yi 
 
 crvL 
 
 . J'\CLAA''<'^u<y'n/ V/V' 
 
 /3crvt' 
 
 i^VU 
 
 I 8 a . 
 
 
Bnnk ."FS^S 
 
A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 
 
 m 
 
 A MESIBER OF THE SENATZ aflHSSASHVSETTS 
 
 ' ^/ 
 
 PRESENT STATE OF OUR NATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
 WITH MEMAMKS 
 
 UPON ' 
 
 MR. PICKERING'S LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 (GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 SECOND EDITION* 
 
 C^ BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY OLITE& AND BHJNJIO^. 
 
 1808. 
 
"^ 3 3^ 
 .PS3S 
 
 Y 
 
 -A, 
 
A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 kON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS. 
 
 I WASHINGTON, MARCH 31, 1808. 
 
 Dear Sir^ 
 
 I HAVE re^Bted^ from one of my friends iii 
 Boston a copy of a printed pamphlet, containing a let- 
 ter from Mr. Pickering to the Governor of the Com- 
 monwealth, intended for communication to the Leg- 
 islature of the State, during their Session, recently 
 Concluded. But this object not having been accom- 
 plished , it appears to have been published by some friend 
 of the writer, whose inducement is stated, no doubt 
 truly, to have been the importance of the matter dis- 
 cussed in it, and the high respectability of the author. 
 
 The subjects of this letter .are the Embargo, and the 
 differences in controversy between our Country and 
 Great-Britain — Subjects upon which it is my misfor- 
 tune, in the discharge of my duties as a Senator of the 
 United States to differ from the opinions of my Col- 
 league. The place where the question upon the first 
 of them, in common with others of great national con- 
 cerUj was between him and me, in our official capacities! 
 a proper object of discussion, was the Senate of the 
 Union — TherCj it was discussed, and, as far as the 
 constitutional authority of that body extended, there it 
 was decided — Having obtained alike the concurrence of 
 the other branch of the national Legislature, and the ap- 
 probation of the President, it became the Law of the 
 Land, and as such I have considered it entitled to the 
 respect and obedience of every virtuous citizen. 
 
 From these decisions however, the letter in ques- 
 tion is to be considered in the nature of an appeal ; in 
 the first instance, to our common constituents, the 
 Legislature of the State— and in the second, by the 
 
 4 
 
publication, to the people. To both these tribunals I 
 shall always hold m) self accountable for every act of 
 my public life. Yet, were my own political character 
 alone implicated in the course which has in this in- 
 stance been pursued, I should have forborne all notice 
 of the proceeding, and have left my conduct in this, as 
 in other cases, to the candour and discretion of my 
 ^ Country. 
 
 But to this species of appeal, thus conducted, there 
 ^ are some objections on Constitutional grounds, which 
 
 I deem it my duty to mention for the consideration of 
 the public. On a statement of circumstances attend- 
 y ing a very important act of national legislation, a state- 
 
 ,' ment which the writer undoubtedly believed to bt 
 
 [ true, but which comes only from one side of the 
 
 question and which, I expect to prove in the most es- 
 sential points erroneous, the writer with the most an- 
 imated tone of energy calls for the interposition of the 
 commercial States, and asserts that *' nothing but 
 their sense, clearly and emphatically expressed, will 
 save them from ruin." This solemn and alarming 
 invocation is addressed to the Legislature of Massa- 
 ^ chusetts, at so late a period of their Session, that had 
 
 it been received by them, they must have been com- 
 pelled either to act upon the views of this representa- 
 tion, without hearing the counter statement of the 
 other side, or seemingly to disregard the pressing in- 
 terest of their constituents, by neglecting an admoni- 
 tion of the most serious complexion. Considering 
 the application as a precedent, its tendency is danger- 
 ous to the public. For on the first supposition, that 
 the Legislature had been precipitated to act on the 
 spur of such an instigation, they must have acted on 
 imperfect information, and under an excitement, not 
 remarkably adapted to the composure of safe delibera- 
 tion. On the second they would have been exposed 
 to unjust imputations, which at the eve of an election 
 might have operated in the most inequitable manner 
 upon the characters of individual members. 
 
 The interposition of one or more State Legislatures, 
 to controul the exercise of the powers vested by 
 
the general Constitution in the Congress of the United 
 Statesj is at least of questionable policy. The views 
 of a State Legislature are naturally and properly lim- 
 ited in a considerable degree to the particular inter- 
 ests of the State. The very object and formation of 
 the National deliberative assemblies was for the com- 
 promise and conciliation of the interests of all — of the 
 whole nation. If the appeal from the regular, legiti- 
 mate measures of the body where the whole nation is 
 represented, be proper to one State Legislature, it 
 must be so to another. If the commercial States are 
 called to interposes on one hand, will not the agricul- 
 tural States be with equal propriety summoned to in- 
 terpose on the other ? If the East is stimulated against 
 the West, and the Northern and Southern Sections 
 are urged into collision with each other, by appeals 
 from the acts of Congress to the respective States — 
 in Vihat are these appeals to end? 
 
 It is undoubtedly the right, and may often become 
 the duty of a State Legislature, to address that of the 
 Nation, with the expression of its wishes, in regard to 
 interests peculiarly concerning the State itself. Nor 
 shall I question the right of every member of the great 
 federative compact to declare its own sense of meas- 
 ures interesting to the nation at large. But whenever 
 the case occurs that this sense should be " clearly and 
 emphatically" expressed, it ought surely to be predi- 
 cated upon a full and impartial consideration of the 
 whole subject — not under the stimulus of a one sided 
 representation — far less upon the Impulse of conjec- 
 tures and suspicions. It is not through the medium 
 of personal sensibility, nor of party bias, nor of pro* 
 fessional occupation, nor of geographical position, that 
 the whole Truth can be discerned, of questions in- 
 volving the rights and interests of this extensive Union. 
 When their discussion is urfrtd upon a State Lesrisla- 
 ture, the first call upon its members should be to cast 
 all their feelings and interests as the Citizens of a sin- 
 gle State into the common Stock of the National con- 
 cern. 
 
 Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is 
 
 ksdhl'' 
 
I 
 
 made from the Councils of the Nation, to those of a 
 single State be one, upon which the representation of 
 the State had been divided, and the member who 
 found himself in the minority, felt impelled by a sense 
 of duty to invoke the interposition of his Constituents, 
 it would seem that both in justice to them, and in 
 candour to his colleague, some notice of such inten- 
 tion should be given to him, that he too might be pre- 
 pared to exhibit his views of the subject upon which 
 the difference of opinion had taken place ; or at least 
 that the resort should be had, at such a period of time as 
 would leave it within the reach of possibility for his 
 representations to be received, by their Common 
 Constituents, before they would be compelled to de- 
 cide on the merits of the case. 
 
 The fairness and propriety of this course of pro- 
 ceeding must be so obvious, that it is difficult to con- 
 ceive of the propriety of any other. Yet it presents 
 another inconvenience which must necessarily result 
 from this practice of appellate legislation — When one 
 of the Senators from a State proclaims to his constitu- 
 ents that a particular measure, or system of measures 
 which has received the vote and support of his col- 
 league, are pernicious and destructive to those inter- 
 ests which both are bound by the most sacred of ties, 
 with zeal and fidelity to promote, the denunciation of 
 the measures amounts to little less than a denunciation 
 of the man. The advocate of a policy thus reprobat- 
 ed must feel himself summoned by every motive of 
 self-defence to vindicate his conduct : and if his gen- 
 eral sense of his official duties would bind him to the 
 industrious devotion of his whole time to the public 
 business of the Session, the hours which he might be 
 forced to employ for his own justification, would of 
 course be deducted from the discharge of his more 
 regular and appropriate functions. Should these oc- 
 casions frequently recur, they could not fail to inter- 
 fere with the due performance of the public business. 
 Kor can I tbrbear to remark the tendency ot such an- 
 tagonizing appeals to distract the Councils of the State 
 in its own Legislature, to destroy its inftucnce, and 
 
pxpose it to derision, in the presence of its sister Stateji, 
 and to produce between the colleagues themselves 
 mutual asperities and rancours, until the great con- 
 cerns of the nation would degenerate into the puny 
 controversies of personal altercation. 
 
 It is therefore with extreme reluctance that I enter 
 upon this discussion. In developing my own views 
 and the principles which have governed my con- 
 duct in relation to our foreign affairs, and particularly 
 to the Embargo, some very material differences i^ 
 point of fact as well as of opinion, will be found be- 
 tween my statements, and those of the letter, which 
 alone can apologize for this. They will not, I trust, 
 be deemed in any degree disrespectful to the writer. 
 Far more pleasing would it have been to me, could 
 that honest and anxious pursuit of the policy best cal- 
 culated to promote the honour and welfare of our 
 Country, which, I trust, is felt with equal ardour by 
 us both, have resulted in the same opinions, and have 
 given them the vigour of united exertion. There is 
 a candour and liberality of conduct and of sentiment 
 due from associates in the same public charge, to- 
 wards each other, necessary to their individual repu- 
 tation, to their common influence, and to their public 
 usefulness. In our republican Government, where 
 the power of the nation consists alone in the sympa- 
 thies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open 
 hearted imputation of honest intentions, is the only 
 adamant at once attractive and impenetrable, that can 
 bear, unshattercd, all the thunder of foreign hostility. 
 Ever since I have had the honour of a seat in the 
 National Councils, I have extended it to every depart- 
 ment of the Government. However differing in my 
 conclusions, upon questions of the highest moment, 
 from any other man, of whatever party, I have never, 
 upon suspicion, imputed his conduct to corrup- 
 tion. If this confidence argues ignorance of public 
 men and public affairs, to that ignorance I must plead 
 guilty. I know, indeed, enough of human nature to 
 be sensible that vigilant observation is at all times, 
 and that suspicion may occasionally become necessary, 
 
-/ 
 
 upon the conduct of men in power. But I know as 
 well that confidence is the only cement of an elective 
 government — I.lectionis the very test of confidence — 
 and its periodical return is the constitutional check 
 upon its abuse ; of which the electors must of course 
 be the sole judges. For the exercise of power, where 
 man is free, confidence is indispensable-r-and when 
 it once totally fails — when the men to whom the peo- 
 ple have committed the application of their force, for 
 their benefit, are to be presumed the vilest of man- 
 kind, the very foundation of the social compact must 
 be dissolved. Towards the Gentleman whose official 
 station results from the confidence of the same Legis- 
 lature, by whose appointment 1 have the honour of 
 holding a similar trust, I have thought this confidence 
 peculiarly due from me, nor should I now notice his 
 letter, notwithstanding the disapprobation it so obvi- 
 ously implies at the course which 1 have pursued ir\ 
 relation to the subjects of which it treats, did it no^ 
 appear to me calculated to produce upon the public 
 mind, impressions unfavourable to the rights and in- 
 terests of the nation. 
 
 Having understood that a motion in the Senate of 
 Massachusetts was made by you, requesting the Gov- 
 ernor to transmit Mr. Pickering's letter to the Legis- 
 lature, together with such communications, relating 
 to public affairs, as he might have received from me, 
 1 avail myself of that circumstance, and of the friend- 
 ship which has so long subsisted between us, to take 
 the liberty of addressing this letter, intended for pub- 
 lication, to you. Very few of the facts which I shall 
 state will rest upon information peculiar to myself — 
 Most of them will stand upon the babis of official 
 documents, or of public and undisputed notoriety. 
 For my opinions, though fully persuaded, that even 
 where differing from your own, they will meet with a 
 fair and liberal jaidge in you. yet of the public I ask 
 neither favour nor indulgence. Pretending to no ex- 
 traordinary credit from the authority of the writer, ^ 
 am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or 
 stand by their own strength. 
 
The first remark ■which obtrudes itself upon the 
 mind, on the perusal of Mr. Pickering's letter is, that 
 in enumerating all the pretences (for he thinks there 
 are no causes) for the Embargo, and for a War with 
 Great Britain, he has totally omitted the British or- 
 ders of Council of November 11, 1807, those or- 
 ders, under which millions of the property of our 
 fellow citizens, are now detained in British hands, or 
 confiscated to British captors, those orders, under 
 which tenfold as ma»y millions of the same property 
 would have been at this moment in the same predica- 
 ment, had they not been saved from exposure to it by 
 the Embargo, those orders, which if once submitted to 
 and carried to the extent of their principles, would not 
 have left an inch of American canvass upon the ocean, 
 but under British licence and British taxation. An 
 attentive reader of the letter, without other informa- 
 tion, would not even suspect their existence. They 
 are indeed in one or two passages, faintly, and darkly 
 alluded to under die justifying description of " the 
 orders of the British Government, retaliating the 
 French imperial decree :" but as causes for the Em- 
 bargo, or as possible causes or even pretences of War 
 with Great Britain, they are not only unnoticed, but 
 their very existence is by direct implication denied. 
 
 It is indeed true, that these orders were not ofiieial- 
 ly communicated with the President's Message re- 
 commending the Embargo. They had not been offi- 
 cially received — But they were announced in several 
 paragraphs from London and Liverpool Newspapers 
 of the 10th, 1 1th and 12th of November, which ap- 
 peared in the National Intelligencer of 1 8th Decem- 
 ber, the day upon which the Embargo Message was 
 sent to Congress. The British Government had taken 
 care that they should not be authentically known be- 
 fore their time — for the very same newspapers which 
 gave this inofficial notice of these orders, announced 
 also the departure of Mr. Rose, upon a special mis- 
 sion to the United States. And we now know that of 
 these all-devouring instruments of rapine, Mr. Rose 
 was not even informed. — His pai^sjon was professedly 
 B 
 
10 
 
 a mission of conciliation and reparation for a flagrant 
 — enormous — acknowledged outrage. — But he was 
 not sent with these orders of Council in his hands. — 
 His text, was the disavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
 conduct — The Commentary was to be discovered on 
 another page of the British ministerial policy — On the 
 face of Mr. Rose's instructions, these orders of Coun- 
 cil were as invisible, as thej^re on that of Mr. Pick- 
 erinp-'s letter. 
 
 o 
 
 They were not merely without official authenticity. 
 Rumours had for several weeks been in circulation^ 
 derived from English prints, and fi'om private corres- 
 pondences, that such orders were to issue ; and no 
 inconsiderable pains were taken here to discredit the 
 fact. Assurances were given that there was reason 
 to believe no such orders to be contemplated. Suspi- 
 cion 'Aas lulled by declarations equivalent nearly to a 
 positive denial : and these opiates w^ere continued for 
 "weeks after the Embargo was laid, until Mr. Erskinc 
 received instructions to make the official communica- 
 tion of the orders themselves, in their proper shape,, 
 to our Government. 
 
 Yet, although thus imauthenticated, and even al- 
 thopgh thus in some sort denied, the probability of 
 tlie circumstances under which they were announced, 
 and the sweeping tendency of their effects, formed to 
 my understanding a powerful motive, and together 
 with the papers sent by the President, and his express 
 recommendation, a decisive one^ for assenting to the 
 Embargo. As a precautionary measure, I believed it 
 would rescue an imanense property from depredation, 
 if the orders should prove authentic. If the alarm 
 was groundless, it must very soon be disproved, and 
 the Embargo might be removed with the danger. 
 
 The omission of all notice of these facts in the pres- 
 sing enquiries " why the Embargo was laid ?" is the 
 more surprising, because they are of all the facts, the 
 most material, upon a fair and hupartial examination 
 of the expediency of that Act, when it passed — And 
 because these orders, together with the subsequent 
 *' retaliating decrees of France and Spain, have fur- 
 
11 
 
 nished the only reasons upon which I have acquiesscd 
 an its continuance to this day. If duly weighed, they 
 will save us the trouble of resorting to jealousies of 
 secret corruption, and the imaginary terrors of Napo- 
 lean for the real cause of the Embargo. These are 
 iictionB of foreign invention — The French l^niperor 
 had not declared that he would have no neutrals — He 
 had not required that our ports should be shut against 
 British Commerce — but the orders of Council if sub- 
 mitted to would have degraded us to the condition of 
 Colonies. If resisted would have fattened the wolves 
 of plunder with our spoils. The Embargo was the 
 only shelter from the Tempest — The last refuge of 
 our violated Peace. 
 
 I have indeed been myself of opinion that the Em- 
 bargo, must in its nature be a temporary expedient, 
 and that preparations manifesting a determination of 
 resistance against these outrageous violations of our 
 neutral rights ought at least to have been made a sub- 
 ject of serious deliberation in Congress. I have be- 
 lieved and do still believe that our internal resources 
 are competent to the establishment and maintainance 
 of a naval force public and private, if not fully ade- 
 quate to the protection and defence of our Commerce, 
 at least sufficient to induce a retreat from these hostil- 
 ities and to deter from a renewal of them , by either of 
 the warring parties ; and that a system to that effect 
 might be formed, ultimately far more economical, and 
 certainly more energetic than a three years Embargo. 
 Very soon after the closure of our Ports, I did sub- 
 mit to the consideration of the Senate, a proposition 
 for the appointment of a comittee to institute an en- 
 quiry to this end. But my resolution met no encour- 
 agement. Attempts of a similar nature have been 
 made in the House of Representatives, but have been 
 equally discountenanced, and from these determina- 
 tions by decided majorities of both houses, I am not 
 sufficiently confident in the superiority of my own 
 Wisdom to appeal, by a topical application to the con- 
 genial feelings of any one — not even of my own native 
 Section of the Union. 
 
it 
 
 The Embargo, however, is a restriction always un- 
 der our own controul. It was a measure altogether of 
 defence, and of experiment — If it was injudiciously or 
 over-hastily laid, it has been every day since its adop- 
 tion open to a repeal : if it should prove ineffectual 
 for the purposes which it was meant to secure, a sin- 
 gle day will suffice to unbar the doors Still believ- 
 ing it a measure justified by the circumstances of the 
 time, I am ready to admit that those who thought 
 otherwise may have had a wiser foresight of events, 
 and a sounder judgment of the then existing state of 
 things than the majority of the National Legislature, 
 and the President. It has been approved by several 
 of the State Legislatures, and among the rest by our 
 own. Yet of all its effects we are still unable to judge 
 with certainty. It must still abide the test of futuri- 
 ty. I shall add that there were other motives which 
 had their operation in contributing to the passage of 
 the act, unnoticed by Mr. Pickering, and which hav- 
 ing now ceased will also be left unnoticed by me. 
 The orders of Council of 11th Nov. still subsist in all 
 their force ; and are now confirmed, with the addition 
 of taxation^ by act of Parliament. 
 
 As they stand in front of the real causes for the 
 Embargo, so they are entitled to the same pre-emi- 
 nence in enumerating the causes of hostility, which 
 the British Ministers are accumulating upon our for- 
 bearance. They strike at the root of our independence. 
 They assume the principle that we shall have no com- 
 merce in time of war, but with her dominions, and as 
 tributaries to her. The exclusive confinement of 
 corrimerce to the mother country, is the great princi- 
 ple of the modern colonial system ; and should we by 
 a dereliction of our rights at this momentous stride of 
 encroachment surrender our commercial freedom w ith- 
 out a struggle, Britain has but a single step more to 
 take, and she brings us back to the stamp act and the 
 tea tax. 
 
 Yet these orders — thus fatal to the liberties for 
 which the sages and heroes of our revolution toiled 
 and bled — thus studiously concealed until the mo- 
 
IS 
 
 mcnt when they burst upon our heads — thus issued 
 at the very instant when a mission of atonement was 
 professedly sent — in these orders we are to see no- 
 thing bat a " retaliating order upon France " — in 
 these orders, we must not find so much as a cause — 
 nay not so much as a pretence, for complaint against 
 Britain. 
 
 To my mind, Sir, in comparison with those orders, 
 the three causes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly li- 
 mits our grounds for a rupture with England, might 
 indeed be justly denominated pretences — in compari- 
 son with them, former aggressions sink into insig- 
 nificance. To argue upon the subject of our disputes 
 with Britain, or upon the motives for the Embargo, 
 and keep them out of sight, is like laying your finger 
 over the unit before a series of noughts, and then 
 arithmetically proving that they all amount to nothing. 
 
 It is not however in a mere omission, nor yet in the 
 history of the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the 
 statement I am examining have given me the most 
 serious concern — it is in the view taken of the ques- 
 tions in controversy between us and Britain. The 
 wisdom of the Embargo is a question of great, but 
 transient magnitude, and omission sacrifices no na- 
 tional right. Mr. Pickering's object was to dissuade 
 the nation from a war with England, into which he 
 suspected the administration was plunging us, under 
 French compulsion. But the tendency of his pam- 
 phlet is to reconcile the nation, or at least the com- 
 mercial States, to the servitude of British protection, 
 and war with all the rest of Europe. Hence England 
 is represented as contending^ for the common liberties 
 of mankind, and our only safe- guard against the ambi- 
 tion and injustice of France. Hence all our sensibili- 
 ties are invoked in her favour, and all our antipathies 
 against her antagonist. Hence too all the subjects of 
 differences between us and Britain are alledged to be 
 on our part mere pretences^ of whieh the right is une- 
 quivocally pronounced to be on her side. Proceeding 
 from a Senator of the United States, specially charged 
 as a member of the executive with the maintenance 
 
 ^■^■■ijitmn.. 
 
u 
 
 ©f the nation's rights, against foreign powers, and at 
 a moment extremely critical of pending negotiation 
 upon all the points thus delineated, this formal aban- 
 donment of the American cause, this summons of un- 
 conditional surrender to the pretensions of our anta- 
 gonist, is in my mind highly alarming. It becomes 
 therefore a duty to which every other consideration 
 must yield to point out the errors of this representa- 
 tion. Before we strike the standard of the nation, let 
 us at least examine the purport of the summons. 
 
 And first, with respect to the impressment of our 
 seamen. We are told that " the taking of British sea- 
 men found on board our merchant vessels, by British 
 ships of war, is agreeably to a rights claimed and ex- 
 ercised for ages." It is obvious that this claim and 
 exercise of ages, could not apply to us, as an indepen- 
 dent people. If the right was claimed and exercised 
 while our vessels were navigating under the British 
 flag, it could not authorize the same claim when their 
 owners have become the citizens of a sovereign state. 
 As a relict of colonial servitude, whatever may be the 
 claim of Great Britain, it surely can be no ground for 
 contending that it is entitled to our submission. 
 
 If it be meant that the right has been claimed and 
 exercised for ages over the merchant vessels of other 
 nations, I apprehend it is a mistake. The case never 
 occurred with sufficient frequency to constitute even 
 a practice, much less a right. If it had been either, it 
 would have been noticed by some of the writers on 
 the laws of nations. The truth is, the question arose 
 out of American Independence — from the severance 
 of one nation into two. It was never made a question 
 between any other nations. There is therefore no 
 right of prescription. 
 
 But, it seems, it has also been claimed and exercised^ 
 during the whole of the three Administrations of our 
 national Government. And is it meant to be asserted 
 that this claim and exercise constitute a right ? If it 
 is, I appeal to the uniform, unceasing and urgent re- 
 monstrances of the three administrations — I appeal 
 not only to the warm feelings, but cool justice of the 
 
15 
 
 American People — nay, I appeal to the sound sense 
 and hononrable sentiment ©f the British nation itself, 
 which, however, it may have submitted at home to 
 this practice, never would tolerate its sanction by law, 
 against the assertion. If it is not, how can it be affirm- 
 ed that it is on our part a mere pretence ? 
 
 But the first merchant of the United States, in an- 
 swer to Mr. Pickering's late enquiries has informed 
 him that since the affair of the Chesapeake there has 
 been no cause of complaint— that he could not find a 
 single instance where they- had taken one man out of 
 a merchant vessel. Who it is, that enjoys the dignity 
 of first merchant of the United States we are not in- 
 formed. But if he had applied to many merchants in 
 Boston as respectable as any in the United States, they 
 could have told him of a valuable vessel and cargo, 
 totally lost upon the coast of England, late in August 
 last, and solely in consequence of having had two of 
 her men, native Americans taken from her by impress- 
 ment, two months after the affair of the Chesapeake. 
 
 On the 15th of October, the king England issued 
 his proclamation, coinmanding his naval officers, to im- 
 press his subjects from neutral vessels. This procla- 
 mation is represented as merely " requiring the return 
 of his subjects, the seamen especially, from foreign 
 countries," and then '' it is an acknowledged princi- 
 ple that every nation has a right to the service of its 
 subjects in time of war." Is this. Sir, a correct state- 
 Tuciit either of the Proclamation, or of the question it 
 involves in which our right is concerned ? The king 
 of England's right to the service of his subjects in 
 time of war is nothing to us. The question is, whe- 
 ther he has a right to seize them forcibly on board of our 
 vessels while under contract of service to our citizens, 
 withia our jurisdiction upon the high seas ? And 
 whether he has a right expressly to command his na- 
 val officers so to seize them — Is this an acknowleds-ed 
 principle ? certainly not. Why then is this Pro- 
 claiTiLition described as founded upon uncontested 
 principle? and why is the command, so justly offen- 
 sive to us, and so mischievous as it might then have 
 been made in execution, altogether omitted ? 
 
16 
 
 But it is not the taking of British subjects from our 
 vessels, it is the taking under colour of that pretence 
 our own, native American citizens, which constitutes 
 the most galling aggravation of this merciless practice. 
 Yet even this, we are told is but a pretence — for three 
 reasons. 
 
 1. Because the number of citizens thus taken, is 
 small. 
 
 2. Because it arises only from the impossibility of 
 distinguishing Englishmen from Americans. 
 
 3. Because, such impressed American citizens are 
 delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. 
 
 1. Small and great in point of numbers are relative 
 terms. To suppose that the native Americans form a 
 small proportion of the whole number impressed is a 
 mistake — The reverse is the fact. Examine the offi- 
 cial returns from the Department of State. They give 
 the names of between four and five thousand men im- 
 pressed since the commencement of the present War. 
 Of which number, not one fifth part were British Sub- 
 jects — The number of naturalized Americans could 
 not amount to one tenth, — I hazard little in saying 
 that more than three fourths were native Americans. 
 If it be said that some of these men, though appearing 
 on the face of the returns American Citizens, were re- 
 ally British subjects, and had fraudulently procured 
 their protections ; I reply that this number must be 
 far exceeded by the cases of Citizens impressed, which 
 never reach the Department of State. The x'Vmeri- 
 can Consul in London estimates the number of im- 
 pressments during the War at nearly three times the 
 amount of the names returned. If the nature of the 
 offence be considered in its true colours, to a people 
 having a just sense of personal liberty and security, it 
 is in every single instance, of a malignity not inferior 
 to that of nrtirder. The very same act, when commit- 
 ted by the recruiting officer of one nation within the 
 territories of another, is by the universal Lav/ and u- 
 sage of nations punished with death. Suppose the 
 crime had in every instance, as by its consequences it 
 has been in many, deliberate murder. Would it an- 
 
i? 
 
 "Siwer or silence the voice of our complaints to be told 
 that the number was small ? 
 
 2. The impossibility of distinguishing English 
 from American seamen is not the only, nor even the 
 most frequent occasion of impressment. Look again 
 into the returns from the Department of State — you will 
 see that the officers take our men without pretending 
 to enquire where they were born ; sometimes merely 
 to shew their animosity, or their contempt for our 
 country ; sometimes from the wantonness of power. 
 When they manifest the most tender regard for the 
 neutral rights of America, they lament that they want 
 the men. They regret the necessity, but they must 
 have their complement. When we complain of these 
 enormities, we are answered that the acts of such offi- 
 cers were unauthorized ; that the commanders of 
 Men of War, are an unruly set of men, for whose vio- 
 lence their own Government cannot always be answer^ 
 able, that enquiry shall be made — A Court Martial 
 is sometimes mentioned — And the issue of Whitby's 
 Court Martial has taught us what relief is to be ex- 
 pected from that. There are even examples I am 
 told, when such officers have been put upon the yel- 
 low list. But this is a rare exception — The ordinary- 
 issue when the act is disavowed, is the promotion of 
 the actor. 
 
 3. The impressed native American Citizens how% 
 ever, upon duly authenticated proof are delivered up. 
 Indeed ! how unreasonable then were complaint 1 how 
 effectual a remedy for the wrong ! an American ves- 
 sel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four 
 native Americans, impressed by a British Man of 
 War, bound to the East or West Indies. When the 
 American Captain arrives at his port of destination he 
 makes his protest, and sends it to the nearest Ameri- 
 can Minister or Consul. When he returns home, he 
 transmits the duplicate of his protest to the Secretary 
 of State. In process of time, the names of the im- 
 pressed men, and of the Ship into which they have 
 been impressed, are received by the Agent in Lon- 
 don. He makes his demand that the men may lie. 
 
 c 
 
delivered up — The Lords of the Admiralty, after a 
 reasonable time for enquiry and advisement, return for 
 answer, that the Ship is on a foreign Station, and their 
 Lordships caa therefore take no further steps in the 
 matter — Or, that the ship has been taken, and that the 
 men have been received in exchange for French pris- 
 oners — Or, that the men had no protections (the im- 
 pressing officers often having taken them from the 
 men) — Or, that the men were probably British subjects. 
 Or that they have entered, and taken the Bounty ; 
 (to which the officers know how to reduce them.) 
 Or that they have been married, or settled in England. 
 In all these cases, without further ceremony, their dis- 
 charge is refused. Sometimes, their Lordships, in a 
 vein of humour, inform the agent that the man has 
 been discharged as imserviceabk. Sometimes, in si 
 sterner tone, they say he was an imposter. Or per- 
 haps by way of consolation to his relatives and friends, 
 they report that he has fallen in Battle, against nations 
 in Amity with his Country. Sometimes they cooly 
 return that there is no such man on hoard the ship ; 
 and what has become ot him, the agonies of a wife and 
 children in his native land may be left to conjecture. 
 When all these and many other such apologies for 
 refusal fail, the native American seaman is discharg- 
 ed — and when by the charitable aid of his Government 
 he has found his way home, he comes to be informed, 
 that all is as it should be — that the number of his fel- 
 low-sufferers is small — that it was impossible to dis- " 
 tinguish him from an Englishman — and that he was 
 delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. 
 
 Enough, of this disgusting subject — I cannot stop 
 to calculate how many of these wretched victims arc 
 natives of Massachusetts, and how many natives of 
 Virginia — I cannot stop to solve that knotty question 
 of national jurisprudence whether some of them might 
 not possibly be slaves, and therefore not Citizens of 
 the United States — I cannot stay to account for the 
 wonder, why, poor, and ignorant and friendless as 
 most of them are, the voice of their complaints is so 
 seldom heard in the great navigating States. I ad- 
 
19 
 
 » * 
 
 niit that we have endured this cruel, indignity, through 
 all the administrations of the General Government. — 
 I acknowledge that Britain claims the right of seizing 
 her subjects in our merchant vessels, and that even if 
 we could acknowledge it, the line of discrimination 
 would be difficult to draw. We are not in a condi- 
 tion to maintain this right, by War. and as the Brit- 
 ish Government have been more than once on the 
 point of giving it up of their own accord, 1 would 
 still hope for the day when returning Justice shall in- 
 duce them to abandon it, without compulsion. Her 
 subjects we do not want. The degree of protection 
 which we are bound to extend to them, cannot equal the 
 claim of our own citizens. 1 would subscribe to any 
 compromise of this contest, consistent with the rights of 
 sovereignty, the duties of humanity, and the principles 
 of reciprocity : but to the right of forcing even her own 
 subjects out of our merchant vessels on the high seas 
 I never can assent. 
 
 The second point upon which Mr. Pickering defends 
 the pretentions of Great Britain, is her denial to neutral 
 nations of the right of prosecuting with her enemies and 
 their colonies, any commerce from which they are ex- 
 cluded in time of peace. His statement of this case 
 adopts the British doctrine, as sound. The rights as on 
 the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders at 
 discretion — and it is equally defective in point of fact. 
 
 In the first place, the claim of Great Britain, is not to 
 " a right of imposing on this neutral commerce some 
 limits and restraints'''' — but of interdicting it altogether, 
 at her pleasure, of interdicting it without a moment's 
 notice to neutrals, after solemn decisions of her courts 
 of admiralty, and formal acknowledgments of her minis- 
 ters, that it is a lawful trade — And, on such a sudden, 
 unnotified interdiction of pouncing upon all neutral com- 
 merce navigating upon the faith of her decisions and ac- 
 knowledgments, and of gorging with confiscation the 
 greediness of her cruizers — This is the right claimed b)' 
 Britain — This is the power she has exercised — What 
 Mr. Pickering calls "limits and restraints," she calls re- 
 Taxations of lier right. 
 
20 
 
 It is but little more tban two years, since this question, 
 was agitated both in England and America, with as 
 much zeal, energy and ability, as ever was displayed 
 upon any question of national Law. The British side 
 was supported by Sir William bcott, Mr. Ward, and 
 the author uf War in Disguise. But even in Britain 
 their doctrine was refuted to demonstration by the Edin- 
 burg reviewers. In America, the rights of our country 
 were maintained by numerous writers profoundly skilled 
 in the science of national and maritime Law. The jln- 
 swer to War in Disguise was ascribed to a Gentleman 
 whose talents are universally acknowledged, and who by 
 his oflficial situations had been required thoroughly to 
 iavcstigate eveiy question of conflict between neutral 
 and belligerent rights \\'hich has occurred in the history 
 of modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Piitckney, our two 
 commissioners at London, under Mr. Jay's Treaty, the 
 former, in a train of cool and conclusive argument ad- 
 drcb. el to Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of 
 splendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore, 
 supported the same cause ; memorials, drawn by lawyers 
 of distinguished eminence, by Merchants of the highest 
 character, and by statesmen of long experience in our 
 national councils came from Salem, from Boston, from 
 New- Haven, from New- York and from Philadelphia to- 
 gether with remonsti^ances to the same effect from New- 
 buryport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston. This ac- 
 cumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial infor- 
 mation and of national sentiment from almost every in- 
 habited spot upon our shores, and from one exti^emity of 
 the union to the other, confirmed by the unanswered and 
 unanswerable memorial of Mr. Munroe to the British 
 minister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible 
 reasoning of the examination of the British doctrine, was 
 also made a subject of full, and deliberate discussion in 
 the Senate of the United States. A committee of seveii 
 members of that body, after three weeks of arduous in- 
 vestigation, reported three Resolutions, the first of which 
 M'as in these words " Resolved that die capture and con- 
 demnation, under the orders of the British government, 
 and adjudications of their courts of admiralty of Ameri- 
 can vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their beipg 
 
21 
 
 employed iti a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, 
 prohibited in time of peace, is au unprovoked aggression 
 upon the property of the citizens of these United States, 
 a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroachment 
 upon their national Independence.''^ 
 
 On the 13th of February, 1806, the question upon 
 the adoption of this Resolution, was taken in the Sen- 
 ate. The yeas and nays were required ; but not a 
 solitary nay was heard in ansAver. It was adopted by 
 the unanimous voice of all the Senators present. They 
 were twenty. eight in number, and among them stands 
 recorded the name of Mr. Pickering. 
 
 Let us remember that this was a question most pe- 
 culiarly and immediately of commercial, and not agri- 
 cidtral interest ; that it arose from a call, loud, energet- 
 ic and unanimous, from all the merchants of the Unit- 
 ed States upon Congress, for the national interposi- 
 tion ; that many of the memorials invoked all the 
 energy of the Legislature, and pledged the lives and 
 properties of the memorialists in support of any mea- 
 sures which Congress might deem necessary to vin- 
 dicate those rights. Negotiation was particularly re- 
 commended from Boston, and elsewhere — negotiation 
 vTas adopted — negotiation has failed — and now Mr. 
 Pickering tells us that Great-Britain has claimed and 
 maintained her right ! He argues that her claim is 
 just — and is not sparing of censure upon those who 
 still consider it as a serious cause of complaint. 
 
 But there was one point of view in which the Brit- 
 ish doctrine on this question was then only consider- 
 ed incidentally in the United States — because it was 
 not deemed material for the discussion of our rights. 
 We examined it chiefly as aifecting the principles as 
 between a belligerent and a neutral power. But in 
 fact it was an infringement of the rights of War, as 
 well as of the rights of Peace. It was an unjustifiable 
 enlargement of the sphere of hostile operations. The 
 enemies of Great Britain had by the universal Law of 
 Nations a right to the benefits of neutral Commerce 
 within their dominions (subject to the exceptions of 
 ■3'ctual blockade and contraband) as well as neutral na- 
 
tions had a right to trade with them. The cxchisioii 
 from that commerce by this new principle of warfare 
 which Britain, in defiance of all immemorial national 
 usages, undertook by her single authority to establish, 
 but too naturally led her enemies to resort to new and 
 extraordinary principles, by which in their turn they 
 might retaliate this injury upon her. The pretence 
 upon which Britain in the first instance had attempted 
 to colour her injustice, was a misti"db\cJiction — It was 
 an argument against fact. Her reasoning was, that a 
 neutral vessel by mere admission in time of war, into 
 Ports from which it would have been excluded in 
 time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national 
 character, and ipso facto was transformed into enemy's 
 property. 
 
 Such was the basis upon which arose the far famed 
 rule of the war of 1756 — Such was the foundation up- 
 on which Britain claimed and fnaintained this supposed 
 right of adding that new instrument of desolation to the 
 horrors of war — It was distressing to her enemy — 
 yes ! Had she adopted the practice of dealing with 
 them in poison — Had Mr. Fox accepted the services 
 ©f the man who offered to rid him of the French Em^ 
 peror by assassination, and had the attempt succeeded, 
 it would have been less distressing to France than 
 this rule of the war of 17S6 ; and not more unjustifia- 
 ble. Mr. Fox had too fair a mind for cither, but his 
 comprehensive and liberal spirit was discarded, with 
 the Cabinet which he had formed. 
 
 It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, 
 and above all of Christianity for two thousand years to 
 mitigate the rigours of that scourge of human kind, 
 war. It is now the struggle of Britain to aggravate 
 them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its 
 effects, was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it 
 was possible for her to tinge the weapons of her hostil- 
 ity. 
 
 In itself and in its effects, I say — For the French 
 decrees of Berlin and of Milan, the Spanish and 
 Dutch decrees of the same or the like tenor, and her 
 ©wa orders of January and November— these alterna- 
 
2S 
 
 tions of licenced pillage, this eager competition be*- 
 tween her and her enemies for the honour of giving the 
 last stroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all are 
 justly attributable to her assumption and exercise of 
 this single principle. The rule of the War of 1756 
 was the root, from which all the rest are but suckers^ 
 still at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. 
 
 In the last decrees of France and Spain, her own in- 
 genious fiction is adopted ; and under them, every neu- 
 tral vessel that submits to English search, has been car- 
 ried into an English port, or paid a tax to the English 
 Government is declared denationalized ^ that is to have 
 lost her national character, and to have become Eng- 
 lish property. This is cruel in execution ; absurd 
 in argument. To refute it were folly, for to the un- 
 derstanding of a child it refutes itself. But it is the 
 reasoning of British Jurists. It is the simple applica- 
 tion to the circumstances and powers of France, of 
 the rule of the war of 1756. 
 
 I am not the apologist of France and Spain ; I have 
 no national partialities ; no national attachments but 
 to my own country. I shall never undertake to justify 
 or to palliate the insults or injuries of any foreign 
 power to that country which is dearer to me than life. 
 If the voice of Reason and of Justice could be heard 
 by France and Spain, they would say — you have done 
 wrong to make the injustice of your enemy towards 
 neutrals the measure of your own. If she chastises 
 with whips do not you chastise with Scorpions. — 
 Whether France would listen to this language, 1 know 
 not. The most enormous infractions of our rights 
 hitherto committed by her, have been more in menace 
 than in accomplishment. The alarm has been justly 
 great ; the anticipation threatening ; but the amount 
 of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can we 
 say ? If we attempt to raise our voices, her Minister 
 has declared to Mr. Pinckney that she will not hear. 
 The only reason she assigns for her recent orders of 
 Council is, that France proceeds on the same princi- 
 ples. It is not by the light of blazing temples, and 
 amid the groans of women and children perishing in 
 the ruins of the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at 
 
24 
 
 Copenhagen, that we can expect our remonstrancS 
 against this course of proceeding will be heard. 
 
 Let us come to the third and last of the causes of 
 complaint, which are represented as so frivolous and 
 so unfounded — " the unfortunate affair of the Chesa- 
 peake." The orders of Admiral Berkley, under which 
 this outrage was committed, have been disavowed by 
 his Government. General professions of a willingness 
 to make reparation for it, have been lavished in pro- 
 fusion ; and we are now instructed to take these pro- 
 fessions for cndeaiiours ; to believe them sincere, be- 
 cause his Britannic Majesty sent us a special envoy ; 
 and to cast the odium of defeating these endeavours 
 upon our own government. 
 
 I have already told you, that I am not one of those 
 who deem suspicion and distrust, in the highest order 
 of political virtues. Baseless suspicion is, in my esti- 
 mation, a vice, as pernicious in the management of 
 public affairs, as it is fatal to the happiness of domestic 
 life. When, therefore, the British Ministers have 
 declared their disposition to make ample reparation 
 for an injury of a most atrocious character, committed 
 by an officer of high rank, and, as they say, utterly 
 without authority I should most readily believe them, 
 were their professions not positively contradicted by 
 facts of more powerful eloquence than words. 
 
 Have such facts occurred ? I will not again allude to 
 the circumstances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his 
 mission at such a precise point of time, that his Com- 
 mission and the orders of Council of llth November, 
 might have been signed with the same penful of ink. 
 The subjects were not immediately connected with 
 each other, and his Majesty did not chuse to associ- 
 ate distinct topics of negotiation. The attack upon 
 the Chesapeake was disavowed ; and ample reparation 
 was withheld only, because with the demand for satis- 
 faction upon that injury, the American Government 
 had coupled a demand for the cessation of others ; a- 
 like in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had re- 
 paration really been intended, would it not have been 
 offered, not in vague and general terms, but in precise 
 and specific proposals ? Were any such made ? None. 
 
2i 
 
 JBut it is said Mr. Munroe was restricted from negotia- 
 ting upon this subject apart ; and therefore Mr. Rose 
 was to be sent to Washington ; charged with this 
 single object ; and without authority to treat upon 
 or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose arrives— 
 The American government readily determine to treat 
 upon the Chesapeake affair, separately from all others ; 
 but before Mr. Rose sets his foot on shore, in pursuance 
 of a pretension made before by Mr. Canning, he con- 
 nects with the negotiation, a subject far more distinct 
 from the butchery of the Chesapeake, than the general 
 impressment of our seamen, I mean the Proclamation, 
 interdicting to British ships of war, the entrance of our 
 harbours. 
 
 The great obstacle which has always interfered in the 
 adjustment of our differences with Britain, has been that 
 she would not acquiesce in the only principle upon which 
 fair negotiation between independent nations can be con- 
 ducted, the principle of reciprocity, that she refuses the 
 application to us of the claim which she asserts for her- 
 self. The forcible taking of men from an American 
 vessel, was an essential part of the outrage upon the 
 Chesapeake. It was the ostensible purpose for which 
 that act of war unproclaimed, was committed. The 
 President's Proclamation was a subsequent act, and was 
 avowedly founded upon many similar aggressions, of 
 which that was only the most aggravated. 
 
 If then Britain could with any colour of reason claim 
 that the general question of impressment should be laid 
 out of the case altogether, she ought upon the principle 
 of reciprocity to have laid equally out of the case, the 
 proclamation, a measure so easily separable from it, and 
 in its nature merely defensive. When therefore she 
 made the repeal of the Proclamation an indispensible 
 preliminary to all discussion upon the nature and extent 
 of that reparation which she had offered, she refused to 
 treat with us upon the footing of an independent power. 
 She insisted upon an act of self-degradation on our part, 
 before she would even tell us, what redress she would 
 condescend to grant for a great and acknowledged 
 wrong. This was a condition which she could not but 
 know to be inadmissible, and is of itself proof nearly 
 
2S 
 
 conclusive that her Cabinet never intended to make fo'F 
 that wrong any reparation at ah. 
 
 But this is not all — It cannot be forgotten that when 
 that atrocious deed was committed, amidst the general 
 burst of indignation which resounded from every part of 
 this Union, there were among us a small number of per- 
 sons, who upon the opinion that Berkley's orders were 
 authorized by his Government, undertook to justify 
 them in their fullest extent — These ideas probably first 
 propagated by British official characters, in this Country, 
 were persisted in until the disavowal of the British Gov- 
 ernment took away the necessity for persevering in them, 
 and gave notice where the next position was to be taken. 
 This patriotic reasoning hovrever had been so satisfac- 
 tory at Halifax, that complimentary letters were received 
 irom Admiral Berkley himself highly approving the 
 spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking how 
 easily Peace, between the United States and Britain 
 might be preserved, if /Ac? measure of our national rights 
 could be made the prevailing standard of the Country. 
 
 When the news arrived in England, although the gen- 
 eral sentinient of the nation was not prepai-ed for the for- 
 mal avowal and justification of this unparalleled aggres- 
 sion, yet there were not wanting persons there, ready to 
 claim and maintain the right of searching national ships 
 for deserters — It was said at the time, but for this we 
 must of course rest upon the credit of inofficial authority, 
 to have been made a serious question in the Cabinet 
 Council ; nor was its determination there ascribed to 
 the eloquence of the gentleman w ho became the official 
 organ of its communication — Add to this a circum- 
 stance, which without claiming the irrefragable credence 
 of a diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the com- 
 mon sense of mankind ; that in all the daily newspapers 
 known to be in the ministerial interest, Berkley was justi- 
 fied and applauded in every variety of Ibrm that publica- 
 tion could assume, excepting only that of official Procla- 
 mation. — The only part of his orders there disapproved 
 was the reciprocal offer which he made of submitting his 
 own ships to be searched in return — that was very un- 
 equivocally disclaimed — The ruffian right of superior 
 force, \^•as the solid base upon which the claim was as- 
 
2f 
 
 serted, and so familiar was this argument grown to the 
 jcasuists of British nalioijal Jurisprudence, that the right 
 of a British man of war to search an American frigate, 
 was to them a self-evident proof against the right of the 
 American frigate to search the British man of war. 
 The same tone has been constantly kept up, until our 
 accounts of latest date ; and have been recently further 
 invigorated by a very explicit call for war w'nh the 
 United States, which they contend could be of no possi- 
 ble injury to Britain, and which they urge upon the 
 ministry as affording them an excellent opportunity to 
 accomplish a dismemberment of this Union. — These 
 sentiments have even been avowed in Parliament, where 
 the noblemin who moved the address of the house of 
 Lords in ans^^^er to the king's speech, declared that the 
 right of searching national ships, ought to be maintained 
 against the Americans, and disclaimed only with respect 
 to European sovereigns. 
 
 In the mean time Admiral Berkley, by a court mar- 
 tial of his owii subordinate officers, hung one of the men 
 taken from the Chesapeake, and called his name Jenkin 
 Ratford. — There was, according to the ans^ver so fre- 
 quently given by the Lords of the Admiralty, upon ap- 
 plications for the discharge of impressed Americans, ?w 
 such man on board the ship. The man thus executed 
 had been taken from the Chesapeake by the name of 
 Wilson. It is said that on his trial he was identified by 
 one or two witnesses who knew him, and that before he 
 was turned oiff he confessed his name to be Ratford and 
 that he was born in England — But it has also been said 
 that Ratford is now living in Pennsylvania — and after 
 the character which the disavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
 own government has given to his conduct, what confi- 
 dence can be claimed or due to the proceedings of a 
 court martial of his associates lield to sanction his pro- 
 ceedings. — The three other men had not e\'en been de- 
 manded in his orders — They \Aere taken by the sole au - 
 thority of the British searching lieutenant, after the sur- 
 render of the Chesapeake. — There was not the shadow 
 of a pretence before the court martial that they were 
 British subjects, or born in any of the British dominions. 
 Yet by this court martial thc)^ Avere i^entenced to suffej 
 
death. They were reprieved from execution, only up- 
 on condition of renouncing their rights as Americans by 
 voluntary service in the king's ships — They have never 
 been restored. — To complete the catastrophe with which 
 this bloody tragedy was concluded, Admiral Berkley 
 himself in sanctioning the doom of these men — -thus ob- 
 tained — thus tried — ^and thus sentenced, read them a 
 grave moral lecture on the enormity of their crime, in 
 its tendency to provoke a war between the United 
 States and Great Britain. 
 
 Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by liis govern- 
 ment — amidst all these professions of readiness to make 
 reparation, not a single mark of the slightest disapproba- 
 tion appears ever to have been manifested to that officer. 
 His instructions were executed upon the Chesapeake in 
 June — Rumours of his recall have been circulated here — • 
 But on leaving the station at Halifax in December, he 
 received a complimentary address from the colonial as- 
 sembly, and assured them in answer, that he had no of- 
 ficial information of his recall. — From thence he went to 
 the West Indies ; and on leaving Bei-muda for England 
 in February was addressed again by that colonial gov- 
 ernment, in terms of high panegyric upon his energy, 
 with manifest allusion to his atchievement upon th^ 
 Chesapeake. 
 
 Under all these circumstances, without applying any 
 of the maxims of a suspicious policy to the British pro- 
 fessions, I may still be permitted to believe that their 
 ministry never seriously intended to make us honourable 
 reparation, or indeed any reparation at all for that " un- 
 fortunate aifair. '.' 
 
 It is impossible for any man to form an accurate idea 
 of the British policy towards the United States, without 
 taking into consideration the state of parties in that gov- 
 ernment ; and the views, characters and opinions of the 
 individuals at dieir helm of State — -A liberal and a hostile 
 policy towards America, are among the strongest marks 
 of distinction between the political systems of the rival 
 statesmen of that kingdom — -The liberal party are recon- 
 ciled to our Independence ; and though extremely tena- 
 cious of every right of their own country, are systemati- 
 cally disposed to preserve peace with the United States. 
 
 
Their opponents harbour sentiments of a very different 
 description — Their sy stern is coercion — ^Their object 
 the recovery of their lost dominion in North America — 
 This party now stands high in power — Although Ad- 
 miral Berkley may never have received written orders 
 from them for his enterprize upon the Chesapeake, yet 
 in giving his instructions to the squadron at Norfolk, he 
 knew full well under \vhat administration he was acting. 
 Every measure of that administration towards us since 
 that time has been directed to the same purpose — To 
 break do^^■n the spirit of our national Independence. 
 Their purpose, as far as it can be collected from tlieir 
 acts, is to force us into war with them or with 
 their enemies ; to leave us only the bitter alternative of 
 their vengeance or their protection. 
 
 Both these parties are no doubt willing, that we 
 should join them in the war of their nation against 
 France and her allies — The late administration would 
 have dra^vn us into it by treaty, the present are at- 
 tempting it by compulsion. The former w^ould have 
 admitted us as allies, the latter will have us no other- 
 wise than as colonists. Qn the late debates in Parlia- 
 ment, the lord chancellor freely avowed that the orders 
 of Council of 11th. November were intended to make 
 America at last sensible of the policy of joining Eng- 
 land against France. 
 
 This too. Sir, is the substantial argument of Mr. 
 Pickering's letter. — The suspicions of a design in our 
 own administration to plunge us into a war widi Britain, 
 I never have shared. Our administration have every 
 interest and every motive that can influence the conduct 
 of man to deter them from any such purpose. Nor have 
 I seen any thing in their measures bearing the slightest 
 indication of it. But between a design of v\ ar w ith Eng- 
 land, and a surrender of our national freedom for the 
 sake of war vvilh the rest of Europe, there is a material 
 difference. This is the polic}- no\v^ in substance recom- 
 iuended to us, and for which the interposition of the 
 commercial States is culled. For this, not only are all 
 ihe outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very 
 assertion of our rights is to be branded with odium. — 
 impressment — Neutral trade — Bj'itish taxation — Every 
 
50 
 
 tiling' that can dislinguish a state of national freedom from 
 a state of national vassalage, is to be surrendered at dis- 
 cretion. In tlic face of every fact we are told to believe 
 every profession — In the midst of every iiuhgnity^ we are 
 pointed to Britisli protection as our only shield against 
 the universal conqueror. Every phantom of jealousy 
 and fear is evoked — Theimageof France with a scourge 
 in her hand is impressed into the service, to lash us into 
 the refuge of obedience to Britain — insinuations are 
 even made that if Britain "with her thousand ships of 
 war," has not destroyed our commerce, it has been ow- 
 ing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in 
 her name with the " destruction of our fairest cities." 
 
 Not one act of hostility to Britain has been committed 
 by us, she has not a pretence of that kind to alledge — 
 But if she will w^age war upon us, are we to do nothing 
 in our own defence ? If she issues orders of universal 
 plunder upon our commerce, arc we not to withhold it 
 from her grasp ? Is American pillage one of those rights 
 which she has claimed and exercised until w^e are fore- 
 closed from any attempt to obstruct its collection ? For 
 what purpose are we required to make tliis sacrifice of 
 every thing that can gi\e valour to the name of freemen, 
 this abandonment of the A'ery right of self-preservation ? 
 Is it to avoid a war ? — Alas ! Sir, it does not offer even 
 this plausible plea for pusillanimity — -For, as submission 
 would make us to all substantial purposes British colo- 
 nies, her enemies would unquestionablv treat us as such, 
 and after degradhig ourselves into voluntajy servitude 
 to escape a war with her, we should incur inevitable war 
 with all her enemies, and be doomed to share the desti- 
 nies of her conflict ^\ith a u oild in arms. 
 
 Between this unqualified submission, and cfiensive; 
 resistance against the \\ar upon maritime neutrality wag- 
 ed by the concurring decrees of all the great belligerent 
 powers, the Embargo was adopted, and has been hiiherto 
 continued. So far was it from being dictated by France, 
 that it \\'as calculated to withdraw, and has withdrawn 
 from within herreachall the means of compulsion which 
 lier subsequent decrees would have put in her posses- 
 sion. It has added to the motives both of France and 
 England, for preserving peace with us, and has diminish- 
 
51 
 
 ed their inducements to war. It has lessened their fca- 
 |)acities of inflicting injury upon us, and given us some 
 preparation for resistance to them — It has taken from 
 their violence the lure of interest — It has dashed the 
 philter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is dis- 
 tressing to ourselves — that it calls for the fortitude of a 
 people, determined to maintain their rights, is not to be 
 denied. But the only alternative was between that and 
 war. Whether it will yet save us from that calamity, 
 cannot be determined, but if not, it will prepare us for 
 the further struggle to which we may be called. Its 
 double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for 
 war, in its operation upon both the belligerent rivals, is 
 the great advantage, which more than outweigh all its 
 evils. 
 
 If any statesman can point out another alternative, I 
 am ready to hear him, and for any practicable ex- 
 pedient to lend him every possible assistance. But 
 let not that expedient be, submission to trade under 
 British licences, and British taxation. We are told that 
 even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the 
 British dominions, to Africa and China, and with the col- 
 onies of France, Spain, and Holland. I ask not how much 
 of this trade would be left, \v hen our intercourse with 
 the whole continent of Europe being cut off would leave 
 us no means of purchase, and no market for sale ? — I 
 ask not, what trade we could enjoy with the colonies of 
 nations with which we should be at war ? I ask not 
 how long Britain would leave open to us avenues of 
 trade, which even in these very orders of Council, she 
 boasts of leaving open as a special indulgence ? If we 
 yield the principle, we abandon all pretence to national 
 sovereignty — To yearn for the fragments of trade which 
 might be left, would be to pine for the crumbs of com- 
 mercial servitude — The boon, which we should humili- 
 ate ourselves to accept from British bounty, would soon 
 be withdrawn. Submission never yet sat boundaries to 
 encroachment. From pleading for half the empire, we 
 should sink into supplicants for life — We should sup- 
 plicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fall, freemen — If 
 we must perish, let it be in defence of our rights. 
 
32 
 
 l*o conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any uGcessit^ 
 for the extraordinary interference of the commercial 
 States, to controul the general Councils of the nation. — 
 If any interference could at this critical extremity of our 
 affairs have a kindly effect upon our common welfare, it 
 would be an interference to promote union and not divi- 
 sion — to urge mutual confidence, and not universal dis- 
 trust — to strengthen the arm and not to relax the sinews 
 of the nation. Our suffering and our dangers, though 
 differing perhaps in degree, are universal in extent. — 
 As their causes are justly chargeable, so their removal 
 is dependent not upon ourselves, but upon others. But 
 while the spirit of Independence shall continue to beat 
 ill unison with the pulses of the nation, no danger will 
 be truly formidable — Our duties are, to prepare with 
 concerted energy, for those which threaten us, to meet 
 them without dismay, and to rely for their issue upon 
 Heaven. 
 
 I am, with g^6at respect and attachment, 
 
 Dear Sir, your friend and humble servant, 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 Hon, Harrison Gray Otis. 
 
 f. V