Mr. Calhoun) I do not feel the force of the argument ; for it has been my opinion, that the nation was bound to resist so deep an injury, even at the hazard of war. But, admitting its full force, the difference is striking be tween the commencement and the continuance of hostilities. War ought to be continued until its rational object — a per manent and secure peace, is obtained. Even the friends of England ought not to desire the termination of the war, without a satisfactory adjustment of the subject of impress ment. It would leave the root, that must necessarily shoot up in future animosity and hostilities. America can never quietly submit to the deepest of injuries. Necessity may compel her to yield for a moment, but it will be to watch the growth of national strength, and to seize the first favor able opportunity to seek redress. The worst enemy to the peace of the two countries, could not desire a more effectual means to propagate eternal enmity.

But it is said, that we ought to offer to England suitable regulations on this subject, to secure to her the use of her own seamen ; and, because we have not, we are the aggres sors. Sir, I deny that we are bound to tender any regula tions. England is the party injuring. She ought to confine her seamen to her own services ; or, if that be impractica ble, propose such arrangements, that she might exercise her right without injury to us. This is the rule that governs all analogous cases in private life. But we have made our offer ; it is, that the ship should protect the sailor. It is the most simple and only safe rule. But to secure so desirable a point, the most liberal and effectual provisions ought and have been proposed to be made on our part, to guard the British government against the evil it apprehended, viz., the loss of its seamen.

The whole doctrine of protection, heretofore relied on, and still recommended by the gentleman from Connecticut

52 SPEECHES.

(Mr. B.), is false and derogatory to our honor ; and under no possible modification can effect the desirable object of afford ing safety to our sailors, and securing the future harmony of the two countries. ISTor can it be doubted, that if governed by justice, England would yield to the offer of our govern ment, particularly, if what the gentleman from New- York (Mr. Bleecker) says, be true, that there are ten thousand of her seamen now in our service. She would be greatly the gainer by the arrangement. Experience, it is to be feared, however, will teach that gentleman, that the evil lies much deeper. The use of her seamen is a mere pretence. The blow is aimed at our commercial greatness. It is this which has animated and directed all of her injurious councils to wards this country. England is at the same time a trading and a fighting nation ; two occupations naturally at variance, and most difficult to be united. War limits the number and extent of the markets of a belligerent — makes a variety of regulations necessary — and produces heavy taxes, which are inimical to the prosperity of manufactures, and consequently commerce. These causes combined give to trade new chan nels, which direct it naturally to neutral nations. To coun teract this tendency, England, under various, but flimsy pretences, has endeavored to support her commercial supe riority by monopoly. It has been our fortune to resist with no inconsiderable success this spirit of monopoly. Her prin cipal object in contending for the right of impressment, is to have, in a great measure, the monopoly of the sailors of the world. A fixed resistance will compel her to yield this point, as she has already done her Orders in Council. Success will amply reward our exertions. Our future commerce will feel its invigorating effects.

But, say gentlemen, England will never yield this point, and every effort on our part to secure it is hopeless. To confirm this prediction and secure our reverence, the proph ecies of the last session are relied on. I feel no disposition

SPEECHES. 53

to disparage the talents of our opponents in this line ; yet I very much doubt whether the whole chapter of woes has been fulfilled. I ask, for instance, whether so much as related to sacked towns, bombarded cities, ruined commerce, and revolt ing blacks, has been realized ? I am sorry to find a gentle man from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey) not yet cured of his fears in relation to tlu's last prediction. I would be glad to know what are his intentions. — His assertions give equal notice to the House, the enemy and the country. If clanger indeed exist, he has acted with such imprudence as ought to subject him to the censure of every reflecting man ; but I acquit the gentleman, as I do not apprehend any danger. I cannot admit an increased danger from a state of war — a state in which the public force and vigilance are, of necessity, the greatest. But to return to the point, our cause is not so hopeless as represented by our opponents. On the contrary, if we only persevere, we have every reason, under present circumstances, to anticipate ultimate success. The enemy is engaged in a contest in Europe, which requires his whole power. We have already compelled him to yield a point, which, but the last year, it was prophesied, he never would. The Orders in Council are now no more — that sys tem* by which it was vainly attempted to monopolize our trade, and to recolonize the American people. But if Eng land will not yield, we can perish as well as she. Our republican virtue is as obstinate as her imperial pride, and our duty to our citizens as unyielding, as her prerogative over her subjects.

An attempt has been made to shake our fortitude by a cry of French alliance. It has been boldly said, that we are already united with that country. We united with France ? We have the same cause ? No ; her object is dominion, and her impulse, ambition. Ours is the protection of the liberty of our sailors. But, say our opponents, we are con tending against the same country. What then ? Must we

54 SPEECHES.

submit to be outlawed by England, in order that she may not be by France ? Is the independence of England dearer to us than our own ? Must we enter the European struggle not as an equal, consulting our peculiar interest, but be dragged into it as the low dependant, the slave of England ? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Kandolph) has told us, that we are contending against religion in the person of England — that she is, in a word, the patroness of Christianity. Unhappy country ! Doomed to submission to preserve the purity of religion ! Doomed to slavery, that England may be independent ! Because Bonaparte is not a Protestant, you must surrender your rights ! Because he is a despot, you dare not resist ! What does the gentleman intend ? Is it his wish, by thus dragging into the heat of political debate the sacred cause of religion, to promote its interests or that of a faction ? If the former, let him point out an instance in ancient or modern times when the junction of religion and politics has not been fatal to the interest of both. It is this unnatural union which has engendered the foulest progeny of human woes. History is full of its disasters, and the gentle man is too familiar with its pages to require a particular recital. If the gentleman's intention is not to advance the cause of religion, but to promote the views of a party, words cannot truly describe its real character. It is a trick that has been, and still continues to be practised on the too easy credulity of our nature. Its frequency, however, does not change its nature ; it may indeed furnish some apology, that those who practise it are led into it without due reflection on its character ; but when understood, what can be more shock ing, than that this, the most sacred of all things, the medium of divine communion, our consolation as mortals, should be prostrated to the gratification of some of the worst feelings of the human heart ? Such then is the cause of the war and of its continuation ; and such the nature of the opposi tion experienced, and its justification. It remains to be seen

SPEECHES. 55

whether the intended effect will be produced ; whether ani mosity and discord will be fomented, and the zeal and union of the people to maintain the rights and indispensable duties of the community, will abate ; or, describing it under another aspect, whether it is the destiny of our country to sink under the blows of our enemy or not. I am not without my fears and my hopes.

On the one hand, our opponents have manifestly the ad vantage. The love of present ease and enjoyment, the love of gain, and party zeal, are on their side. These constitute a part of the weakness of our nature. We naturally lean that way without the arts of persuasion. Far more difficult is the task of the majority. It is theirs to support the dis tant but lasting interest of our country. It is theirs to ele vate the minds of the people, and to call up all of those qual ities by which present sacrifices are made to secure a future good. On the other hand, our cause is not without hope. The interest of the people, and that of the leaders of a party, are, as observed by a gentleman from New- York (Mr. Stow), often at variance. The people are always ready, unless led astray by ignorance or delusion, to participate in the success of the country, or to sympathize in its adversity. Yery dif ferent are the feelings of the leaders of the opposition : on every great measure they stand pledged against its success, and almost invariably consider that their political conse quence depends on its defeat. The heat of debate, the spirit of settled opposition, and the confident prediction of disas ter, are among the causes of this opposition between the in terest of a party and of the country ; and in no instance un der our own government have they existed in a greater degree than in relation to the present war. The evil is deeply root ed in the constitution of all free governments, and is the principal cause of their weakness and destruction. It has but one remedy : — the virtue and intelligence of the people. It behooves them, as they value the blessings of their free-

56 SPEECHES.

dom, not to permit themselves to be drawn into the vortex of party rage. For if, by such opposition, the firmest gov ernment should prove incompetent to maintain the rights of the nation against foreign aggression, they will realize too late the truth of the proposition, that government is protec tion, and that it cannot exist where it fails of this great and primary object. The authors of the weakness are common ly the first to take the advantage of it, and to turn it to the destruction of liberty.

SPEECH

On the Bill making further provisions for filling the ranks of the regular Army, encouraging enlist ments, &c., delivered in the House of Representa tives, January 17th, 1814.

[NOTE.— On the 10th of January, 1814, Mr. Troup, from the Com mittee on Military Affairs, reported to the House, — among others, a Bill to authorize the President to raise for five years' service, or dur ing the war, fourteen of the regiments of infantry which had been au thorized by the act of the 29th of January, 1813, and for other pur poses. Being referred to the Committee of the Whole, it was called up, successively, on the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 17th, and discussed with much warmth. Party feelings were highly excited, and every effort was made to embarrass the Administration by defeating the Bill. But in vain ; it was ordered to a third reading on January 21st, and final ly passed the House by a vote of 90 to 15.]

MR. CHAIRMAN : — I do not rise to examine on what terms the President has assented to negotiate with the Brit ish government ; because I conceive it neither pertinent to the present question, nor proper at this time. I deem it;

SPEECHES. 57

however, my duty to state, that I wholly dissent from the construction which our opponents give to the documents connected with this subject. If a proper opportunity should hereafter occur, I will be happy to present the reasons for my opinion on this point.

I am induced to occupy the time of the committee at present, to correct two essential errors, which gentlemen in the opposition have introduced into the discussion of this question ; and, although not immediately connected with the merits of the bill, I think it proper that they should be an swered ; because, from all that I have ever heard, as well on this as on former occasions, it seems to me that they consti tute the basis on which the minority rest their justification. I allude to the character which they give to the war ; and the claim set up, in a political and constitutional point of view, to justify their opposition. Gentlemen contend, that this is not a defensive, but an offensive war ; and under this character undertake its denunciation, without ever conde scending to state what, in their opinion, constitutes the characteristic difference between the two. I claim the at tention of the committee while I examine this point ; and I hope that it will not be considered as a mere verbal criticism, since our opponents have made the distinction the foundation of so much declamation against the war. The inquiry, in another point of view, I believe, will be useful. The people of this country have an aversion to an offensive war (which, I suppose, interprets the meaning of the vehemence of the opposition on this subject) ; while they readily acknowledge the possible necessity and justice of one that is defensive. It is therefore proper, that our ideas on this point should be fixed with precision and certainty.

I will lay it down as an universal criterion, that a war is offensive or defensive, not by the mode of carrying it on, which is an immaterial circumstance, but by the motive and cause which lead to it. If it has its origin in ambition,

58 SPEECHES.

avarice, or any of the like passions, then it is offensive ; but if, on the contrary, designed to repel insult, injury, or op pression, it is of an opposite character, and is defensive. The truth of this position will not require much discussion. I conceive that it may be safely rested either on the authori ty of the best writers on the subject, or on its own internal evidence. It is only in this view that the prevalent feelings on this subject can be explained. If the distinction taken be a correct one ; if the two species of war are distinguish able in their cause and motive, then our condemnation of the one and approval of the other is no longer a mystery ; it is founded in the nature of things. But if, on the contrary, it be true that they are distinguished by the mere accidental circumstance of the mode of carrying them on ; that the scene of action should make them the one or the other ; then the feelings of the country, by which it condemns or approves of either species, are a profound mystery never to be ex plained. In the view which I have presented, the difference between an offensive and a defensive war is of the moral kind ; and that sense of justice which marks the American people, accounts for their feelings. Their exemption from ambition and love of justice preserve them from the former ; while their manly spirit and good sense will always make them cheerfully meet the other whenever it becomes neces sary. What, then, is the character of the war in which we are now engaged ? Was it dictated by avarice or love of conquest ? I appeal to our opponents for a decision. They have already decided. When the resolutions of the gentle man from New Hampshire were under discussion at the last session, it was repeated, till the ear was fatigued, by every one on that side of the House who took any part in the de bate, that if the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees had been communicated in time to the British government, the Orders in Council would have been repealed also ; and had the last event happened, the war would not have been de-

SPEECHES. 59

clared. They then have acknowledged, that the Orders in Council, and not the conquest of Canada, as they now pre tend, were the cause of the war ; and it would be idle to in quire whether, to resist them, was in its nature offensive or defensive. It would be to inquire whether they were or were not an injury to our commerce — a point I have never heard denied by the most obstinate debater. It would be equally so to examine whether the cause of continuing the war, — to protect our seamen from impressment, — is of an offensive or defensive character. Very few have the hardihood to deny that this is an injury of the most serious kind, both as re gards the government, and the unhappy subjects of its ope ration. It involves the most sacred obligation which can bind the body politic to the citizen : — I mean that of protec tion, due alike to all ; to the beggar in the street, and much more, if susceptible of degrees, to our sailors, that class of the community who have added so much to the wealth and renown of this country.

Having thus established the character of the war, in its origin and continuance, I lay it down as a rule not less clear, that a defensive war does not become offensive by being carried beyond the limits of our territory. The motive and cause will ever give the character ; all the rest are mere unessential incidents. When once declared, the only question, even in a defensive war, is, how can it be carried on with the greatest effect ? The reverse of this involves the most glaring absurdity. It supposes that we have determined to compel our enemy to respect our rights ; and, at the same time, voluntarily renounced, what is acknowledged to be the best and most effectual mode of producing that effect. On this point, as well as the cause of the war, the opinion of our opponents may be arrayed against themselves. What have they advised as to the mode of carrying on the war ? With draw your troops from Canada, reduce your army, and limit your operations to the ocean. What ! to the ocean ? Carry

60 SPEECHES.

the war beyond our own territory ! make it offensive ! The gentlemen surely do not intend to support an offensive war ? To use their own language, it is too immoral for a virtuous and religious people. It is then admitted that it does not cease to be defensive by its being waged at sea ; how then can the carrying it into Canada change its character ? I again remark that it is a mere question of expediency where and how the war ought to be prosecuted. For my part, so long as it continues, I think no effort should be spared to reduce Canada. Should success accompany our arms, we will be indemnified for the privations and expenses of the war, by the acquisition of an extensive and valuable territory, and by the permanent peace and security which it would afford to a large portion of our country ; and, even in the worst event, should we fail of conquest, the attempt will not be without great advantages. The war in Canada is the best security to every part of our country. We have a very extended, and, from the thinness of the population, in many places weak, sea-coast. I do not believe that it has been neglected, as has been represented by the gentleman from New Hampshire ; but I do believe that many points are, and must, from necessity, be without efficient protection. Let me, however, ask that gentleman, how it happens that this coast, so easily assailed by a maritime power, has sustained little or no damage, in a war that has continued upwards of eighteen months. If he is at a loss for an answer, the scheme of his political friend from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey), to confine our troops to the defensive, should it be adopted, would, in the next summer, amply explain the fact. The truth is, that the war in Canada is the security of the coast. It compels the enemy to concentrate the whole of his dispo sable force there, for the defence of his own territory. Should the absurd policy be adopted of confining the operations of our troops within our own limits, the whole of the enemy's force in Canada will be liberated from its defence, and the

SPEECHES. 61

entire line of our sea-coast menaced with destruction. The enemy, master on the ocean, could act with such celerity, that it would be either impossible to defend ourselves, or it must be done at an expense greater than would be necessary to reduce his possessions. Thus, even under this limited view of defence, the most effectual mode is that which has been adopted : to carry the war into the enemy's country ; and our opponents ought, according to their own distinction, to grant every aid in men and money.

Although not immediately in point, I cannot refrain from observing that, of all the arguments I have ever heard since I have had the honor of a seat in this House, those were by far the most extravagant, which have been urged against the conquest of Canada. I have heard it characterized by every epithet of crime or weakness. The advancers of such argu ments surely do not reflect, that in their zeal to assail the majority, they are uttering libels on the founders of our freedom and independence. This scheme of conquest, this project of ambition, this offspring of folly and vice, as it has been liberally called, originated with those men to whom America owes so much, and whose wisdom and virtue is acknowledged by the world. It was by them thought an object worthy the expense of the treasures and the best blood of the country ; and finally relinquished by them with reluc tance, and from necessity only.

It now remains to consider the defence which gentlemen have made for their opposition to the war and the policy of their country, — a subject which I conceive to be of the greatest importance, not only as affecting the result of the present contest, but our lasting peace and prosperity. They as sume as a fact, that opposition is in its nature harmless ; and that the calamities which have afflicted free states, have originated in the blunders and folly of the government, and not from the perverseness of opposition. Opposition, say they, is a very convenient thing ; a wicked and foolish

62 SPEECHES.

administration never fail to attribute all of their miscarriages to it ; and, in support of this doctrine, they appeal to Lord North's administration. I do not intend to examine the particular case, to which gentlemen have, with so much parade referred, as it is not in the course of my argument ; but I think it could be easily proved, that the opposition in the case cited, was essentially different, in character and consequence, from the opposition in this country. I conceive, however, that it will be proper, before I examine the general position taken by gentlemen on the other side, to make a single remark in relation to the British government on this subject. It strikes me, that all arguments drawn from it, on this point, must be essentially erroneous. A more deter mined and vehement opposition there is not only justifiable, but in some measure required. The difference in the two governments, in this respect, results from a difference in the organization of their respective executives. In England, such is the power, patronage, and consequent influence, of the executive ; such the veneration, which its hereditary quality and long descent possess over the subjects of that empire, that her most enlightened statesmen have ever thought that it endangered the other branches of her govern ment, and have, with much wisdom, ever since the dawn of liberty in that country, strenuously opposed its encroach ments. Very different is the case here, in a government purely republican. Our Executive presents neither the cause to justify such vehemence of opposition, nor possesses the means of restraining it when excited. But, even as applied to our government, I will readily acknowledge that there is a species of opposition both innocent and useful. Opposition simply implies contrariety of opinion ; and, when used in the abstract, admits of neither censure nor praise. It cannot be said to be either good or bad ; useful or pernicious. It is not from itself, but from the connected circumstances, that it derives its character. When it is simply the result of that

SPEECHES. 63

diversity in the structure of our intellect, which conducts to different conclusions on the same subject, and is confined within those bounds which love of country and political honesty prescribe, it is one of the most useful guardians of liberty. It excites gentle collision ; prompts to due vigilance, — a quality so indispensable, and, at the same time, so opposite to our nature, — and results in the establishment of an enlight ened policy and useful laws. Such are its qualities when united with patriotism and moderation. But, in many instances, it assumes a far different character. Combined with faction and ambition, it bursts those limits, within which it may usefully act, and becomes the first of political evils. If, Sir, the gentlemen on the other side of the House intended to include this last species of opposition, as I am warranted in inferring they did, from their expressions when they spoke of its harmless character, then have they made an assertion in direct contradiction to reason, experience, and all history. A factious opposition is compounded of such elements that no reflecting man will ever consider it as harmless. The fiercest and most ungovernable passions of our nature — ambition, pride, rivalry, and hate — enter into its dangerous composition ; made still more so by its power of delusion, by which its projects against government are covered in most instances, even to the eyes of its victims, by the specious show of patriotism. Thus constituted, who can estimate its force ? Where can benevolent and social feel ings be found sufficiently strong to counteract its progress ? Is love of country ? Alas ! the attachment to a party be comes stronger than that to our country. A factious oppo sition sickens at the sight of the prosperity and success of the country. Wide-spread adversity is its life ; general prosperity its death. Nor is it only over our moral senti ments that this bane of freedom triumphs. Even the selfish passions of our nature, planted in our bosom for our individual safety, afford no obstacle to its progress. It is this opposi-

64 SPEECHES.

tion, which gentlemen call harmless, and treat with so much respect ; it is this moral treason, to use the language of my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy), which has, in all ages and countries, ever proved the most deadly foe to freedom. Nor is it then only dangerous when it breaks forth into open treason and rebellion. Without resort to violence, it is able, in a thousand ways, to counteract and deaden all the motions of government, to render its policy wavering, and to compel it to submit to schemes of aggrandizement on the part of other governments ; or, if resistance be determined on, to render it feeble and ineffectual. Do gentlemen ask for instances ? Unhappily they are but too numerous. Where can they not be found ? Admired and lamented republics of antiquity ! Athens, Carthage, and Kome, you are the victims and witnesses of the fell spirit of factious opposition ! Fatal fields of Zama and Cherona3a, you can attest its de structive cruelty ! What is the history of Polybius, and that of the other historians of the free states of antiquity ? what the political speeches of Cicero and the orations of Demosthenes, those models of eloquence arid wisdom, but volumes of evidence, attesting that an opposition founded in faction, unrestrained by moderation and a regard to the general welfare, is the most dangerous of political evils. Nor does antiquity alone testify. The history of modern times is pregnant with examples. What, I would ask, has be come of the free states of modern Italy, which once flourished in wealth and power — Florence, Genoa, Venice, and many others ? what of the United Provinces and Switzerland ? Gone ; perished under the deadly feuds of opposition. Even England, with her deep-rooted and -powerful executive, has not been free from its pernicious effect. What arrested the war of Marlborough, when France was so humbled, that, had it been continued, Europe might have been free from the danger winch she has experienced from that power ? What stayed the conquering hand of Chatham, when before his

SPEECHES. 65

genius and power the throne of the Bourbons trembled to its centre ? The spirit of factious opposition, that common cause of calamity, — that, without which, liberty might be eternal, and free states irresistible.

Our country, as young as she is, has her examples also. In the war of the Revolution, had she been united to a man — had there been no apologists of opposition — had no one opposed his will to the general determination — would the enemy ever have had a hold in our country ? or would that contest have lasted for a year ? or would we have been in debted to foreign aid for the establishment of our indepen dence ? Even in this war, how much has it debilitated the energies of our country ? The gentleman from New Hamp shire, who spoke with ingenuity on this subject, told us, that if we were united, the Canadas would be reduced in thirty days ; and that in consequence of the disasters springing from our divisions, we had been disgraced.

What more can I say on the fatal effects of opposition ? I appeal to that gentleman to state the cause of our divisions ; and would ask him whether, with the certain knowledge of its pernicious effects, every means that could excite opposition have not been unceasingly applied ? To obviate the natural conclusion, the gentleman from New Hampshire was compelled to deny that the party now in power is a majority in this country; and to contend that the representation in this body furnishes no evidence of that fact. He argued, that many who are opposed to the war were, from party motives, induced to vote for those in favor of it. Even admitting the argument to be well-founded, which I cannot think, might it not be retorted ? I would be glad to know why the rule does not apply to the minority in an equal degree ? Until he assigns some reason why it does not, I must continue to consider the majority here, as representing a great majority of the people ; and the minority, as opposing the will of that majority.

VOL. II. 5

66 SPEECHES.

The pretensions and declarations of the gentlemen on the other side of the House, have compelled me to make these general observations. I know not how else they can be met, and I consider them as fraught with doctrines so erroneous and dangerous, that it is my duty to present their falsity, in the best manner in my power, to this House and to the country. From the same sense of duty, I feel bound to offer my sentiments on a subject of greater delicacy ; — I mean, on the character of the opposition which the govern ment has experienced, since the commencement of the present difficulties, in 1806 ; and to inquire under which of the two species of opposition — the moderate and useful, or factious and dangerous — it ought to be arranged ? It is with pain I make this inquiry. I take no pleasure in perceiving the faults of any part of our citizens, much less in presenting them to the public. My object is not to expose, but to re form — to admonish of a danger so incident to free states, into which all opposition, even of the most virtuous kind, so easily degenerates, if not incessantly watched ; and to call on them, while yet possible, to arrest its fatal career. It is important to know that there is a stage in the progress of opposition, which gentlemen consider so harmless, which, when once at tained, no power can arrest — not love of country — not even the certainty of being involved in the common destruction. Has it made any progress in this country to so dangerous a state ? I fear there are appearances which will justify such a belief. One of its most natural symptoms is, a settled and fixed character, which, as its object is to embarrass and weaken government, loses no opportunity to throw impedi ments in the way of every measure. It has two other con comitants : the one, a violence and vehemence not warranted by any considerations of expediency ; and the other, the urging of measures which, if adopted, must lead to national ruin. It seems to me that there are reasons to believe that all of these exist in the present opposition. Is it not set-

SPEECHES. 67

tied and fixed ? In an unexampled state of national diffi culties, from the first . belligerent decree against our neutral commerce down to this day, I ask, what one of all the measures of our government to resist this almost universal depredation, has not, under one pretext or another, been op posed, ridiculed, and weakened ? Yes, opposed with a vio lence that would lead to a belief that the constituted authorities, instead of opposing the most gross and out rageous injustice, sought only the destruction of their coun try. Again ; what have been the measures that opposition has virtually urged ? What is it at this moment ? To withhold the laws — to withhold the loans — to withhold the men who are to fight our battles — or, in other words, to de stroy public faith, and to deliver the country unarmed to the mercy of the enemy. Suppose all of these objects accom plished, and what would be the situation of the country ? I appeal to the people for a decision. Nor are those morbid symptoms confined to this body. The contagion has gone forth into the community, and wherever it has appeared, has exhibited the same dangerous characteristics. The inquiry might be pushed much farther ; but I abstain from it, as it is to me by no means a pleasant task.

But, say the gentlemen on the other side of the House, what right have we to object ? The constitution justifies and secures them in an opposition to the measures of govern ment. They claim to be not only above laws, but beyond animadversion. It is in their eyes fair and proper that the majority who act under the undoubted and express sanction of the constitution, should be subjected to every species of abuse and impediment ; but, should any one ques tion the right or the expediency of the opposition, we hear an immediate cry of oppression. For my part, I think that a fair and moderate opposition ought at all times to be re spected ; but, that our constitution authorized that danger ous and vicious species which I have attempted to describe,

68 SPEECHES.

I utterly deny. I call on those who make the claim to so extravagant a power, to point out the article of that instru ment which warrants such a construction. Will they cite that which establishes the liberty of speech here ? Its ob ject is far different, and it furnishes not the shadow of such a power. Will they rely on its general spirit ? It knows no object but the general good, and must for ever condemn all factious opposition to measures emanating from its own authority. It is then not authorized either by the letter or the spirit of the constitution. If, then, our opponents have the right, it is because it is not expressly forbidden. In this sense there is no limitation to their constitutional rights, A right might be thus derived to violate the whole decalogue. The constitution forbids almost no crimes ; nor ought it to be considered in the light of a voluminous penal code, whose object is the definition and prohibition of all acts injurious to society. Even were this the case, the argument that what is not forbidden is justifiable, would be fallacious ; for there are many acts of the most dangerous tendency (of which an unprincipled opposition is one), which in their very nature are not susceptible of that rigid definition necessary to sub ject them to punishment. How absurd, then, the argument, as applied to the constitution, whose object is the mere enumeration, distribution, and organization of the powers of the body politic.

I have been compelled by the great and dangerous errors of the gentleman on the other side, to take a view more general, than is usually proper, of a subject on which it is so important to think correctly ; and I cannot take my seat without reiterating my admonition to this body and the country, to guard against the pernicious effects of a factious opposition. Universal experience and the history of all ages furnish ample testimony of its dangerous consequences, par ticularly in a state of war. Could any certain remedy be applied to restrain it within the bounds of moderation, then,

SPEECHES. 69

indeed, might our liberty be immortal. I know of none but the good sense and the virtue of the people. The triumph of a party can be nothing to them. They can have no interest but in the general welfare.

SPEECH

On the Loan Bill, delivered in the House of Kepre- sentatives, February 25th, 1814.

[NOTE. — January 31st, 1814. Mr. Eppes from the Committee of

Ways and Means, reported a Bill to authorize a loan of millions of

dollars, which was read and referred to the Committee of the Whole. The debate on this Bill, in which almost all the leading men of both par ties participated, took a wide range ; embracing all the great questions of the day, which were elaborately discussed. On the character of the dis cussion, a shrewd contemporary makes the following pertinent remarks :

" The debate (not on the Loan Bill, but suffered while it was be fore a Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives) has had an unlimited range. Every question of politics that has agitated the United States for fifteen or twenty years past, and every one that may be expected for twenty years to come, appears to have been embodied in the speeches of the members : some of whom, it is said, have spoken three hours, without mentioning the Bill at all."

The principal grounds of the opposition were, the inexpediency of the war — to carry on which the loan was asked — and the impos sibility, if granted, of obtaining the money. Mr. Calhoun spoke to these objections and in favor of the Bill.]

MR. CHAIRMAN : — It is now more than two weeks since the commencement of this debate ; the greater part of which time has been consumed by the opposition in attempting to prove the bad faith, poverty, folly, and injustice of our government and country : for all of their arguments and de clamation, however variant and contradictory, are reducible to

70 SPEECHES.

two objections against the passage of this bill. First — That such is the want of capital, or of public credit, that the loan cannot be had, or if at all, only at an extravagant interest ; and secondly — If the amount can be obtained, the bill ought to be rejected ; because, in their opinion, the war is unjust and inexpedient. The last of these objections I propose to dis cuss, To examine both at large would occupy too much time. Without, therefore, discussing the question whether the loan can or cannot be had, I will merely offer a few re flections incidentally connected with it.

It is a little remarkable that not one of the minority has discussed the material points on this part of the subject; I mean the question, — is the money proposed to be raised by this bill, indispensable for the service of the year ? And, if so, is a loan, the only, or the best mode of obtaining it ? The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has presented an estimate of the expenditures already ordered, — or which must be incurred, — by which it appears, that the sum proposed to be raised by this bill, with other sources of revenue, will be absolutely necessary to meet them. The silence of the opposition sanctions the correctness of the estimate ; and as no other mode has been indicated of obtaining the necessary supplies, this may be presumed to be the only or the best one. It ceases, then, to be a question, \vhether the loan can be had at this or that interest. It is necessary ; it must be had ; and the rate per centum will depend principally on the state of the money market — and not on arguments used here. Again ; on comparing the two objections to the pas sage of this bill, one of them destroys all confidence in the other. Our opponents contend, not only that the loan can not be had, but that it ought not to be granted. To defeat the passage of the bill in, or to prevent its successful operation out of this House, is the declared object of their policy. It is true that all have not made the latter declaration ; but none, as far as my memory serves, have disavowed it. When,

SPEECHES. 71

then, they argue that the loan must fail, they must be con sidered either as dupes of their wishes, or, what is more pro bable, as aiming to destroy the confidence of moneyed men in the puhlic faith ; for it cannot be presumed that they have any hope of defeating the passage of the bill.

But to proceed to the objection which I proposed to dis cuss. The war, say our opponents, is unjust and inexpedient, and, therefore, this bill ought to be rejected. Tho facts of the supposed injustice and inexpediency of the war, on which^this objection rests, have claimed the exclusive attention of the op position. The inference deduced from them — that they justify the rejection of this bill, though far from being a self-evident proposition, has received no part of their arguments or elucida tions. For my part, I consider it not only false but dangerous ; and shall, therefore, not only consider the alleged injustice and inexpediency of the war, but also the inference assumed from these charges. I trust, with, the attention of the com mittee, to prove that both are equally unfounded. I must beg an attentive and deliberate hearing ; for a correct mode of thinking on this subject, I sincerely believe to be necessary, to the lasting prosperity of our country. I say an attentive and deliberate hearing, for it is not sufficient that the mind be fixed on the discussion ; but it should also be free from those passions and prejudices unfavorable to the reception of truth. The fact that discussion here assumes the form of debate produces a state of things unfavorable to dispassionate attention. In debate here, as between two individuals, the opposite sides are much more disposed to find objections to an argument, be it ever so clear, than to receive it with a proper degree of assent. In their zeal, the interest of the country is too often forgotten ; and mere recriminations made to take the place of earnest endeavors to discover and en force the claims of truth. I hope what I have to say will not be viewed as a mere exercise of skill in discussion, in which those who hear me have little or no interest ; lyit as

72 SPEECHES.

containing principles believed to be essential to the public in terest. I trust I hold in proper contempt the spirit of idle debate. Its heat and zeal are momentary. Not so with our principles and measures. On them must depend our future prosperity and happiness.

Is the war unjust and inexpedient ? This is the question which I now propose to discuss. The eagerness and zeal with which our opponents endeavor to prove this point, seem to me not at all consistent with sound principles, or due love of country. In their zeal they often presume that we are wrong, and our enemy right ; and that the burden lies on us to prove their charges false — before they have attempted to prove them true. How contrary this to the maxims of Koman wisdom ! That wise and virtuous people, so far from presuming their country to be wrong, considered it as a crime in a citizen to doubt the justice of the public cause. In a state of war, how worthy of our imitation ! It was at the root of Koman greatness. Without it, a free state must ever lose much of its native and peculiar strength ; the sponta neous and concurring zeal of its citizens. The charge of in justice and inexpediency in respect to the war, necessarily leads me to investigate its cause. It originated, as agreed on all sides, in certain commercial aggressions on the part of England, and her practice of impressing American seamen from American vessels on the high seas. Though I have named commercial injuries first, it is my intention to give impressment the preference in the order of discussion ; not only because the war is continued for it, but because it is of greater intrinsic importance. The life and liberty of a cit izen are more important to him and his country than his pro perty ; and consequently the obligation to protect the for mer is more sacred than the latter. To the truth of this position, our political institutions bear testimony. A single judicial process determines a question of property ; but it re quires a double investigation, first, before a grand and then a

SPEECHES. 73

petit jury, before the humblest and most suspected citizen can be deprived of life or liberty. This mode of thinking is worthy of a free people, and, in fact, essential to the perma nent existence of their freedom. Yes ; life and liberty, those precious gifts of Heaven, are, by our laws and constitu tions, guaranteed to all. They may be abused, and thus be come forfeited to the country ; but cannot be taken away by the hand of arbitrary power. Let us bear these sentiments in our minds, and bring them in our bosoms to this discussion. It is fortunate that the facts, connected with impress ment, are few and undoubted. I set aside, for the present, the pretext and principle on which Great Britain acts in relation to it. None can deny that a great number of American sailors have been impressed from on board Amer ican vessels on the high seas, and, by force, compelled to serve a sovereign to whom they owe no allegiance, and to fight battles in which they have no interest. It is equally certain, that the practice is now of long continuance ; and that negotiation has often, but in vain, been resorted to for redress. I say, a great number, without attempting to be more specific — because I do not conceive the exact number to be material ; and also, because I do not wish to incorpo rate any thing the least doubtful in the statement. On this point, however, the two governments are pretty well agreed. Ours estimates the entire number taken at something more than 6,000 ; and the British government acknowledges that, at the breaking out of the war, they had sixteen hundred, at least, on board their public vessels. After deducting from our list the dead by battle and disease, the deserters and the liberated, it will be found that theirs exceeded our estimate. To the shame of the minority, they alone have attempted to throw any doubt on this point, and to dimin ish the injury of the enemy below their own acknowledg ment. On this simple statement, there are two inferences so clear, that I feel it almost an insult to the understanding of

74 SPEECHES.

this committee to state them. I must seek for my apology in the efforts of our opponents to render that doubtful, which, in itself, is so manifest ; — I mean the violation of the rights and liberty of the impressed American seamen, and the cor respondent duty imposed on their country to protect them. I know of no illustration of a proposition so perfectly clear. No head can be so impenetrable as not to perceive its truth ; no heart so callous as not to feel its obligation. For, who, in this community of freemen, is willing to renounce the claim of protection which he has on all, — or withhold the duty which he is under to all ? It is the essence of civil society.

Such, and so simple is the truth on which the cause of our country stands. On these essential facts and inferences we are on all sides agreed. The obligation of the govern ment is established. How, then, are we to be absolved from so sacred a duty ? The impressed, the enslaved seamen have invoked the protection of their country. Shall it be extended to them, or shall it be withheld ? This is the question now proposed for our consideration, and which naturally introduces the various arguments of the minority on this important subject. They combat against inferences the most clear and powerful ; and proportionally perspicu ous and strong must be the reasons to justify their conduct. I will commence with that which I believe to be most relied on, because most frequently and zealously urged in justifi cation of our enemy. It is said that they take American seamen by mistake, and not on principle ; their object is to take their own seamen — but, from the impossibility of distinguishing them, the American seaman is impressed. The answer is plain and decisive. The argument is founded in a misconception. The duty which the country owes to the impressed sailor originates in a single fact, that he is unjustly deprived, by a foreign nation, of his liberty. The principle on which this is done, or the manner in which it is effected, is immaterial. Whether done on principle or by

SPEECHES. 75

mistake, may, it is true, have a bearing on the continuance of the practice and its future extent ; for what is done by mistake or accident generally leaves the consolation that it- will not probably occur again ; but what is done on principle may be expected to continue. We have not even this hope. The evil is inveterate. The mistake, if one it is, must for ever happen, so long as the present practice is continued of impressing from American vessels. It, therefore, operates, as it regards us, as if it were the result of principle. I, however, deny the fact on which this justification rests. The object of England is not to take her seamen only. By recurring to official documents on this subject, it will be found, that she impresses persons on board of our vessels, who could not be mistaken for British sailors. She takes, indiscriminately, Dane, Dutch, Spaniard, and seamen of any nation. To speak another language and to wear a different complexion are, it seems, no evidence with the British government that they are not English sailors. What, then, is the principle of that government on this subject ? If we are to judge by facts, and not by pretexts (which will never be wanting, if we are simple enough to believe them), it is this : they claim, at least as far as we are concerned, that every seafaring person found on the ocean is presump tively an Englishman, and bound to serve the crown of Great Britain. They admit, it is true, that this presump tion may be rebutted in a single case ; and in this only by the seaman proving himself to belong to the same country with the flag under which he sails. If, for instance, the vessel is American, that he was born in the United States. The impressing officer, the very person interested against him, is, however, the judge and jury who presides in this mock trial of nativity. It is thus the American flag is insulted. It is thus the American citizen is stripped of his liberty under its protection ! At home, he holds his liberty under the protection of the most sacred laws ; abroad — no, I will

76 SPEECHES.

not admit the distinction — for while under our flag he is still at home — he holds life and liberty at the mercy of every insignificant, drunken midshipman ! But let us attend, for a moment longer, to the object of this principle of the British government, as illustrated by practice. A war in Europe, in which England is engaged, sooner or later extends to all the other powers in that part of the globe. In consequence of her superiority at sea, the navigation and commerce of other states are destroyed or suspended in a state of war ; and their seamen, who cannot readily change their habits, are compelled to seek employment in foreign service. Until lately, the United States remaining neutral, and offering high wages, they naturally preferred ours. To this state of facts, her principle of impressing all foreign seamen was applied ; and, by its operation, she forced those, who were by their own consent employed in our vessels, to serve, by compulsion, in her navy. Thus, by a single process, under the pretext of taking her own seamen, the commerce and navigation of the world are converted into a nursery to support the British navy ; and the practice of impressment from neutrals, on investigation, is discovered to be, like all her other encroachments, a system of universal monopoly. Unless resisted by the steady and persevering efforts of other nations, she must eventually draw the com merce of the world into the vortex of her system.

It is next urged that this is an ancient custom on the part of England and Europe generally — that it is a part of the law of nations to impress on board of neutral vessels on the high seas. Those who urge this argument ought to sub stantiate it by a reference to the facts and to elementary writers on public law. Till this is done, it cannot be considered in a stronger light than a mere assertion. I, for my own part, do not believe that it ever constituted the custom of Europe, nor that of England, till since the period of the American war. If it were a general custom, why is it not

SPEECHES. 77

recognized by some of the many writers on the law of nations ? They minutely state the cases in which a belligerent may enter a neutral vessel for the purpose of search. Why is not this also mentioned ? None of the rights of search could be more important, or better deserve their attention than this, if any such really existed. Their silence, then, is decisive against the custom. I know that some English writers have set up an old claim, founded on the orders of their gov ernment ; but there is no proof of acquiescence on the part of other powers ; and if there were, it could not be obligatory on us. The law of nations is composed, principally, of usages originating in mutual convenience. Among the nations of modern Europe, who are distinguishable by their language and countenances, it is possible that impressment on board of neutral vessels may not be liable to the mistakes and abuses of which we complain ; and that it might even be a mutual convenience. Such a custom, then, would not be extraordinary. But were those nations related, as are the United States and England, and the practice thus, from necessity, attended with incessant abuse, it never could exist. If our opponents, then, had proved, and not merely asserted, such a custom among European nations, as between us and England, our country would have formed an exception. It is not applicable to our condition ; it is unequal, not reciprocal, and attended with grievous and constant abuses. As applied to us, then, the general usage — if such there be — ought to be modified by treaty, so as to suit the mutual convenience of both parties ; an object which this country has ever been anxious to effect, but which has been studiously avoided by our enemy. If, however, our opponents still insist that it is a right under the law of nations, and must, notwithstanding the argument which I have advanced, be considered as applicable to us, we may meet usage with usage ; or, rather, a doubtful uncertain usage, and opposed to reason, by that which is undoubted and founded in the

78 SPEECHES.

very nature of civil society. If to impress in neutral vessels be an usage of England and the rest of Europe, how much more general and indisputable is the custom of affording protection to their subjects against foreign violence ! This is the usage which is certain and universal — not confined to any particular nation, nor originating in accidental circum stances. All States, the most weak and contemptible claim it ; and it is so interwoven with the very elements of society, that it cannot be relinquished without certain destruction. On this custom, which combines both right and duty, we may oppose any pretext or claim of our enemy.

But, say some of our opponents, we are willing to defend native-born American seamen, but not the naturalized. I know not how they who make this distinction can answer a simple question founded on an admitted fact. American seamen — sixteen hundred at least — native-born American seamen — by the acknowledgment of the British government, are impressed and held in bondage. If, then, you are willing to defend such, why not support the war, now carried on solely in defence of right, outraged in the persons of these unfortunate citizens ? What avail is the declaration, that you are willing to defend them, when you will not move a finger in their cause ? But the distinction, between native and naturalized, is without truth or reason. It constitutes no part of the controversy between the two countries. We contend for the defence of American seamen generally. The enemy has not distinguished between the two classes. He insists on continuing a custom which makes both equally liable to his oppression. We have not — we shall not hear of a distinction, till some security is afforded against the abuses of which we complain. Till then, I can consider it only as an equivocation, which acknowledges the duty of the government to protect, but evades the discharge of it. We are told that our seamen ask no protection — and that it is strange those, who are most remote and least interested,

SPEECHES. 79

should discover the greatest anxiety in their behalf. As to the first part of this statement, I deny its truth. Our sailors have claimed our protection. They have importuned and invoked their country. We have had their applications for protection laid before this House in the form of a document. It forms a large volume. Considering the cold indifference with which we have heard their prayer, I wonder that they have not, long since, ceased to consider us as their guardians. But we who stand forth to discharge this sacred duty, are charged with being backwoodsmen, men who never saw a ship till convened here in our legislative capacity. Admit the fact ; and what then ? Such generous sympathy for those who stand connected with us only by the ties of citizen ship, does honor to our country. I hope it is not strange. It is usual. Our history abounds with many instances of this sympathy of the whole with any and every part. When it ceases to be natural, we shall cease to be one nation. It constitutes our real union. The rest is form. The wonder is, in fact, on the other side. Since it cannot be denied, that American citizens are held in foreign bondage, how strange that those who boast of being neighbors and relations, should be dead to all sympathy — should not have the manly spirit to make a generous effort for their relief. There was a time when our opponents, to their honor, were not so cold on this subject. The venerable gentleman from Massachu setts, and another gentleman high in the ranks of his party, formerly felt and spoke on it, as we now do — like Americans. How unhappy the change ! How unaccountable ! Unless, indeed, we look to the poisonous effects of the spirit of sys tematic opposition — a spirit which, I lately observed on another occasion, clings more strongly to the cause of a party, than to that of the country.

But great frauds, we are told, are committed in the certificates of protection. I will not spend much time on this frivolous argument. What right has England to complain

80 SPEECHES.

of frauds, if they really do exist ? Whether they do or not, I do not think worth the inquiry. The argument, taken at the best, can have no weight, except with those who think that the freeborn citizens of this country, under our own flag, are to be protected like a slave, by a pass in his pocket. To give weight to it, we must forget our rights and duties as an independent nation. The framers of the law under which the protections are taken out, did not design them as safe guards while navigating the ocean. The object was to iden tify the seamen, as Americans, in the ports of foreign countries ; and tins construction has been given to it by our Government in its negotiations with the British. In this view, the law is not unworthy of the wisdom and independence of our country ; but I can scarcely conceive a greater na tional degradation, than would be involved in the scheme of affording protection to our seamen on the high seas, and under our flag, by a pass.

On the subject of impressment, one argument only re mains to be replied to. The practice of taking seamen from our vessels is necessary, say our opponents, to the existence of England. I would be happy to know the reason why it is necessary. We have pledged ourselves by a law, which we offer to make the basis of a treaty, not to employ a single British sailor. The provisions of the bill are ample ; and we are willing to give her every reasonable security on this point. When the assertion, then, is made, in the face of this law, designed to exclude British seamen, that the prac tice of impressing on board of our vessels is necessary to her existence, it must be meant — if any thing be meant — in re lation to American seamen. If so, before we disregard our duty and surrender our rights to the disposition of a foreign power, I think it would be prudent to establish two points connected with this subject. In the first place, it ought to be clearly proved to be necessary to. the existence of England. I, for one, will not agree to yield our independence on mere

SPEECHES. 81

assertion, however respectable the authority by which it is made. In the next place, it ought to be proved to be our duty to submit. The sense of moral obligation is peculiarly strong in the bosoms of the American people. However great the sacrifice, if our opponents can clearly establish it to be their duty, I dare pledge myself they will make it. Till both are satisfactorily proved, it would be highly un reasonable on their part to demand of the country an acqui escence in a practice so ruinous. Our existence is at stake, no less than that of England ; or, rather, the danger to her is imaginary ; to us, real and certain. An undeviating devotion to its duty is the blood and life of a free state. Habitual depar ture from it must, sooner or later, prove fatal. It infuses a poison into the system, which will corrupt and destroy. Take this very case. It is our duty, — most sacredly our duty, to protect the lives and liberties of our citizens against foreign oppression. Instead of doing this, we have, for many years, quietly beheld them forced into a hateful foreign service. What has been the reason of this conduct on our part ? The want of power ? No ; a vigorous and decisive effort, in the very first instance, — before the enemy had learned to be arrogant by our submission, — would have strangled the pre tension in its birth. We yielded because we wished to en joy the blessings of peace ; its ease, its comforts, above all, its means of making money. The practical language of the Government to the people was — it is better to be rich than to be virtuous. Can we, then, wonder at the alarming growth of avarice ? It is to be traced back, in part, to this original sin of our Government. The first American citizen impressed and not immediately liberated, was good cause, in my opinion imperious cause, of war. No calculation of gain should have prevented it. To do our duty is more im portant than to be rich.

Before I take my leave of this subject I will present to the committee, what I consider a confession of the justice of our

VOL. II. — 6

82 SPEECHES.

cause, and the correctness of our policy. I allude to the habitual and obvious misstatements which our opponents make on this subject. They say, we are continuing the war in order to compel Great Britain to renounce the right of im pressing her own subjects. They must know that this is not the fact ; and that the charge is calculated to mislead the public mind. Why not state the matter as it really is ? Why not say, what they must know to be true, that the war is continued, in order to protect from impressment American seamen ? Is it not from a fear of the public sen timent ? And is this not a strong indirect acknowledgment that the principles we contend for, if understood, would meet with kind and congenial feelings in the bosom of the Ame rican people ? When the head is right, there is, among a free people, but little danger of the heart. When they are agreed in facts and inferences, they will never disagree in sentiment.

I will now proceed to consider the next cause of the war, the injuries done by Great Britain to our commerce. It is not my intention to speak of them in detail, or to consider them as particular acts injurious to our trading interests. This view has been often presented, and is well understood. I propose to ascend to their origin, and to point out the spirit and principles of the government from which they have proceeded. This view has not yet been taken, though it is of the most interesting nature. The detail of British in justice may rouse our indignation, but it is only by reflecting on the principles and character of her government, that we can justly appreciate the extent of our danger, and the mea sures best calculated to counteract it. Even the repeal of the Orders in Council, and the consequent suspension of commercial injuries, do not strip this view of the subject of any of its interest. For, it ought ever to be remembered, that the revocation (June 23d, 1812) of the celebrated orders of 1807 and 1809, expressly retains their principles.

SPEECHES. 83

They, then, only slumber ; and, as sure as we exist, her tem per and policy will rouse them into action on the first suit able occasion, unless prevented by the firm and spirited con duct of this and other nations interested in a free trade.

The commercial policy of Great Britain, which has vexed and annihilated the commerce of every other nation, began distinctly to develop itself in the year 1756 ; from which time to the present, I assert, without the fear of contradic tion, she has habitually struggled to enlarge what she terms her maritime and belligerent rights on the ocean, at the ex pense of neutrals. The assertion is based on historical facts, which the general information of most of the members of this committee will enable them to decide for themselves. T have neither the inclination nor the time to recite and examine the whole series in connection. I will content my self with taking a brief notice of some of the leading and most characteristic. At their head, in point of time, is the order which takes its name from the year already mentioned, and which distinctly marks the commencement of this policy. The character of this celebrated rule or order is so well known as to require no comment. In the war of our Ke volu tion, she still further enlarged her maritime and belligerent policy, particularly in the shape of blockades, since so enor mously extended. This, with other encroachments at the time, produced that association of nations called " THE ARMED NEUTRALITY." The object of this was, to check further encroachments, and to remedy those that already existed. It was acceded to by almost every nation of Europe. On the breaking out of the French Kevolution, pursuing the same line of policy, she made further encroach ments. One of the most considerable, and which was severe ly felt by this country, was, an enlargement of articles con traband of war, so as to extend them to the numerous and important articles of breadstuffs. This was during Washing ton's administration ; and constituted the principal one of

84 SPEECHES.

that period of our history. Preparations were then made to appeal to arms for the redress of so serious an injury ; but this was prevented by England's agreeing to make compen sation for the injuries which we had sustained. With such spirit did our Government then act, although the injury then sustained dwindles into nothing, compared with the present ; and with so little accuracy has a gentleman from New-York (Mr. G-rosvenor) spoken, who not only magnified the ag gressions of that period above those of the present, but stated that Washington was unwilling to resort to arms for redress. In the present war with France, her maritime and commercial policy has hastened to its perfection. In the year 1805, it assumed an aspect most threatening to our commerce. It fell on our carrying trade, at that time in a most flourishing condition. Be it remarked — let it be laid up in your memory — that the old rule of '56, the parent of all these aggressions, was then, after many years, revived, and made the apology for premeditated wrongs. Just so may we expect the revoked orders to revive. Blockades and Orders in Council followed the destruction of our carrying trade. They have been too recent and too severely felt, to need a particular recital. Negotiation was tried — negotia tion failed ; and the injuries continuing, have ended in the present relation between the two countries.

The English maritime and belligerent policy is not only such as I have stated it to be, but it is a policy peculiar to her, and is in opposition to the interests of the rest of the world. It is the interest and wish of all other civilized na tions to ameliorate, or, if the expression is justifiable, to hu manize belligerent rights on the ocean. England stands alone. To establish this position, it would be necessary to consider, a little more in detail, the series of facts to which I have already alluded ; but, as I am fearful of being tedious, I must check my inclination, and confine myself to a few observations only.

A signal proof of the peculiar policy of England may

SPEECHES. 85

be found in the history of the armed neutrality, which had for its object, as already observed, the restriction of some of those pretended belligerent rights. Kussia, Swe den, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, and even France, though then a belligerent power, acceded to it. England alone re fused. It may, however, be said, that France, too, has often committed injuries on neutral trade. The fact is admitted. But, without wishing to apologize for her, I conceive there has been a marked distinction (arising out of her situation) between her conduct and that of England. The latter has steadily pursued a policy hostile to neutral commerce on es tablished principles ; the former has been irregular in her hostilities, indicating more of passion than of system. Be sides, she has always expressed a regret for her injuries, and represented them, however unjustifiable, as intended to coun teract schemes of England.

It remains now to prove what is the tendency of the British maritime and commercial policy ; and in what, if not counteracted, it must terminate. Keason and the general convenience of nations have for centuries established cer tain usages, by which belligerent powers are, in many in stances, restrained from doing all the injury they can to each other, from a regard to the interest of others. These usages constitute the rights of neutrals, which are, for the most part, well defined by the many writers on the laws of nations. Under the cover of, what she calls, her belligerent and maritime rights, the object and tendency of the British policy is, to throw off those restraints on the ocean. It is, in fact, to undo all that has been done in favor of civiliza tion on that element, and to return to the lawless state of barbarous ages. It is the interest of every other power to restrain her within the limits of the ancient barriers ; for if they are once transcended, there are no limits but what her power or interest may prescribe. Neutral commerce, as such, will be annihilated. She will judge and decide, according to

86 SPEECHES.

her pleasure, what is beneficial to her enemy, and what to herself. The former will be destroyed, the latter spared. Nor will the evil stop here. The waves of power are incessantly washing away the mounds that restrain them. The transi tion is easy from this boundless extension of her belligerent policy, to a system of universal monopoly, in peace as well as in war — a system which considers the ocean as her peculiar domain.

I omitted, in its proper place, an argument which strongly illustrates this part of the subject ; I allude to the great changes made in the British courts of admiralty. Formerly, they held jurisdiction, like all similar tribunals in other countries, under the laws of nations only. They were as the creatures of those laws, and intended only to carry their rules into execution. They were, of course, not under the municipal laws of the country where they happened to be located, as far as it regarded the rules of their decisions. Thus constituted, they were one of the principal ornaments of the civilization of modern times. The whole of this is now reversed. The courts of admiralty receive laws as regu larly from the British Government, as those of Westminster. The only difference is, that the statutes of Parliament pre scribe the rules of decision to the one, and the Orders in Council to the other. It is thus that England legislates for the ocean, and, consequently, for the world, on that great highway, and has her proper tribunals, with commensurate jurisdiction, to carry into effect her laws. But why should I consume time to prove her maritime policy ? Who is there so stupid as not to see and feel its effect ? You can not look towards her shores and not behold it. You may see it in her parliament, her prints, her theatres, and in her very songs. It is scarcely disguised. It is her pride and boast. The nature of her policy is then manifest and ad mitted ; but it will be asked, how can you counteract it ? I answer, by the measures now being pursued ; by force, by

SPEECHES. 87

war ; not by remonstrance, not by negotiation, and still less by leaving it to itself. The nature of its growth indicates its remedy. It originated in power — has grown in propor tion as opposing power has been removed — and can only be restrained by power. Nations are, for the most part, not re strained by moral principles, but by fear. It is an old max im, that they have heads, but no hearts. They see their own interests, but do not sympathize in the wrongs of oth ers. Such is the fact in relation to England. When neu trals are numerous and powerful, their rights are, in some degree, respected by her ; when few and inconsiderable, de spised. This last has been the unfortunate state of the world for the last twenty years. That counteracting influ ence, that repulsive power by which she was bound to her proper orbit, has been almost wholly removed. This coun try alone was left to support the rights which belong to neu trals. Perilous was the condition, and arduous the task. We were not intimidated. We stood opposed to her usurpa tion, and, by our spirit and efforts, have done all in our pow er to save the last vestiges of neutral rights. Embargoes, non-intercourse, non-importation, and, finally, war, \vere all manly exertions to preserve the rights of this, and of all other nations, from the deadly grasp of British maritime policy.

But, say our opponents, these efforts are vain — and our condition hopeless. If so, it only remains for us to assume the habit of our condition. We must submit — humbly sub mit — crave pardon — and hug our chains. It is not wise to provoke, where we cannot resist. But let us be well assured of the hopeless nature of our condition before we sink into submission. On what do our opponents rest this despondent and slavish belief ? On the recent events in Europe ? I ad mit they are great, and well calculated to impose on the imagination. Our enemy never presented a more imposing exterior. His fortune is at the flood. But I am admon-

88 SPEECHES.

ished by universal experience, that such prosperity is the most fickle of human conditions. From the flood the tide dates its ebb ; from the meridian, the sun commences his decline. There is more of sound philosophy than fiction in the fickleness which poets attribute to fortune. Prosper ity has its weakness — adversity its strength. In many re spects our enemy has lost by those very changes which seem to be so much in his favor. He can now no more claim to be struggling for existence ; no more, to be fighting the bat tles of the world, in defence of the liberties of mankind. The magic cry of French influence, is lost. Hence were drawn those motives which stimulated her efforts into fiercest ac tion, which united the continent to her cause, and, in some degree, damped the ardor of her rival in power. Even here, in this very hall, we are not strangers to its magic tones.— Even here the cry of French influence, that baseless fiction, that phantom of faction, though now banished, once often re sounded. I rejoice that the spell is broken, by which it was attempted to bind the generous spirit of this country. The minority can no longer act under cover ; but will be obliged to defend their opposition on its intrinsic merits.

It is not in this respect only, that our enemy has lost by the late events. The tremendous and exhausting conflicts of this, and the preceding campaign, seem, at last, to dispose the continental powers to peace. If they have a just con ception of their true interest, and are not prevented by Brit ish gold and intrigue, a continental peace will ensue. There certainly is much alarm in England on the probability of such an event. Should it, fortunately, be the case — should the allies prove content with their fortune, and France sub mit to her present limits, all Europe must speedily combine against the British maritime policy. The great power on land being crushed, to use the language of our opponents — but more properly being forced within proper limits, the great monopolist of the ocean will, I trust, be the next ob-

SPEECHES. 89

ject of fear and resistance. The principle of the armed neu trality is not; and cannot be forgotten. It exists essentially in the policy of modern Europe. Ever since the discovery of the passage round the Cape of Good Hope, and of this continent, on which we enjoy the proud pre-eminence of be ing the first great civilized power, a great change has been gradually working in Europe. For two centuries, the char acter of that part of the world has been eminently trading and commercial. The habits of every part are formed more or less on this state of things. There lives scarcely a human being, from the ice and snows of Siberia to the sunny plains of Italy, who has not some habit, the gratification of which depends on commerce. Hence it has become an object of primary policy. The wars in Europe, for many years past, have, with few exceptions, been, more or less, connected with it. The policy of every court has been to obtain commercial supplies on the best terms, and, as much as possible, through the agency of their own subjects. With such habits and policy, it is impossible they can behold with indifference the monopoly of Great Britain. They will not quietly suffer the common highway of nations, intended by a kind Provi dence for the common intercourse and benefit of all, to be converted into her exclusive domain. No ; the ocean cannot become property. Like light and air, it is insusceptible of the idea of property. Heaven has given it to man equally, freely, bountifully ; and all empires attempted to be raised on it, must partake of the fickleness of its waves. A policy so injurious to the common interests of mankind, must, soon er or later, unite the world against her. For many years her encroachments have advanced without exciting much jea lousy. The attention of all the nations of Europe has been exclusively directed to the maintenance of their existence, menaced by the power of France. To preserve life was more important than to acquire comfort ; so to resist that power was more imperious than to oppose England. Libe-

90 SPEECHES.

rated now from fear, they will soon have leisure to attend to their interests. The difference between our policy and that of other nations, in this respect, is only in appearance, and not in reality. Each acted in a manner suited to the cir cumstances in winch it found itself. Attachment to France, as proclaimed by British partisans, formed no part of our policy. We were safe from the danger with which her power menaced other nations. A broad ocean was our immediate security. We resisted the power which then and now press es on us, and which will soon cause itself to be felt and re sisted by all. Should the course of events be such as I have indicated, then will the wisdom and spirit of our country be universally applauded. Our situation was trying and respon sible. We, alone, had to sustain all the rights and duties which attach to the neutral character. We were not intim idated by its difficulties. We dared, single-handed as we were, to make a stand against the favorite and obstinate policy of our enemy. The present and temporary interests of commerce were nobly surrendered for its permanent advantages. The example can scarcely fail to produce its effect. But if, un fortunately, we should be left alone to maintain the contest ; and if, in consequence (which may God forbid), necessity should compel us to yield for the present, yet our generous efforts will not have been in vain. A mode of thinking, and a tone of sentiment have been excited, which must stimulate to future and more successful struggles. What we may not be able to effect with eight millions of people, will be done with twenty. The great cause will not be yielded. No ; never ! never ! We cannot renounce our rights to the ocean which Providence has spread before our doors \ nor will we ever hold that, which is the immediate gift of Heaven, under the license of any nation. We have already had success worthy of our cause. The future is audibly pronounced by the splendid victories over the Guerriere, Java, and Macedo nian. We and all nations, are, in them, taught & lesson

SPEECHES. 91

never to be forgotten. Opinion is power. The charm of British naval invincibility is broken.

In this, the only just view of our contest, how pitiful appear the objections of our opponents ! Some pecuniary difficulties in Massachusetts, and in other places ! And must we, for them, renounce our lasting prosperity and greatness ? Have we no fortitude ? — no self-command ? Must we, like children, yield to the impulse of present pleasure, however fatal ? If the maritime parts of Massa chusetts suffer, let them remember, that if the war should be successful — if our future commerce and navigation should be secured, they will partake most largely in the advan tages, common and great, indeed, to all, but peculiarly so to them.

Suppose that our opponents, who object to every thing, had been at the helm of government, and that an opposite line of policy had been pursued : — no embargoes — no non- intercourse — no non-importation acts — no war — and, in fact, no resistance to the injuries and aggressions of Great Britain ; who can be ignorant of what would have been the conse quence ? They would have multiplied in number and de gree, till our commerce would have been annihilated. Unre- sisted, they would have constituted future principles, and our acquiescence been construed into an acknowledgment of their truth. Then would we have felt — what the experience of all ages has taught — that it is far more easy to maintain, than to wrest back usurped rights. Wrongs, submitted to, produce contrary effects in the oppressor and the oppressed. Oppression strengthens and prepares for new oppression ; submission debases to further submission. The first wrong, by the universal law of our nature, is most easily re sisted. It excites the greatest degree of union and indig nation. Let that be submitted to ; let the consequent debasement and loss of national honor be felt ; and nothing but the grinding hand of oppression can force to resistance.

92 SPEECHES.

I know not which to pronounce the most guilty : the nation that inflicts a wrong, or that which quietly submits to it. In other respects, the difference is marked. The former may "be hated, hut is respected — at least feared ; while the latter is below pity, or any other feeling of the human heart but sovereign contempt. In submission, then, there is no remedy : our honor lost ; our commerce under the control of our oppressor ; — what next ? The hopes and fears (those universal instruments of government) of the whole mercan tile section of this country, and all connected interests, would be turned towards Great Britain ; for the power of legislation over our commerce would be virtually transferred from the American Congress to the King in Council. Need I trace the consequence ? Need I paint the corrupt and debasing influences ? The beams of the mid-day sun are scarcely more clear. The very contempt which such base ness would excite — justly excite — in our enemy, would in sure our subjugation. It is impossible to allow any right, much less independence, to that which creeps and licks the dust. Such is the condition of our nature. We must have the spirit to resist wrong, or be slaves. Such were the alter natives presented to our country, and such would have been the result of the opposite policy, now recommended and applauded by our opponents.

I have now said ah1 I intended on this most interesting view of our cause. It has an elevation and clearness which renders it attractive to my mind. I love to dwell on it, be cause it imparts a steady and clear conviction of the wisdom and necessity of that course of measures, to the adoption of which, it is my pride to have in part contributed. I feel how little interesting all the common topics of opposition are, after the view already taken. The descent gives a shock, which I know the committee will partake with him who is addressing them. If, however, they will continue their at tention, I will offer a few observations on a subject which

SPEECHES. 93

has made a principal figure in the speeches of our opponents. I allude to the character which they give to this war, as offensive, and not defensive. On this point, I spoke fully when the Army Bill was under consideration. What was then said, has been introduced and objected to on this occa sion. I then stated, that the difference between an offensive and defensive war consisted in the motive and cause. If, for instance, a war is forced on the nation waging it, by the op pression of that against which it is declared, it would be de fensive, however it might be carried on ; but if, on the con trary, it originated in ambition, or any other improper motive, it would be offensive. This distinction is not only supported by reason, but by the declamation of our oppo nents. They have, for almost two years, been in the habit of denouncing offensive war. They, then, acknowledge that such a war is wicked ; and how can it bear that character but by its cause ? It seems, now, that they have changed their grounds. We hear no more of the wickedness of offensive war ; but, what is most strange, all their efforts are directed to prove, that it may be an innocent and virtuous thing. That nation, say they, is engaged in an offensive war, who first assumes a warlike attitude. However just, however necessary the cause, the war is still offensive. Be it so. I care not for words. My answer is decisive. If my conception be just, that an offensive war is to be tested by the cause, I then pronounce ours not to be of that character ; but, if their definition be correct, then an offensive war may be most just, most virtuous, and necessary ; and all their declamation against it is idle and unmeaning rant. I tender an option, and care not which is taken. They who defend a bad cause, act imprudently in descending to particulars. Our opponents, by doing so in this case, have furnished the best reply to their own arguments.

On expatriation and retaliation I will say nothing. The hour is late, and I feel myself somewhat exhausted. I pass

94 SPEECHES.

them by the more cheerfully, as the gentleman from Louisi ana (Mr. Kobertson) and my colleague have replied fully to the objection urged on those subjects. Before I proceed further, it will be necessary to restate the propositions with which I commenced, so that the entire chain of the argument — both that which has already been advanced, and what remains to be submitted — may be distinctly seen.

It will be remembered that I reduced all the arguments and objections of our opponents to the passage of this bill, under two general heads. First, that the loan cannot be had ; or must be obtained, if at all, at an exorbitant interest. Second, that if it can be, still it ought not to be granted, because the war is unjust and inexpedient. I also stated, that the latter comprehended the assertion of the injustice and inexpediency of the war, and the assumed inference, that, if true, the minority would be justified in their oppo sition both to the bill and to the war. On the alleged in justice and inexpediency of the war I have presented my opinions, and, I trust, satisfied the committee that its justice is demonstrably clear, and its expediency unquestionable ; or rather, its necessity imperious, if the preservation of the independence of the country constitutes political necessity.

But is it justifiable to withhold the loan, even admitting the war to be, as alleged by our opponents, unjust and inex pedient ? This is the question now proposed to be discussed. It contains the practical consequence of all that has been said in opposition. Few propositions involve principles so deeply connected with the lasting prosperity of our repub lican institutions : and, in regard to which, consequently, it is more necessary to think correctly. Error here cannot be indifferent. A false mode of thinking must endanger the existence of the republic. I must, then, again entreat the attentive and deliberate audience of the committee, while I offer my opinions and reasons on so interesting a subject.

In considering the question, — how far, in a war, thought

SPEECHES. 95

to be unjust or improper by any portion of the people, they would be warranted in their opposition, after it is constitu tionally declared, — I shall leave out of view such as involve extreme or flagrant injustice. A war, impious or sacrilegious, cannot be governed by the general rules which apply to or dinary cases. At least, it is not necessary for me to consider such extreme cases, as none can impute such a character to the present.

I have already stated that the sum proposed to be raised by this bill, is indispensably necessary to meet the expenses of the ensuing year ; and that, if it is withheld, it must communicate a fatal shock to public credit. In that event, not only the invasion of Canada would be prevented, which some gentlemen state to be their object, but the whole oper ations of the war — even viewed as defensive in the strictest sense — would be abandoned. Officers and soldiers will no more serve in our garrisons than in Canada without pay. It is idle to talk of only preventing the reduction of the enemy's provinces by withholding the loan. Nor can gentlemen be serious. They have opposed every attempt to raise supplies, in whatever shape it has appeared. They appear to be bold in facing bankruptcy. But have they reflected on the dis astrous effects of their efforts, should they be successful ? The old and recent creditors of the Government, the army, the navy, — which they boast of cherishing, — in a word, every individual would feel the calamity ; for private, no less than public credit would partake of the shock. I am wholly at a loss to perceive on what principle of expediency, policy, or morality, such conduct can be justified. Surely it is not a self-evident proposition, that, because the war is simply unjust and inexpedient, in the opinion of the minority, there fore, they have a right to involve the country in ruin, and place it, bound as a suppliant, at the feet of a haughty enemy. They, then, ought to state some intelligible and satisfactory principle on which this conduct may be justified.

96 SPEECHES.

I have sought with attention, but have not found, the sem blance of such an one. On the contrary, all the analogies of private life, as well as of reason, forbid and condemn the conduct of our opponents. Suppose a father to do some act, which, in the opinion of a son, is not strictly just or proper, by which he becomes involved in a contest with a stranger, would the son be justified in taking part against him ? How much less, then, can any party be in opposition to their country in a war with another nation ? for it stands in the place of the common parent of all ; and comprehends, to use the language of a member from North Carolina (Mr. Gaston), " all the charities of life!'

But what must be thought of the motives and conduct of the minority, when I state that much the greater part of the expenses of the war, for which this bill is intended in part to provide, has been incurred by their votes as much as by those of the majority ? I hold in my hands the journal of the first session of the Twelfth Congress ; by which it appears, that the Keport of the Committee on Foreign Kela- tions was supported not only by the votes on this side of the House, but by a decided majority on the other. The report ended in recommending six resolutions to the adoption of the House : — To fill up the old establishment ; to raise ten thousand additional troops ; to increase the navy ; to provide for calling out the militia ; and to authorize the arming of private vessels. On the first of these, there was a minority of eleven votes only : so unanimous was this House at that time ! On some of the others, it is true, it was more con siderable ; but all met with the support of gentlemen on the other side. What ought to be particularly noted is, that when the Senate and this House disagreed on the second resolution, — to raise an additional number of regular troops, the former supporting twenty-five thousand men, and the latter, at first, ten thousand men, the Senate's proposition, increasing the number, was passed by the votes of the mi-

SPEECHES. 97

nority. The leading men on the side of the opposition at that time — among whom was a gentleman from Massachu setts, well known in this country (Mr. Quincy), and another from New- York, of great influence (Mr. Emmot), and many whom I now behold — voted for the report. I have taken the trouble to turn down the pages where the respective votes are recorded, for the satisfaction of any member who may desire to see them. With what countenance can our oppo nents, then, withhold the supplies for