Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

deprefs the gallant ardor of our countrymen by fuch topics, let me inform him that true courage regards only the caufe, that it is juft and neceffary; and that it defpifes the pain and danger of war. If he really wifhes to promote the caufe of humanity, let his eloquence be addreffed to Lord Wellesley or Mr. Perceval, and not the American Congrefs. Tell them if they perfift in fuch daring infult and injury to a neutral nation, that, however inclined to peace, it will be bound in honor and intereft to refift; that their patience and benevolence, however great, will be exhaufted; that the calamity of war will enfue, and that they, in the opinion of wounded humanity, will be anfwerable for all its devaftation and mifery. Let melting pity, a regard to the intereft of humanity, ftay the hand of injuftice, and my life on it, the gentleman will not find it difficult to call off his country from the bloody fcenes of war. We are next told of the danger of the war! I believe we are all ready to acknowledge its hazard and accidents; but I cannot think we have any extraordinary danger to contend with, at least, fo much as to warrant an acquiefcence in the inju ries we have received--On the contrary, I believe no war can be lefs dangerous to internal peace, or national existence.

But we are told of the black population of the fouthern States. As far as the gentleman from Virginia fpeaks of his perfonal knowledge, I will not pretend to contradict him-I only regret that fuch is the dreadful ftate of his particular part of the country. Of the fouthern fection, I too have fome perfonal knowledge, and can fay, that in South Carolina no fuch fears in any part are felt. But, fir, admit the gentleman's statement; will a war with G. Britain increase the danger? Will the country be lefs able to reprefs infurrection? Had we any thing to fear from that quarter, which I fincerely difbelieve, in my opinion, the precife time of the greatest fafety is during a war, in which we have no fear of invafion-then the country is most on its guard; our militia the best prepared; and ftanding force the greateft. Even in our revolution no attempts were made by that portion of our population; and, however the gentleman may frighten himself with the diforganizing effects of French principles, I cannot think our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful influence. I dare fay more than one half of them never heard of the Fr. revolution. But as great as is the danger from our flaves, the gentleman's fears end not there-the ftanding army is not lefs terrible to him. Sir, I think a regular force raised for a period of actual hoftilities cannot be called a ftanding army. There is a juft diftinction between fuch a force,and one raised as a peace eftablishment. Whatever may be the compofition of the latter, I hope the former will confift of fome of the beft materials of the country: The ardent patriotifm of our young men,and the reasonable bounty in land which is propofed to be given, will impel them to join their country's standard and to fight her battles; they will not forget the citizen in the foldier, and in obeying their officer learn to contemn their

conftitution. In our officers and foldiers we will find patriotifm no lefs pure and ardent than in the private citizen; but if they fhould be depraved as reprefented, what have we to fear from 25 or 30,000 regulars? Where will be the boasted militia of the gentleman? Can one million of militia be overpowered by thirty thoufand regulars? If fo, how can we rely on them against a foe invading our country? Sir, I have no fuch contemptuous idea of our militia-their untaught bravery is fufficient to crush all for. eign and internal attempts on their country's liberties. But we have not yet come to the end of the chapter of dangers. The gentleman's imagination, fo fruitful on this fubject, conceives that our conftitution is not calculated for war, and that it cannot ftand its rude fhock. This is rather extraordinary-we must then depend upon the pity or contempt of other nations, for our exiftence. The conftitution, it seems, has failed in its effential part, "to provide for the common defence." No, fays the gentleman from Virginia, it is competent for a defenfive, but not an offen. five war. It is not neceflary for me to expofe the error of this opinion. Why make the diftinction in this inftance? Will he pretend to fay, that this is an offenfive war; a war of conqueft? Yes, the gentleman has dared to make this affertion; and for reafons no lefs extraordinary than the affertion itself. He fays, our rights are violated on the ocean, and that thefe violations affect our fhipping, and commercial rights, to which the Canadas have no relation. The doctrine of retaliation has been much abufed of late by an unnatural extenfion; we have now to witness a new abuse. The gentleman from Virginia has limited it down to a point. By his fyftem, if you receive a blow on the breast, you dare not return it on his head; you are obliged to measure and return it on the precife point on which it was received. If you do not proceed with this mathematical accuracy, it ceafes to be juft felf-defence; it becomes an unprovoked attack. In fpeaking of Canada the gentleman from Virginia introduced the name of Montgomery with much feeling and intereft. Sir, there is danger in that name to the gentleman's argument. It is facred to heroifm! It is indignant of fubmiffion! This calls my memory back to the time of our revolution; to the Congrefs of '74 and '75. Suppose a speaker of that day had risen and urged all the arguments which we have heard on this fubject; had told that Congrefs, "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 expenfive; that danger and devastation would overfpread our country, and that the power of Great Britain was irre. fiftible." With what fentiment, think you, would fuch doctrines have been then received? Happy for us, they had no force at that period of our country's glory. Had they been then acted on, this. Hall would never have witneffed a great nation convened to deliberate for the general good; a mighty empire, with prouder prof pects than any nation the fun ever fhone on, would not have rifen

in the Weft. No! we would have been vile fubjected colonies, governed by that imperious rod which Britain holds over her diftant provinces. Sir, the gentleman from Virginia attributes the preparation for war to every thing but its true caufe. He endeavored to find it in the probable rife of hemp. He represents the' people of the Western States as willing to plunge our country into a war for fuch bafe and precarious motives. I will not reason on this point. I fee the caufe of their ardor, not in fuch base motives, but in their known patriotifm and diftinterestednefs. No lefs mercenary is the reason which he attributes to the Southern States. He fays that the non-importation act has reduced cotton to nothing, which has produced a feverish impatience. Sir, I acknowledge the cotton of our farms is worth but little; but not for caufe affigned by the gentleman from Virginia. The people of that fection do not reafon as he does; they do not attribute it to the efforts of their government to maintain the peace and independence of their country. They fee in the low price of their produce, the hand of foreign injuftice. They know well, without the market to the continent, the deep and fteady current of fupply will glut that of Great Britain. They are not prepared for the colonial state to which again that power is endeavoring to reduce us. The manly fpirit of that fection of our country will not fubmit to be regulated by any foreign power. The love of France and the hatred of England has alfo been affigned as the caufe of the prefent measures. France has not done us juftice, fays the gentleman from Virginia, and how can we without partiality refift the aggreffions of England? I know, fir, we have ftill caufes of complaint against France; but it is of a different character from those against England. She profeffes now to refpect 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 acknowledged this to be a fact. I, however, protest against the whole of the principles on which this doctrine is founded. It is a novel doctrine, and no where to be found out of this Houfe, that you cannot felect your antagonist without being guilty of partiality. Sir, when two invade your rights you may refift both or either at your pleasure.It is regulated by prudence and not by right. The ftale imputa. tion of partiality to France is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper than for the walls of this Houfe. I afk, in this particular, of the gentleman from Virginia, but for the fame meafure which he claims for himself. That gentleman is at a lofs to account for, what he calls, our hatred to England. He afks how can we hate the country of Locke, of Newton, Hampden and Chatham; a country having the fame language and cuftoms with ourfelves, and defcending from a common ancestry. Sir, the laws of human affections are uniform. If we have fo much to attach us to that country, powerful indeed must be the cause which has overpowered it,

Yes, fir, there is a cause strong enough. Not that occult courtly affection which he has fuppofed to be entertained for France, but it is to be found in continued and unprovoked infult and injury. A caufe fo manifeft that the gentleman from Virginia had to exert much ingenuity to overlook it. But, fir, here I think the gentleman, in his eager admiration of that country, has not been fufficiently guarded in his argument. Has he reflected on the caufe of that admiration? Has he examined the reafons of our high regard for her Chatham? It is his ardent patriotifm, the heroic courage of his mind that could not brook the leaft infult or injury offered to his country, but thought that her intereft and honor ought to be vindicated at every hazard and expenfe. I hope, when we are called on to admire, we fhall alfo be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman does not wifh a monopoly of those great virtues to remain to that nation. The balance of power has alfo been introduced as an argument for fubmiffion. England is faid to be a barrier againft the military defpotifm of France. There is, fir, one great error in our legiflation. We are read enough to protect the intereft of the States; and it fhould feem from this argument to watch over thofe of a foreign nation, while we grofsly neglect our own immediate concerns. This argument of the balance of power is well calculated for the British Parliament, but not at all fitted to the American Congrefs. Tell them that they have to contend with a mighty power, and that if they perfift in infult and injury to the American people, they will compel them to throw the whole weight of their force into the scale of their enemy. Paint the danger to them, and if they will defift from injury, we, I anfwer for it, will not disturb the balance. But it is abfurd for us to talk of the balance of power while they by their conduct smile with contempt at our fimple, good natured policy. If, however, in the conte ft, it fhould be found that 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 fuch terms as our rights demand. I, fir, will now conclude by adverting to an argument of the gentleman from Virginia ufed in debate on a preceding day. He afked why we did not declare war immediately. The answer is obvious-because we are not yet prepared. But, fays the gentleman, fuch language as is here held will provoke Great Britain to commence hoftilities. I have no fuch fears. She knows well that fuch a courfe would unite all parties herea thing which above all others fhe moft dreads. Befides, fuch has been our paft conduct, that she will still calculate on our pa. tience and fubmiflion till war is actually commenced.

[Debates to be continued.]

1

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER.

No. 8.]

TWELFTH CONGRESS.... FIRST SESSION. [1811-12.

[Debates continued.]

On the second Resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

------

MR. JOHNSON said he rose to thank the committee for the Report which was offered to the House, and the resolutions which were recommended; though the measures fell short of his wishes, and he believed of the public expectation. The ulterior measures, however, promised by the committee satisfied his mind, and he should give the report his warm support. The chairman had given the views of the committee; the expulsion of the British from their North American possessions and granting letters of Marque and Reprisal against Great-Britain are contemplated. Look at the message of the President. At a moment least to be expected, when France had ceased to violate our neutral rights, and the olive branch was tendered to Great-Britain, her orders in council were put into a more rigorous execution; not satisfied with refusing a redress for wrongs committed on our coasts and in the mouths of our harbors, our trade is annoyed, and our national rights invaded-and to close the scene of insolence and injury, regardless of our moderation and justice, she has brought home to the "threshold of our territory," measures of actual war. As the love of peace has so long produced forbearance on our part, while commercial cupidity has increased the disposition to plunder on the part of Great-Britain, I feel rejoiced that the hour of resistance is at hand; and that the President, in whom the people have so much confidence, has warned us of the perils that await them, and has exhorted us to put on the armor of defence to gird on the sword, and assume the manly and bold attitude of war. He recommends filling up the ranks of the present military establishment, and to lengthen the term of service; to raise an auxiliary force for a more limited time; to authorise the acceptance of volunteers, and provide for calling out the militia as circumstances may require. For the first time since my entrance into this body, there now seems to be but one opinion with a great majority that with Great-Britain war is inevitable-that the hopes of the sanguine as to a returning sense of British justice have expired; that the prophecies of the discerning have failed, and that her infernal system has driven us to the brink of a second revolution as important as the first. Upon the Wabash through the influence of British agents and within our territorial sea by the British navy, the war has already commenced. Thus the folly, the power, and the tyranny of G. Britain have taken from us the last alternative of longer forbearance.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »