Glass. 
 Book 
 
 JLu>7 
 
I 3^ 
 
 : 13=5" 
 
/ 
 / 
 
 AN 
 
 EXPOSITION 
 
 TilK CAUSES AND CHARACTER 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LATE WAR. 
 
 ■ 
 
 £ Attributed lo the pen of Mr. Secretary Dallas] 
 
 WWW 
 
 ft HATEVER may be the termination of the negotiations at^ftent, 
 the despatches of the American commissioners, which have been com- 
 municated by the President of the United States to the Congress-, during 
 the present session, will distinctly unfold, to the attentive 1 and impartial of 
 all nations, the objects and dispositions of the parties to the present war. 
 The United States, relieved by the general pacification of the treaty 
 of Paris, from (he danger of actual sufferance, under the evils which had 
 compelled them to resort to arms, have avowed their readiness to resume 
 the relations of p^ace and amity with Great Britain, upon the simple and 
 single condition of preserving their territory and their sovereignty, entire 
 and unimpaired. Their desire '.fp°ace, indeed, "upon terras of reciproc- 
 ity, consistent with the rights of all parlies, as sovereign and independent 
 nations,"* has not, at any time, been influenced by the provocations of 
 an unprecedented course, of hostilities ; by the incitements of a successful 
 campaign ; or by the agitations which have seemed again to threaten the 
 tranquillity of Europe. 
 
 But the British government, after inviting "a discussion with the gov- 
 ernment of America, for the conciliatory adjustment of the differences sub- 
 sisting between the two states, with an earnest desire on their part (as it 
 was alledged) to bring them to a favorable issue, upon principles of a per- 
 fect reciprocity, not inconsistent with the established maxims of public law, 
 and with the maritime rights of the British empire ;"f and after ''expressly 
 disclaiming any intention to acquire an increase of territory ,"| have per- 
 emptorily demanded, as the price of peace, concessions calculated merely 
 for their own aggrandizement, and for the humiliation of their adversary. 
 At one time, they proposed as their sine qua won, a stipulation that the 
 Indians inhabiting the country of the United States, within the limits 
 established by the treaty of 17S3, should be included as the allies of 
 Great Britain [a party to that treaty] in the projected pacification ; and 
 that definite boundaries should be settled for the Indian territory, upon a 
 basis, which would have operated to surrender, to a number of Indians, 
 not, probably, exeedinga few thousands, the rights of sovereignty as well 
 as of soil, over nearly one third of the territorial dominions of the United 
 States, inhabited by more than one hundred thousand of their citizens. § 
 And more recently, (withdrawing, in eftect, that proposition) they have 
 
 * See Mr. Monroe's letter to Lord Castlcreagh, dated January, 1814 
 
 •j- See Lord Castlereagh's letter to Mr Monroe, dated the 4tli"of November, 1813. 
 
 4 See t!ie American despatch, dated the 12th of August, 1814. 
 
 § ^ee the American despatches, dated Hie 16th and 10th of Angus', 1814; the note 
 oft] British commissioners, dated the 19th of August, 1814 ; the note ot'the American 
 commissioners, dated the 21st of August. i8l4 ; the note of the Hritisli commissioners, 
 dated the 4th of Se itecaber, 1814 ; the note of the American commissioners, ot the 9th 
 of September, 1814 ; the note of the British commissioners, dated the !9th of Septem- 
 ber, 8 ' 4 ; tli" note of the American commissioners, dated the *26th of Septet- *r, 1 8 • 4 ; 
 the note ol the British coimnissionefa^kted the 8th oi' October, 1S1 I; and the uoU of 
 lite American commissionei 6, of !hs 1MI' f >(.!< 1> r, t8i*. 
 
 llfat^iated 
 
 * • 
 
2 
 
 offered to trout on the liasis of the uti possidetis; when by the operations 1 
 oflhe war, they had obtained the military possession of an important parti 
 of the siat.' of Massachusetts, whieh, it was knowu, couhl never be the 
 Bubjeet ofaeession, consistently with the honor and faith of the American, 
 government. 11 Thus it is obvious, that Great Britain, neither regarding 
 "the principles of a perfect reciprocity," nor the rule of her owu practice 
 and professions, lias indulged pretentions which could only lie heard in or- 
 der to be rejected. The alternative, either vindictively to protract the 
 war. or honorably to end it, has been fairly given to her option ; but she 
 wants the magnanimity to decide, while her apprehensions are awakened] 
 for the result of the eongress at Vienna, and her hopes are flattered, by 
 the schemes of conquests in America. 
 
 Tmkhf. are periods in the transactions of every country, as well as in 
 the life of every individual, when self-examination becomes a duty of the 
 highest moral obligation : when the government of a free people, driven 
 from the path of peace, and baffled in every effort to regain it, may resort 
 for consolation, to the conscious rectitude of its measures ; and, when an 
 appeal to mankind, founded upon truth and justice, cannot fail to engage 
 those sympathies, by which even nations are led to participate in the fame 
 and fortunes of each other. The United States, under these impressions, 
 are neither insensible to the advantages, nor to the duties of their pecu- 
 liar situation. They have but recently, as it were, established their in- 
 dependence ; and the volume of their national history lies open, at a 
 "lance, to every eye. The policy of their government, therefore, what- 
 ever it has been, in their foreign, as well as in their domestic relations, 
 it is impossible to conceal ; and it must be difficult to mistake. If the 
 assertion, that it has been a policy to preserve peace and amity with all 
 the nations of the world he doubted, the proofs are at hand. If the 
 assertion that it has been a policy to maintain the rights of the United 
 States, but at the same time, to respect the rights of every other nation, 
 be doubted, the proofs will be exhibited. If the assertion, that it has 
 been a policy to act impartially towards the belligerent powers of Europe, 
 he doubted, the proofs will be found on record, even in the archives of 
 England and of France. And if, in line, the assertion, that it has been a 
 policy, by all honorable means, to cultivate with Great Britain, those 
 senjiments of mutual good will, which naturally belong to nations, con- 
 nected by the ties of a common ancestry, an identity of language, and a 
 similarity of manners, be doubted, the proofs will be found in that patient 
 forbearance, under the pressure of accumulating wrongs, which marks 
 I he period of almost thirty years, that elapsed between the peace of 178S 
 and the rupture of 1S12. 
 
 The United States had just recovered, under the auspices of their pres- 
 ent constitution, from the debility which their revolutionary struggle had 
 produced, when t he convulsive movements of France excited throughout 
 the civilized world the mingled sensations of hope and fear: of admira- 
 tion and alarm. The interest which those movements would, in them- 
 drives, have excited, was incalculably increased, however, as soon as 
 (ireal Britain became a party to the first memorable coalil ion against 
 France, and assumed the character of a belligerent power; for, it was 
 obvious, that the distance of the scene would no longer exempt the United 
 States from the influence and the evils of the European conflict. On the 
 one hand, their government was connected with France, by treaties of al- 
 liance and commerce: and the services which that nation had rendered 
 to the cause of American independence, had made such impressions upon 
 the public mind, as no virtuous statesman could rigidly condemn, and the 
 
 Sl4 ; aud 
 
 •f 
 
3 
 
 -most rigorous statesman would havesought in vain to efface. On the oth- 
 er hand, Greal Britain, leaving the treaty of 1783 unexecuted, forcibly 
 retained the American posts upon the northern frontier; and slighting 
 everv overture to place the diplomatic and commercial relations of the 
 ■two countries, upon a fair and friendly foundation,* seemed to contem- 
 plate the success of the American revolution, in a spirit of uuextinguisha- 
 ble animosity. Her voice had, indeed, been heard From Quebec and Mon- 
 treal, instigating the savages to war'.f Her invisible arm was felt in the 
 defeat of Gen. Harmar,^ and Gen. St. Clair,§ and even the victory of 
 Gen. Wayne,|| was achieved in the presence of a fort which she had 
 erected, far within the territorial boundaries of the United States, to stim- 
 ulate and countenance the barbarities of the Indian warrior.*} 
 
 Yet, the American government, neither yielding to popular feeling, 
 mor acting upon the impulse of national resentment, hastened to adopt the 
 policy of a strict and steady neutrality; and solemnly announced that 
 policy to the citizens at home, and to the nations abroad, by the procla- 
 mation of the 22d of April, 1793. Whatever may have been the trials 
 of its pride, and of its fortitude ; whatever may have been the imputations 
 upon its fidelity and its honor, it will be demonstrated in the sequel, that 
 the American government, throughout the European contest, and amidst 
 all the changes of the objects, and the parties, that have been involved in 
 that contest, has inflexibly adhered to the principles which were thus, 
 authoritatively, established, to regulate the conduct of the United States. 
 
 It was reasonable to expect that a proclamation of neutrality, issued 
 under the circumstances which have been described, would command the 
 -confidence and respect of Great Britain, however offensive it might prove 
 to France, as contravening, essentially, the exposition which she was anx- 
 ious to bestow upon the treaties of commerce and alliance. Rut experience 
 has shown, that the confidence and respect of G. Britain are not to be ac- 
 quired by such acts of impartiality and independence. Under every admin- 
 istration of the American government, the experiment has been made, and 
 the experiment has been equally unsuccessful : for it was not more effectu- 
 ally ascertained in 1812, than at antecedent periods, that an exemption from 
 the maritime usurpation and the commercial monopoly of G. Britain, could 
 only be obtained upon the condition of becoming an associate in her enmi- 
 ties' and her wars. While the proclamation of neutrality was still in the 
 view of the British minister, an order of June 8, 1793, issued from the cabi- 
 net, by virtue of which " all vessels loaded wholly, or in part, with corn, 
 flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the 
 armies of France," were required to be carried, forcibly, into England; 
 and the cargoes were either to be sold there, or security was to be given, 
 that they should only be sold in the ports of a country, in amity with his 
 Britannic Majesty.** The moral character of an avowed design to inflict 
 famine upon the whole of the French people, was, at that time, properly 
 estimated throughout the civilized world ; and so glaring an infraction of 
 neutral rights, as the British order was calculated to produce, did not es- 
 cape the severities of diplomatic animadversion and remonstrance. But 
 this aggression was soon followed by another of a more hostile cast. In 
 the war of 1756, Great Britain had endeavored to establish the rule, that 
 neutral nations were not entitled to enjoy the benefits of a trade with the 
 
 * See Mr. Adams' correspondence. 
 
 {■ See the speeches of Lord Dorchester. 
 
 * On the waters of the Miami of the lake, on the 21st of October, 1790. 
 § At Fort Recovery, on the 4th of November, 1791. 
 
 II On the Miami of the lakes, in August, 1794. 
 
 «I See the correspondence between Mr Randolph, the American secretary ot state, 
 and Mr. Hammond, the British plenipotentiary, dated Mpy and June, 1794. 
 
 "* See the order in council of the 8th of June, 1793, and the remonstrance of the 
 American government. 
 
\ 
 
 t'(t!onies of a belligerent power. Prom which, in Ihe season of peace, lliey 
 were excluded by the parent state. The rule stands without positive sun- 
 port from any general authority <>n public l;\w. If it be true, thai some 
 treaties contain stipulations, by which Ihe parlies expressly exclude each 
 ot ber from ihe commerce or tin ir respective colonies : and if be true, that 
 the ordinances of a particular state, often provide for ihe exclusive en- 
 juyment of its colonial commerce; still Great Britain cannot be author- 
 ized to dcihice the rule of th ■ v ar of 1756, by implication, from such trea- 
 ties and sucli ordinances, while it is not true, that the rule forms a part. 
 of the law of nations; nor that it has been adopted bj any other govern- 
 ment : nor that even Great Britain herself has uniformly practised upon 
 the rule : since its appli -ation Mas unknown from the war of 1750, until 
 the French war <»!' 1792, iai inning the entire period of the American Mar. 
 Let it up, argumentative!}', allowed, however, thai Great Britain possess- 
 ed the right, as well a* the power, to revive and enforce the rule; yet, 
 the lime and the manner of exercising the power, would afford ample 
 cause for reproach. The citizens of the United States had openly en- 
 gaged in an extensive trade with the French islands in the West-Indies, 
 ignorant of the alledged existence of the rule of the war of 1756, or un- 
 apprised of any intention to call it into action, when the order of the 6th 
 of November, 1793, was silently circulated among the British cruisers, 
 consigning to legal adjudication, w all vessels loaden with goods, the pro- 
 duce of any colony of France, or carrying provisions or supplies, for the 
 use of any such colony."'* A great portion of the commerce of the United 
 Slates Mas thns annihilated at a blow; the amicable dispositions of the 
 government were again disregarded and contemned; the sensibility of the 
 nation was excited to a high degree of resentment by the apparent trea- 
 chery of the British order : and a recourse to reprisals, or to war, for in- 
 demnity and redress, seemed to be unavoidable. But the love of justice 
 h; d established the law of neutrality ; and the love of peace taught a 
 lesson of forbearance. The American government, therefore, rising 
 superior to the provocations and tlie passions of the day, instituted a spe- 
 cial mission, t» represent at the court of London, the injuries and indig- 
 nities which it had suffered : "to vindicate its rights with firmness, ami 
 to cultivate peace with sincerity."! The immediate-result of tins mis- 
 sion, w;:^ a ti ealy of amity, commerce, and navigation between the United 
 States and Great Britain, which whs signed by the negoeiators on the 19th 
 ol .November, i794, and, finally ratified. Mill: the consent of the Senate, in 
 the year t' 95 : But both the mission and its result, serve, also, to dis- 
 play the independence and the impartiality of the American government, 
 in asserting its rights and performing its duties equally unawed and un- 
 biassed i>\ the instruments ol belligerent power or persuasion. 
 
 On the foundation of this treaty the United States, in a pure spirit of 
 good \iiiL and confidence, raised' the hope and the expectation, that the 
 marl me usurpations of Great Britain wonld cease to annoy them ; that 
 all doubtful claims of jurisdiction would be suspended : and that even the 
 exercise of an incontestible right would.be so modified to as to present 
 neither insult, por outrage, nor inconvenience, to their flag, or to their com- 
 merce. Bui the hnpeand Ihe expectation of the United States have been 
 fat all} disappointed. Some relaxation in Ihe vigor, without any altera- 
 tion in the principle, of Ihe order in council of the 6th of November, 1798, 
 
 M;| * introdi I by the subseqm nl orders of the Sth of January, i79-t, and 
 
 the 20th of Jam i he ratification of tho treaty of 4794, 
 
 " Ml1 ' the •' rded by 'he treaty of Amiens, in 1802, thecom- 
 
 ni ' , '' '" Led Kates continued to be the prey of British cruisers 
 
 and privateers, und ; the adjudicating patronage of the British tribunals. 
 
 s "' '■ ''■ ' ■ ■ 6ili of Nov rober, 1793. 
 
 -• ib tin Rcnnti of the 1 6ih of April, 1794, nominating M?. 
 
 •ay ;i S < p\i j cxtm< idinnrj tu !. 
 
6 
 
 Another grievance, however, assumed at this epoch, a farm and magni- 
 tude, which cast a shade over tiie social happiness, as well as the politi- 
 cal independence of the nation. The merchant vessels of the United 
 States were arrested on the high sens, while in the prosecution of dis- 
 tant voyages : considerable numbers of their crews were impressed into 
 the naval service of Great Britain ; llie commercial adventures of the 
 owners were often, consequently, defeated : and the loss of property, the 
 embarassments of trade and navigation, and the scene of domestic afflic- 
 tion became intolerable. This grievance (which constitutes an import nut 
 surviving cause of the American declaration of war) was early, and lias 
 heeti incessently, urged upon the attention of the British government. 
 Even in the year 1792, they were told of "the irritation that it had ex- 
 cited ; and of the difficulty of avoiding to make immediate reprisals on 
 their seamen in the United* States."* „ They were told "that so many in- 
 stances of the kind had happened, that it was quite necessary that they 
 should explain themselves on the subject, and be led to disavow and pun- 
 ish such violence, which had never been experienced from any other na- 
 tion."! And they were told "of the inconvenience of such couduct, and 
 of the impossibility of letting it go nn, so that the British, ministry should 
 he made sensible of the necessity of punishing the past, and preventing the 
 future."| But after the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation, had 
 been ratified, the nature and extent of the grievance became stili more 
 manifest ; and it was clearly and firmly presented to the view of the 
 British government, as leading unavoidably to discord and war between 
 the two nations. They were told, "that unless they would come to some 
 accommodation which might ensure the American seamen against this 
 oppression, measures would be taken to cause the inconvenience lo be 
 equally felt on both sides. "§ They were told, "that the impressment of 
 American citizens, to serve on board of British armed vessels, was not 
 only an injury to the unfortunate individuals, but it naturally excited cer- 
 tain emotions in the breasts of the nation to whom they belonged, and of the 
 just and humane of every country : and that an expectation was indulged 
 that orders would be given, that the Americans so circumstanced should 
 be immediately liberated, and that the British officers should in future 
 abstain from similar violences. "|] They were told, "that the subject was 
 of much greater importance than had been supposed: and that instead 
 of a few, and those in many instances equivocal cases, t lie American min- 
 ister at the court of London had, in nine months [part of the years 1796 
 and 17 1 J7] made applications for the discharge of two hundred and seven- 
 ty-one seamen, who had in most cases, exhibited such evidence, as to satisfy 
 him that they were real Americans, forced into the British service, and 
 persevering generally, in refusing pay and bounty. ''If They were told, 
 "that if the British government had any regard to the rights of the United 
 States, any respect for the nation, and placed any value on their friend- 
 ship, it would faciliate the means of relieving their oppressed citizens."** 
 They were told that "the British naval officers often impressed Swedes, 
 Danes, and other foreigners, from the vessels of the United States ; that 
 they might with as much reason, rob American vessels of the property or 
 
 * See the letter of Mr. Jefferson, secretary of stale, to Mr. Pinckney, minister at 
 London, riaterl 11th of June, 1792. 
 
 ■j" See the letter of Mr. J efterson, secretary of state, to Mr. Pinckney, minister at 
 London, dated the J 2th of October, 1792. 
 
 i See the letter from the sume to the same, d: ted the Glh of Ts'ov. 1792. 
 
 § See the letter from Mr. 1 inckney, minister at London, to the secretary of state, da- 
 ted 13th March, 1793. 
 
 Ji See the note of Mr. Jay, envoy extraordinary, to lord Grenville, dated the 30th 
 July. 1794. 
 
 *[ See the letter of Mr. King, minister a* London, to the secretary of state, dated the 
 13th <f April, 1797. 
 
 ** See the letter from Mr. Pickering, secretory of state, to Mr. King, minister at Lon- 
 don, dated the 10th September, 17'J6. 
 

 
 merchandize of Sisedes, Danes and Portuguese, as sieze and detain in their 
 service, the subjects of those nations found on board American vessels : 
 and that the president was extremely anxious to have tliis business of 
 impressing placed on a reasonable Tooting."* And they were told, "that 
 the impressment of American seamen was an injury of very serious mag- 
 nitude, which deeply affected the feelings and honor of the nation ; that no 
 right had been asserted to impress the natives of America ; yet that they 
 wore impressed : they were dragged on board British ships of war, with 
 the evidence of citizenship in their hands, and forced by violence there to 
 serve, until conclusive testimonials of their birth could be obtained; that 
 many must perish unrelieved, and all were detained a considerable time 
 in lawless and injurious confinement ; that the continuance of the practice 
 must inevitably produce discord between two nations, which ought to be 
 the friends of each other ; and that it was more advisable to desist from, 
 and to take effectual measures to prevent an acknowledged wrong, than by 
 perseverance in that wrong, to excite against themselves the well-founded 
 resentments of America, and force the government into measures, which 
 may very possibly terminate in an open rupture.'"! 
 
 Such were the feelings and the sentiments of the American govern- 
 ment, under every change of its administration, in relation to the British 
 practice of impressment ; and such the remonstrances addressed to the 
 justice of Great Britain. It is obvious, therefore, that this cause, inde- 
 pendent of every other, has been uniformly deemed a just and certain 
 cause of war; yet the characteristic policy of the United fttates still pre- 
 vailed: remonstrance was only succeeded by negociation ; and every as- 
 sertion of American rights, was accompanied with an overture, to secure 
 in any practicable form, the rights of Great Britain.} Time seemed, how- 
 ever, to render it more aud more difficult to ascertain and fix the stand- 
 ard of British rights, according to the succession of the British claims. 
 The right of entering aud searching an American merchant ship, for the 
 purpose of impressment, was, for a while, confined to the case of British 
 deserters : and even so late as the month of February, 1800, the minister 
 of his Britannic majesty, then at Philadelphia, urged the American gov- 
 ernment, "to take into consideration, as the only means of drying up 
 pvery source of complaint, and irritation, upon that head, a proposal 
 which he had made two years before, in the name of his Majesty's gov- 
 ernment, for the reciprocal restitution of deserters."^ But this project 
 of a treaty wan then deemed inadmissible, by the president of the United 
 States, and the chief officers of the executive departments of the govern- 
 ment, whom lie consulted for the same reason, specifically, which, at a 
 subsequent period, induced the president of the United States, to with- 
 hold his approbation from the treaty negoeiated by the American minis- 
 ters at Loudon, in the year I80f> ; namely; " that it did not sufficiently 
 provide against the impressment of American seamen ;"|| and " that it is 
 better to have no article, and to meet the consequences, than not to enu- 
 merate merchant vessels on the high seas, among the things not to be 
 forcibly entered in search of deserters. "if But the British claim, expand- 
 
 * Sec llie letter from tlie same to Hie same, dated the 26th of October. 1796. 
 
 j ^<-<- tlie letter from Mr Marshal, bi oretary of state [now obief justice of the United 
 
 lo Mi- King, mi ister at London, dated the 20th September, 1800. 
 
 -.. particularly, Mr. King's propositions to iord GrenviHe, and lord Hawkesbnry, 
 
 ol thelSlli nl \|»-.i. tror, thcl5tbof March, 1799, the 25th of Feb 1801, and July 1 S 1 :>. 
 
 § Sec Vi. Listou's note to Mr Pickering, the secretary of state, dated the 4th of 
 
 Fel y, I ■ 
 
 I Srr [he opinion of Mr. Pickering, secretary of s'ate, enclosing a plan of a treaty, 
 rtiited the 3d ol Ma) 1 80t), and the opinion of Mr. Wolcott, secretary of the treasury, 
 dated the 1 kth of Ipril, 1800 
 
 * See the opinion ol Mr. Stoddert, secretary of the navy dated the 23d of April, 
 
 and flic opinion of Mr. Lee, attorney general, dated the2Gth of February, and tin 
 SOihof \\ i-il, 1800, 
 
sng with singular elasticity, was soon found to include a right to enter 
 American vessels on the high seas, in order to st --arch for, and seize all 
 British seamen ; it next embraced the case of every British subject : and 
 finally, in its practical enforcement, it has been extended to every mariner, 
 who could not prove upon the spot, that he was a citizen of the United 
 ►States. 
 
 "While ^he nature of the British claim was thus ambiguous and fluctu- 
 ating, the principle to which it was referred, for justification and support, 
 appeared to be, at once, arbitrary and illusory. It was not recorded in 
 any positive code of the law of nations ; il was not displayed in the ele- 
 mentary works of the civilian ; nor had it ever been exemplified in the 
 maritime usages of any other country, in any other age. In truth, it was 
 the offspring of the municipal law of Great Britain alone ; equally 
 operative in a time of peace, and in a time of war ; and under all circum- 
 stances, inflicting a coersive jurisdiction, upon the commerce and naviga- 
 tion of the world. 
 
 For the legitimate rights of the belligerent powers, the United States 
 had felt and evinced a sincere and open respect. Although they had market! 
 a diversity of doctrine among the most celebrated jurists, upon many of the 
 litigated points of the law of war: although they had formerly espoused, 
 with the example of the most powerful government of Europe, the prin- 
 ciples of the armed neutrality, which were established in the year 1780, 
 Upon the basis of the memorable declaration of the empress of all the 
 Russias; and although the principles of that declaration have been in- 
 corporated into all their public treaties, except in the instance of the trea- 
 ty of 1~94< : yet, the United States, still faithful to the pacific and impar- 
 tial policy which they professed, did not hesitate, even at the commence- 
 ment of the French revolutionary war, to accept and allow the exposition 
 of the law of nations as it was then maintained by Great Britain ; and. 
 consequently, to admit, upon a much contested point, that the property of 
 her enemy, in their vessels, might be lawfully captured as prize of war.* 
 It was, also, freely admitted, that a belligerent power had a right, with 
 proper cautions, to enter and search American vessels, for the goods of 
 an enemy, and for articles contraband of war ; that, if upon a search such 
 goods or articles were found, or if, in the course of the search, persons in 
 the military service of the enemy were discovered, a belligerent had a 
 right of transhipment and removal ; that a belligerent had a right, in 
 doubtful cases, to carry American vessels to a convenient station, for 
 further examination ; and that a belligerent had a right to exclude Ameri- 
 can vessels from ports and places, under the blockade of an adequate 
 nuval force. These rights the law of nations might reasonably, be deem- 
 ed to sanction ; nor has a fair exercise of the powers necessary for the 
 enjoyment of these rights, been, at any time, controverted, or opposed, by 
 the American government. 
 
 But, it must he again remarked, that the claim of Great Britain was 
 not to be satisfied by the most ample and explicit recognition of t lie law 
 of war, for the law of war treats only of the relations of a belligerent to 
 his enemy, while the claim of Great Britain embraced, also, the relations 
 between a sovereign and his subjects. It was said, that every British 
 subject was bound by a tie of allesiance to his sovereign, which no lapse 
 of time, no change of place, no exigency of life, could possibly weaken, or 
 dissolve. It was said, that the British sovereign was entitled at oil peri- 
 ods, and on all occasions, to the services of his subjects. And it was said, 
 that the British vessels of war on the high seas, might lawfully and forci- 
 bly entei the merchant vessels of every other nation (for the theory of 
 these pretensions is not limited to the case of the United States, although 
 
 Seethe orrespond. nee o' the year 1792, between Mr Jefferson, secretary of state, 
 and the ministers of Great Britain and France. See also Mr J ffcrson'a letter to the 
 American minister at Paris, of the same year, requesting the recall of Mr. Genet. 
 
3 
 
 that case has been, almost exclusively, affected by their practical opera- 
 tion) for the purpose of discovering and impressing British subjects.* 
 The United States presume not to discuss the forms, or the principles, of 
 the governments established in other countries. Enjoying the right and 
 the blessing of self government, they leave, implicitly, to every foreign 
 nation, the choice of its social and political institutions. But, whatever 
 may be the form, or the principle, of government, it is an universal axiom 
 of public law, among sovereign and independent states, that every nation 
 is bound so to use and enjoy its own rights, as not to injure, or destroy, 
 the rights of any other nation. Say then, that the tie of allegiance cannot 
 be severed, or relaxed, as respects the .sovereign and the subject ; and say, 
 that the sovereign is, at all times, entitled to the services of the subject: 
 still, there is nothing gained in support of the British claim, unless it can, 
 also, be said, that the British sovereign has a right to seek and seize his 
 subject, while actually within the dominion, or under the special protec- 
 tion, of another sovereign state. 
 
 Fins will not, surely, be denominated a process of the law of nations, 
 for the purpose of enforcing the rights of war ; and if it shall be tolerated 
 as a process of the municipal law of Great Britain, for tiie purpose of en- 
 torcing the riqht of the sovereign to the service of his subjects, there is no 
 principle of discrimination, which can prevent its being employed in peace, 
 or in war. with all the attendant abuses of force and fraud, to justify the 
 seizure of British subjects for crimes, or for debts; and the seizure of 
 British property, for any cause that shall be arbitrarily assigned. The 
 introduction of these degrading novelties, into the m art ime code of nations, 
 it has been the arduous task of the American government, in the onset, to 
 oppose ; and it rests with all other governments to decide, how far their 
 honor and their interests must be eventually implicated, by a tacit acqui- 
 escence, in the successive usurpations of the British flag If the right 
 claimed by Great Britain be, indeed, common to all governments, the 
 ocean will exhibit, in addition to its many other perils, a scene of ever- 
 lasting sti ife and contention : but w hat other government has ever claimed 
 or exercised the right ? If the ri^ht shall be exclusively established as a 
 trophy of the naval superiority of Great Britain, the ocean, which has 
 been sometimes emphatically denominated, "the highway of nations/' 
 will be identified, in occupancy and use, with the dominions of the Brit- 
 ish crown; and every other nation must enjoy the liberty of passage, upon 
 the payment of a tribute or the indulgence of a license: but what nation 
 is prepared for this sacrifice of its honor and its interests ? And if. after 
 all, the right be now asserted (as experience too plainly indicates) for the 
 purpose of imposing upon the United States, to accommodate the British 
 maritime policy, a new and odious limitation of the sovereignty and inde- 
 pendence, which were acquired by the glorious revolution of (775, it is 
 not for the American government to calculate the duration of a war, that 
 shall be waged, in resistance of the active attempts of Great Britain, to 
 accomplish her project : for, where is the American citizen who would 
 tolerate a day's suhin ission to the vassalage of such a condition ? 
 
 lit i the American government has seen, with some surpri^j, the gloss, 
 which the Prince Regent of Great Britain, in his declaration of the toth 
 of January 1813, has condescended to bestow upon the British claim of a 
 ri^ht to impress men, on board of the merchant vessels of other nations; 
 and tin- retort, which he has ventured to make upon the conduct of the 
 United Slates, relative to the controverted doctrines of expatriation. Tiie 
 American lm\i •!•;• -at. like every other civilized government, avows the 
 principle am! indulges Jie practice of naturalizing foreigners. In Great 
 Britain, and throughout the continent of Europe, the laws and regulations 
 upon the subject, are not materially dissimilar, when compared with the 
 
 * S(.c tliu Ui itijli declaration of the lOlh of January, 1813. 
 
laws and regulations of the United States. The effect, however, of such 
 naturalization, upon the connexion, which previously subsisted between 
 the naturalized person, and the government of the country of his birth, 
 has been differently considered, at different times, and in different places. 
 Still, there are many respects, in which a diversity of opinion does not 
 exist, and cannot arise, it is agreed, on all hands, than an act of natur- 
 alization is not a violation of the law of nations ; and that, in particular 
 it is not in itself au offence agajnst the government, whose subjeel is nat- 
 uralized. It is agreed, that an act of naturalization creates between the 
 parties the reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection. It is 
 agreed, that while a naturalized citizen continues within the territory and 
 jurisdiction of his adoptive government, he cannot be pursued, or seized, 
 or restrained, by his former sovereign. It is agreed, that a naturalized 
 citizen, whatever may be thought of the claims of the sovereign of his 
 native country, cannot lawfully he withdrawn from the obligations of his 
 contract of naturalization, by the force or the seduction of a third power. 
 And it is agreed, that no sovereign can lawfully interfere, to take from 
 the service, or the employment of another sovereign, persons who are not 
 the subjects of either of the sovereigns engaged in the transaction. Beyond 
 the principles of these accorded propositions, what have the United States 
 done to justify the imputation of '"harboring British seamen, and of exer- 
 cizing an assumed right, to transfer the allegiance of British subjects ?'** 
 The United States have, indeed, insisted upon the right of navigating the 
 ocean in peace and safety, protecting all that is covered by their flag, as 
 on a place of equal and common jurisdiction to all nations; save where 
 the law of war interposes the exceptions of visitation, search and capture : 
 but, in doing this, they have done no wrong. The United States, in per- 
 fect consistency, it is believed, with the practice of all belligerent nations, 
 not even excepting Great Britain herself, have, indeed, announced a de- 
 termination, since the declaration of hostilities, to afford protection, as 
 well to the naturalized, as to the native citizen, who, giving the strongest 
 proofs of fidelity, should be taken in arms by the enemy ; and the British 
 cabinet well know that this determination could have no influence upon 
 those councils of their sovereign, which preceded and produced the war. 
 It was not, then, to "harbor British seamen,"' nor to "transfer the alle- 
 giance of British subjects;" nor to "cancel the jurisdiction of their legit- 
 imate sovereign;" nor to vindicate "the pretension that acts of naturali- 
 zation, and certificates of citizenship, were as valid out of their own 
 territory as within it ;"f that the United States have asserted the honor 
 and the privilege of their flag, by the force of reason and of arms. But 
 it was to resist a systematic scheme of maritime aggrandizement, which 
 prescribing to every other nation the limits of a territorial boundary, 
 claimed for Great Britain the exclusive dominion of the seas; and which, 
 spurning the settled principles of the law of war, condemned the ships and 
 mariners of the United States, to suffer, upon the high seas, and virtually 
 within the jurisdiction of their flag, the most rigorous dispensations of the 
 British municipal code, inflicted by the coarse and licentious hand of a 
 British press-gang. 
 
 / Thb injustice of the British claim and the cruelty of the British prac- 
 tice, have tested, for a series of years, the pride and the patience of the 
 American government ; but, still, every experiment was anxiously made, 
 to avoid the last resort of nations. The claim of Great Britain, in its 
 theory, was limited to the right of seeking and impressing its own subjects, 
 on board of the merchant vessels of the United States, although in fatal 
 experience, it has been extended (as already appears) to the seizure of 
 the subjects of every other power, sailing under a voluntary contract with 
 
 * See the British declaration of the 10th January, 1813. 
 
 t See these passages in the British declaration of the lQth of January, 1813. 
 
 2 
 
iO 
 
 the \merican merchants to the seizure of < lie naturalized citizens of tlw* 
 ! oil ''I States, sailing, also, under voluntary Contracts, which every for- 
 eign r. independent of any set of naturalization, is al liberty to form in 
 every country : and even to the seizure of the native citizens of the Unit- 
 ed Statesi Bailing on board the ships of their own nation, in the prosecu- 
 tion of a lawful commerce. The excuse for what has been unfeelingly 
 termed, ''partial mistakes, and occasional abuse,''* when the right of 
 impressment was practised towards vessels of the United States, is, in 
 the words of the Prince Regent's declaration, "a similarity of language 
 and manners;" but, was it not known, when this excuse was* offered to 
 the world, that the Russian, the Swede, the Dane, and the German : that 
 the Frenchman, the Spaniard, and the Portuguese; nay, that the African 
 and the Asiatic ; between whom and the people of Great Britain there 
 exists no similarity of language, manners or complexion; had been, 
 equally with the American citizen and the British subject, the victims of 
 the impress tyranny rf If, however, the excuse he sincere, if the real 
 objeet of the impressment be merely to secure to Great Britain, t lie naval 
 sen ices of her own subjects, and not to man her fleets, in every practica- 
 ble mode of enlistment, by right, or by wrong; and if a just and generous 
 government, professing mutual friendship and respect, may be presumed 
 t<i prefer the accomplishment even of a legitimate purpose, by means the 
 feast afflicting and injurious to others, why have the overtures of the 
 United States, offering other means- as effectual as impressment, for the 
 purpose avowed, to the consideration and acceptance of Great Britain, 
 been forever eluded or rejected? It has been offered, that the number of 
 men to be protected by an American vessel, should be limited by her ton- 
 Bge; that British officers should be permitted, in British ports, to enter 
 the vessel, in order to ascertain the number of men on board; and that, 
 in case of an addition to her crew, the British subjects enlisted should be 
 liable to impressment.! It was offered in the solemn form of a law, that 
 American seamen should he registered: that they should be provided 
 with certificates of citizenship. § and that the roil of the crew of every 
 vessel should be formally authenticated.^ It was offered, that no refuge 
 or protection should be given to deserters ; but- that, on the contrary, they 
 should be surrendered. |j It was "again and again ottered to concur in a 
 convention, which it was thought practicable to be formed, and which 
 should settle the questions of impressment, in a manner that would be safe 
 for England, and satisfactory to the United Slates. ^| It was offered, that 
 each party should prohibit its citizens or subjects from clandestinely con- 
 cealing or carrying away, from the territories or colonies of the other, 
 au> seamen belonging to the other party.** And. conclusively, it hay been 
 offered and declared by law, that "after the termination of the present 
 war, it should not be lawful to employ on board of any of the public or 
 private vessels of the- United States, any persons except citizens of ths 
 United States : and that no foreigner should be admitted to become a citi- 
 zen hereafter, who had not for the continued term of five years, resided 
 
 * See the British declaration ofilie 10th of January, 1813. 
 
 ibe letter of Mr Pickering, secretary of state, to Mr. Kins;, minister at London. 
 of the 26th of Oct iber, 1796; and the letter of Mr. Marshall, secretary of state, to Mr. 
 King, of the 20th September, 1800 
 
 the let i T nt Mr .leffcr son, Secret" ry of State, to Mr Pinckney, minister at 
 London, dated the llthofJtme, 1792, and the letter of Mr Pickering, Secretary of state 
 to Mr. King, minister al London, tinted the 8ih of June, 17 f j6. 
 See i te %.oi ol Congress, passed the 'ZHiU of May. 17<»6 
 
 ■ the letter of Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State to Mr. King, minister at Lon- 
 don, dated the Hth of June, 1796 
 
 1 See Ibi project oi a treaty on the Bubject, between Mr Pickering, secretary of state? 
 !r. Listen, the British minister at Philadelphia, in the year 1SOO. 
 ' •■• tin letter ol Mr. King, minister at L mdon, to the secretary of state, dated the 
 > . ol March, 1799 
 ' " >a rlie letter of Mr. King, to the teeretaty of state, dated in July, 1803. 
 
11 
 
 within the United States, without being, at any time, during the five 
 
 years, nut of the territory of the United States."* 
 
 It is manifest then, that such provision might he made by law; and 
 that such provision has ween repeatedly and urgently proposed ; as would, 
 in all future times, exclude from the maritime service of the United States 
 both in public and in private vessels, every person who could possibly be 
 claimed by Ureal Britain, as a native subject, whether he had, or had not 
 been naturalized in America. f Enforced by the same sanctions ami se- 
 curities, which are employed to enforce the penal code of Great Britain, 
 as well as the penal code of the United States, the provision \»onld aftord 
 the strongest evidence, that no British subject could he found in service 
 on board of an American vessel ; and, consequently, whatever might he 
 the British ri^ht of impressment, in the abstract, there would remain no 
 justifiable motive, there could hardly be invented a plausible pretext, to 
 exercise it, at the expense of the American right of lawful commerce. If, 
 too, as it has sometimes been insinuated, there would, nevertheless, be 
 room for frauds and evasions, it is Sufficient to observe, that the Ameri- 
 can government would always be ready to hwir. and to redress, every just 
 complaint: or, if redress were sought and refused, (a preliminary course^ 
 that ought never to have been omitted, but which Great Britain has never 1 
 pursued.) it would still be in the power of the British government to resort 
 to its own force, by acts equivalent to war, for the reparation of its 
 wrongs. But Great Britain has, unhappily, perce ; ved in the acceptance 
 of the overtures of the American government, consequences injurious to 
 her maritime policy; and, therefore, withholds it, at the expense of her 
 justice. She perceives, perhaps, a loss of the American nursery for her 
 seamen, while she is at peace ; a loss of the service of American crews, 
 while she is at war ; and a loss of many of those opportunities, which 
 have enabled her to enrich her navy, by the spoils of the American com- 
 merce, without exposing her own commerce to the risk of retaliation or 
 reprisals. 
 
 Thus, were the United States, in a season of reputed pease, involved 
 in the evils of a state of war ; and thus was the American flag annoyed 
 by a nation still professing to cherish the sentiments of mutual friendship 
 and respect, which had been recently vouched, by the faith of a solemn 
 treaty. But (he American government even yet abstained from vindicat- 
 ing its rights, and from avenging its wrongs, by an appeal to arms. It. 
 was not an insensibility to those wrongs ; nor a dread of British power; 
 nor a subserviency to British interests, that prevailed, at that period, in 
 the councils of the United States ; but, under all trials, the American 
 government abstained from the appeal to arms then as it has, repeatedly 
 since done, in its -oollisions with France, as well as with Great Britain, 
 from the purest love of peace, while peace could be rendered compatible 
 with the honor and independence of the nation. 
 
 During the period, which has hitherto been more particularly contem- 
 plated (from the declaration of hostilities between Great Britain and 
 France in the year 1792, until the short-lived pacification. ot the treaty of 
 Amiens in 1802) there were not wanting occasions, to test the consistency 
 and the impartiality of the American government, by a comparison of its 
 conduct towards Great Britain, with its conduct towards other nations. 
 The manifestations of the extreme jealousy of the French government, 
 and of the intemperate zeal of its ministers near the United States, were 
 co-eval with the proclamation of neutrality ; but after the ratification of 
 the treaty of London, the scene of violence, spoliation, and coutumely, 
 
 * See the /Vet of Congress, passed on the 3<1 of March, 1813. 
 
 f See the letter of instructions from Mr Monroe, secretary of state, to the plenipoten- 
 tiaries for treating of peace with Great Britain, under the mediation of the emperov- 
 Alexander, dated the 15th of April, 1813. 
 
18 
 
 opened by Fiance, nj)f»n the United Slates, became such, as to adir.it, 
 perhaps, of no parallel, except in the cotemporaneons scenes which were 
 exhibited bj the injustice of her great competitor. The American gov* 
 erum ■ eases, on the same pacitie policy; in the same 
 
 sjHiii . ) iati< ne and forbearance ; but with the same determination, also 
 lej sndence of the nation. When, therefore, 
 even eoncili itor; 1 mm baa failed, and when two successive missions of 
 peace hud been item i usly repulsed, tne American government, in 
 the year i?ii . annulled its treaties with France, and waged a maritime 
 v ir a inst that nation, for the defence of its citizens, and of its com- 
 merce, passing on the hi ;li seas, '">ut as soon as the hope was conceived, 
 ot'a satisfactory change in the dispositions of the French government, the 
 American government i astened t.i send another mission 10 France; and 
 a convention, signed in the year 1800, terminated the subsisting differences 
 between the tw a countries. 
 
 Nob were the United States able, during the same period, to avoid a 
 collision with the government of Spain, upon many important and crit- 
 ical questions of boundary and commerce; of Indian warfare, and mari- 
 time spoliation. Preserving, however, their system of moderation, in the 
 assertion of their rights, a course of amicable discussion and explanation 
 produced mutual satisfaction; and a treaty of friendship, limits and nav- 
 igation, was formed in the year 1795, by which the citizens of the United 
 States acquired a lii^ht, for the space of three years, to deposite their 
 men'. at. discs and effects in the port of New Orleans; with a promise, 
 either thai the enjoyment of that right should be indefinitely coutinued, or 
 ;!ior pari of the banks of the Mississippi should be assigned for 
 an equivalent establishment* But, when, in the year 1802, the port of 
 New Orleans was abruptly closed against the citizens of the United States, 
 without an assignment of any other equivalent [dace of deposite, the har- 
 mony of the two countries was again most seriously endangered ; until the 
 Spanish government, yielding to the remonstrances of the United States, 
 disavowed the act of the intendant of New Orleans, and ordered the right 
 of deposite io be reinstated, on the terms of the treaty of 1795. 
 
 '. he effects produce,!, even by a temporary suspension of the right of 
 deposite at New Orleans,' upon the interests and feelings of the nation, 
 natttrall] suggested to the American government, the expediency of guard- 
 ing against their recurrence, by the acquisition of a permanent property 
 in the province of Louisiana. The minister of the United States at 
 Madrid, »a*, accordingly instructed to apply to the government of Spain 
 upon the subject; and. on the 4th of May, 1803, he received an answer, 
 stating, that "by the retrocession made to France of Lonsisiana, that 
 power regained the province, with the limits it had, saving the rights ac- 
 quired by other powers; and that the United States could address them- 
 selves to the French government, to negotiate the acquisition of territo- 
 ries, which might suit 1 !»••• r interest."* But before this reference, official 
 information of the same fuel had been received by Mr. Pinkney from the 
 court of Spain, in the month of March preceding, and the American 
 government, having instituted a special mission to negociate the purchase 
 of Louisiana from France, or from Spain, whichever should he its sove- 
 reign, the purchase was, accordingly, accomplished, for a valuable con- 
 sideration, filial was punctually paid) by the treaty concluded at Paris, 
 on the 80th of April. 1808. 
 
 The American government has not seen, without some sensibility, that 
 a transaction, accompanied by such circumstances of genera! publicity, 
 and of scrupulous good faith, has been denounced by the Prince Regent, 
 
 from Don Pedro Ovallos, the minister of Spain, to Mr. C. finkney, 
 lerof the United States, dated the 4th of Muy, 1803, from whioh the passage 
 literally translated, 
 
id 
 
 ill his declaration of the loth of January, lb 13, ns a proof of the "nngen- 
 erous conduct*' of the United States towards Spain.* in amplification of 
 
 the royal charge, the British negotiators at Client, have presumed to 
 impute ''the acquisition of Louisiana, by the United States, to a spirit of 
 aggrandizement, not necessary to their ow n security j" and to maintain 
 '•that the purchase was made against the known conditions, on which it 
 had been ceded by Spain to France ;"t that "in the lace of the protestation 
 of the minister of his catholic majesty at Washington, the President of 
 the United States ratified the treaty of purchase ;"{ and that "there was 
 good reason to believe, that many circumstances attending the transaction 
 were industriously concealed. "§ The American government cannot con- 
 descend to retort aspersions so unjust, in language so opprobrious; and 
 peremptorily rejects the pretension of Great Britain, to interfere in the 
 business of the United States and Spain : but it owes, nevertheless, to the 
 claims of truth, a distinct statement of the facts which have been thus 
 misrepresented, When the special mission was appointed to negotiate 
 the purchase of Louisiana from France, in the manner already mentioned, 
 the American minister, at London, was instructed to explain the objeet of 
 the mission ; and having made the explanation, he was assured by the 
 British government, "that the communication was received in good part; 
 no doubt was suggested of the right of the United States to pursue, separ- 
 ately and alone, the objects they aimed at; but the British government 
 appeared to be satisfied with the President's views, on this important 
 subject.'! As soon, too, as the treaty of purchase was concluded, before 
 hostilities were again actually commenced between Great Britain and 
 France, and previously, indeed, to the departure of the French ambassa- 
 dor from London, the American minister openly notified to the British 
 government, that a treaty bad been signed, "by which the complete sove- 
 reignty of the town and territory of New Orleans, as well as of ail Louis- 
 iana, as the same was heretofore possessed by Spain, had been actpiired 
 by the United States of America ; and that in drawing up tiie treaty, care 
 had been taken so to frame the same, as not to infringe any right of Great 
 Britain, in the navigation of the river Mississippi."^ In the answer of 
 the British government, it was explicitly declared by lord Hawkesbury, 
 "that he had received his majesty's commands to express tiie pleasure 
 with which his majesty had received the intelligence ; and to add, that his 
 majesty regarded the care, which had been taken so to frame the treaty as 
 not to infringe any right of Great Britain in the navigation of the Missis- 
 sippi, as the most satisfactory evidence of a disposition on the part of the 
 government of the United States, correspondent with that which his maj- 
 esty entertained, to promote and improve that harmony, which so happily 
 subsisted between the two countries, and which was so conducive to their 
 mutual benefit."** The world will judge, whether, under such circum- 
 stances, the British government had any cause, on its own account, to 
 arraign the conduct of the United States, in making the purchase of Lou- 
 isiana ; and, certainly, no greater cause w ill be found for the arraignment 
 on account of Spain. The Spanish government was apprised of the in- 
 tention of the United States to negotiate for the purchase of that province : 
 its ambassador witnessed the progress of the negociation at Paris: and 
 the conclusion of the treaty, on the 30th of April. 1803, was promptly 
 known and understood at Madrid. Yet, the Spanish government inter- 
 
 * See the Prince Regent's declaration of the 10th of January, 1813. 
 
 •J" See the note of the British commissioners, dated the 4th <S Sept 1814. 
 
 t See the note of the British commissioners, dated the 19th of Sept. i 814. 
 
 § See the note of the British commissioners, dated the 8th of October, 1814. 
 
 || See the letter from the secetary of state, to Mr. King, the American minister at 
 London, date.d the '29th of January, ?S03; and Mr. King's tetter to the secretary of state 
 dated the 28th of April, 1803 
 
 1f See the letter of Mr Kin^, to lord Haw kesburv dated the 1 5th of May, 1 803. 
 
 •• See the letter of lord Hawkesbury, to Mr. King, dated the 19th of May, 1803. 
 
14 
 
 posed no objection, no protestation, against the transaction, in Europe.; 
 ami it «as not until the mouth (it September, 1803, thai the Aoieriean 
 government heard, with surprise, from (he minister of Spain, at Wash- 
 ington, that his catholic majesty was dissatisfied with the cession of Lou- 
 isiana to the United States. Notwithstanding this diplomatic remon- 
 strance, however, the Spanish government proceeded to deliver the pos- 
 session of Louisiana to France, in execution of the treaty ot'St. Kdelfouso ; 
 saw France, by an almost simultaneous act. transfer the. possession to the 
 United States, in execution of l he treaty of purchase; and, finally* in- 
 structed the Marquis de Casa Vrojo, to present to the American govern- 
 ment, the declaration of the 13th of May, 1804, acting "by the special 
 or.ler of his sovereign," ''that the explanations, which the government of 
 France had given to his catholic majesty, concerning the sale of Louisia- 
 na to the United States, and the amicable dispositions, on the part of the 
 king, his master, towards these slates, had determined him to abandon 
 the opposition, which, at a prior period, and with the most substantial 
 motives, he had manifested against the transaction. '** 
 
 B t after this amicable and decisive arrangement of all differences, in 
 relation to the validity of the Louisiana purchase, a question of some em- 
 barrassment remained, in relation to the boundaries of the ceded territory. 
 This question, however, the American government always has been, and 
 always will be. willing to discuss, in the most candid manner, and to set- 
 tle upon the most liberal basis, with the government of Spain. It was 
 not, therefore, a fair topic, with which to inflame the prince regent's dec- 
 laration ; or to embellish the diplomatic notes of the British negociators 
 at Ghent. f The period has arrived, when Spain, relieved from her Eu- 
 ropean labors, may be expected to bestow her attention, more effectually, 
 upon the. state of her colonies ; and, acting with the wisdom, justice and 
 magnanimity, of which she has given frequent examples, she will find no 
 difficulty, in meeting the recent advances of the American government, 
 for an honorable adjustment of every point in controversy between the two 
 countries, without seeking the aid of British mediation, or adopting the 
 animosity of British councils. 
 
 But still the United Stales feeling a constant interest in the opinion of 
 enlightened and impartial nations, cannot hesitate to embrace the oppoiv 
 tunity, for representing, in the simplicity of truth, the events, by which 
 they have been led to take possession of a part of the Floridas, notwith- 
 standing the claim of Spain to the sovereignly of the same territory. In 
 the acceptation and understanding of the United States, the cession of 
 Louisiana embraced the country south of the Mississippi territory, and 
 eastward of the river Mississippi, and extending to the river Perdido ; 
 but '"their conciliatory views ; and their confidence in the justice of their 
 cause, and in the success of a candid discussion and amicable negotiation 
 with a just and friendly power, induced I hem to acquiesce in the tempo- 
 rary continuance of that territory, under the Spanish authority." When, 
 however, the adjustment of the boundaries of Louisiana, as well as a 
 reasonable indemnification, on account of maritime spoliations, ami the 
 suspension of the right of deposit at X. Orleans, seemed to be indefinitely 
 postponed, on the pari of Spain, by events which the U. Slates had not 
 contributed to produce, and could not control ; when a crisis had arrived 
 subversive of the order of things under the Spanish authorities, contra- 
 vening the views of both parlies, and endangering the tranquillity and se- 
 curity of the adjoining territories, by the intrusive establishment of a gov- 
 ernment, independent of Spain, as well as of the U. States: and when, 
 at a later period, there was reason to believe, that G. Britain, herself, de- 
 
 * Bee the letter of the Harqilia <1 • Case Yiujo, to the American secretary of state, dat- 
 ed the 15th of Way, 1804. 
 
 f See the i>rinrr regent's declaration of tl>e 10th of January, 1813. Seu the notes ei 
 the British eomisission.er.Sj dated 19th September, Htii Oeiober, 181 V. 
 
IP 
 
 signed to occupy the Florida)!, (aojtl she has, indeed, at-liially occupied 
 Pensacola, for hostile purposes,) the American government, without de- 
 
 parting from its respect for the rights of .Spain, and even consulting I lie 
 honor of that state, unequal, as she Uien uas, to the task of suppressing 
 the intrusive establishment, was impelled by the paramount principle of 
 self-preservation, to rescue its own rights from the impending, danger. 
 Hence, the United States in the year 1810, proceeding, step by step ac- 
 cording to the growing exigencies of the time, took possession of the 
 country, in which the standard of independence had been displayed, ex- 
 cepting such places as were held by a .Spanish force, hi the year 1811, 
 they authorized their president, by law, provisionally t<t accept of the 
 possession of East Florida from tin; local authorities, or to pre -occupy it 
 against the attempt of a foreign power to sieze it. In 1813, they obtain- 
 ed possession of Mobile, the only place then held by a Spanish force in 
 West Florida ; with a view to their own immediate security, but without 
 varying the questions depending between them and Spain, in relation to 
 that province. And in the year 18 14, the American commander, acting 
 under the sanction of the law of nations, but unauthorised by the orders 
 of his government, drove from Pensacola the British troops, who, in 
 violation of the neutral territory of Spain, (a violation which Spain, it is 
 believed, must herself resent, and vvould have resisted, if the opportunity 
 had occurred.) seized and fortified that station, to aid in military opera- 
 tions against the United States. But ail these measures of safety and 
 necessity were frankly explained, as they occurred, to the government of 
 Spain, and even to the government of Great Britain, antecedently to the 
 declaration of war, with the sincerest assurances, that the possession of 
 the territory thus acquired, "should not cease to be a subject of fair and 
 friendly negocialion and adjustment."* 
 
 The present review of the conduct of the United States, towards the 
 belligerent powers of Europe, will be regarded, by every candid mind, as 
 n necessary medium, to vindicate their national character, from the un- 
 merited imputations of the prince regent's declaration, of the 10th of 
 January, 1813 ; and not as a medium, voluntarily assumed, according 
 to the insinuations of that declaration, for the revival of unworthy 
 prejudices, or vindictive passions, in reference to transactions that 
 are past. The treaty of Amiens, which seemed to terminate the 
 war in Europe, seemed, also, to terminate the neutral sufferings of Amer- 
 ica ; but the hope of repose, was, in both respects, delusive and transient. 
 The hostilities which were renewed between Great Britain and France, 
 in the year 1803, were immediately followed by a renewal of the aggress- 
 ions of the belligerent powers, upon the commercial rights, and political 
 independence, of the United States. There were scarcely, therefore, an 
 interval, separating the aggressions of the first of the war, from the ag- 
 gressions of the second war ; and although, in nature, the aggressions of 
 continued to be the same, in extent, they became incalculably more des 
 tructive. It will be seen, however, that the American government, 
 inflexibly maintained its neutral and pacific policy, in every extremity 
 the latter trial, with the same good faith and forbearance, that, in the 
 former trial, had distinguished its conduct : until it was compelled to 
 choose, from the alternative, of national degradation, or national resis* 
 
 tance. And if Great Britain alone then became the object of the Ame- 
 
 » 
 
 " See the letter from the secretary of state, to Gov. Claiborne, and tne President's 
 proclamation, datt d the 27tli October, 1810. 
 
 See the proceedings oi the convention of Florida, transmitted to the secretary of state, 
 by the Governor of the Mississippi leritnry, in his letter of the 17th October, 1810 ; and 
 the answer of the secretary of state, dated the 15th of November, 1810. 
 
 See the letter of Mr. Morier, British charge d'affaires, to the secretary of state, dated 
 the 15th of December, 1810, and the secretary's answer. 
 
 See the correspondence between Vlr Monroe, and Mr. Foster, the British minister, 
 rn the months of ..Inly, September, and November, 1811. 
 
16 
 
 riean declaration of war, it will be seen, that (ireat Britain alone, had 
 obstinately closed t lie door of amicable negotiation. 
 
 The American minister at London, anticipating (he rupture between 
 Great Britain and France, bad obtained assurances from the British gov- 
 ernment, "that, in the event of war, the instructions given to their naval 
 officers should be drawn up with plainness and precision : and in general, 
 that the rights Of belligerents should be exercised in moderation, and with 
 due respect for those of neutrals."* And in relation to the important 
 subject of impressment, he had actually prepared for signature, with the 
 assent of Lord Haw kesbury and Lord St. Vincent, a convention to contin- 
 ue daring tive years, declaring, that '•no seaman, nor seafaring person, 
 should, upon the high setts, and without the jurisdiction of either party, 
 be demanded or taken out of any ship, or vessel, belonging to the citizens 
 or subjects of one of the parties, by the public or private armed ships, 
 or men of war, belonging to, or in the service of, the other party; and 
 that strict orders should be given for the due observance of the engage- 
 ment."! This convention, which explicitly relinquished impressments 
 from American vessels, On the high seas, and to which Ihe British minis- 
 ters had, at first, agreed. Lord St. Vincent was desirous afterwards to mod- 
 ify, '"stating, that on further reflection, he was of opinion, that the narrow 
 seas should be expressly excepted, they having been, as his lor.lship re- 
 marked, immemorially considered to be within the dominion of Great 
 Britain.' The American minister, however, "having supposed, from 
 the tenor of his conversations with Lord St. Vincent, that the doctrine of 
 mare claitsum would not be revived against the United States on this oc- 
 casion ; but that England would be content, with the limited jurisdiction, 
 or dominion, over the seas adjacent to her territories, which is assigned 
 by the law of nations to other states, was disappointed, on receiving Lord 
 St.Vincent's communication ; and chose rather to abandon the negociatiou, 
 than to acquiesce in the doctrine it proposed to establish."! But it was 
 still some satisfaction to receive a formal declaration from the British 
 government communicated by its minister at Washington, after the recom- 
 mencement of the war in Europe, which promised, in effect, to reinstate 
 the practice of naval blockades, upon the principles of the Jaw of nations ; 
 so that no blockade should be considered as existing, "unless in respect 
 of particular ports, which might be actually invested ; and, then, that the 
 vessels bound to such ports should not be captured, unless they had pre- 
 viously been warned not to enter them."| 
 
 All the precautions of the American government were, nevertheless, 
 ineffectual ; and the assurance, of the British government were, in no 
 instance, verified The outrage of impressment was again, indiscrimin- 
 ately, perpetrated upon the crew of every American vessel, and on every 
 sea. The enormity of blockades, established by an order in council, 
 without a legitimate object, and maintained by an order in council, with- 
 out the application of a competent force, was, more and more, developed. 
 The rule, denominated, "the rule of the war of 1756," was revived, in 
 an ail'ected style of moderation, but in a spirit of more rigorous execu- 
 tion. § The iives, the liberty, the fortunes, and the happiness, cf the 
 citizens of the United States," engaged in the pursuits of navigation and 
 commerce, were once more subjected to the violence and cupidity of the 
 British cruisers. And. in brief, so grievous, so intolerable, had the 
 afflictions of the nation become, that the people, with one mind, and one 
 
 * See the letter of Mr. Kins, to (lie secretary of state, dated the Kith of May, 1803. 
 
 | See the letter •f Mr. King, to the secretary of sta e, dated July, 180.3 
 
 i See the" letter ol Mr Merry, to the ecretary f state, dated the 1 2th of April. 
 1804, and the enclosed opy of a h-tterfrom Mr. Nepean, the secretary of lie admiralty, 
 \o Mr. Hammond. British under secretary of state for foreign atf rs, dated Jan. 5, 180*. 
 
 $ See the orders iu council ot the '2-itli of June, 1803, and the I7th of August, 1805. 
 
17 
 
 voice, called loudly upon their government, for redress and protection ;* 
 the congress oftlie United States, participating in the feelings and resent- 
 ments of the lime, urged upon the executive magistrate, the necessity of 
 an immediate demand of reparation from Great Britain ;t vvhile the same 
 patriotic spirit, which had opposed British usurpation in 1793, and 
 encountered French hostility in 1798, was again pledged, in every vari- 
 ety of form, to the maintenance of the national honor and independence, 
 during the more arduous trial thut arose in 1805. 
 
 Amidst these scenes of injustice, on the one hand, and of reclamation 
 on the other, the American government preserved its equanimity and its 
 firmness. It beheld much in the conduct of France, and of her ally, Spain, 
 to provoke reprisals. It beheld more in the conduct of Great Britain, 
 that led, unavoidably (as had often been avowed) to the last resort of 
 arms. It beheld in the temper of the nation, ail that was requisite to justify 
 an immedite selection of Great Britain, as the object of a declaration of 
 war. And it could not but behold in the policy of France, the strongest 
 motive to acquire the United States, as. an associate in the existing conflict. 
 Yet, these considerations did not then, more than at auy former crisis, 
 subdue the fortitude, or mislead the judgment, of the American govern- 
 ment ; but in perfect consistency with its neutral, as well as its pacific, 
 system, it demanded atonement, by remonstrances with France and Spain ; 
 and it sought the preservation of peace, by negociation with Great Britain. 
 
 It has been shown, that a treaty proposed, emphatically, by the Brit- 
 ish minister, resident at Philadelphia, ' k as the means of drying up every 
 source of complaint, and irritation, upon the head of impressment," was 
 "deemed utterly inadmissible,' by the American government, because it 
 did not. sufficiently provide for that object.^ It has, also, been shown, that 
 another treaty, proposed by the American minister, at London, was laid 
 aside, because the British government, while it was willing to relinquish, 
 expressly, impressments from American vessels, on the high seas, insisted 
 upon an exception, in reference to the narrow seas, claimed as a part of 
 the British dominion : aud experience demonstrated, that, although the 
 spoliations committed upon the American commerce, might admid of re- 
 paration, by the payment of a pecuniary equivalent ; yet, consulting the 
 honor, and the feelings, of the nation, it was impossible to receive satis- 
 faction for the cruelties of impressment, by any other means, than by an 
 entire discontinuance of the practice. When, therefore, the envoys ex- 
 traordinary were appointed in the year 1806 to negociate with the British 
 government, every authority was given, for the purposes of conciliation ; 
 nay, an act of congress, prohibiting the importation of certain articles of 
 British manufacture into the United States, was suspended, in proof of a 
 friendly disposition ;§ but it was declared, that "the suppression of im- 
 pressment, and the definition of blockades, were absolutely indispensa- 
 ble ;" and that, "without a provision against impressments, no treaty 
 should be concluded.*' The American envoys, accordingly, took care to 
 communicate to the British commissioners, the limitations of their powers. 
 Influenced, at the same time, by a sincere desire to terminate the differ- 
 ences between the two nations ; knowing the solicitude of their government, 
 to relieve its seafaring citizens from actual sufferance; listening, with 
 confidence, to assurances and explanations of the British commissioners, 
 iu a sense favorable to their wishes ; and judging from a state of infor- 
 
 * Seethe memorials of Boston, New-York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, &c. presented to 
 Congress in the end ofthe year 1805, and the beginning of the year 1806. 
 
 f ^ee the resolutions of the senate of the United States, ofthe 10th and 14th of Feb- 
 ruary , 1806 ; and the resolution ofthe house of representatives ofthe United States. 
 
 i See Mr, Liston's letter, to the secretary of state, dated the 4th of February, 1810 ; 
 and the letter of Mr. Pickering, secretary of state, to the president of the United States, 
 dated the 20ih of February, 1800. 
 
 § See the act of congress, passed the 18th of April, 1806; and the act suspending it 
 passed the 19th uf December, 1806. 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 ntalion, that gave no immediate cause to doubt the sufficiency of those as^ 
 surances and explanations ; the envoy s, rather than terminate (he nego- 
 eiation without anj arrangement, were willing to rely upon the efficacy of 
 a substitute, for a positive article in the treaty, to be submitted to the 
 consideration of their government, as this, according to the declaration of 
 the British commissioners, was the only arrangement, tliey were permit- 
 ted, at that time, to propose, or to allow. The substitute was presented 
 in the form of a note from the British commissioners to the American en- 
 voys, and contained a pledge, "that instructions had been given, and 
 should be repeated and enforced, for the observance of the greatest caution 
 in the impressing of British seamen ; that the strictest care should be 
 taken to preserve the citizens of the United States from any molestation, 
 or injury ; and that immediate and prompt redress should be afforded, 
 upon any representation of injury sustained by them."* 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as the treaty contained no provision against im- 
 pressment, and it was seen by the government, when the treat) was under 
 consideration lor ratification, that the pledge contained in the substitute 
 was not complied with, but on the contrary, that the impressments 
 were continued, with undiminished violence, in the American seas, so 
 long after the alleged date of the instructions* which were to arrest them ; 
 that the practical inefticacy of the substitute could not be doubted by the 
 government here, the ratification of the treaty was necessarily declined ; 
 and ii has since appeared, that after a change in the British ministry had 
 taken place, it was declared by the secretary for foreign affairs, that no 
 engagements were entered into, on the part of his majesty, as connected 
 with the treaty, except such as appear upon the face of it t 
 
 The American government, however, with unabating solicitude for 
 peace- urged an immediate renewal of the negociations on the basis of the 
 abortive treaty, until this course was peremptorily declared, by the Brit- 
 ish government, to be "'wholly inadmissible."'! 
 
 Bur independent of the silence of the proposed treaty, upon the great 
 topic of American complaint, and of the view which has been taken of 
 the projected' substitute : the contemporaneous declaration of the Liritish 
 commissioners, delivered by the command of their sovereign, and to which 
 the American envoys refused to make themselves a party, or to give the 
 slightest degree of sanction, was regarded by the American government, 
 as ample cause of rejection. In reference to the French decree, which 
 had ije-n issued at Berlin, on the 2tst of November, tSOti, it was declar- 
 ed, that if France should carry the threats of that decree into execution?. 
 and "if neutral nations, contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in 
 such usurpations, his majesty might, probably, be compelled, ho.vever 
 reluctantly, to retaliate, in his just defence, and to adopt, in regard to 
 the commerce of neutral nations with his enemies, the same measures, 
 which those nations should hive permitted to be enforced, against their 
 commerce with his subjects." "that his majesiy could not enter into the 
 stipulations of the present treaty, without an explanation from the Unit- 
 ed Stares of their intentions, or a reservation on the part of his majesty, 
 in the case abovementioned, If it should ever occur :" and ''that, with- 
 out a formal abandonment, or tacit relinquishment, of the unjust preten- 
 sions of France; or without such conduct and assurances upon the part 
 of the United States, as should give security to his majesty, that they 
 wool'' not submil to th»* French innovations, in the established system of 
 maritime law. his majesty would not consider himself bound, by the pres- 
 ent signature of his commissioners, to ratify the treaty, or precluded from. 
 
 * S <• tlie note of the British commissioners, flat d S:l> of November, 1806. 
 |- S,c Mr Cunning's teller to the American envoys, dated 27th October, 180Z 
 
 Sic ilio same letter. 
 
19 
 
 adopting such measures, as might seem necessary, for counteracting the 
 designs of the enemy."* 
 
 The reservation of power, to invalidate a solemn treaty at the pleas- 
 ure of one of the parties, and the menace of inflicting punishment upon 
 the United States, for the offences of another nation, pioved, in the 
 event, a prelude to the scenes of violence, which (ireat Britain was then 
 about to display, and which it would have been improper for the Ameri- 
 can negotiators to anticipate. For, if a commentary were wanting to 
 explain the real design of such conduct, it would be found in the fact, that 
 within eight days from the date of the treaty, and before it was possible 
 for the British government to have known the effect of the Berlin decree 
 on the American government; nay, even before the American government 
 had itself heard of that deree. the destruction of American commerce 
 was commenced by the order in council of the 7th of January, i807, which 
 announced, wk that no vessel should be permitted to trade from one port to 
 another, both which ports should belong to, or to be in possession of 
 France, or her allies : or should be so far under their control, as that 
 British vessels might not trade freely thereat.!" 
 
 During the whole period of tiiis negociation, which did not finally close, 
 Mntil the British government declared, in the month of October, 1S07, 
 that negociation was no longer admissible, the course pursued by the 
 British squadron, stationed more immediately on the American coast, was, 
 in the extreme, vexatious, predatory and hostile. The territorial juris- 
 diction of the United States, extending, upon the principles of the law 
 of nations, at least a league over the adjacent ocean, was totally disre- 
 garded and contemned. Vessels employed in the coasting trade, or in 
 the business of the pilot and the fisherman, were objects of incessant 
 violence ; their petty cargoes were plundered; and some of their scanty 
 erews were often, either impressed, or wounded, or killed, by the force of 
 British frigates. British ships of war hovered, in warlike display, upon 
 the coast; blockaded the ports of the U. States, so that no vessel could 
 enter, or depart, in safety ; ' penetrated the bays and rivers, and even 
 anchored in the harbors, of the United States, to exercise a jurisdiction 
 of impressment; threatened the towns and villages with conflagra- 
 tion, and wantonly discharged musketry, as well as cannon, upon 
 the inhabitants of an open and unprotected country. The neutrality 
 of the American territory was violated on every occasion ; and, at last, 
 the American government was doomed to suffer the greatest indignity, 
 which could be offered to a sovereign and independent nation, in the ever 
 memorable attack of a British fifty gun ship, under the countenance of 
 the British squadron, anchored within the waters of the United States, 
 upon the frigate Chesapeake, peaceably prosecuting a distant voyage. 
 The British government affected, from time to time, to disapprove and 
 eondemn these outrages ; but the officers who perpetrated them, were 
 generally applauded ; if tried, they were acquitted ; if removed from 
 the American station, it was only to be promoted in another station ; and 
 if atonement were offered, as in the flagrant instance of the frigate Ches- 
 apeake, the atonement was so ungracious in the manner and so tardy in 
 the result, as to betray the want of that conciliatory spirit, which ought 
 io have characterized it.| 
 
 Bur the American government, soothing the exasperated spirit of the 
 
 * See the note of the British commissioners, dated the 31st of December, 1806. See, 
 also, the answer o' Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, to that note. 
 
 f See he order in council of J nuary 7, 1807. 
 
 i See the evi lence of these facts reported to congr.ss in November, 1806_ 
 
 See the documents respecting captain Love, of the Driver ; and captain Whitby, of the 
 u"ander. . 
 
 See, *!so, the correspondence respecting the frigate Chesapeake, with Mr. Can- 
 ning, at London ; with Mr. Rose, at Washington ; and with Mr. Erskine, at Washington. 
 
SO 
 
 people, by a proclamation, which interdicted the entrance of all British 
 armed vessels, into the harbors and waters of the United stales,* neither 
 commenced hostilities against Great Britain; nor sought a defensive al- 
 liance with Prance : nor relaxed in its linn, but conciliatory, efforts, to 
 enforce the claims of justice, upon the honor of both nations. 
 
 The rival ambit on ot Great Britain and France, now, however, ap- 
 proached the consummation) which, involving the destruction of all neu- 
 tral rights, upon an avowed principle of action, could not fail to render 
 an actual state of war, comparatively, more sate, and more prosperous, 
 than the imaginary state of peace, to which neutrals were reduced. The 
 just and impartial conduct of a neutral nation, ceased to he its shield, and 
 its safeguard, when the conduct of the belligerent powers, toward each 
 other, became the only criterion of the law of war. The wrong com- 
 nfltted by one of the belligerent powers, was thus made the signal, for 
 the perpetration of a greater wrong by the oilier: and if the Ameri- 
 can government complained to both powers, their answer, although 
 it never denied the causes of complaint, invariably retorted an idle 
 and offensive inquiry, into the priority of their respective aggres- 
 sions ; or each demanded a course of resistance, against its antagonist, 
 which was calculated to prostrate the American right of self-govern- 
 ment, and to coerce the United States, against their interest and their 
 policy, into becoming an associate in the war. But the American gov- 
 ernment never did. and never can, admit, that a belligerent power, "in tak- 
 ing steps to restrain the violence of its enemy, and to retort upon them the 
 evils of their own injustice,"! is entitled to disturb, and to destroy, the 
 rights of a neutral power, as recognized and established, by the law of na- 
 tions. It was impossible, indeed, that the real features of the miscalled 
 retaliatory system, should be long masked from the world ; when Great 
 Britain, even in her acts of professed retaliation, declared, that France 
 was unable to execute the hostile denunciations of her decrees i\ and 
 when Great Britain herself unblushingly, entered into the same com- 
 merce with her enemy (through (he medium of forgeries, perjuries, and 
 licences) from which she had interdicted unoffending neutrals. The 
 pride of naval superiority ; and the cravings of commercial monopoly ; 
 gave, after all, the impulse and direction to the councils of the British 
 cabin ' : while the vast, although visionary, project? of France, furnish- 
 ed oeea«ions and pretexts, for accomplishing the onjeefs of those councils. 
 
 The British minister, resident at Washington, in the year 1804, hav- 
 ing distinctly recognize^, in the name of his sovereign, the legitimate 
 principles of blockade, the American government received, with some 
 surprise and solicitude, the successive notificati'nw, of the 9th of August, 
 180*, the 8th of April, t80f>, and. more particularly, of the Kith of May, 
 ISOfi, announcing, by the last notification, "n irlnckade of the coast, riv- 
 ers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both inclusive."^ 
 In none of the notified instances of blockade, w ere the principles, that 
 had been rf>co;;ni7.ed in 1804, adopted and pursued : and it will he recol- 
 lected by all Europe, that neither at the fine of the notification of the 
 IBth of "May, isor. : nor at the time of excepting the Elite and Ems, 
 from the operation of that notification :i| nor at any time during the con- 
 tinuance „f the French war. was there an adequate naval force, actually 
 applied by Great Britain, for the purpose of maintaining a blockade, 
 from the river Elbe, to the port of Brest. It was. then, in the language 
 of the day ''a mere paper blockade ;" a manifest infraction of the law of 
 
 * See the proclamation of the '2d of .Inly, 1R07. 
 t See the enter* in council of the 7th of January, 1807. 
 S i- Che order* in council of the 7th ol' January, iK07. 
 § See lord Harnwhy's note to Mr Monroe, dated the 'Hi. of August, 1R04 ; and Vfr. 
 J n\\ nntrs t« Mr Monroe, dated respectively the 8th of \pril and thr Ifith of May, 1806. 
 II See lord tiowick'a QOte lu Mr. Monroe, dated the 25ih September, ICO*. 
 
SI 
 
 nations ; anil an act of peculiar injustice to (lie United States, as the 
 only neutral power, against which it could practically operate. i>ut 
 whatever may have been the sense oi' the American government on the 
 
 occasion ; and whatever might be the dispositon, to avoid making this 
 the ground of an open rupture with Great Britain, the case assumed a 
 character of the highest interest, when, independent of its own injuri- 
 ous consequences, Fiance, in the Berlin decree of the 21 st of Novem- 
 ber, 1806. recited, as a chief cause for placing the British islands in a 
 state of blockade, "that Great Britain declares blockaded, places before 
 which she has not a single vessel of war ; and even places, which her 
 united forces would be incapable of blockading ; such as entire coasts, 
 and a whole empire : an unequalled abuse of the right of blockade, that 
 had no other object, than to interrupt the communications of different 
 nations : and to extend the commerce and industry of England, upon the 
 ruin of those nations.'* The American government aims not, and never 
 has aimed, at the justification, either of Great Britain, or of France, in 
 their career of crimination and recrimination : but it is of some impor- 
 tance to observe, that if the blockade of May, 1806, was an unlawful 
 blockade, and if the right of retaliation arose with the first unlawful 
 attack, made by a belligerent power, upon neutral rights, Great Britain 
 has yet to answer to mankind, according to the rule of her own acknowl- 
 edgement, for all the calamities of the retaliatory warfare. France, 
 whether right, or wrong, made the British system of blockade, the foun- 
 dation of the Berlin decree ; and France had an equal right with G. Brit- 
 ain, to demand from the United States, an opposition to every encroach- 
 ment upon the privileges of the neutral character. It is enough, how- 
 ever, on the present occasion, for the American government, to observe, 
 that it possessed no power to prevent the framing of the Berlin decree, 
 and to disclaim any approbation of its principles, or acquiescence in its 
 operations : for, it neither belonged to Great Britain, nor to France, to 
 prescribe to the American government, the time, or the mode, or the de- 
 gree, of resistance, to the indignities, and the outrages, with which each 
 of those nations, in its turn, assailed the United States. 
 
 But it has been shown, that after the British government possessed a 
 knowledge of the existence of the Berlin decree, it authorized the conclu- 
 sion of the treaty with the United States, which was signed, at London, 
 on the 31st of December, 1806, reserving to itself a power of annulling 
 the treaty, if France did not revoke, or if the United States, as a neutral 
 power, did not resist, the obnoxious measure. It has. also, been shown, 
 that before Great Britain could possibly ascertain the determination of the 
 United States, in relation to the Berlin decree, the Orders in Council of 
 the 7th of January, 1807, were issued, professing to be a retaliation against 
 France, "at a time when the fleets of France and her allies were them- 
 selves confined within their own ports, by the superior valor and discipline- 
 of the British navy,"f but operating, in fact, against the United States, 
 as a neutral power, to prohibit their trade "from one port to another, 
 both which ports should belong to. or he in the poesession of. France oi 
 her allies, or should be so far under their control, as that British vessels 
 might not trade freely thereat.'*! I; remains, however, to be stated, (ba- 
 it was not until the 13th of March, 1807, that the British minister, then 
 residing at Washington, communicated to the American government, in 
 the name of his sovereign, the Orders in Council of January, 1807, with 
 an intimation, that stronger measures would be pursued, unless the United 
 States should resist the operations of the Berlin decree { At the moment 
 the British government was reminded, "that within the period of those 
 
 * Seethe Rerlin decree of the 21st of November, 1806. 
 
 f See the Order in Council of the 7th of January, 1807. 
 
 t See Sir. Erskine'3 letter to the secretary of state, dated the 12th of March, 1807. 
 
great events, which continued to agitate Europe, instances had occurred* 
 in which the commerce of neutral nations, more especially of the United 
 States, had experienced the severest distresses from its own orders and 
 measures, manifestly unauthorized by the law of nations: assurances 
 were given, "that no culpable acquiesence on the part of the United States 
 would render them accessary to the proceedings of one belligerent nation, 
 through their rights of neutrality, against the commerce of its adversary :* ? 
 and the right of Great Britain to issue such orders, unless as orders of 
 blockade, to be enforced according to the law of nations, was utterly deni- 
 ed.* 
 
 Tins candid and explicit avowal of the sentiments of the American 
 government, upon an occasion, so novel and important in the history of 
 nations, did not. however, make its just impression upon the British cab- 
 iuet: for, without assigning any neyi provocation on t lie part of France, 
 and complaining, merely, that neutral powers had not been induced to 
 interpose, with effect, to obtain a revocation of the Berlin decree, (which, 
 however. Great Britain herself had affirmed to be a decree nominal and 
 inoperative.) the orders in council ol the llth of November, 1807. were 
 issued, declaring, "that all the ports and places of France and her allies, 
 or of any other country at war with his majesty, and all other ports or 
 places in Europe, from which although not al war with his majesty, the 
 British flag was excita!cd, and all ports or places in the colonies belonging 
 to his majesty's enemies, should, from thenceforth, he subject to the same 
 restrictions, in point of trade and navigation, as if the same were actually 
 blockaded by his majesty's naval forces, in the most strict and rigorous 
 manner :" that "all trade in articles which were the produce or manufac- 
 ture of the said countries or colonies, should be deemed and considered to 
 he unlawful :" but that neutral vessels should still be permitted to trade 
 with France from certain free ports, or through ports and places of the 
 British dominions.! To accept the lawful enjoyment of a right, as the 
 grant of a superior ; to prosecute a lawful commerce, under the forms of 
 •favor and indulgence; and to pay a tribute to Great Britain, for the 
 privileges of a lawful transit oti the ocean; were concessions, which G. 
 Britain was disposed, insidiously, to exact, by an appeal to the cupidity 
 of individuals, but which the United States could never yield, consistently 
 with the independence and the sovereignty of the nation. The orders in 
 council were, therefore, altered, in this respect, at a subsequent period \\ 
 but the general interdict of neutral commerce, applying more especially 
 to American commerce, was obstinately maintained, against all the force 
 of reason, of remonstrance, and of protestation, employed by the Ameri- 
 can government, when the subject was presented to its consideration, by 
 the British minister residing at Washington. The fact assumed as ihe 
 ? oasis of the orders in council, was unequivocally disowned: and it was 
 demonstrated, that so far from its being true, "that the United States 
 iiad acquiesced in an illegal operation of the Berlin decree, it was not 
 jven true, that at the date of the British orders of the llth of November, 
 '1807, a single application of that decree to the commerce of the United 
 States, on the high seas, could have been known to (he British govern- 
 ment ;" while the British government had been officially informed by the 
 American minister at London, "that explanations uncontradicted by any 
 overt act, had been given to the American minister at Paris, which justi- 
 fied a reliance, (hat the French decrwe would not be put in force against 
 the United States.' 1 
 
 The British orders of the llth of November, 1807, were quickly fol- 
 
 • Sec the •eeretary ol state'* letter to Mr F.rskine, dated the 90th of March, 1S07. 
 \ Bee i!m order* in council of the Ittli of Soremher, H07. 
 | Sec Mr Manning's letter to Mr Pinknev, 23d r elimary, 18'»8. 
 § S-l- Mr Rrskine'fl letter I i the Moretari of si ite dated the J-21 of Feb. 1808 ; a>-.r. 
 he answer of the secretary of stale, dated the -' 5 h of March, 1S08. 
 
33 
 
 Ibwed by the French decree of Milan, dated the lTth of December, I307 r 
 "which was said to be resorted to, only ill just retaliation of the barbar- 
 ous system adopted by England," and in which the denationalizing ten- 
 dency of the orders, is made the foundation of a declaration in the decree, 
 "that every ship, to whatever nation it might belong, that should have 
 submitted to be searched by an English ship, or to a voyage to England, 
 or should have paid any tux whatsoever to the English government, wan 
 thereby, and for thai alone, declared to be denationalized, to have for- 
 feited the protection of its sovereign, and to have become English prop- 
 erty, subject to capture, as good and Lawful prize : that the British islands 
 were placed in a state of blockade, both by sea aud land ; and every ship, 
 of whatever nation, or whatever the nature of its cargo might be, that 
 sails from (he ports of England, or those of the English colonies, and of 
 the countries occupied by English troops, and proceeding to England, or 
 to the English colonies, ur to countries occupied by English troops, should 
 be good aud lawful prize; but that the provisions of the decree should be 
 abrogated and null, in fact, as soon as the English should abide again by 
 the principles of the law of nations, which are, also, the principles of jus- 
 tice and honor.*** in opposition, however, to the Milan decree, as well 
 as to the Berlin decree, the American government strenuously and un- 
 ceasingly employed every instrument, except the instruments of vtar. It 
 acted precisely towards France, as it acted towards Great Britain, on 
 similar occasions ; but France remained, for a time, as insensible to the 
 claims of justice and honor, as Great Britain ; each imitating the other, 
 in extravagance of pretension, and in obstinacy of purpose. 
 
 When the American government received intelligence, that the orders 
 of the t lth of November, 1*807, had. been, under the consideration of the 
 British cabinet, and yvere actually prepared for promulgation, it was an- 
 ticipated, that France, in a zealous prosecution of the retaliatory yvar- 
 fare, would soon produce an act of, at least, equal injustice and hostility. 
 The crisis existed, therefore, at which the United States were compelled 
 to decide, either to withdraw their seafaring citizens, and their commer- 
 cial wealth, from the ocean, or to leave the interests of the mariner and 
 the merchant exposed to certain destruction ; or to engage in open and 
 active war. for tiie protection and defence of those interests. The prin- 
 ciples and the habits of the American government, were still disposed to* 
 neutrality and peace. In weighing the nature and the amount of the ag- 
 gressions, which had been perpetrated, or which were threatened, if there 
 yvere any preponderance to determine the balance, against one of the 
 belligerent powers, rather than the other, as the object of a declaration 
 of war ; it was against Great Britain, at least, upon the vital interest of 
 impressment, and the obvious superiority of her naval means of annoy- 
 ance. The French decrees yvere, indeed, as obnoxious in their formation. 
 and design as the British orders; but the government of France claimed 
 and exercised no right of impressment ; and the maritime spoliations of 
 France, were, comparatively retricted, not only by her own weakness on 
 the ocean, but by the constant and pervading vigilance of the fleets of lur 
 enemy. The difficulty of selection ; the indiscretion of encountering, at 
 once, both of* the offending powers ; and, above all. the hope of an early 
 return of justice, under the dispensations of the ancient public law, pre- 
 vailed in the councils of the American government; and it was resolved 
 to attempt the preservation of its neutrality and its peace ; of its-citizens, 
 and its resources; by a voluntary suspension of the commerce and navi- 
 gation of the United States. It is true, that for the minor outrages com- 
 mitted, under (he pretext of the rule of war of t756, the citizens of every 
 denomination had demanded from their government, in the year 1805, 
 protection and redress ; it is true, that for the unparallcd enormities of lh* 
 
 * Seo the Mitan <tecree of the 17th of December, ISO". 
 
3* 
 
 vcnr isor. t lit* citizens of every denomination again demanded from their 
 government protection and redress: but it is, also, a truth, conclusively 
 established by every manifestation of the sense of the American people, 
 as well as of their government, that any honorable means of protection 
 and redress* were preferred to the last resort of arms, Hie American 
 government might honorably retire, for a time, from the scene of conflict 
 and collision ; but it could no longer, with honor, permit its flag to be 
 insulted, its citizens to bvi enslaved, and its property to be plundered, on 
 the highway of nations. 
 
 Under these impressions, the restrictive system of the United States 
 was introduced. In December, IS07, an embargo was imposed upon all 
 American vessels and merchandise;* on principles similar to those, 
 which Originated ami regulated the embargo law, authorized to be laid by 
 th# President of the United .States, in the year 179+ : but soon afterwards 
 in. the genuine spirit of the poliey, that prescribed the measure, it was 
 declared bv law, 'that in the event of such peace, or suspension of hos- 
 tilities, between the belligerent powers of Europe, or such changes in 
 their measures affecting neutral commerce, as might render that of the 
 United States safe, in the judgment of the President of the United States, 
 he was authorized to suspend the embargo, in whole, or in part."f The 
 pressure of the embargo was thought, however, so severe upon every part 
 of the community, that the American government, notwithstanding the 
 neutral character of the measure, determined upon some relaxation ; and, 
 accordingly, the embargo being raised, as to all other nations, a system of 
 non-intercourse and non-importation was substituted in March, 1809, as 
 to Great Britain and France, which prohibited all voyages to the British 
 or French dominions, and all trade in articles of British or French product 
 or manufacture.^ But still adhering to the neutral and pacific policy of 
 the government, it was declared, "that the President of the United States 
 should be authorized, in case either France, or Great Britain, should so 
 revoke, or modify, her edicts, as that they should cease to violate the 
 neutral commerce of the United States, to declare the same by proclama- 
 tion ; after which the trade of the United States might be renewed with 
 the nation so doing.''§ These appeals to the justice and the interests of 
 the belligerent powers proving ineffectual ; and the necessities of the 
 country increasing, it was finally resolved, by the American government, 
 to take the hazards of a war; to revoke its restrictive system ; and to ex- 
 clude British and French armed vessels from the harbors and waters of 
 the United States ; but again, emphatically to announce, "that in case 
 either Great Britain or France should, before the 3d of March, 1811, so 
 revoke, or modify, her edicts, as that they should cease to violate the 
 neutral commerce of the United States; and if the other nation should 
 not, within three mouths thereafter, so revoke, or modify, her edicts, in like 
 mann t." the provisions of the non-intercourse and non-importation law 
 should, at the expiration of three months, be revived against the nation 
 refusing, or neglecting, to revoke, or modify, its edict. || 
 
 In the course, which the American government hud hitherto pursued, 
 relative to the belligerent orders and decrees, the candid foreigner, as well 
 ,\«, the patriotic citizen, may perceive an extreme solicitude, for the 
 preservation ofpeaee; hot, in the publicity, and impartiality, of the over- 
 ture, thai was thus spread before the belligerent powers, it is impossible, 
 that anj indication should be found, of foreign influence or control. The 
 overture was urged upon both nations for acceptance, at the same time, 
 
 ■ S.-c- the ael of congress, pasted tlie 22'l of December, 1807. 
 
 ■ 3e< (he :>«'t "i congress puased the 22d ot April, 1808 
 
 t s.-c the Bel of congress, passed the first dai of March, 1809. 
 $ Sr<- lie 1 1 ili taction of il>e !:<m sited nel of congress, 
 the «ci of congress, pa ted the- 1st of M:<y, 18i0. 
 
25 
 
 and in the same manner; nor was an intimation withheld, from either of 
 them, that "it might be regarded by the belligerent first accepting it, as 
 a promise to itself, and a warning to its enemy."* Each of the nations, 
 from the commencement of the retaliatory system, acknowledged, that its 
 measures were violations of public law; and each pledged itself to retract 
 them, whenever the other should set the example.f Although the Amer- 
 ican government, therefore, persisted in its remonstrances against the 
 original transgressions, without regard to the question of their priority, it 
 embraced, with eagerness, every hope of reconciling the interests of the 
 rival powers, with a performance of the duty which they owed to the neu- 
 tral character of the United States : and when the British minister, re- 
 siding at Washington, in the year 1809, affirmed, in terms as plain, and 
 as positive, as language could supply, "that he was authorized to declare, 
 that his Britannic majesty's orders in council of January and Nov. 1807, 
 will have been withdrawn, as respects the United States, on the 10th day 
 of June. 1809," the President of the United States hastened, with ap- 
 proved liberality, to accept the declaration as conclusive evidence, that 
 the promised fact would exist, at the stipulated period; and, by an im- 
 mediate proclamation, he announced, "that after the 10th day of June 
 next, the trade of the United States with Great Britain, as suspended by 
 the non-intercourse law, and by the acts of Congress laying and enforcing 
 an embargo, might be renewed "J The American government neither 
 asked, nor received, from the British minister, an exemplification of his 
 powers : an inspection of his instructions ; nor the solemnity of an order 
 in council; but executed the compact, on the part of the United States, 
 in all the sincerity of its own intentions ; and in all the confidence, which 
 the official act of the representative of his Britannic majesty, was calcu- 
 lated to inspire. The act, and the authority for the act, were, however, 
 disavowed by Great Britain ; and an attempt was made, by the successor 
 of Mr. Krskine, through the aid of insinuations, which were indignantly 
 repulsed, to justify the British rejection of the treaty of 1809, by referr- 
 ing to the American rejection of the treaty of 1806; forgetful of the es- 
 sential points of difference, that the British government, on the former 
 occasion, had been explicitly apprized by the American negotiators of 
 their defect of power ; and that the execution of the projected treaty had 
 not, on either side, been commenced. § 
 
 After this abortive attempt to obtain a just and honorable revocation 
 of the British orders in council, the United States were again invited to 
 indulge the hope of safety and tranquillity? when the minister of France 
 announced to the American minister at Paris, that, in consideration of the 
 act of the first of May, 1809, by which the congress of the United States 
 "engaged to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers, which 
 should refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals, he was authorized to 
 declare, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, and that 
 after the 1st of November, 1810, they would cease to have effect; it 
 being understood, that in consequence* of that, declaration, the English 
 should revoke their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of 
 blockade, which they had wished to establish ; or that the United States, 
 conformably to the act of congress, should cause their rights to be res- 
 pected by the English.")] This declaration, delivered by the official 
 
 * See the correspondence between the secretary of state, anil the American ministers 
 at London and Paris. 
 
 f See the documents hud before Congress from time to time by the President, and 
 printed. 
 
 $ See the correspondence between Mr. Erskine, the British minister, and the "secreta- 
 ry of state, on the 17th, 18th, and 19tli of April, 1809; and the President's proclamation 
 of the last date. 
 
 § See the correspondence between the secretary of state, and Mr. Jackson, the British 
 minister. 
 
 I) See the duke de Cadore's letter to Mr. Armstrong, dated the 5th of August, 1310. 
 4 
 
26 
 
 organ of the government oi' France, ami in the presence, as it were, of 
 the French sovereign, was of the highest authority, according to all the 
 rules of diplomatic intercourse ; and, certainly, far surpassed any claim 
 
 of credence, which was possessed by the British minister, residing at 
 Washington, when the arrangement of the year 1809, was accepted and 
 executed by the American government. The president of the United 
 States, therefore, oweil to the consistency of his own character, and to 
 the dictates of a siucere impartiality, a prompt acceptance of the French 
 overture : ami, accordingly, the authoritative promise, that the fact should 
 exist, at the stipulted period, being again admitted as conclusive evidence 
 of its existence, a proclamation was issued on the 2d of November, 1810, 
 announcing, '"that the edicts of France had been so revoked, as that 
 they ceased, on the 1st day of the same month, to violate the neutral 
 commerce of the United States ; and that all the restrictions imposed by 
 the act of congress, should then cease and be discontinued, in relation to 
 France and her dependencies ."* That France, from this epoch, refrain- 
 ed from all aggressions, on the high seas, or even in her own ports, upon 
 the persons and the property of the citizens of the United States, never 
 was asserteil ; but, on the contrary, her violence and her spoilations have 
 heen unceasing causes of complaint. These subsequent injuries, consti- 
 tuting a part of the existing reclamations of the United States, were 
 always, however, disavowed by the French government ; whilst the repeal 
 of the Berlin and Milan decree has, on every occasion, been affirmed ; 
 insomuch that Great Britain herself was, at last, compelled to yield to the 
 evidence of the fact. 
 
 On t lie expiration of three months, from the date of the president's 
 proclamation, the non-intercourse and non-importation law was, of course, 
 to he revived against Great Britain, unless, during that period, her or- 
 ders in council, should be revoked. The subject was, therefore, most 
 anxiously, and most steadily, pressed upon the justice, and the magna- 
 nimity, of the British government ; and even when the hope of success 
 expired, by the lapse of the period prescribed in one act of congress, the 
 United States opened the door of reconciliation by another act, which, 
 in the year 1811, a^ain provided, that in case, at any time, ''Great Brit- 
 ain should so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to vio- 
 late the neutral commerce of the United States, the President of the 
 United Stales should declare the fact by proclamation ; and that the 
 restrictions, previously imposed, should from the date of such procla- 
 mation, cease and be discontinued."! But unhappily, every appeal to 
 the justice and magnanimity of Great Britain was now, as heretofore, 
 fruitless aud forlorn. She had. at this epoch, impressed from the crews 
 of the American merchant vessels, peaceably navigating the high seas, 
 not less than six thousand mariners, who claimed to be citizens of the 
 United States, and who were denied all opportunity to verify their 
 claims. She had seized and confiscated the commercial property of 
 American citizens, to an incalculable amount. She had united in 
 the enormities of Fiance, to declare a great proportion of the terra- 
 queous globe in a state of blockade ; chasing the American merchant 
 lla^ effectually from the ocean. She had contemptuously disregarded 
 the neutrality of the American territory, and the jurisdiction of the 
 American laws, within the waters and harbors of the United States. 
 She was enjoying the emoluments of a surreptitious trade, stained with 
 every species of fraud and corruption, which gave to the belligerent 
 powers, the advantages of peace, while the neutral powers were involv- 
 ed in the evils of war. She hail, in short, usurped and exercised, on the 
 water, a tyranny similar to that, which her great antagonist had usurped 
 
 • See the president's proclamation, of the 2d of Novemher, 1810. 
 t Sec the act of congress, passed the id of March, 1811. 
 
27 
 
 and exercised upon the land. And, amidst all (hose proofs of ambition 
 and avarice, she demanded, that) the victims of her usurpations and her 
 violence, should revere her as the sole defender of the rights and liberties 
 of mankind. 
 
 When, therefore, Great Britain, in manifest violation of her 6olemn 
 promises, refused to follow the example of France, by the repeal of her 
 orders in council, the American government was compelled to contemplate 
 a resort to arms, as the only remaining course to be pursued, for its 
 honor, its independence, and its safety. Whatever depended upon the 
 United States themselves, the United States had performed, for the pres- 
 ervation of peace, in resistance of the French decrees, as well as of the 
 British orders. What had been required from France, in its relation to 
 the neutral character of the United States, France had performed, by the 
 revocation of its Berlin and Milan decrees. But what depended upon 
 Great Britain, for the purposes of justice, in the repeal of her orders in 
 council, was withheld ; and new evasions were sought, when the old 
 were exhausted. It was, at one time, alleged, that satisfactory proof was 
 not afforded, that France had repealed her decrees against the commerce 
 of the United Sates ; as if such proof alone were wanting, to ensure the 
 performance of the British promise.* At another time, it was insisted, 
 that the repeal of the Frence decrees, in their operation against the Uni- 
 ted States, in order to authorize a demand for the performance of the 
 British promise, must be total, applying equally to their internal, and 
 their external effects ; as if the United States had either the right, or 
 the power, to impose upon France the law of her domestic institutions.! 
 And it was, finally, insisted, in a despatch from lord Castlereagh, to the 
 British minister, residing at Washington, in the year 1812, which was 
 officially communicated to the American government, "that the decrees 
 of Berlin and Milan must not be repealed singly and specially, in relation 
 to the United States ; but must be repealed, also, as to all other neutral 
 nations ; and that in no less extent of a repeal of the French decrees, 
 had the British government ever pledged itself to repeal the orders in 
 council :"| as if it were incumbent on the United States, not only to 
 assert her own rights but to become the coadjutor of the British govern- 
 ment, in a gratuitous assertion of the rights of all other nations. 
 
 The congress of the United States could pause no longer. Under a 
 deep and afflicting sense of the national wrongs, and the national re- 
 sentments ; while they "postponed definitive measures with respect to 
 France, in the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions, be- 
 tween the American minister at Paris, and the French government, would 
 speedily enable them to decide, with greater advantage, ou the course 
 due to the rights, the interests, and the honor, of the country ;"§ they 
 pronounced a deliberate and solemn declaration of war, between Great 
 Britain, and the United States, on the 18th of June, 1812. 
 
 But, it is in the face of all the facts, which have been displayed, in 
 the present narrative, that the prince regent, by his declaration of Janu- 
 ary,. 1813, describes the United States as the aggressor in the war. If 
 tlie act of declaring war, constitutes, in all cases, the act of original ag- 
 gression, the United States must submit to the severity of the reproach: 
 but if the act of declaring war may be more truly considered, as the result 
 of long suffering, and necessary self-defence, the American government 
 will stand acquitted, in the sight of Heaven, and of the world. Have 
 the United States, then, enslaved the subjects, confiscated the property, 
 
 * See the correspondence between Mr. Pink ney and the British government. 
 
 f See the letters of Mr. Erskine. 
 
 I See the correspondence between the secretary of state, and Mr. Foster, the Brit- 
 ish minister, in June, 1812. 
 
 § Seethe president's message of the 1st of June, 1812; and the report ef the commit- 
 tee of foreign relations, t* whom the message was referred, 
 
28 
 
 prostrated the commerce, insulted the flag, or violated the territorial 
 sovereignty, of Great Britain ? No : but, in all these respects, the United 
 States had suffered, for a long period of years, previously to the declara- 
 tion of war, the contumely and outrage of the British government. It 
 has been said too, as an aggravation of the imputed aggression, that tho 
 United States chose a period, for their declaration of war, when Great 
 Britain was struggling for her own existence, against a power, which 
 threatened to overthrow the independence of all Europe; hut it might he 
 more truly said, that the United States, not acting upon choice, hut upon 
 compulsion, delayed the declaration of war, until the persecutions of Great 
 Britain had rendered further delay destructive and disgraceful. Great 
 Britain had converted the commercial scenes of American opulence and 
 prosperity, into scenes of comparative poverty and distress ; she had 
 Drought the existence of the United States, as an independent nation, into 
 question; and, surely, it must have been indifferent to the United States, 
 whether they ceased to exist as an independent nation, by her conduct, 
 while she professed friendship, or by her conduct, when she avowed enmity 
 and revenge. Nor is it true, that the existence of G. Britain was in dan- 
 ger, at the epoch of (he declaration of war. The American government 
 Uniformly entertained an opposite opinion ; and, at all times, saw more to 
 apprehend for the United States, from her maritime power, than from the 
 territorial power of her enemy. The event has justified the opinion, and 
 the apprehension. But what the United States asked, as essential to their 
 welfare, and even as beneficial to the allies of Great Britain, in the Eu- 
 ropean war, Great Britain, it is manifest, might have granted, without 
 impairing the resources of her own strength, or the splendor of her own 
 sovereignty; for? her orders in council have been since revoked; not, it 
 is true, a* the performance of her promise, to follow, in this respect, the 
 example of France, since she finally rested the obligation of that promise, 
 upon a repeal of the French decrees, as to all nations: and the repeal 
 was only as to the United States : nor as an act of national justice to- 
 wards the United States; but, simply, as an act of domestic policy, for 
 the special advantage of her own people. 
 
 Tin: British government has, also, described the war, as a war of 
 aggrandizement and conquest, on -.the part of the United Slates; but, 
 when* is the foundation for the charge? While the American government 
 employed every means, to dissuade the Indians, even those who lived 
 within the territory, and were supplied by the bounty, of the United 
 Stales, from taking any part in the war,* the proofs were irresistible, 
 that the enemy pursued a very different course:! and that excry precau- 
 tion would be necessary, to prevent the effects of an offensive alliance, 
 between the British troops and the savages, throughout the northern fron- 
 tier of the United States. The military occupation of Upper Canada 
 was, therefore, deemed indispensable to the safety of that frontier, in the 
 earliest movements of the war, independent of all views of extending the 
 territorial boundary of the United States. But, when war was declared, 
 in resentment for injuries, which had been suffered upon the Atlantic, 
 what principle of public law, what modification of civilized warfare, im- 
 posed upon the United States, (he duly of abstaining from (he invasion of 
 the Canada* ? It was there alone, that the United States could place 
 themselves upon an equal footing of military force with Great Britain; 
 and it was there, thct l hey might reasonably encourage the hope of being 
 able, in (he prosecution of a lawful retaliation, '"to restrain the violence 
 of the enemy, and to retort upon him, the evils of his own injustice.' 5 
 
 * See the proceeding! at the councils, held with the Indians, dnring; the expedition un- 
 der In is; gen! Mull ; anil ilie talk delivered by the president of the United Suites, to the 
 Six Nations, at Wa hington, 8th April, 1813 
 
 f See the documuuU laid before congress, 13th June, 1812. 
 
S9 ' 
 
 The proclamations issued by the American commanders, on entering Up- 
 per Canada, have, however, been adduced by the Biitish negotiators at 
 Ghent, as the proofs of a spirit of ambition and aggrandizement, on the 
 part of their government. In truth; the proclamations were not only un- 
 authorized and disapproved, but were infractions of the positive instruct- 
 ions, which had been given, for the conduct of the war in Canada. When 
 the general, commanding the north western army of the United States, 
 received, on the 24th of June, 1812, his first authority to commence offen- 
 sive operations, he was especially told, that '"he must not consider him- 
 self authorized to pledge the government to the inhabitants of Canada, 
 further than assurances of protection in their persons, property and 
 rights." And on the ensuing 1st of August, it was emphatically declared 
 to him, "that it had become necessary, that he should not lose sight of 
 the instructions of the 24th of June, as any pledge beyond that, was in- 
 compatible with the views of the government "* Such was the nature of 
 the charge of Americau ambition and aggrandizement, and such the evi- 
 dence to support it. 
 
 The prince regent has, however, endeavored to add, to these unfound- 
 ed accusations, a stigma, at which the pride of the American government 
 revolts. Listening to the fabrications of British emissaries; gathering 
 scandals from the abases of a free press ; and misled, perhaps, by the as- 
 perities of a party spirit, common to a?l free governments; he affects to 
 trace the origin of the war to ''a marked partiality, in palliating and as- 
 sisting the aggressive tyranny of France;" and '-to the prevalence of such 
 councils, as associated the United States, in policy with the government 
 of that nation. "t The conduct of the American government is now open 
 to every scrutiny ; and its vindication is inseparable from a knowledge of 
 the facts. All the « orld must be sensible, indeed, that neither in the gen- 
 eral policy of the late ruler of France, nor in his particular treatment of 
 the United States, could there exist any political, or rational foundation, 
 for the sympathies and associations, overt, or clandestine, which have 
 been rudely and unfairly suggested. It is equally obvious, that nothing 
 short of the aggressive tyranny, exercised by Great Britain towards the 
 United States, could have counteracted and controlled, those tendencies 
 to peace and amity, which derived their impulse, from natural and social 
 causes; combining the affections and interests of the two nations. The 
 American government, faithful to that principle of public law, which ac- 
 knowledges to authority of all governments established de facto ; and 
 conforming its practice, in this respect, to the example of Europe ; has 
 never contested the validity of the governments successively established 
 in France ; nor refrained from that intercourse with either of (hem. which 
 the just interests of the United States required. But the British cabinet 
 is challenged to produce, from the recesses of its secret, or of its public 
 archives, a single instance of unworthy concessions, or of political alliance 
 and combination, throughout the intercourse of the United States, with 
 the revolutionary rulers of France. Was it the influence of French coun- 
 cils, that induced the American government to resist the pretensions of 
 France, in 1793, and to encounter her hostilities in 1798 ? that led to the 
 ratification of the British treaty in 17915 ; to the British negotiation in 
 1805, and to the convention with the British minister in 1809 ? that dic- 
 tated the impartial overtures, which were made to Great Britain, as well 
 as to France, during the whole period of the restrictive system ? that pro- 
 duced the determination to avoid making any treaty, even a treaty of 
 commerce, with France, until the outrage of the Rambouillet decree was 
 
 * See the letter from the secretary ef the war department, to brig. gen. Hull, dated 
 the 24th of June, and the 1st of August, 1812. 
 
 fSee the British declaration, of the 10th of January, 1813. 
 
 i See the instructions from the sccretn'v of state io the American minister at Paris, 
 dated the 39th May, 1813. 
 
30 
 
 repaired ?* tlin.t sanctioned the repeated and urgent efforts of the Amer- 
 ioan government, lo put an end to the war, almost as soon as it was de- 
 clared ? or that* finally, prompted the explicit communication, which, in 
 pursuance of instuctious, was made by the American minister, at St 
 Petersburg!!, to the court of Russia, stating, '"that the principal subjects of 
 discussion, which had long been subsisting between the United States and 
 France, remained unsettled ; that there was no immediate prospect, that 
 there would be a satisfactory settlement of them ; hut that, whatever the 
 event, in that respect, might be, it was not the intention of the govern- 
 ment of the United States, to enter into any more intimate connexions 
 with France; that the government of the United States did not anticipate 
 any event whatever, that could produce that effect ; and that the American 
 minister was the more happy to find himself authorized by his govern* 
 ment to avow this intention, as different representations of their views 
 had been widely circulated, as well in Europe, as in America. "f But, 
 while every act of the American government thus falsifies the charge of 
 a subserviency to the policy of France, it may be justly remarked, that of 
 all the governments, maintaining a necessary relation and intercourse 
 with that nation, from the commencement, to the recent termination, of 
 the revolutionary establishments, it has happened, that the government 
 of the United States has least exhibited marks of condescension and con- 
 cession to the successive rulers. It is for Great Britain, more particularly, 
 as an accuser, to examine and explain the consistency of the reproaches, 
 which she has uttered against the United States, with the course of her 
 own conduct : with her repeated negotiations, during the republican, as 
 well as during the imperial, sway of France : with her solicitude to make 
 and to propose treaties ; with her interchange of commercial benefits, so 
 irreconcilable to a state of war ; with the almost triumphant entry of a 
 French ambassador into her capital, amidst the acclamations of the pop- 
 ulace; and with the prosecution, instituted, by the orders of the king of 
 Great Britain himself, in the highest court of criminal jurisdiction in his 
 kingdom, to punish the printer of a gazette, for publishing a libel on the 
 conduct and character of the late ruler of Franco ! Whatever may be the 
 source of these symptoms, however they may indicate a subservient poli- 
 cy, such symptoms have never occurred in the United States, throughout 
 the imperial government of France. 
 
 The conduct of the U. States, from the moment of declaring the war, 
 will serve, as well as their previous conduct, to rescue them from the un- 
 just reproaches of Great Britain. When war was declared, the orders in 
 council had been maintained, with inexorable hostility, until a thousand 
 American vessels and their cargoes had been seized and confiscated, under 
 their operation; the British raiuister at Washington had, with peculiar 
 fiolemnity, announced that t lie orders would not be repealed, but upon 
 conditions, which the American government had not the right, nor the 
 power, to fulfil ; and the European war, which had raged, with little 
 intermission, for twenty years, threatened an indefinite continuance. Un- 
 der these circumstances, a repeal of the orders, and a cessation of the 
 injuries, which they' produced, were events beyond all rational anticipa- 
 tion. It appears, however, that the orders, under the influence of a 
 parliamentary inquiry into their effects upon the trade and manufactures 
 of Great Britain, were provisionally repealed on the 23d of June, I8l2,a 
 few days subsequent to the American declaration of war. If this repeal 
 huil been made known to the United States, before their resort to arms, 
 (lie repeal would have arrested it ; and that c;uise of war being removed, 
 the other essential cause, the practice of impressment, would have been 
 
 * See the instructions from the secretary of state to the American minister at Pari*, 
 dated the 8§th of Mav, i8'3. 
 
 • Ser Mr. Monroe*! Idtor to Mr. Adams dated the 1st of July, 1312; and Mr. Ad., 
 nms's lettesto Mr. Monroe, dated the llih of December, 1812. 
 
81 
 
 the subject of renewed negotiation, under the auspicious influence of a 
 partial, yet important, act of reconciliation. But the declaration »>i* war, 
 having announced the practice of impressment, as a principal cause, peace 
 could only be the result of an express abandonment of the practice; of a 
 suspension of tin* practice, for the purposes of negotiation ; or of a cessa- 
 tion of actual sufferance, in consequence of a pacification in Europe, 
 which would deprive Great Britain of every motive tor continuing the 
 practice. 
 
 Hence, when early intimations were given, from Halifax, and from 
 Canada, of a dispostion, on the part of the local authorities, to enter into 
 an armistice, the power of those authorities was so doubtful, the objects 
 of the armistice were so limited, and the immediate advantages of the 
 measure, were so entirely on the side of the enemy, that the American 
 government oould not, consistently with its duty, embrace the proposi- 
 tions.* But some hope of an amicable adjustment was inspired, when a 
 communication was received from admiral Warren, in September, 1812, 
 stating that he was commanded by his government, to propose, on the one 
 hand, "that the government of the United States should, instantly recall 
 their letters of marque and reprisal against British ships, together, with 
 all orders and instructions for any acts of hostility whatever against the 
 territories of his majesty, or the persons or property of his subjects ;" and 
 to promise, on the other hand, if the American government acquiesced in 
 the proceeding proposition, that instructions should be issued to the Brit- 
 ish squadrons, to discontinue hostilities against the United States and 
 their citizens. This overture, however, was subject to a further qualifi- 
 cation, "that should the American government accede to the proposal for 
 terminating hostilities, the British admiral was authorized to arrange 
 with the American government, as to the revocation of the laws, which 
 interdict the commerce and ships of war of Great Britain from the har- 
 bors and waters of the United States ; but that in default of such revoca- 
 tion within the reasonable period to be agreed upon, the orders in council 
 would be revived."! The American government, at once, expressed a 
 disposition to embrace the general proposition for a cessation of hostilities. 
 with a view to negotiation ; declared that no peace could be durable, un- 
 less the essential object of impressment was adjusted ; and offered, as a 
 basis of the adjustment, to prohibit the employment of British subjects in 
 the naval or commercial service of the United States : but adhering to its 
 determination of obtaining a relief from actual sufferance, the suspension 
 of the practice of impressment pending the proposed armistice, was deem- 
 ed a necessary consequence ; for "it could not be presumed, while the 
 parties were "engaged in a negotiation to adjust amicably this important 
 difference, that the United States would admit the right, or acquiesce in 
 the practice, of the opposite party; or that Great Britain would be un- 
 willing to restrain her cruisers from a practice, which would have the. 
 strongest effect to defeat the negotiation."]: So just, so reasonable, so 
 indispensable, a preliminary, without which the citizens of the United 
 States, navigating the high seas, would not be placed, by the armistice, 
 on an equal footing with the subjects of Great Britain, admiral Warren 
 was not authorized to accept ; and the effort at an amicable adjustment, 
 through that channel, was necessarily abortive. 
 
 But long before the overture of the British admiral was made, (a few 
 days, indeed, after the declaration of war,) the reluctance with which 
 
 • See the letters from the department of state to Mr. Russel, dated 9th and 10th of 
 August, 1812, and Mr. Graham's memorandum of a conversation with Mr. Baker, the 
 British secretary of legation, enclosed in the last letter. See, also, Mr. Monroe's letter 
 to Mr. Russell, dated the 21st of August, 1812. 
 
 t See the letter of admiral Warren, to the secretary of state, dated at Habtax, the 
 20th of Sept. 1812. . , , ,_,, , ot „ 
 
 4 See the letter of Mr. Monroe, to admiral Warren, dated the 27th of October, 181* 
 
3& 
 
 i he United States had resorted to arms, was manifested by the steps takeu 
 to arrest the progress of hostilities, and to hasten a restoration of peace. 
 On the 26th of June, 1812, the American cnarge d'affaires, at London, 
 was instructed to make the proposal of an armistice to the British gov- 
 ernment, which might lead to an adjustment of all differences, on the 
 single condition, in tiie event of the orders in council being repealed, that 
 instructions should be issued, suspending the practice of impressment dar- 
 ing the armistice. This proposal was soon followed by another, admit- 
 ting, instead of positive instructions, an informal understanding between 
 the two governments on the subject .* But both of these proposals were 
 unhappily rejected. f And when a third, which seemed to leave no plea 
 for hesitation, as it required no other preliminary, than that the American 
 minister, at London, should liud in the British government, a sincere dis- 
 position to accommodate the difference, relative to impressment, on fair 
 conditions, was evaded, it was obvious, that neither a desire of peace, nor 
 a spirit of conciliation, influenced the councils of Great Britain. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the American government had no choice, 
 but to invigorate the war; and yet it has never lost sight of the object of 
 all just wars, a just peace. The Emperor of Russia having offered his 
 mediation, to accomplish that object, it was instantly and cordially ac- 
 cepted, by the American government ;\ but it was peremptorily rejected 
 by the British government. The Emperor, in his benevolence, repeated 
 his invitation : the British government again rejected it. At last, how- 
 ever, Great Britain, sensible of the reproach, to which such conduct would 
 expose her throughout Europe, offered to the American government a 
 direct negotiation for peace, and the offer was promptly embraced; with 
 perfect confidence, that the British government would be equally prompt, 
 in giving effect to its own proposal. But such was not the design, or the 
 course, of that government. The American envoys were immediately 
 appointed, and arrived at Gottenburgh, the destined scene of negotiation, 
 on the ttth of April, 181*, as soon as the season admitted. The British 
 government, though regularly informed, that no time would be lost on the 
 part of the United States, suspended the appointment of its envoys, until 
 the actual arrival of the American envoys should be formally communi- 
 cated. This pretension, however novel and inauspicious, was not per- 
 mitt'd to obstruct the path to peace. The British government next pro- 
 posed to transfer the negotiation from Gottenburgh to Ghent. This change 
 also, notwithstanding the necessary delay, was allowed. The American 
 envoys, arriving at Ghent on the 24th of Junt*, remained in a mortifying 
 state of suspense and expectation, for the arrival of the British envoys, 
 until the fith of August. And from the period of opening the negotiations, 
 to the date of the last despatch of the 3tst of October, it has been seen, 
 that the whole of the diplomatic skill of (he British government, has con- 
 sisted in consuming time, without approaching any conclusion. The 
 pacification of Paris, had. suddenly and unexpectedly, placed at the dis- 
 posal of the British government, a great naval and military force ; the 
 pride and passions of (he nation were artfully excited against (he United 
 States: and a war of desperate and barbarous character was planned, at 
 the very moment that the American government, finding its maritime 
 citizens relieved, by (he course of events, from actual sufferance, under 
 the practice of impressment, had authorized its envoys to wave those 
 stipulations upon the subject, which might, otherwise, have been indispen- 
 sable psecautions. 
 
 • S.cthc totters from the secretary of state, to Mr. Uussell, dated the '26th of June, 
 and 27th of July, 1812 
 
 f See the correspondence between Mr. Uussell, and lord Castlereap;!), dated August 
 and September, 1812; and Mr. Russell's letters to the secretary of sU e, dated Septem- 
 ».er, 1812 
 
 ( bec the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Dasohkoff, in March, 1813 
 
33 
 
 Hitherto the American government has shown the justice of its cause ; 
 its respect for the rights of other nations, and its inherent love of peace. 
 But the scenes of the war. will, also, exhibit a striking contrast, between 
 the conduct of the United Slates, and the conduct of Great Britain. The 
 same insidious policy, which taught the Prince Regent to describe the 
 American government as the aggressor in the war, has induced the Brit- 
 ish government (clouding the daylight truth of the transaction) to call 
 the atrocities of the British fleets and armies, a retaliation upon the ex- 
 ample of the American troops in Canada. The United Slates tender a 
 solemn appeal to the civilized world, against the fabrication of such a 
 charge; and they vouch, in support of their appeal, the known morals, 
 habits, and pursuits of their people ; the character of their civil and 
 political institutions; and the whole career of their navy and their army, 
 as humane, as it is brave. Upon what pretext did the British admiral, 
 on the 18th of August, 1814, announce his determination, "to destroy and 
 lay waste such towns and districts, upon the coast, as might he found 
 assailable ?"* It was the pretext of a request from the governor general 
 of the Canadas, for aid to carry into effect measures of retaliation ; w hile, 
 in fact, the barbarous nature of the war, had been deliberately settled and 
 prescribed by the British cabinet. What could have been the foundation 
 of such a request ? The outrages, and the irregularties, which too often 
 occur during a state of national hostilities, in violation of the laws oi 
 civilized warfare, are always to be lamented, disavowed, and repaired, 
 by a just and honorable government ; but if disavowal be made, and if 
 reparation be ottered, there is no foundation for retaliatory violence. 
 "Whatever unauthorized irregularity may have been committed by any 
 of the troops of the United States, the American government has been 
 ready, upon principles of sacred and eternal obligation, to disavow, and, 
 as far as it might be practicable, to repair.'?! In every known instance 
 (and they are few) the offenders have been subjected to the regular inves- 
 tigation of a military tribunal ; and an officer, commanding a party oi 
 stragglers, who were guilty of unworthy excesses, was immediately dis- 
 missed, without the form of a trial, for not preventing those excesses. 
 The destruction of the village of Newark, adjacent to Fort George, on 
 the 10th of December, 1S13, was long subsequent to the pillage and con- 
 flagration committed on the shores of the Chesapeake, throughout the 
 summer of the same year; and might fairly have been alleged as a re- 
 taliation for those outrages; but, in fact, it was justified by the American 
 compiander, who ordered it, on the ground, that it became necessary to 
 the military operations at that place ;+ while the American government, 
 as soon as it heard of the act, on the 6th of January, 181*, instructed the 
 general commanding the northern army, "to disavow the conduct of the 
 officer who committed it; and to transmit to governor Prevost, a copy ci 
 the order, uuder color of which that officer had acted."§ This disavowal 
 was accordingly communicated; and on the 10th of February, 1814, gov- 
 ernor Prevost answered, "that it had been with great satisfaction he had 
 received the assurance, that the perpetration of the burning of the town 
 of Newark, was both unauthorized by the American government, and 
 abhorent to every American feeling; that if any outrages had ensued the 
 wanton aud unjustifiable destruction of Newark, passing the bounds ol 
 just retaliation, they were to be attributed to the influeucc of irritated 
 passions, on the part of the unfortunate sufferers by that event, which, ra 
 
 • See admiral Cochrane's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the lSih of August, 181.4; and 
 Mr. Monroe's answer of the Cth Sept 1814. . 
 
 t See the letter from the secretary at war to brigadier general M'Lure, dated tlie 4th 
 of October, 1813. - 
 
 $ Gen. M'Lure's letters to the secretary at war, dated Dec. 10 and 13, 1813. 
 
 § See the letter from the secretary at war, to Mnj. Gen. Wilkinson, rtatqd the 26lh 
 of January, 1S14. 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 a state of active warfare, it has not been possible altogether to restrain ; 
 and that it was as little congenial to the disposition of his majesty's gov- 
 ernment, as it was to that of the government of the United States, delib- 
 erately to adopt any plan of policy, which had for its object the devasta- 
 tion of private property.' 1 * But the disavowal of the American govern- 
 ment was not the only expiation of the offence committed by its officer : 
 for the British government assumed the province of redress in the indul- 
 geuco of its own vengeance. A few days after the burning of Newark, 
 the British and Indian troops crossed the Niagara, fortius purpose; they 
 surprised and seized Fort Niagara, and put its garrison to the sword ; 
 they burnt the villages of Lewistown, Manchester, Tuscarora, Buffalo, 
 and" Black Rock; slaughtering and abusing the unarmed inhabitants; 
 until, in short, they had laid waste the whole of the Niagara frontier, 
 levelling every house and every hut, and dispersing, beyond the means of 
 shelter, in the extremity of the winter, the mule and the female, the old 
 and the young. Sir George Prevost himself appears to have been sated 
 with the ruin, and the havoc, which had been thus inflicted. In his pro- 
 clamation of the 12th of January, 181*, he emphatically declared, that 
 for the burning of Newark, ''the opportunity of punishment had occurred, 
 and a full measure of retaliation had taken place ; ' and "that it was not 
 his intention to pursue further a system of warfare, so revolting to his 
 own feelings, and so little congenial to the British character, unless the 
 future measures of the enemy should compel him again to resort to it."f 
 Nay, with his answer to the American general, already mentioned, he 
 transmitted "a copy of that proclamation, as expressive of the determin- 
 ation, as to his future line of conduct ;" and added, "that he was happy 
 to learn, that there was no probability, that any measures on the part of 
 the American government would oblige him to depart from it."} Where, 
 then, shall we search for the foundation of the call upon the British ad- 
 miral, to aid the governor of Canada in measures of retaliation ? Great 
 Britain forgot the principle of retaliation, when her orders in council 
 were issued against the unoffending neutral, in resentment of outrages 
 committed by her enemy; and surely, she had again forgotten the same 
 principle, when she threatened an unceasing violation of the laws of 
 civilized warfare, in retaliation for injuries, which never existed, or which 
 the American government had explicitly disavowed, or which had been 
 already avenged by her own arms, in a manner and a degree, cruel and 
 unparalleled. The American government, after all, has not hesitated to 
 declare, that "for the reparation of injuries, of whatever nature they may 
 he, not sanctioned by the law of nations, which the military or naval force 
 of either power might have committed against the other, it would always 
 be ready to enter into reciprocal arrangements ; presuming that the British 
 government would neither expect, nor propose, any which were not recip- 
 rocal. ''§ 
 
 It is now, however, proper to examine the character of the warfare, 
 which Great Britain has waged against the United States. In Europe, 
 it has already been marked, with astonishment and indignation, as a war- 
 fare of the tomahawk, the scalping knife, and the torch; as a warfare^ 
 incompatible with the usages of civilized nations ; as a warfare, that, 
 disclaiming all moral influence, inflicts an outrage upon social order, and 
 gives a shock to the very elements of humanity. All belligerent nations 
 can form alliances with the savage, the African, and the bloodhound : 
 
 • See the letter of" Major General Wilkinson, to Sir George Prevost, dated the 28tk 
 i>t January, 1814, and the answer of Sir George Prevost, dated the 10th of February, 
 1814. 
 
 | Sec Sir George Picvost's proclamation, dated at Qu bee, the 12th of Jannary, 1814. 
 
 * Sec the letter of sir George Prevost to general Wilkinson, dated the 10th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1811; and the Br tish general orders, of the 22d of February, 1814. 
 
 $ Sec Mjk Monroe's Utter to admiral Cochrane, (luted the 6t!± of Sent, 1864.- 
 
35 
 
 S)Ut what civilized nation lias selected these auxiliaries, in its hostilities?, 
 It does not require the fleets and armies of Great Britain, to lay waste an 
 open country; to burn unfortified towns, or unprotected villages; nor to 
 plunder the merchant, the farmer, and the planter, of his stores: these 
 exploits may easily he achieved by a single cruiser, or a petty privateer; 
 but when have such exploits been performed on the coasts of the continent 
 of Europe, or of the British islands, by the naval and military force of 
 any belligerent power ; or when have they been tolerated by any honora* 
 hie government, as the predatory enterprise of armed individuals ? Nor, 
 is the destruction of the public edifices, which adorn the metropolis of a 
 country, and serve to commemorate the taste and science of the age, beyond 
 the sphere of action of the vilest incendiary, as well as of the most tri- 
 umphant conqueror. It cannot be forgotton, indeed, that in the course of 
 ten years past, the capitals of the principal powers of Europe have been 
 conquered, and occupied alternately, by the victorious armies of each 
 other;* and yet, there has heen no instance of a conflagration of the pal- 
 aces, the temples, or the halls of justice. No : snch examples have pro- 
 ceeded from Great Britain alone : a nation so elevated in its pride ; so 
 awful in its power; and so alfected in its tenderness, for the liberties of 
 mankind ! The charge is severe ; but let the facts be adduced. 
 
 1. Great Britain has violated the principles of social law, by insidious 
 attempts, to excite the citizens of the United States into acts of contumacy, 
 treason, and revolt, against their government. For instance ; 
 
 No sooner had the American government, imposed the restrictive sys- 
 tem upon its citizens, to escape from the rage and depredation of the 
 belligerent powers, than the British government, then professing amity 
 towards the United States, issued an order, which was, in effect, an in- 
 vitation to the American citizens to break the laws of their country, 
 Mnder a public promise of British protection and patronage, "to all ves- 
 sels, which should engage in an illicit trade, without bearing the custom- 
 ary ship's documents and papers."t 
 
 Again : During a period of peace, between the United States and 
 Great Britain, in the year 1809, the governor general of the Canadas 
 employed an agent (who had previously been engaged, in a similar ser- 
 vice, with the knowledge and approbation of the British cabinet) "on a 
 secret and confidential mission,'' into the United States, declaring, "that 
 there was no doubt, that his able execution of such a mission, would give 
 him a claim, not only on the governor general, but on his majesty's min- 
 isters." The object of the mission, was to ascertain, whether there ex- 
 isted a disposition in any portion of the citizens, "to bring about a separ- 
 ation of the eastern states from the general union ; and how far, in such 
 an event, they would look up to England for assistance, or be disposed to 
 enter into a connexion with her." The agent was instructed "to insinu- 
 ate, that if any of the citizens should wish to enter into a communication 
 with the British government, through the governor general, he was au- 
 thorized to receive such communication; and that he would safely trans- 
 mit it to the governor general. "$ He was accredited by a formal instru- 
 ment, under the seal and signature of the governor general, to be produced 
 "if he saw good ground for expecting, that the doing so might lead to a 
 more confidential communication, than he could, otherwise, look for;" 
 and he was furnished with a cipher, "for carrying on the secret corres- 
 pondence^ The virtue and patriotism of the citizens of the United 
 States, were superior to the arts and corruption, employed in this secret 
 
 * See Mr Monroe's letter to admiral Cochrane, dated the €th of September, 1814. 
 
 ■f See the instructions to the commanders of British ships of war and privateers, dated 
 the 11th of April, 1808. 
 
 + See the letter from Mr. Ryland, the secretary of the governor general, to Mr. Hen- 
 ry, dated the 2Sth of January, 1809. 
 
 § See the letter of air James Craig) to Mr. Henry, dated February 6, 1809. 
 
36 
 
 and confidential mission, it' it ever was disclosed to any of them; and 
 t lie mission itself terminated, as soon as the arrangement with Mr. Ers- 
 kine was announced.* But, in the act of recalling the secret emissary, 
 he was informed, "that (he whole of his letters were transcribing to be 
 
 sent home, where they could not fail of doing him great credit, and it was 
 hoped they might eventually contribute to his permanent advantage. "f 
 To endeavor to realize that hope, the emissary proceeded to London j.all 
 the circumstances of his mission were made known to the British minis- 
 ter; his services were approved and acknowledged : and he was sent to 
 Canada, for a reward ; with a recommendatory letter from lord Liverpool 
 to sir George Prevost. "stating his lordship's opinion of the ability and 
 judgment which Mr. Henry had manifested on the occasions mentioned 
 in his memorial, (his secret and confidential missions,) and of the benefit 
 the public service might derive from his active employment, in any pub- 
 lic situation, in which sir George Prevost might think proper to place 
 him. ? '| The world will judge upon these facts, and the rejection of a 
 parliamentary cull, for the production of the papers relating to them, 
 what credit is due to the prince regent's assertion, "that Mr. Henry's 
 mission was undertaken, without the autbority or even knowledge of his 
 majesty's government." The first mission was certainly known to the 
 British government, at the time it occurred; for, the secretary of the 
 governor general expressly states, "that the information and political 
 observations, heretofore received from Mr. Henry, were transmitted by 
 his excellency to the secretary of state, who had expressed his particlar 
 approbation of them ;"§ the second mission was approved when it was 
 known : and it remains for the British government to explain, upon any 
 established principles of morality and justice, the essential difference 
 between ordering the offensive acts to be done; and reaping the fruit of 
 those acts, without either expressly, or tacitly, condemning them. 
 
 Again : These hostile attempts upon the peace and union of the United 
 States, preceding the declaration of war, have been followed by similar 
 machinations, subsequent to that event. The governor general of the 
 Canadas has endeavored, occasionally, in his proclamations and general 
 orders, to dissuade the militia of the United States, from the performance 
 of the duty, which they owed to their injured country; and the efforts, at 
 Quebec and Halifax, to kindle the the flame of civil war, have been as in- 
 cessant, as they have been insidious and abortive. Nay, the governor of 
 the island of Barbodoes, totally forgetful of the boasted article of the Brit- 
 :-b magna charta, in favor of foreign merchants, found within the British 
 dominions, upon the breaking out of hostilities, resolved that every Amer- 
 ican merchant, within his jurisdiction at the declaration of war, should, at 
 once be treated as a prisoner of war; because every citizen of the United 
 .States was enrolled in the inilita; because the militia of the United States 
 were required to serve their country beyond the limits of the state, to 
 which they particularly belonged ; and because the militia of "all the 
 states, which had acceded lo this measure, were, in the view of sir George 
 Beck with, acting as a French conscription.**! 
 
 Again : Nor was this course of conduct confined to the colonial au- 
 thorities. On the 2fith of October, 1842, the British government issued 
 an order in council, authorizing the governors of the British West India 
 islands to grant licenses to American vessels, for the importation and ex- 
 portation of certain articles, enumerated iu the order; but in the instruct* 
 
 • See the letter of sir James Craig to Mr. Henry, dated Feb. 6, 1809, and Mr. Ry land's 
 • . IlC' r "i Janaai v, i B09, 
 
 | See Mr. Ry land's letter, dated tbe 96th of June, 1809. 
 
 * Se<- the litter from lord Liverpool to sir Georjre 1'revost, dated the lGth of Septem- 
 ber, 1 81 1 . 
 
 § See Mr. Ryland' U iter of the 36th of January, 1809. 
 
 i; Bee the remarkable t,ute paper, issugd by goveroor Ueckvitb. at Eaibadoes, on the 
 13th of November 181'.?. 
 
37 
 
 ions, which accompanied the order, it was expressly provided, that 
 "whatever importations where proposed to he made, from the United 
 States of America, should he by licenses, confined to the ports in the east- 
 ern states exclusively! unless there was reason to suppose, that tin- ob- 
 ject of the order would not be fulfilled, if licenses were not granted, lor 
 importations from the other ports in the United States."* 
 
 The president ef the United States has not hesitated to place before 
 the nation, with expressions of a just indignation, "the policy ot Crcat 
 Britain thus proclaimed to the world ; introducing into her modes oi war- 
 fare, a system equally distinguished by the deformity of its features, and 
 the depravity of its character ; and having for its object, to dissolve the 
 ties oi allegiance, and the sentiments of loyalty, in the adversary nation ; 
 and to seduce and separate its component parts, the one from the other.'-f 
 2. Great Britain has violated the laws of humanity and honor, by 
 seeking alliances, in the prosecution of the war, with savages, pirates, 
 and slaves. 
 
 The British agency, in exciting the Indians, at all times, to commit 
 hostilities upon the frontier of the United States, is too notorious, to admit 
 of a direct and general denial. It has sometimes, however, been said, 
 that such conduct was unauthorized by the British government ; and the 
 prince regent, seizing the single instance, of an intimation, alleged to be 
 given, on the part of sir James Craig, the governor of the Canadas, that 
 an attack was meditated by the Indians, has affirmed, that "the charge 
 of exciting the Indians to offensive measures against the United States, 
 was void of foundation; that, before the war began, a policy the most 
 opposite had been uniformly pursued ; and that proof of this was tendered 
 hy Mr. Foster to the American government.'"'! But is it not known in 
 Europe, as well as in America, that the British Northwest Company 
 maintain a constaut intercourse, of trade, and council, with the Indians; 
 that their interests are often in direct collisiou with the interests of the 
 inhabitants of the United States, and that by means of the inimical dis- 
 positions, and the active agencies, of the company (seen, understood, and 
 tacitly sanctioned by the local authorities of Canada) all the evils of an 
 Indian war may be shed upon the United States, without the authority 
 of a formal order, emanating immediately from the British government ? 
 Hence, the American government, in answer to the evasive protestations 
 of the British minister, residing at Washington, frankly communicated 
 the evidence of British agency, which had been received, at different 
 periods, since the year 1807 ; and observed, "that whatever may have 
 been the disposition of the British government, the conduct of its subor- 
 dinate agents had tended to excite the hostility of the Indian tribes 
 towards the United States ; and that in estimating the comparative evi- 
 dence on the subject, it was impossible not to recollect the communication 
 lately made, respecting the conduct of sir James Craig, in another im- 
 portant transaction (the employment of Mr. Henry, as an accredited 
 ag;ent, to alienate and detach the citizens of a particular section of the 
 union, from their government) which, it appeared, was approved by lord 
 Liverpool. "§ 
 
 The proof, however, that the British agents and military officers, 
 were guilty of the charge, thus exhibited, become conclusive, when, sub- 
 
 * See the proclamation of the governor of Bermuda, dated the I4lh of January 1 S14 ; 
 and the •instructions from the British secretary for foreign affairs, dated November 9, 
 1812. 
 
 f See the message from the President to congress, dated the 24th of February, 18: f>. 
 
 i See the prince regent's declaration of the 10th ot January, 1813. 
 
 See, also, Mr. Foster's letters to Mr. Monroe, dated the '28th of December, 1811, 
 and the 7th and 8th of June, 1S12; and Mr. Monroe's answer, da'ed the Dili of Jann.irv, 
 1812, and the 10th of June, 1812; and the documents, which accompanied the corres- 
 pondence. 
 
 § See Mr. Monroe's letter to Mr. Foster, dated the 10th of June, 1 S12. 
 
ss 
 
 sequent to the communication, which was made to the British minister, 
 the defeat ami flight of general Proctor's army, on the of 
 
 plueen in the possession of the American commander, the corres- 
 pondence and papers <> the British officers. Selected from the documents 
 which were obtained upon that occasion, the contents of a few letters 
 will serve to characterize the whole of the mass. In these letters, writ- 
 ten by Mr. M'Kee, the British agent, to colonel England, the commander 
 of the British troops, superscribed, "en his majesty's service," and dated 
 during the months of July aud August, 1794, the period of Gen. Wayne's 
 successful expedition against the Indians, it appears, that the scalps tak- 
 en by the Indians were sent to the British establishment at the rapids of 
 the Miami ;* that the hostile operations of the Indians were concerted 
 with the British agents and officers;! that when certain tribes of Indians 
 "having completed the belts they carried with scalps and prisoners, aud 
 being without provisions, resolved on going home, it was lamented, that 
 his majesty's posts would derive no security, from the late great influx of 
 Indians into that part of the country, should they persist in their resolu- 
 tion of returning so soon ;| that "the British agents were immediately to 
 hold a council at the Glaze, in order to try if they could prevail on the 
 Lake Indians to remain ; hut that without provisions and ammunition 
 being sent to that place, it was conceived to be extremely difficult to 
 keep them together ;"§ and that "colonel England was making great 
 exertions to supply the Indians with provisions. "|| But the language of 
 the correspondence becomes, at length, so plain and direct, that it seems 
 impossible to avoid the conclusion of a governmental agency, on the part 
 of Great Britain, in advising, aiding, and conducting, the Indian war, 
 while she professed friendship and peace towards the United States. 
 "Scouts are sent, (says Mr. M Kee, to colonel England,) to view the sit- 
 uation of the American army ; and we now muster one thousand Indians. 
 All the Lake Indians, from Sugaua downwards, should not lose one mo- 
 ment in joining their brethren, as every accession of strength, is an addi- 
 tion to their spirits. "% And again : "1 have been employed several days 
 in endeavoring to fix the Indians, who have been driven from their vil- 
 lages and corutields, between the fort and the bay. Swan creek is gen- 
 erally agreed upon, and will be a very convenient place for the delivery 
 of provisions, &c."** Whether, under the various proofs of the British 
 agency, in exciting Indian hostilities against the United States, in a time 
 of peace, presented in the course of the present narrative, the Prince Be- 
 gent's declaration, that, "before the war began, a policy the most opposite 
 had been uniformly pursued," by the British government,!! is to be 
 ascribed to a want of information, or a want of candor, the Amerieau 
 government is not disposed, more particularly, to investigate. 
 
 But, independent of these causes of just complaint, arising in a time 
 of peace, it will be found, that when the war was declared, the alliance 
 of the British government with the Indians, was avowed, upon princi- 
 ples, the most novel, producing consequences the most dreadful. The 
 savages were brought into the war, upon the ordinary footing of allies, 
 without regard to the inhuman character of their warfare ; which neither 
 spares age, nor sex : aud which is more desperate towards the captive, at. 
 the stake, than even towards the combatant, in the field. It seemed to 
 be a stipulation of the compact between the allies, that the British might 
 imitate but should not control, the ferocity of the savages. While the 
 
 * See the letter from Mr. M'Kec to colonel England, dated the '2(1 of July, 1794. 
 
 ! See the letter from the same to the same, dated the 5 lb. of July, 1794. 
 
 i See the lame letter. 
 
 § See the same letter. 
 
 (| See the wne letter. 
 
 If Sec the lettur from the same to the same, doted the ISth of August, 1794. 
 
 •* See the letter IVom the mini to the Mine, dated the 30th of August, 17a*. 
 
 ft Slc the prince regent's declaration of the llHh oj January, 1813. 
 
39 
 
 British troops beheld, without compunction, the tomahawk and the scalp- 
 ing knife, brandished against prisoners, old men and children, and even 
 against pregnant women, and while they exiillingly, accept the bloody 
 scalps of the slaughtered Americans ;* the Indian exploits in battle, are 
 recounted and applauded by the British general orders. Rank and sta- 
 tion are assigned to tliern, in the military movements of the British army ; 
 and the unhallowed league was ratified, with appropriate emblems, by 
 intertwining an American scalp, with the decorations of the mace, which 
 the commander of the northern army of the United States found in the 
 legislative chamber of York, the capital of Upper Canada. 
 
 In the single scene, that succeeded the battle of Frenchtown, near the 
 river Raisin, where the American troops were defeated by the allies, un- 
 der the command of general Proctor, there will be found concentrated, up- 
 on indisputable proof, an illustration of the horrors of the warfare, which 
 Great Britain has pursued, and still pursues, in co-opera! i >:\ with the 
 savages of the south, as well as with the savages of the north. The 
 American army capitulated, on 22d of January, 1S13 ; yet, after the faith 
 of the British commander had been pledged, in the terms of the capitula- 
 tion ; and while the British officers and soldiers, silently and exuliingly, 
 contemplated the scene, some of the American prisoners of war were 
 tomahawked, some were shot, and some were burnt. Many of the unarm- 
 ed inhabitants of the Michigan territory were massacred : their property 
 was plundered, and their horses were destroyed. t The dead bodies of 
 the mangled Americans, were exposed, unburied, to he devoured by dogs 
 and swine ; "because as the British otHcers declared, the Indians would 
 not permit the interment jf and some of the Americans, who survived the 
 oarnage, had been extricated from danger only by being purchased at a 
 price, as a part of the booty belonging to the Indians. But, to complete 
 this dreadful view of human depravity, and human wretchedness, it is 
 only necessary to add, that an American physician, who was despatched 
 with a flag of truce, to ascertain the situation of his wounded brethren, 
 and two persons, his companions, were intercepted by the Indians, in their 
 humane mission ; the privilege of the flag was disregarded by the British 
 officers ; the physician, after being wounded, and one of his companions, 
 were made prisoners ; and the third person of the party was killed. § 
 
 But the savage, who had never known the restraints of civilized life, 
 and the pirate, who had broken the bonds of society, were alike the ob- 
 
 i"ects of British conciliation and alliance, for the purposes of an unparal- 
 eled warfare. A horde of pirates and outlaws had formed a confederacy 
 and established on the island of Barrataria, near the mouth of the river 
 Mississippi. Will Europe believe, that the commander of the British 
 forces, addressed the leader of the confederacy, from the neutral territory 
 of Pensacola, "calling upon him, with his brave followers, to enter into 
 the service of Great Britain, in which he should have the rank of cap- 
 tain ; promising that lands should be given to them all, in proportion to 
 their respective ranks, on a peace taking place ; assuring them, that their 
 property should be guaranteed, and their persons protected ; and asking, 
 in return, that they would cease all hostilities against Spain, or the allies 
 of Great Britain, and place their ships and vessels, under the British 
 
 * See the letter from the American gpneral Harrison, to the British general Proctor. 
 
 See a 'e^ter from the British major Muir, Indian agent, to colonel Proctor, dated the 
 26th September, 1 812, and a letter from colonel St George to colonel Proctor, dated the 
 £8lh of October, 1812, found among coionel Proctor's papers. 
 
 f See the report of the committee of the house of representatives, on the 51st of July, 
 ?812 ; and the repositions and documents accompanying it. 
 
 i See the official report of Mr. Baker, the agent for the prisoners, to brigadier gen- 
 eral Winchester, dated the 26th of February, 1813. 
 
 § In addition to this description of savage warfare, under British auspices, see thft 
 fikfs aontaioed in the ewrcspoiulense between general Hsri-ison, and general DruromoixV 
 
40 
 
 commanding officer on the station, until the commander in chiefs pleas- 
 ure should be known, with a guarantee of their fair value at all events ?"* 
 There wanted only to exempilify the debasement of smcIi an act, the oc- 
 currence, I hat the pirate should spurn the proffered alliance; and, accor- 
 dingly, Lafitle's answer was indignantly given, by a delivery of the let- 
 ter, containing the British proposition, to the American governor of 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Thbre were other sources, however, of support, which Great Britain 
 was prompted by her vengeance to employ, in opposition to the plainest 
 dictates of her own colonial policy. The events which have extirpated, 
 or dispersed, the white population of St. Domingo, are in the recollection 
 of all men. Although British humanity mi^ht not shrink, from the in- 
 fliction of similar calamities upon the southern states of America, the 
 danger of that course, either as an incitement to a revolt, of the slaves in 
 the British islands, or as a cause for retaliation, on the part of the United 
 States, ought to have admonished her against its adoption. Yet, in a for- 
 mal proclamation, issued by the commander in chief of his Britannic maj- 
 esty's squadrons, upon the American station, the slaves of the American 
 planters were invited to join the British standard, in a covert phraseology, 
 that afforded but a slight veil, for the real design. Thus, Ad. Cochrane, 
 reciting, "that it had been represented to him, that many persons now 
 resident in the United States, had expressed a desire to withdraw there- 
 from, with a view of entering into his majesty's service, or of being re- 
 ceived as free settlers into some of his majesty's colonies," proclaimed, 
 that "all those who might be disposed to emigrate from the United States, 
 would, with their families, be received on board of his majesty's ships or 
 vessels of war, or at the military posts that might be established upon, 
 or near, the coast of the United States, when they would have their choiee 
 of either entering into his majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as 
 free settlers to the British possessions in North America, or the West 
 Indies, where they would meet with all due encouragement."! But even 
 the negroes seem, in contempt, or disgust, to have resisted the solicitation ; 
 no rebellion, or massacre, ensued ; and the allegation, often repeated, 
 that in relation to those who were seduced, or forced, from the service of 
 their masters, instances have occurred of some being afterwards transport- 
 ed to the British West India islands, and there sold into slavery, for the 
 benefit of the captors, remains without contradiction. So complicated an 
 act of injustice would demand the reprobation of mankind. And let the 
 British government, which professes a just abhorrence of the African 
 slave trade; which endeavors to impose, in that respect, restraints upon 
 the domestie policy of France, Spain, and Portugal ; answer, if it can, the 
 solemn charge, against their faith, and their humanity. 
 
 3. Great Britain has violated the laws of civilized warfare, by 
 plundering private properly ; By outraging female honor; by burning un- 
 protected cities, towns, villages, and houses ; and by laying waste whole 
 districts of an unresisting country. 
 
 The menace and the practice of the British naval and military force, 
 '•to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the American 
 coast, as might he found assailable," have been excused upon the pretext 
 of retaliation, for the wanton destruction committed by the American ar- 
 my in Upper Canada ;"f hut the fallacy of the pretext has already beeu 
 exposed. It will be recollected, however, that (he act of burning Newark 
 was instantaneously disavowed by the American government : that it oc- 
 curred in Deeember, is 13 ; and that Sir George Prevost himself ackuowl- 
 
 • Sec the letter addressed by Edward Nichols, lieutenant-colonel commanding his 
 Britannic majesty's forces in the Florida*, 10 Monsieur Lafitte, or the commandant at 
 Barrataria, dated the 31«l fit' Augoat, 1814. 
 
 f Sne admiral Qoehrane'a proclamation, dated at Rermada, the 2d of April, 1814. 
 
 ; bee admiral Coeuraoe's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated August 18, 1814. 
 
41 
 
 edged, on the 10th of February, 1814* that the measure of retaliation, far 
 all the previously imputed misconduct of the American troops, was then 
 
 full and complete.* Between the month of February. 1814<, when that 
 acknowledgement was made, and the month of August, tsit, when the 
 British admiral's denunciation was issued, what are the outrages upon 
 the part of the Amerioan troops in Canada, to justify a call for retalia- 
 tion ? No: it was the system, not the incident, of the war; and intelli- 
 gence of the system bad been received at Washington, from the American 
 agents in Europe, with reference to the operations of admiral Warren, 
 upmi the shores of the Chesapeake, long before admiral Cochrane had 
 succeeded to the command of the British fleet, on the American station. 
 
 As an appropriate introduction to the kind of war, which G. Britain 
 intended to wage against the inhabitants of the United States, transaction* 
 occurred in England, under the avowed direction of the government itself, 
 that could not fail to wound the moral sense of every candid and generous 
 spectator. All the officers and mariners of the American merchant ships, 
 who, having lost their vessels in other places, had gone to England on 
 the way to America; or who had been employed in British merchant 
 ships, but were desirous of returning home ; or who had been detained, in 
 consequence of the condemnation of their vessels under the British orders 
 in council ; or who had arrived in England, through any of the other 
 casualties of the seafaring life ; were condemned to be treated as prisoners 
 of war; nay, some of them were actually impressed, while soliciting 
 their passports ; although not one of their number had been, in any way, 
 engaged in hostilities against Great Britain ; and although the American 
 government had afforded every facility to the departure of the same class, 
 as well as of every other class, of British subjects, from the United States, 
 for a reasonable period, after the declaration of vvar.f But this act of 
 injustice, for which even the pretext of retaliation has not been advanced, 
 was accompanied by another of still greater cruelty and oppression. The 
 American seamen, who had been enlisted, or impressed, into the naval 
 service of Great Britain, were long retained, and many of them are yet 
 retained, on board of British ships of war, where they are compelled to 
 combat against their country and their friends ; and even when the Brit- 
 ish government tardily and reluctantly recognized the citizenship of im- 
 pressed Americans, to a number exceeding one thousand at a single naval 
 station, and dismissed them from its service on the water; it was only to 
 immure them as prisoners of war on the shore. These unfortunate per- 
 sons, who had passed into the power of the British government, by a vio- 
 lation of their own rights and inclinations, as well as of.the rights of (heir 
 country, and who could only be regarded as the spoils of unlawful vio- 
 lence, were, nevertheless, treated as the fruits of lawful war. Such was 
 the indemnification, which Great Britain offered for the wrongs, that she 
 had inflicted; aud such the reward, which she bestowed, for services 
 that she had received.! 
 
 Nor has the spirit of British warfare been confined to violations of 
 the usages of civilized nations, in relation to the United States. The 
 system of blockade, by orders in council, has been revived; and the 
 American coast, from Maine to Louisiana, has been declared, by 1 he 
 proclamation of a British admiral, to be in a state of blockade, which 
 every dav's observation proves to be, practically, ineffectual, and which, 
 indeed, the whole of the British navy would be unable to enforce and 
 maintain. § Neither the orders in council, acknowledged to be generally 
 
 * S e sir George Prevost's letter to Gen. Wilkinson, dated 10th Feb. ISt 4. 
 f See Mr. Beasley's correspondence with the British government, in Oct. Nov. nml 
 Dec 1812. 
 
 See, also, the act of congress, passed the 6th July, 1812. 
 
 $ ^ee the letter from Mr. Beasley, to Mr, M'Leay. dited the 13th of March, 18(5. 
 _ § Seethe sucoessi e blockades announced by the British government, and the succ«?- 
 sive naval commanders on the Am^ricaa station, 
 » l " - ' '' ' 
 
42 
 
 uulawful, and declared to be merely retaliatory upon France ; nor tii? 
 Berlin and Milan decrees, which placed the British islands in a state of 
 blockade, without the force of a single squadron to maintain it; were, in 
 principle, more injurious to the rights of neutral commerce, than the ex- 
 isting blockade of the United States. The revival, therefore, of the 
 system, without the retaliatory pretext, must dcnnmsl rate to the world, 
 a determination, on the part of Great Britain, to acquire a commercial 
 monopoly, by every demonstration of her naval power. The trade of the 
 United States with Russia, and with other northern powers, by whose 
 governments no edicts, violating neutral rights, had been issued, was cut 
 off by the operation of the British orders in council of the year 1807, as 
 effectually as their trade with France and her allies, although the retali- 
 atory principle was totally inapplicable to the case. And the blockade 
 of the year 1814, is an attempt to destroy the trade of those nations, and 
 indeed, of all the other nations of Europe, with the United States ; while 
 Great Britain, herself, with the same policy and ardor, that marked her 
 illicit trade with France, when France was her enemy, encourages a clan- 
 destine traffic between her subjects and the American citizens, wherever 
 her possessions come in contact with the territory of the United States. 
 
 But approaching nearer to 1he scenes of plunder and violence, of cru- 
 elty and conflagration, which the British warfare exhibits on the eoast of 
 the United States, it must he again asked, what acts of the American 
 government, of its ships of war, or of its armies, had occurred, or were 
 even alleged, as a pretext, for the pepetration of this series of outrages ? 
 It will not be asserted, that they were sanctioned by the usages of modern 
 war; because, the sense of all Europe would revolt at the assertion. It 
 will not be said, that they were the unauthorized excesses of the British 
 troops; because scarcely an act of plunder and violence, of cruelty and 
 conflagration, has been committed, except in the immediate presence, under 
 the positive orders, and with the personal agency, of British officers. It 
 must not be again insinuated, that they were provoked by the American 
 example; because it has been demonstrated, that all such insinuations are 
 without color, and without proof. And, after all, the dreadful and dis- 
 graceful progress of the British arms, will be traced, as the effect of thai 
 animosity, arising out of recollections connected with the American revo- 
 lution, which has already been noticed ; or, as the effect of that jealousy, 
 which the commercial enterprise, and native resources, of the United 
 States, are calculated to excite, in the councils of a nation aiming at 
 universal dominion upon the ocean. 
 
 In the month of April, 1813, the inhabitants of Poplar Island, in the 
 hay of Chesapeake, were pillaged ; and the cattle and other live stock of 
 the farmers, beyond what the enemy could remove, were wantonly killed.* 
 
 In the same month of April, the wharf, the stores, and the fishery, at 
 Frenchtown Landing, were destroyed, and the private stores, and store- 
 houses, in the village of Frenchtown, were burnt. f 
 
 In the same month of April, the enemy landed repeatedly on Sharp's 
 Island, and made a general sweep of the stock, affecting, however, to pay 
 for a part of it.$ 
 
 On the 3d of May, 1S13, the town of Havre de Grace was pillaged and 
 burnt, by a force under the command of admiral Coekburn. The British 
 •fficers, being admonished, "that with civilized nations at war, private 
 property had always been respected.*' hastily replied, "that as the 
 Americans wanted war, they should now feel its effects : and that the town 
 should be laid in ashes." They broke the windows of the church; they 
 purloined the houses of the furniture ; they stripped women and children 
 of their clothes; and when an unfortunate female complained, that she 
 
 • See the deposition of William Sears. 
 
 J See the deposition* of Frisi.y Anderson ami Cordelia Penniugton. 
 f See Jacol* Uibkou'i) Ueijoaitiua, 
 
«ou!d not leave her house with her little children, she was unfeelingly 
 told, "that her house should be burnt with herself and her children in it."* 
 
 On the 6th of May, 1813, Frederickstown and Georgetown, situated on 
 Sassafras river, in the state of Marylaud, were pillaged and burnt, and 
 the adjacent country was laid uaste, by a force under the command of 
 admiral Cocfcburn ; and the officers were the most active on the occasion.! 
 
 On the 22d of June, 1813, the British forces made an attack upon 
 Crancy Island, with a view to obtain possession of Norfolk, which the 
 commanding officers had promised, in case of suceess, to give up to the 
 plunder of the troops.| The British were repulsed; but enraged by de- 
 feat and disappointment, their course was directed to Hampton, which 
 they entered on the of June. The scene, that ensued, exceeds ail 
 
 power of description ; and a detail of facts would be offensive to the feel- 
 ings of decorum, as well as of humanity. A defenceless and unresisting 
 town was given up to indiscriminate pillage; though civilized war toler- 
 ates this only, as to fortified places carried by assault, and after summons*. 
 Individuals, male and female, were stripped naked ; a sick man was stab- 
 b%d twice in the hospital; another sick man was shot in his bed, and in 
 the arms of his wife, who was also wounded, long after the retreat of the 
 American troops; and females, the married and the single, suffered the 
 extremity of personal abuse from the troops of the enemy, and from the 
 infatuated negroes, at their instigation. "§ The fact^ that these atrocities 
 were committed, the commander of the British fleet, admiral Warren, 
 and the commander of the British troops, sir Sidney Beckwith, admitted, 
 without hesitation ;|| but they resorted, as on other occasions, to the un- 
 worthy and unavailing pretext of a justifiable retaliation. It was said, 
 hy the British general, "that the excesses at Hampton, were occasioned 
 by an occurrence, at the recent attempt upon Craney Island, when the 
 British troops in a barge, sunk by the American guns, clung to the wreck 
 of the boat ; but several Americans waded off from the island, fired upon, 
 and shot these men." The truth of the assertion was denied ; the act, if 
 it had been perpetrated by the American troops, was promptly disavowed 
 by their commander ; and a board of officers appointed 1o investigate the 
 facts, after stating the evidence, reported "an unbiassed opinion, that the 
 charge against the American troops was unsupported ; and that the char- 
 acter of the American soldiery for humanity and magnanimity, had 
 not been committed, but on the contrary confirmed.^ The result of 
 this enquiry w as communicated to the British general ; reparation was 
 demanded ; but it was soon perceived, that whatever might personally be 
 the liberal dispositions of that officer, no adequate reparation could be 
 made, as the conduct of his troops was directed and sanctioned by his 
 government.** 
 
 * See the deposition of William T. Kitlpatrick, James Wood, Itosnnna Moore, and R. 
 Mansfield. 
 
 f See Uie depositions of John Stavely, William Speneer, Joshua Ward. James Scanlan. 
 Richard Barnabv, F B. Chandlear, Jon than Greenwood, John Allen, T. Robertson, 
 M. N. Cannon, and J T. Vearv . 
 
 * See general Taylor's letter to the secretary at war, dated the 2.1 of Julv, 1813. 
 
 § See the letters from general Taylor to admiral Warren, dated the 29th of tunc, 
 1813 ; to general sir Sidney Beckwith, dated the 4th and 5th of July, 1813 ; to the se- 
 cretary of war, dated the 2d of July, 1813; and to captain Myers, of the last date. 
 
 See, also, the letter from major Crutchfield to governor Barbour, d .ted the 20th of 
 June. 1813; the letters from capt Cooper to lieutenant governor Mallory, dated in July 
 1813 ; the report of Messrs Griffin and Lively to major Crutchfield.dated the 4th of July 
 1813; and col. Parker's publication in the Enquirer. 
 
 ft See admiral Wairen's letter to general Taylor, dated the 29th of June, 1813; sir 
 Sidney Beckwith's letter to general Taylor, dated the same day; and the report of capt. 
 Myers to general Tavlor, of July 2, 1813. 
 
 "jf See the report of the proceedings of the board of officers, appointed by the general 
 order, of the 1st of July, 18! 3. 
 
 ** See gen. Taylor's letter to sir Sidney Beckwitb, dated thsothof July, 1813 ; a»dUu> 
 answer of. (.he following day. 
 
44 
 
 During the period of these transactions, the village of Lewistown, 
 near t lie capes of the Delaware, inhabited chiefly by fisherman and pilots, 
 and (l>e village of Stonington, sealed upon the shorts of Connecticut, were 
 unsuccessfully bombarded. Armed parties, led by officers of rank, landed 
 daily from the British squadron, making predatory incursions into the 
 open country ; rifling and burning the houses and cottages of peaceable 
 nnd retired families ; pillaging the produce of the planter and the fanner; 
 (their tobacco, their grain, and their cattle :) committing violence on the 
 persons of the unprotected inhabitants; seizing upon siaves, wherever 
 they could be found, as booty of war; and breaking open the eolhns of 
 the dead, in search of plunder, or committing robbery on the altars of a 
 church at Chaptico, St. Inagoes and Tnppahanuock, with a sacrilegious 
 rage. 
 
 But the consummation of British outrage, yet remains to be stated 
 from the awful and imperishable memorials of the capital at Washing- 
 ton. It has been already observed, that the massacre of the American 
 prisoners, at the river Raisin, occuired in January, 1813 ; that through- 
 out the same year, the desolating warfare of Great Britain, without once 
 alleging a retaliatory excuse, made the shores of the Chesapeake, and 
 of its tributary rivers, a general scene of ruin and distress; and that in 
 the month of February, 1814, sir George Prevost himself, acknowledged 
 that the measures of retaliation, for the unauthorized burning of New- 
 ark, in December, 1813, and for all the excesses, which had been im- 
 puted to the American army, was, at that time, full and complete. The 
 V. States, indeed, regarding what was due to their own character, rather 
 than what was due to the conduct of their enemy, had forborne to au- 
 thorize a just retribution ; and even disdained to place the destruction of 
 Newark to retaliatory account, for the general pillage and conflagration 
 which had been previously perpetrated. It was not without astonish- 
 ment, therefore, that after more than a year of patient suffering, they 
 heard it announced in August, 1S14, that the towns and districts upon 
 their coast, were to be destroyed and laid waste, in revenge for unspe- 
 cified and unknown acts of destruction, which were charged against the 
 American troops in Upper Canada. The letter of admiral Cochrane 
 was dated on the ISth, but it was not received until the 31st of Au- 
 gust, 1814. In the intermediate time, the enemy debarked a body of 
 about five or six thousand troops at Benedict . on the Patuxent. and by 
 a sudden and steady march, through Bladensburgh, approached the 
 city of Washington. This city has been selected for tie seat of the 
 American government; but the number of its houses does' not exceed 
 nine hundred, spread over an extensive site ; the whole number of its 
 inhabitants does not exceed eight thousand ; and the adjacent country is 
 (Jtinlj populated! Although the necessary precautions had been order- 
 ed, io assemble the militia, for the defence of the city, a variety of causes 
 combined Io render the defence unsuccessful : and (he enemy took pos- 
 sesion of Washington, on the evening of the 24th of August, isii. 
 r \ lie commanders of the British force, held, at that time, admiral Coch- 
 r.iin ' : s desolating order, although it was then unknown to the govern- 
 ment and the people of the United Slates ; but conscious of the danger 
 ol' .,» distant a separation from the British Beet, and desirous, by every 
 plausible artifice, to deter the citizens from flying to arms against the 
 invaders, the} disavowed all design of injuring private persons and pro- 
 perty, and gtfve assurances of protection, wherever there was submis- 
 sion. General Ross and admiral Cockbum then proceeded in person, 
 to direct and superintend the business of conflagration ; in a place, which 
 had yielded to their arms, which was unfortified, and by which no hos- 
 tility was threatened. They set lire to the capital, within whose walls, 
 were contained, the hulls of the cougress of the United States, the hull 
 
of their helghest tribunal for t he administration of justice, the archives 
 of the legislature; and the national library. They set fire to the edifice) 
 which the United States had erected for the residence of t!icir chief 
 magistrate. And th6y set fire to the costly and extensive buildings, 
 erected for the accommodation of the principal officers of the government', 
 in the transaction of the public business. These magnificenl monuments 
 of the progress of the arts, which America had borrowed from her 
 parent Europe, with all the testimonials of tHStli a:u * literature winch 
 they contained, were on the memorable night of the 24th of August, 
 consigned te the flames, while British officers of high rank and com- 
 mand, united with their troops in riotous carousals, by the light of the 
 burning pile. 
 
 But the character of the incendiary had so entirely superceded the 
 character of the soldier, on this unparalleled expedition, that a great por- 
 tion of the munitions of war, which had not beeu consumed, when the 
 navy yard was ordered to be destroyed upon the appoach of the British 
 troops, were left untouched ; and an extensive foundery of cannon, ad- 
 joining the city of Washington, was left uninjured ; when, in the night 
 ot the 2.5th of August, the army suddenly decamped, and returning, with 
 evident marks of precipitation and alarm", to their ships, I. ft the m'termeUt 
 of their dead, and the care of their wounded, to the enemy, whom they 
 had thus injured and insulted, iu violation of the laws of civilized war. 
 
 The counterpart to the scene exhibited by the British army, was next 
 exhibited by the British navy. Soon after the midnight flight of general 
 Ross from Washington, a squadron of British ships of war ascended the 
 Potomac, and reached the (own of Alexandria, on the 27th of August, 
 1814. The magistrates, presuming that the general destruction of the 
 town was intended, asked, on what terms it might be saved. The naval 
 commander declared, ''that the only conditions in his power to ofl'er, 
 were such as not only required a surrender of all naval and ordnance 
 stores, (public and private.) but of all the shipping; and of all the mer- 
 chandise in the city, as well as such as had beeu removed, since the iSth 
 of August." The conditions, therefore, amounted tojthe entire plunder of 
 Alexandria, an unfortified and unresisting town, in order to save the buil- 
 dings from destruction. The capitulation was made ; and the enemy 
 bore away the fruits of his predatory enterprise, in triumph. 
 
 But even while this narrative is passing from the press, a new retalia- 
 tory pretext has been formed, to cover the disgrace of the scene, which 
 was transacted at Washington. In the address of the governor in chief 
 to the provincial parliament of Canada, on the 24th of January, 1S13, it 
 is asserted, in ambigious language, "that, as a just retribution, the proud 
 capital of Washington, has experienced a similar fate to that inflicted by 
 an American force on the seat of government, in Upper Canada." The 
 town of York, in Upper Canada, was taken by the American army under 
 the command of general Dearborn, on the 27th of April, 1813 J* and it 
 was evacuated on the succeeding 1st of May; although it was again visit- 
 ed for a day, by an American squadron, under the command of commodore 
 Chauncy, (in the 4th of August. f At the time of the capture, the enemy, 
 on his retreat, set fire to his magazine, and the injury produced by the 
 explosion was great and extensive ; but neither then, nor on the visit of 
 commodore Chauncy, was any edifice, which had been erected lor civil 
 uses, destroyed by theauthority of the military or the naval commander; 
 and the destruction of such edifices, by any part of their force, would have 
 beeu a direct violation of the positive orders which they had issued. On 
 
 * See the letters from general Dearborn, to the secretary of war, dated the 27ih and 
 28th of April, 1813. 
 
 f See the letter from commodore Chauncy to thcs^crcta>y of the navy, dated the 4lh 
 Of August, 1813, 
 
46 
 
 both occasions, indeed, (he public stores of the enemy were authorized tu 
 be siezed, and his public storehouses to be burnt ; but it is known that, 
 private persons, houses, and property, were left uninjured. If, therefore, 
 sir George Prevost deems such acts indicted on "the se;it of government 
 in Upper Canada" similar to the acts which were perpetrated at Wash- 
 ington, he has yet to perform the task of tracing the features of similarity ; 
 since, at Washington the public edilices which had been erected for civil 
 uses, were alone destroyed, while the munitions of war, and the foundaries 
 of cannon, remained untouched. 
 
 If, however, it be meant to affirm that the public edifices, occupied by 
 the legislature, by the chief magistrate, by the courts of justice, and by 
 the civil functionaries of the province of Upper Canada, with the provin- 
 cial library, were destroyed by the American force, it is an occurrence 
 which has never been before presented to the view of the American gov- 
 ernment, by its own officers, as matter of information; nor by any of 
 the military or civil authorities of Canada, as matter of complaint ; it 
 is an occurrence which no American commander had in any degree au- 
 thorized or approved ; and it is an occurrence which the American gov- 
 ernment would have censured, and repaired with equal promptitude and 
 liberality. 
 
 But a tale told thus out of date, for a special purpose, cannot command 
 the confidence of the intelligent and the candid auditor ; for, even if the 
 fact of conflagration be true, suspicion must attend the cause for so long a 
 concealment, with motives so strong for an immediate disclosure. When 
 sir George Frevost, in February, 181-1, acknowledged, that the measure of 
 retaliation was full and complete, for all the preceding misconduct imput- 
 ed to the American troops, was he not apprized of every fact, which had 
 occurred at York, the capital of Upper Canada, in the months of April 
 and August, 1813 ? Yet, neither then, nor at any antecedent period, nor 
 until the 24th of January, 1815, was the slightest intimation given of the 
 retaliatory pretext, which is now ottered. W hen the admirals Warren 
 and Cochrane vere employed in pillaging and burning the villages, on the 
 shores of the Chesapeake, were not all the retaliatory pretexts, for the 
 barbarous warfare known to those commanders ? And yet, "the fate in- 
 flicted by an American force on the seat of government in Upper Canada/' 
 was never suggested, in justification, or excuse ? And, finally, when 
 the expedition was formed, in August, 1814, for the destruction of 
 the public edifices at Washington, was not the "similar fate which had 
 been inflicted by an American force on the seat of government, in Upper 
 Canada," known to admiral Cochrane, as well as to sir George Prevost, 
 who called npon the admiral (it is alledged) to carry into efl'ect, measures of 
 retaliation, against the inhabitants of the United States ? And yet, both 
 the call, and t lie compliance, are founded (not upon the destruction of the 
 public edifices at York, but) upon the wanton destruction committed by 
 the American army in Upper Canada, upon the inhabitants of the province, 
 for whom alone reparation was demanded. 
 
 An obscurity, then, dwells upon the fact alledged by sir George Prevost, 
 which has Dot been dissipated by inquiry. Whether any public edifice was 
 improperly destroyed at York, or at what period the injury was done, if 
 •lone at all, and by what hand it was inflicted, are points that ought to have 
 been -stated, when the charge was made : surely it is enough, on the part 
 of the American government, to repeat, that the fact alledged was never 
 before brought to its knowledge, for investigation, disavowal, or reparation. 
 The silence of the military and civil officers of the provincial government 
 of Canada, indicates, too, a sense of shame, or a conviction of the injustice 
 of the present reproach. It is known, that there could have been no 
 other public edifice for civil uses destroyed in Upper Canada, than the 
 house of the provincial legislature, a building of so little cost and orna- 
 nieul, as hardly to merit consideration ; and certainly attbrding neither 
 
47 
 
 parallel nor apology, for the conflagration of the splendid structures, which 
 adorned t lie metropolis of the United States. If, however mat house 
 was indeed destroyed, may it not have been an accidental consequence of 
 the confusion, in which the explosion of the magazine involved the town ? 
 Or, perhaps it was hastily perpetrated by some of the enraged troops in 
 the moment of anguish, for the loss of a beloved Commander, and their 
 companions, who had been killed by that explosion, kindled as it was by 
 a defeated enemy, for the sanquinary and unavailing purpose; Or, in fine, 
 some suffering individual, remembering the slaughter of his brethren at 
 the river Raisin, and exasperated by the spectacle of a njtfnan scalp, sus- 
 pended in the legislative chamber, over the seat of the speaker, may, in 
 the paroxysm of his vengeance, have applied, unauthorized and unseen, 
 the touch of vengeance and destruction. 
 
 Many other flagrant instances of British violence, pillage and confla- 
 gration, in defiance of the laws of civilized hostilties, might «e added to 
 the catalogue, which has been exhibited ; but the enumeration would be 
 superfluous, and it is time to close so painful an exposition of the causes 
 and character of the war. The exposition had become necessary to repel 
 and refute the charges of the prince regent, when, by his declaration of 
 January, 1813, he unjustly states the United States to be the aggressors 
 in the war; and insultingly ascribes the conduct of the American govern- 
 ment, to the influence of French councils. It was also necessary to vindi- 
 cate the course of the United States, in the prosecution of the war ; and 
 to expose to the view of the world, the barbarous system of hostilities, 
 which the British government has pursued. Having accomplished these 
 purposes, the American government recurs, with pleasure, to a contempla- 
 tion of its early and continued efforts, for the restoration of peace. Not- 
 withstanding the pressure of the recent wrongs, and the unfriendly and 
 illiberal disposition, which G. Britian has, at all times, manifested to- 
 wards them, the United States have never indulged sentiments incompat- 
 ible, with the reciprocity of good will, and an intercourse of mutual benefit 
 and advantage. They cau never repiue, at seeing the British nation 
 great, prosperous, and happy ; safe in its maritime rights ; and powerful 
 in its means of maintaining them : but, at the same time, they can never 
 cease to desire, that the councils of Great Britain should be guided by jus- 
 tice, and a respect for the equal rights of other nations. Her maritime 
 power may extend to all the legitimate objects of her sovereignty, and 
 her commerce, without endangering the independence and peace of every 
 other government. A balance of power, in this respect, is as necessary 
 on the ocean as on the land : and the control that it gives to the nations of 
 the world, over the actions of each other is as salutary in its operation to 
 the individual government, which feels it, as to all the governments, by 
 which, on the just principles of mutual support and defence, it may be 
 exercised. On fair, and equal, and honorable terms, therefore, peace is 
 at the choice of Great Britain ; but if she still determine upon war, the 
 United States, reposing upon the justness of their cause, upon the pat- 
 riotism of their citizens ; upon the distinguished valor of their land and 
 naval forces ; and, above all, upon the dispensations of a beneficent 
 Providence ; are ready to maintain the contest, for the preservation of 
 the national independence, with the same energy and fortitude, which 
 were displayed in acquiring it. 
 
 Washington, February lo, 181?, 
 
Printed and published by Thomas G. Bangs, No. 7, State-Street — price 
 2 dollar* per dozen, 23 cents single.