' • I •• • AT «^ • • • v^ 
 
 "V^^%°'' \J'^^V^ "v'^%o'>' "^.^ 
 
 
 
 
CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 JOSIAH QUINCY 
 
 1805-1813. 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 By JOSIAH QUINCY, 
 
 Member of the House of Representatives for the Suffolk 
 District of Massachusetts, 
 
 1805-1813. 
 
 EDITED BY HIS SON, 
 
 EDMUND QUINCY, 
 
 FELLOW OP THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OP ARTS AND SCIENCES ; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN 
 
 PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY HELD AT PHILADELPHIA, AND OF THE HISTORICAL 
 
 SOCIETIES OF MASSACHCSETTS AND NEW, HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 
 
 1874. 
 
 '"^^Nit^''' 
 
ETso? 
 
 Q7 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by 
 
 EDMUND QUINCT, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Seven years ago, — September, 1867, — I pub- 
 lished a Life of my father, which had a reception 
 from the public of the most gratifying description, 
 far beyond my warmest hopes. Five editions were 
 disposed of in the course of two years, and the 
 demand has not yet entirely ceased. This success 
 I attribute chiefly to the interest felt in my father 
 by the many eminent and useful men in all parts of 
 the country who gratefully remembered his influ- 
 ence on their characters while President of the 
 University, as well as by the newer generation 
 who learned to know and admire him from the 
 active part he took in the political agitations which 
 went before the Civil War, and the Emancipa- 
 tion which it compelled. It was, however, my 
 opinion then, as it is now, that his permanent rep- 
 utation, after the generation that knew him per-, 
 sonally shall have passed away, and his claim to a 
 modest place in the history of his country, rest 
 rather upon his action on the wider scene of 
 national politics at "Washington, at a most inter- 
 esting and critical period of our affairs. I there- 
 fore made liberal extracts from his Congressional 
 Speeches as an integral and vital portion of his 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 life, and I have reason to think that these were 
 regarded by the best of my readers as adding 
 largely to the interest of the book. My own 
 opinion being thus re-enforced, I venture to offer 
 to the public this collection of his Congressional 
 Speeches in full, hoping that it may be regarded 
 as an illustration, not without value, of the spirit 
 and temper of the times when they were uttered. 
 
 The passage of history to which my father's Con- 
 gressional career belongs, lies at that precise dis- 
 tance from the present day which makes its facts 
 indistinct to the minds of all of our contemporaries, 
 excepting the daily dwindling number whose memo- 
 ries go back to those times. It is too remote for the 
 memory of the mass of living men, and not remote 
 enough to tempt the hand of the philosophic his- 
 torian. The period, however, from the inaugura- 
 tion of Washington to that of Monroe, will be 
 found full of materials for brilliant treatment by 
 the American historian whom we yet wait for. 
 Party spirit has never been so fierce and malignant, 
 passions and opinions have never clashed so furi- 
 ously, equally honest and patriotic men have never 
 differed more bitterly or more sincerely, than in 
 those far-off days. The old ideas encountered the 
 new ideas, and the collision shook civil society to 
 the centre. Great men, too, were called for, and 
 appeared upon the scene, whose figures are now 
 but indistinctly discerned through the mists of 
 time, but who will yet be displayed in their just 
 proportions by the light to be thrown upon them 
 by genius. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher 
 
PBEFACE. VU 
 
 Ames, William Pinkney, Samuel Dexter, Timothy 
 Pickering, James A. Bayard, will again become 
 the household words they were three quarters of a 
 century ago. The germs of the union of the Dem- 
 ocratic party and the Slave Oligarchy, which gave 
 the nation over into the hands of the Slave Power 
 for more than half a century, to be rescued only at 
 the fearful cost of the Civil War, will there be 
 detected and displayed. And the mischiefs of a 
 doctrinaire statesmanship were never better shown 
 than in the miseries inflicted upon the whole 
 country, but especially upon the Northern Atlantic 
 States, by the reduction to legislation of the 
 political reveries of an ideologue like Mr. Jefferson, 
 in the Embargo and the Non-Intercourse and the 
 War of 1812, in which these measures naturally 
 culminated, though unforeseen and undesired by 
 their author. It is observable that the interest 
 and importance of the portion of our national his- 
 tory with which these speeches of Mr. Quincy have 
 to do, were more fully understood and set forth by 
 the London " Spectator," and " Pall Mall Gazette," 
 and the Paris " Hevue des Deux Mondes," all of 
 which journals had able and elaborate articles on his 
 Life, than by some American periodicals, which 
 inclined to regard it as an obscure and insignificant 
 chapter in our annals.- When the historian of the 
 future shall come to treat of those events, the 
 public utterances of public men will be among his 
 best materials for that revivification of the passions 
 and opinions of the men of the time which forms 
 the living spirit of history. I trust that this collec- 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 tion will then be considered as neither useless nor 
 unimportant as expressing the thoughts and emo- 
 tions which made up the inner life of no inconsid- 
 erable portion of the American people. 
 
 As to the merit of these Speeches as specimens 
 of parliamentary oratory, it is not for me to speak. 
 Whatever may be their force and skill, critically 
 considered, be the same less or more, I know that 
 they are most characteristic of the man, and very ex- 
 pressive of the sentiments and feelings of the noble 
 Federal party to which he belonged, and which at 
 one time he led. I should hardly, however, have 
 presumed to collect them in this permanent form 
 had I not been encouraged to do so by the judg- 
 ments of men to which my own must bow, and 
 which more than confirmed any estimation I might 
 have put upon them myself. Among these en- 
 couraging counsellors I may be permitted to name 
 my valued friends, the late Senator Sumner, and 
 Mr. Motley, the historian of the Dutch Republic, 
 both of whom held opinions as to my father's rank 
 among parliamentary orators which I shall not ven- 
 ture to repeat, and which I cannot but consider as 
 heightened in some degree by their reverential affec- 
 tion for his person. But, all allowances made, 
 enough of encouragement remains, given by judges 
 so eminent, to make it the less presumptuous in me 
 to hope for a favorable reception for this collection 
 from the small but enlightened class who care for 
 matters of the sort. One thing I may be per- 
 mitted to say of these Speeches of my father. 
 They are his Speeches, as they came from his mind 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 and from his lips without amendment or correction 
 of mine. Some very eminent orators of our time 
 have carefully revised and altered their speeches, 
 or left them to the correction of their friends, years 
 after they were delivered. Thus, doubtless, admi- 
 rable literary performances have been secured to 
 us, but they are not the speeches as they were 
 uttered by the speakers in the heat of debate, char- 
 acteristic of the men and of the times, and perhaps 
 rather smell of the lamp than savor of the Senate- 
 house. My father never cared enough about the 
 matter to do any thing of the kind, and I consider 
 it the part both of filial duty and of good taste to 
 present his speeches to the public of to-day as they 
 were addressed to the public of seventy years since. 
 I feel that any attempt of mine to improve his style 
 would only impair its force and injure its character- 
 istic qualities. I have confined myself, therefore, 
 as editor, to the correction of obvious errors of the 
 press, or of the imperfect reporting of those times, 
 and 1 have thus endeavored to print these Speeches 
 as nearly as possible as he spoke them. 
 
 I have ventured to prefix to each Speech a short 
 introduction explaining the political circumstances 
 under which it was delivered. I judged that some 
 elucidation of the kind would be useful to readers 
 who are not familiar with the history of those 
 times. I have made them as brief as is consistent 
 with this object. 
 
 Dedham, Massachusetts, 
 November 1st, 187-i. 
 
C N T E N T S. 
 
 Page 
 Speech on the Bill for fortifying the Ports and Harbors of the 
 
 United States. April 15, 1806 3 
 
 Speech on the Bill for authorizing the President to suspend the 
 Embargo under certain Circumstances. April, 1808 ... 31 
 
 Speech on the first Resolution reported by the Committee on 
 
 Foreign Relations. Nov. 28, 1808 53 
 
 Second Speech on the Report of the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations ; in reply to the Observations of Mr. Bacon. 
 Dec. 7, 1808 83 
 
 Speech on the Bill for raising Fifty Thousand Volunteers. 
 
 Dec. 30, 1808 Ill 
 
 Speech on the Bill for holding an Extra Session of Congress in 
 May next. Jan. 19, 1809 129 
 
 Speech on the Resolution of Censure on Francis J. Jackson, 
 
 the British Minister. Dec. 28, 1809 157 
 
 Speech on the Passage of the Bill to enable the People of the 
 Territory of Orleans to form a Constitution and State Gov- 
 ernment, and for the Admission of such State into the Union. 
 Jan. 14, 1811 193 
 
 Speech on the Influence of Place and Patronage. Jan. 30, 1811. 227 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 Speech on the Proposition to revive and enforce the Non-inter- 
 course Law against Great Britain. Feb. 25, 1811 . . . 247 
 
 Speech on the Enlistment of Minors. Jan. 5, 1813. . . . 277 
 
 Speech in relation to Maritime Protection. Jan. 25, 1812 . . 291 
 
 Speech on the Relief of Sundry Merchants from Penalties inno- 
 cently incurred. Dec. 14, 1812 331 
 
 Speech on the Invasion of Canada. Jan. 5, 1813 357 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR FORTIFYING THE PORTS 
 AND HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 April 15, 1806. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR FORTIFYING THE PORTS AND 
 HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 April 15, 1806. 
 
 [The state of affairs, domestic and foreign, at the beginning of 
 1806 was briefly this. Of the sympathies and antipathies of the 
 Federal and Democratic parties in relation to France and Eng- 
 land, I have given some account in the preface to this volume. 
 For the quarter of a century, from the beginning of the French 
 Revolution to the battle of Waterloo, the hopes, the fears, the 
 passions, and the politics of the United States were indissolubly 
 connected with those of Europe. We were, during those years, 
 in continual danger of being drawn into the wars which, with 
 brief intervals of truce, occupied the nations of Europe. It was 
 against this peril that the warning voice of Washington was 
 raised in his Farewell Address when he admonished his country- 
 men to beware of " entangling alliances " with foreign powers. 
 These were no superfluous words of caution, and it is likely that 
 it was our poverty rather than our will that restrained us from 
 taking a part, most disastrous to ourselves, on one side or the 
 other of those fateful conflicts, according as sympathy with 
 France or with England had the ascendant in the public opinion 
 of the time. 
 
 Previous to 1805, these wars had indeed been of direct benefit 
 to the United States. Being the only neutral power of any 
 maritime importance, the carrying-trade was almost entirely in 
 American hands. All the colonial productions of France and 
 
4 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 Holland and of Spain, since her alliance with Fi-ance, were first 
 brought to some American port and thence reshipped to the 
 respective mother countries. The American ship-owners, thus 
 having the advantage of double freights, carried on an im- 
 mensely 2:)rofitable business ; and large fortunes, as they were 
 esteemed in those simple days, were made in it. The English 
 government at last discerned that this system gave France the 
 benefit of the trade of her own colonies and those of her allies 
 almost as fully as in time of peace. So the Courts of Admiralty 
 revised the old doctrines of International Law, and confiscated 
 several American cargoes on the ground that our flag was used 
 as the cover of a fraudulent transaction, the property having 
 never really belonged to the American merchant, having been 
 landed in the neutral port merely for reshipment to a hostile 
 one. 
 
 These decisions, destroying as they did a most lucrative trade, 
 created great dissatisfaction ; and they were the beginning of 
 those unfriendly relations between the two countries which 
 finally culminated in the War of 1812. And, although the neu- 
 trality of the United States was vitally beneficial to France and 
 Spain, they could not resist the temptation our rich merchant- 
 vessels offered to their cruisers, which often seized them on 
 small pretexts, or none at all, and thus gave rise to the French 
 and Spanish claims of our later history. Besides these compli- 
 cations, we were in a condition of very dubious friendship with 
 Spain, which had then some remains of her former pride and 
 power. In 1803 Bonaparte sold Louisiana to the United States 
 under circumstances which colored our whole history for two 
 generations, and of which we shall give an account by and by. 
 Spain had ceded back to France, in 18-00, this territory which 
 she had received from that power, in 1762, in compensation for, 
 her losses in the war which ended in the conquest of Canada. 
 Whatever motives induced this action, it was certainly without 
 the expectation that this territory would be almost immediately 
 handed over to a growing republic conterminous with her other 
 North American possessions. Had she been strong enough it 
 might even have been made a casus belli. As it was, she pro- 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 5 
 
 tested energetically against the treaty of 1803; actually occu- 
 pied posts within our undoubted boundaries ; and her minister, 
 Irujo, treated President Jefierson with insolent contempt. 
 
 Our foreign relations being in this queasy condition, when a 
 slight and unforeseen contingency might bring a fleet upon our 
 coasts and into the harbors of our cities, it seemed as if some 
 kind of preparation should be made against such a possibility. 
 Mr. Jefferson did not deny this, and he urged the neces- 
 sity of preparation against possible hostilities. But, in his 
 morbid fear of spending money, he limited his suggestion to the 
 equipping of gun-boats to lie in wait for the enemy and issue 
 from their ambush on his approach, and to a classification of the 
 militia, by which, on the appi'oach of danger, the younger men 
 should forsake the plough and the work-bench and rush to the 
 rescue. The Federalists, and especially those representing the 
 commercial States, thought these precautions quite insufficient. 
 As the commerce of the country furnished almost the entire sup- 
 port of the government, and had provided the fifteen millions 
 required for the jjurchase of Louisiana and the two millions for 
 that of Florida, they deemed it but reasonable that a moderate 
 proportion of the money they supplied should be spent in the 
 fortification of the Atlantic cities. During the seventeen years 
 of our national existence, only seven hundred and twenty-four 
 thousand dollars had been spent for the fortification of the nine 
 chief commercial cities ! By the bill, during the discussion of 
 which the following speech was delivered, one hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars was appropriated for the defence of New York, 
 and a motion to substitute five hundred thousand was treated 
 with contempt and received only twenty-seven votes. All prop- 
 ositions to increase the amount, or to leave a blank sum to be used 
 at the discretion of the President, were laughed to scorn. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Chairman, — Gentlemen seem disposed to treat 
 this subject lightly, and to indulge themselves in pleas- 
 antries, on a question very serious to the commercial 
 cities and to the interest of those who inhabit them. It 
 
6 SPEECH ON FOETIFYING 
 
 may be sport to you, gentlemen, but it is death to us. 
 However well disposed a majority of this House may be 
 to treat this bill ludicrously, it will fill great and influ- 
 ential portions of this nation with very dilferent senti- 
 ments. Men, who have all that human nature holds 
 dear — friends, fortunes, and families — concentrated in 
 one single spot on the sea-coast, and that spot exposed 
 every moment to be plundered and desolated, will not 
 highly relish or prize at an extreme value, the wit or 
 the levity, with which this House seems inclined to 
 treat the dangers which threaten them ; and which are 
 sources to them of great and just apprehensions. I do 
 not rise, Mr. Chairman, merely to suj^port the motion 
 made by the gentleman from New York. It is not the 
 fortification of this or that particular city which I mean 
 to advocate. I should have preferred a general appro- 
 priation, leaving it to the discretion of the executive to 
 apply it to those ports and harbors which are either 
 most exposed or most important. And if, by any thing 
 that shall occur in the course of the discussion, the 
 House shall be induced to change what at present 
 seems to be its disposition, I hope the augmented ap- 
 propriation will be made in that form. It is to the 
 general duty which is incumbent upon this legislature 
 to protect the commercial cities, that I would call its 
 attention. This duty is so plain and imperious, that, in 
 my opinion, an awful weight of responsibility rests upon 
 this House. Every class and collection of citizens have 
 a right to claim from government that species of pro- 
 tection which their situation requires, in proportion to 
 their exposure, and to the greatness of the stake which 
 society has in their safety. Our obligation to protect 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 7 
 
 the commercial cities does not result from the particular 
 exigency Avhich at present impends over our nation, 
 but from the nature of tliose cities. The duty is perma- 
 nent and ought to be fulfilled by a permanent system. 
 A regular course of annual appropriations may in a very 
 few 3ears put all our capital cities in a state of reason- 
 able security, and, at no very distant period of time, 
 without any additional imposition on the people, give 
 ever}^ city on our coast an adequate defence. It is in 
 this light that I consider the question now before the 
 committee to be important. Not that any sum which 
 may be inserted will be immediately sufficient for all 
 the objects for which we have to provide. But that 
 any augmentation of the appropriation will be a pledge 
 to the nation of the disposition of this House to com- 
 mence a system of defence for our cities : any evidence 
 of which will give just satisfaction to great masses of 
 your citizens, as an appearance of a want of it will fill 
 them Avitli no less discontent and dismay. In this point 
 of view I ask the indulgence of the committee to a few 
 observations on the importance of fortifications, their 
 utility and practicability. 
 
 As to the importance of the objects for which we 
 ask a defence, it seems to me either not understood or 
 not realized. Almost all who have spoken on the sub- 
 ject have dwelt chiefly, if not altogether, on the amount 
 of revenue drawn from the commercial cities; as if their 
 value was to be appreciated, and our duty to defend 
 them measured, by the annual produce they yield. 
 This, it is true, makes a natural part of the estimate of 
 their worth, but, as I apprehend, by no means the most 
 important. Their situation, the number of the inhab- 
 
8 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 itants, the great i)ortion of the active and fixed capital 
 of society which they contain, are, in a national view, 
 standards much more just and more elevated by which 
 to ascertain their value and our obligations. I ask, sir, 
 what is the amount of the capital of this nation which 
 is invested in the single city of New York ? The 
 annual product it yields to our revenue is three mil- 
 lions of dollars. Now suppose the average of imjDort 
 duties is only ten per cent ad valorem (a sum certainly 
 below the real average), the annual amount of capital 
 deposited in imports is then thirty millions of dollars. 
 The amount of value in exports cannot be estimated at 
 less than twenty millions. If to these be added the 
 capital of its banks, the amount of stock always on hand, 
 that of its ship23ing and other personal property, — all of 
 which no one can rate below another fifty millions, — the 
 result is that there is in annual deposit, within the city 
 of New York alone, one hundred millions of the active 
 capital of this nation. I know how far this is below the 
 real estimate, but I state this sum that no one may hesi- 
 tate to admit my position. I ask, then, what is it worth 
 to insure this sum against the risk of an invasion, not 
 on calculations on the great national scale, but on a 
 mere insurance-office arithmetic? I have been told that 
 to insure that cit}'- against such a risk, for one single 
 year of war with any of the great maritime nations of 
 Europe, would be worth five per cent. That is the in- 
 surance for a single year of war would repay the expense 
 of fortifications, even should they cost five millions of dol- 
 lars. But, suppose this calculation extravagant, can any 
 one doubt that such an insurance in time of peace, 
 against the double risk of war and of attack in case of 
 
THE PORTS AND HAEBOKS. 9 
 
 war, is worth one-half per cent? Even at this premium, 
 six years of insurance in time of peace would repay 
 the expenditure of three millions, — a sum more than 
 adequate to the defence of that city. In making this 
 statement, I would not be understood to pretend or to 
 propose such an appropriation : it is not asked. My 
 object is to call gentlemen to consider what is the mar- 
 ket worth of security, and that they may not deem the 
 moneys they apply to these objects — as they seem will- 
 ing to deem them — absolutely thrown away. This 
 great mass of the national wealth, thus concentrated 
 on the bank of one of the most exposed harbors in 
 the world, is liable to the insult and depredation of 
 the most despicable force. Two seventy-four gun- 
 ships may, at this moment, lay that city under contribu- 
 tion or in ashes with impunity. They might make it 
 the interest of the inhabitants of that city to pay an 
 amount equal to the whole annual revenue we derive 
 from it, rather than to submit to the hazard and mis- 
 eries of bombardment and conflagration. For in such 
 case the mere destruction of property is but an item in 
 the account of anticipated misfortune. The shock to 
 credit ; the universal stagnation of business ; the terror 
 spread through every class, age, and sex ; the thousands 
 who have no refuge in the country, but must take the 
 fate, and be buried under the ruins, of their city, — all 
 these circumstances would enter into consideration, and 
 make the pecuniary sacrifice, however great, appear 
 trifling in comparison. I have used the city of New 
 York only by way of example. The same observations 
 are applicable to every other commercial city in the 
 United States in proportion to its magnitude and the 
 
10 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 nature of its situation. Two seventy-fours might sweep 
 the coast from Savannah to Portland, and levy an 
 amount equal to the whole annual revenue of the 
 United States. It would be better for any city volun- 
 tarily to pay a contribution equal to its proportion of 
 that amount, rather than to take the alternative of that 
 destruction to which, on refusal, it would be obliged to 
 submit. Is such a state of things as this a light and 
 trifling concern ? Are such portions of the wealth of 
 the community to be left exposed to the caprice of 
 every plunderer ; and are propositions to protect them 
 to be treated with contempt or ridicule? Can any duty 
 be more solemn or imperious than that which has for its 
 object a rational degree of security for those ports in 
 the United States which are bej^ond all others exposed 
 to hostile attack, at the same time that they comprise, 
 within the smallest possible compass, immense masses 
 of the national wealth and population ? 
 
 The importance, then, of the objects to be defended 
 will be admitted. But the utility of fortifications, as a 
 means of defence, and their practicability in certain 
 ports and harbors, are denied. With respect to the gen- 
 eral utility of fortifications, I ask, by whom is it denied ? 
 By men interested in that species of defence ? By the 
 inhabitants of cities ? By those the necessity of whose 
 situation has turned their attention to the nature of 
 fortifications and their efficacy ? No, sir : these men 
 solicit them. They are anxious for nothing so much. 
 They tell you, the safety of all they hold dear, — their 
 wives, their children, their fortunes, and lives are staked 
 upon your decision. They do not so much as ask for- 
 tifications as a favor : they claim them as a right. They 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 11 
 
 demand them. Who are they, then, that deny their 
 utihty ? Why, men from the interior. Men who 
 in one breath tell you they know nothing about the 
 subject, and in the next pass judgment against the adop- 
 tion of any measures of defence. It is true, sir, to men 
 who inhabit the White Hills of New Hampshire, or the 
 Bine Ridge of Virginia, nothing can appear more abso- 
 lutel}' useless than appropriations for the defence of the 
 sea-coast. In this, as in all other cases, men reason 
 very coolly and philosophically concerning dangers to 
 which they are not themselves subject. All men, for 
 the most part, bear with wonderful composure the mis- 
 fortunes of other people. And, if called to contribute 
 to their relief, they are sure to find, in the cold sugges- 
 tions of economy, apologies enough for failure in their 
 social duties. The best criterion of the utility of forti- 
 fications is the practice and experience of other nations. 
 Xow, I ask, was there ever a nation which did not 
 defend its great commercial deposits, by either land 
 fortifications or sea batteries? All history does not 
 exhibit such an instance. Are we wiser, then, than all 
 other nations ; or are we less exposed than they ? Are 
 we alone to escape the common lot of humanity ? Can 
 we expect to be rich, and not tempt the spirit of ava- 
 rice ? To be defenceless amid armed pirates, and in no 
 danger of robbery or insult ? I ask again, sir, how -is 
 the inutility of fortifications proved ? Suppose, for the 
 sake of argument, it should be admitted — which, how- 
 ever, I deny — that they cannot be erected in sufficient 
 force to defeat very great armaments ; yet is it nothing to 
 prevent the piratical attempts of single ships? Is it 
 nothing to deter an invader ? Nothing even to delay an 
 
12 SPEECH OX FORTIFYING 
 
 attack ? Is it worth nothing to have the chance of 
 crippling an assailant ? The only argument I have 
 heard urged against the utility of fortifications is, that 
 the whole coast cannot be fortified ; so that, protect as 
 strongly as you m411 particular points, the invader will 
 land somewhere else. Sir, this is the very object of 
 fortifications. No man ever thought of building a Chi- 
 nese wall along all the indentations of our shore, from 
 the St. Mary's to the St. Croix. The true object of 
 fortifications is to oblige your enemies to land : it is to 
 keep them at arm's length. If the}^ cannot reach j^our 
 cities with their batteries, and would attack, the}' must 
 come on shore. They are then only a land force, and 
 our militia will find no difficulty in giving a good 
 account of them. The only remaining arguments in the 
 possession of this House, against the utility of fortifica- 
 tions, are the opinions of various gentlemen, delivered 
 on this floor ; and that of the secretary at war, as stated 
 in his report. As to the former, they certainly do not 
 merit a serious refutation, because no gentleman who 
 has spoken has pretended to a practical or even theo- 
 retical knowledge of the subject ; but, on the contrary, 
 most, if not all of them, have candidly confessed their 
 ignorance. It is of more importance to consider the 
 opinion of the secretary at war. That part of his 
 report which relates to the harbor of New York con- 
 tains his general opinion against the practicability of 
 defending such a harbor by land batteries, and two 
 facts in support of that opinion. Now, as to the gen- 
 eral opinion of the secretary, I am w^illing to allow it 
 whatever weight an}- gentleman may choose to attach 
 to it ; but certainly it ought not to be conclusive in an 
 
THE POETS AND HARBOES. 13 
 
 affair of such immense importance ; especially when it 
 is contradicted by the tenor of the applications on your 
 table, and by the opinions of other individuals of as 
 high militar}' and scientific reputation as the secretary. 
 Much less does this his opinion claim from us an implicit 
 confidence ; since the only two facts he has chosen to 
 adduce are very far from being a sufficient basis for the 
 broad opinion he has built on them. The first fact is 
 one which occurred in the harbor of New York in 
 1776. A British ship of forty guns passed the batteries 
 on the Hudson, under circumstances favorable to the 
 effect of the batteries, and sustained " a tremendous 
 fire " without being sensibly " incommoded." Allowing 
 this fact its full force, it can weigh but little against the 
 utility or practicability of fortifications. That was the 
 second year of the war. Our batteries were erected on 
 a sudden emergency. Our artillerists had probably 
 little experience. Will it be pretended that the bat- 
 teries this nation, in its present state of affluence and 
 experience can erect, will not exceed, both in location 
 and power, those which at that time protected the 
 Hudson ? Besides, to draw from a particular instance 
 a general conclusion is contrary to all rules of just 
 logic. Various circumstances, altogether accidental, 
 might have occurred to have produced that result, 
 which might never occur again. If this instance be a 
 good argument against the validity of land fortifications, 
 there is an equally strong argument in the history of 
 our revolution against the fashionable mode of defence 
 by gun-boats. I take the fact only from verbal infor- 
 mation ; and, if I am incorrect, there are gentlemen on 
 this floor who can set me right. During the war, a 
 
14 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 British frigate of forty-four guns, called the " Roebuck," 
 took ground in the Delaware ; and though we had gun- 
 boats quantum sufficit, who pelted her to their hearts' con- 
 tent, during one whole tide, she received no manner of 
 injury, at least none of any importance. If I have this 
 fact correctly, it is just as strong against the efficacy of 
 gun-boats as that produced by the secretary is against 
 land batteries. One Avord here concerning this mode of 
 defence by gun-boats, which seems to concentrate all 
 the naval affections of our rulers, and to have on freight 
 all their military hopes. It is not denied that these are 
 weapons of considerable effect ; or that in certain situa- 
 tions they are useful ; or that, in aid of other and heavier 
 batteries, they may not sometimes be important. It is 
 only when they become the favorites, to the total exclu- 
 sion of more j)Owerful modes of defence, and draw 
 away to the less power appropriations which are want- 
 ing for the greater, that the system which upholds 
 them becomes an object of contemjit or of dread. 
 Nowadays, sir, put what you will into the crucible, — 
 whether it be seventy-fours, or frigates, or land batteries, 
 — the result is the same : after due swelterinQ- in the lee- 
 islative furnace, there comes out nothing but gun-boats. 
 I ask if our cities are attacked by any maritime nation, 
 will it not be by line-of-battle shij)s ; and who ever 
 heard that a line-of-battle ship was defeated by gun- 
 boats ? I do not pretend to be learned in these matters ; 
 but, as far as I have been able to gain information, it is, 
 that when there is any thing of a heavy sea, even such 
 as is often in the harbor of New York, gun-boats are of 
 very little efficac3^ It is true, in case of a calm, if they 
 can get their object at rest they have a great advantage ; 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 15 
 
 that is, if 3'ou can get the bird to stand still until you 
 can put salt upon its tail, you can catch the bird. But 
 the worst of it is, that it is too cunning for that. The 
 ship of the line chooses its own time for the attack, and 
 will always select that which is least favorable to its 
 adversary. 
 
 But to return to the report of the secretary at war. 
 The next fact it states is the battle of Copenhagen. 
 Now if this be adduced merely as an evidence of a par- 
 ticular instance of the inefficacy of land batteries, I do 
 not think it important enough to take the time to 
 examine. The true question is not whether New York 
 can be defended in a particular way, but whether it is 
 capable of defence at all, by combining land with float- 
 ing batteries. In this point of view, the instance 
 adduced by the secretary is perhaps the most memora- 
 ble on record, and the one, of all others, in which those 
 who advocate a defence of our commercial cities ought 
 to exult as in an incontrovertible evidence of the truth 
 of their system. What was the fact ? One of the best 
 appointed naval armaments of the most powerfid mar- 
 itime nation in the world, under her most favored and 
 fortunate commander, was sent to attack Copenhagen. 
 The Danes were taken by surprise. Every thing, 
 apparently, was in favor of the assailant and against 
 those who acted on the defensive. To fifteen line-of- 
 battle ships, the Danes had nothing to oppose but their 
 land and liarbor batteries, fortifications, and block ships. 
 And what was the result? Why that, after a most 
 bloody and well-contested battle, the British first asked 
 a truce. To this day the Danes claim the victory. 
 Olfort Fischer, the Danish commander, in his official 
 
16 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 statement of the battle, declares that, before the flag 
 of truce was offered, two of the British ships of the 
 line had struck their colors, and that for some time their 
 whole line was so weakened that it fired only single 
 guns. Intelligent Europeans assert, and even candid 
 Englishmen will allow, that, if ever Nelson was beaten, 
 it was on that occasion. But suppose all this to be 
 erroneous. Suppose that Nelson obtained a real victory, 
 does it thence result that the fortifications and the 
 block ships with which Copenhagen Avas defended were 
 useless ? By no means. Still that battle is an illustri- 
 ous and irrefragable instance of their utility. It is a 
 fact on record, worth a million theories, in favor of the 
 efficacy of a harbor defence against a maritime force. 
 Sir, the end for which those batteries were erected is 
 attained. Copenhagen is defended. The storm Avhich 
 would have desolated the city has spent its force on the 
 artificial shield. Let gentlemen calculate the probable 
 cost of those batteries, and suppose by expending a 
 similar sum in the harbor of New York, that city might 
 be defended as Copenhagen was and from a like danger. 
 Is there a man that can hesitate as to the wisdom of 
 such an expenditure ? Sir, the cit}^ of Copenhagen on 
 that day was preserved from a devastation which the 
 cost of twenty such batteries would not have repaired. 
 I conclude, then, that our commercial cities can be 
 defended, even the most exposed of them: land bat- 
 teries combined with harbor batteries are equal to the 
 object. To this question of practicability, concerning 
 which so much is said, I humbly conceive this not 
 the place where it ought to be decided. It belongs 
 to the executive. That is the proper department to 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 17 
 
 examine into it. Our duty is to make the appro- 
 priations, to show at least a disposition to defend. 
 If New York cannot be defended, is it the same case 
 with Charleston, Savannah, or Norfolk ? Shall we leave 
 the whole defenceless, because a particular part is vul- 
 nerable ? Sir, let us confess the truth. The limit of 
 our power to defend is not in the nature of the cities, 
 but in our disposition to appropriate. Not in the inefifi- 
 cacy of land or harbor batteries, but in our insensibility 
 to the danger of the commercial cities and unwilling- 
 ness to make the pecuniary sacrifices their protection 
 requires. On all sides we are met with the objection, 
 " Where are the means ? " " How is the public debt 
 to be discharged, if we incur such an expense ? " Mr. 
 Chairman, none of these difficulties are insurmountable, 
 when southern land is to be purchased, or when our new 
 territories on the Missouri and Red River are to be ex- 
 plored, or when Indian titles in the western country are 
 to be extinguished. We have paid within these two years 
 fifteen millions of dollars for Louisiana, and have sent 
 off two millions more to purchase the Floridas. I ask 
 on what principle can either of these purchases be 
 made palatable to the people of the United States? 
 Do they want more land or wider dominions? On 
 neither of these considerations would they for one 
 moment have submitted to either purchase. It was 
 because the possession of the Mississippi thrcfugh its 
 whole course was essential to the security and happiness 
 of our brethren beyond the mountains, that the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana was sanctioned by public opinion, 
 and if ever that of the Floridas receives the acquies- 
 cence of the people, it will only be from the conviction 
 
18 SPEECH ON FOETIFYING 
 
 that the possession of those countries is necessary for 
 the tranquillity of our southern frontier. All this we 
 have done for the security of the south and west : we 
 now ask for reciprocity ; grant us something for the 
 security of the north and east. Let not the people see 
 that all the incomes proceed from one quarter of the 
 Union, and all the expenditures are made in another. 
 Let them not learn from experience, that the ball of 
 favoritism and that of empire is travelling south and 
 west. I ask, what are the Floridas, or what is Louisi- 
 ana, in comparison with the single city of New York ? 
 This city alone is worth forty Louisianas. Yet when 
 Louisiana was purchased, did the increase of the public 
 debt prevent the bargain? Or, later, was the question 
 of " means " an obstacle to the appropriation for the 
 Floridas ? The seventeen millions of dollars thus ex- 
 pended for the security of the south would have put 
 every commercial city of the United States into a com- 
 plete state of defence. I do not, Mr. Chairman, intro- 
 duce the purchase of Louisiana and the Floridas in this 
 connecrion lightly, or without antecedent reflection : I 
 would hold up to this house a mirror in which it may 
 contemplate itself and see its own features. It is 
 impossible not to remark that the sympathies of the 
 majority of this legislature do not extend to the sea- 
 coast. But whatever will meliorate the condition of 
 the interior excites all its sensibilities and awakens all 
 its anxieties. Look at this moment on your table: 
 there are now no less than four, I believe five, Indian 
 treaties which have been ratified the present session, 
 the appropriations for which occasion no alarm about 
 the public faith or the public purse. It is worth our 
 
THE POtlTS AND HARBORS. 19 
 
 while to notice the particulars. By these treaties the 
 United States agree to pay : — 
 
 First, cash down $37,000 
 
 Next, the following annuities : — 
 
 $1,600 for ten years 1G,000 
 
 $12,000 for eight years 9G,000 
 
 $11,000 for ten years 110,000 
 
 $259,G00 
 
 In addition to which we are to pay other annuities, 
 amounting to $4,000 for ever. These last cannot be 
 estimated at less in any market than $50,000, but 
 which I rate only at 40,000 
 
 $300,000 
 
 Besides whicli, our appropriation for the Indian de- 
 partment and for the support of the civil government 
 of Louisiana, and our otlier south-western territory, 
 exceed 150,000 
 
 $450,000 
 
 Thus in this single session we shall have appropriated 
 four hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for the security 
 and protection of the south-west. But for our i)orts 
 and harbors, an appropriation of one hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars for the mere repair of old fortifications 
 is thought to be an enormous expenditure. Even this 
 is violently opposed. But any additional sum to begin 
 new works is not only hopeless, but cannot even be 
 named without exciting a smile of contempt. 
 
 Now let us look at the other side of the account. It 
 will be found, by the report on your table, that the 
 nine capital cities of the Union — Portland, Portsmouth, 
 
20 SPEECH ON FOKTIFYING 
 
 Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, 
 Norfolk, and Charleston — have had expended in fortifi- 
 cations for their defence, since the establishment of the 
 federal government, only seven hundred and twenty -four 
 thousand dollars ! That is to say, your appropriations 
 in one session, for the security and comfort of the south- 
 west, is more than half the whole amount expended 
 during sixteen years for the security of all these great 
 commercial cities, which contain two or three hundred 
 thousand inhabitants, and which paid into your treasury 
 the last year upwards of nine millions of dollars ! It is 
 impossible that this state of things should not be under- 
 stood and realized by the people of these States ; and 
 that at no very distant period. It requires only some 
 actual suffering, some real misfortune, resulting from 
 your ill-timed parsimony or misplaced affections, to 
 rouse a spirit in the commercial States which will shake 
 this Union to its foundation. Of all times those will be 
 the most dreadful and the most to be deprecated by 
 every real lover of his country, when the party passions 
 shall run parallel to local interests. Whenever any 
 great section of the Union shall deem itself neglected, 
 and the opinion becomes general among the people that 
 they are either sacrificed or abandoned, that they have 
 not any, or not their just, weight in the national scale, a 
 series of struggles must commence, which will terminate 
 either in redress or in convulsions. Events of this kind 
 are not to be prevented by common-place declamation 
 about submission to the will of the majority. A real 
 reciprocity must exist. Intelligent men must see and 
 feel that a regard, proportionate to their real interest at 
 stake in the society, is entertained for them by their 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 21 
 
 rulers. With such perception and experience your 
 Union is a bond of adamant which nothing can break. 
 Without them, I will not say it will be dissolved, but 
 this I will say, — it cannot be happy, even if it should 
 be lasting. 
 
 It is impossible to form a just estimate of our obliga- 
 tions to defend the commercial cities, without having a 
 right idea of the nature and importance of commerce to 
 the eastern States, and attaining a just apprehension of 
 its influence over every class of citizens in that quarter 
 of the Union. From what has fallen from various gen- 
 tlemen in the House, it is very apparent that they do 
 not appreciate either its nature, its power, or the duties 
 which result from our relation to those Avho are engaged 
 in that pursuit. The gentleman from Virginia (INIr. J. 
 Rawdolph) told us the other day, that " the United 
 States was a great land animal, a great mammoth, 
 which ought to cleave to the land, and not wade out 
 into the ocean to fight the shark." Sir, the figure is very 
 happy so far as relates to that quarter of the Union 
 with which that gentleman is chiefl}^ conversant. Of 
 the southern States, the mammoth is a correct type. 
 But I ask, sir, suppose the mammoth has made a league 
 with the cod, and that the cod, enterprising, active, and 
 skilful, spreads himself over every ocean, and brings 
 back the tribute of all climes to the feet of the mam- 
 moth ; suppose he thereby enables the unwieldy animal 
 to stretch his huge limbs upon cotton, or to rub his fat 
 sides along his tobacco plantations, without paying the 
 tithe of a hair, — in such case, is it wise, is it honorable, 
 is it politic, for that mammoth, because by mere beef 
 and bone he outweighs the cod in the political scale, to 
 
22 SPEECH ON FOETIFYING 
 
 refuse a portion of that revenue which the industry of 
 the cod annually produces, to defend him in his natural 
 element ; if not against the great leviathan of the deep, 
 at least against the petty pikes which prowl on the 
 ocean ; and if not in the whole course of his advent- 
 urous progress, at least in his native bays and harbors, 
 where his hopes and wealth are deposited and where his 
 species congregate ? 
 
 Other gentlemen have shown an equal want of a just 
 apprehension of the nature and effects of commerce. 
 Some think any of its great channels can be impeded or 
 cut off without important injury. Others that it is a 
 matter of so much indifference that we can very well do 
 without it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
 Smilie) told us some days since, " that for his part he 
 wished that at the time of our Revolution there had been 
 no commerce." That honorable gentleman, I presume, 
 is enamoured with Arcadian scenes, with happy valleys. 
 Like a hero of pastoral romance at the head of some 
 murmuring stream, with his crook by his side, his sheep 
 feeding around, far from the temptations, unseduced by 
 the luxuries of commerce, he would 
 
 ..." sport with Amaryllis in the shade, 
 Or with the tangles of Netera's hair." 
 
 I will not deny that these are pleasant scenes. Doubt- 
 less they are well suited to the innocence, the purity, 
 and the amiable unobtrusive simjDlicity of that gentle- 
 man's mind and manners. But he must not expect that 
 all men can be measured by his elevated standard, or 
 be made to relish these sublime pleasures. Thousands 
 and ten thousands in that part of the country I would 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 23 
 
 rej)resent have no notion of rnral felicity, or of the tran- 
 quil joj's of the conntiy. They love a life of activity, 
 of enterprise, and hazard. They wonld rather see a 
 boat-hook than all the crooks in the world ; and as for 
 sheep, they never desire to see any thing more of them 
 than just enough upon their deck to give them fresh 
 meat once a week in a voyage. Concerning the land of 
 which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph), 
 and the one from North Carolina (Mr. Macon), think 
 so much, they think very little. It is in fact to tliem 
 only a shelter from the storm ; a perch 'on which they 
 build their aerie and hide their mate and their young, 
 while they skim the surface or hunt in the deep. The 
 laws of society and the views of enlightened politicians 
 ought to have reference, not to any ideal, theoretic state 
 of human perfection, but to the equal protection and 
 encouragement of every species of honorable industry. 
 I know it has been said by way of apology for not doing 
 any thing more in defence of commerce, that it already 
 was indebted for its prosperity to our laws and regula- 
 tions. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Ran- 
 dolph) told us expressly " that the votes of southern 
 men had given us our drawbacks and discriminating 
 duties," whence he would conclude that our commerce 
 and navigation had nothing more to ask at their hands. 
 The honorable speaker, too, referred the prosperous con- 
 dition of our commerce to the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion and to the provisions established under it. I am 
 the last man in the world to deny the happy influence 
 of that instrument in meliorating the condition of this 
 nation. But our commercial prosperit}' is owing much 
 more to accident and nature, and much less to law, than 
 
24 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 we are apt to imagine or are willing to allow. Every 
 year we get together on this floor to consult concerning 
 the public good. The state of commerce makes a capi- 
 tal object in all our deliberations. We have our com- 
 mittee of commerce and manufactures, and a great part 
 of every session is exhausted in discussing their provi- 
 sions, limitations, and restrictions, until at last we slide 
 into the belief that commerce is of our creation ; that it 
 has its root in the statute book ; that its sap is drawn 
 from our parchment, and that it spreads and flourishes 
 under the direct heat of the legislative ray. But what 
 is the fact ? Look into your laws. What are they ? 
 Nine-tenths — I should speak nearer the truth should I 
 say ninety-nine-hundredths of them — are nothing more 
 than means by which you secure your share of the 
 products of commerce ; they constitute the machinery 
 by which you pluck its Hesperian fruit, and have noth- 
 ing to do with the root that supports it, or with the 
 native vigor which exudes into this rich luxuriance. 
 Sir, the true ta|)-root of commerce is found in the 
 nature and character of the people who carry it on. 
 They and their ancestors for nearly two centuries have 
 been engaged in it. The industry of every class of men 
 in the eastern States has reference to its condition, and 
 is affected by it. Why then treat it as a small concern; 
 as an affair only of traders and of merchants? Why 
 intimate that agriculture can flourish without it ? when, 
 in fact, the interests of these two branches of industry 
 are so intimately connected that the slightest affection 
 of the one is instantly communicated to the other. I 
 know very well that there is a great difference between 
 the relations of commerce and amculture in the south- 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 25 
 
 em and in the eastern States. And this is one of the 
 chief causes of that diversity of sentiment which pre- 
 vails among those who dwell in these different parts of 
 the Union. In the southern States there are compara- 
 tively few, if any, who depend on commerce altogether 
 for subsistence. Whatever affects commercial pros- 
 perity produces no general distress or discontent, Per- 
 haps insurance or freight may advance a little in 
 consequence of its embarrassment. Perhaps one or 
 other of their great staples may find not so ready or so 
 high a market. But these inconveniences throw none 
 out of employment or out of bread. Very different is 
 the state of things in the eastern States. There com- 
 merce is not merely as the honorable speaker called it, 
 " a waggon, a mode of conveyance of product to the 
 consumer ; " it is more, infinitely more : it establishes 
 within the country an immense fund of internal con- 
 sumption. All its dependants, merchants, tradesmen, 
 mechanics, seamen, and laborers of every class and 
 description, look to it, either for that j^rofit which makes 
 a great portion of their happiness, or for that employ- 
 ment on which their subsistence depends. 
 
 The state of agriculture is adapted, and has been for 
 centuries, to the supply of the wants of this internal 
 consumption. The farmer is bound to commerce by a 
 thousand intimate ties which, while it is in its ordinary 
 state of prosperity, he neither sees nor realizes. But 
 let the current stop and the course of business stagnate 
 in consequence of any violent affection to commerce, the 
 effect is felt as much, and in some cases more, by those 
 who inhabit the mountains, as by those who dwell on 
 the sea-coast. The country is associated with the city 
 
26 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING 
 
 in one common distress, not merely through S3nnpathy 
 but b}'^ an actual perception of a union in misfortune. 
 It is this indissoluble community of interest between 
 agriculture and commerce, winch pervades the eastern 
 portion of the United States, that makes our treatment 
 of the commercial interest one of the most delicate, as 
 well as important questions that can be brought before 
 this legislature. That interest is not of a nature long 
 to be neglected with impunity. Its powers, when once 
 brought into action by the necessity of self-defence, 
 cannot but be irresistible in this nation. Sir, two-fifths 
 of your whole white population are commercial ; or, 
 which is the same thing as to its political effect, have 
 their happiness so dependent upon its prosperity that 
 they cannot fail to act in concert when the object is to 
 crush those who oppress or those who are willing to 
 destroy it. Of the five millions which now constitute 
 the white population of these States, two millions are 
 north and east of New Jersey. This great mass is natu- 
 rally and indissolubly connected with commerce. To 
 this is to be added the like interest, and that of no 
 inconsiderable weight, which exists in the middle and 
 southern States. Are these powerful influences to be 
 forgotten or despised ? Are such portions of the Union 
 to be told that they are not to be defended, neither on the 
 ocean nor yet on the land? Will they — ought they — 
 to submit to a system which, at the same time that it 
 extracts from their industry the whole national revenue, 
 neither protects it abroad nor at home? It needs no 
 spirit of prophecy to say they will not. It is no breach of 
 any duty to say they ought not. No power on earth can 
 prevent a party from growing up in these States in sup- 
 
THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 27 
 
 port of the rights of commerce to a sea and land protec- 
 tion. The state of things which must necessarily follow 
 is of all others to be deprecated. As I have said before, 
 when party passions run parallel to local interests of 
 great power and extent, nothing can prevent national 
 convulsions ; all the consequences of which can neither 
 be numbered nor measured. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I do not introduce this idea to threaten 
 or terrify. I speak I hope to wise men, — to men of 
 experience and of acquaintance with human nature, 
 both in history and by observation. Is it possible to 
 content great, intelligent, and influential portions of 
 your citizens by any thing short of a real attention to 
 their interests, in some degree proportionate to their 
 magnitude and nature ? When this is not the case, can 
 any political union be either happy or lasting ? Now is 
 the time to give a pledge to the commercial interests 
 that they may be assured of protection, let Avhatever 
 influence predominate in the legislature. A great ma- 
 jority of this house are from States not connected inti- 
 mately with commerce. Show, then, those which are, 
 that you feel for them as brothers ; that you are willing 
 to give them a due share of the national revenue for 
 their protection. Show an enlightened and fair reci- 
 procity. Be superior to any exclusive regard to local 
 interest. On such principles this Union, so desirable 
 and so justly dear to us all, will continue and be cher- 
 ished by every member of the compact. But let a nar- 
 row, selfish, local, sectional policy prevail, and struggles 
 will commence, which will terminate, through irritations 
 and animosities, in either a change of the s^^stem of gov- 
 ernment or in its dissolution. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO 
 SUSPEND THE EMBARGO UNDER CERTAIN CIR- 
 CUMSTANCES. 
 
 April, 1808. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO 
 SUSPEND THE EMBARGO UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUM- 
 STANCES. 
 
 April, 1808. 
 
 [Seventy yeai's ago commerce was the chief occupation of 
 the sea-bound States, giving wealth to the capitalists and employ- 
 ment to the masses. The course of England and France had 
 done much to cripple the operations of trade ; but it was left 
 for the government of the United States to give it its coup de 
 [/race. The governing, or Democratic party, with Mr. Jefferson 
 at its head, entertained very extravagant notions as to the impor- 
 tance of American commerce to Eurojje, and especially to Eng- 
 land. Mr. Jefferson thought he saw in commerce the means of 
 carrying on a war with England, at the expense only of ruining 
 the mercantile class and the multitude dependent upon it for sup- 
 port. In these ideas an act forbidding the importation of cer- 
 tain articles from England, including the principal objects of 
 commerce, had been passed in 1806, known as the Non-impor- 
 tation Act. But the final blow was held back until the Decem- 
 ber of the next year, when the famous embargo was laid on the 
 trade of the country. On the 18th of December, Mr. Jefferson 
 sent to the Senate the very shortest message known to our his- 
 tory, consisting of two sentences, recommending " the inhibition 
 of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United 
 States " in order to " keep in safety these essential resources." 
 Obedient to this behest, the Senate passed the necessary act 
 through all its stages in four hours, under a suspension of the 
 
32 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 rules. In the House it occupied rather more time, but was car- 
 ried by a strict party vote. The effect of this measure on the 
 prosperity of the northern States, and especially of New Eng- 
 land, was most calamitous. It was a blow dealt not merely at 
 the prosperity of the rich, but at the daily bread of the poor. 
 And they were told that all this was for their protection and 
 their own good ! 
 
 On the eve of the adjournment of Congress, the next Aj^ril, 
 the ruling party saw that it was necessary to give the President 
 some power over the embargo during the recess ; and an act was 
 introduced authorizing him to suspend its operation in the event 
 of peace between the European belligerents, or of such a change 
 of policy on their part as to make our commerce safe. It was 
 on this bill that Mr. Quincy made the following speech. He 
 did not object to investing the President with the proposed 
 power of suspending the embargo. He wished, on the con- 
 trary, to make this jjower absolute, so that he could exercise it 
 in case the pressure of the embargo should endanger the internal 
 peace of the country. The danger of insurrection at home he 
 regarded as a very possible one, while he looked upon the occur- 
 rence of the conditions contained in the bill as morally impossi 
 sible, under the existing relations of England and France. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Chairman, — The amendment proposed to this 
 bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has 
 for its object to limit the executive discretion in sus- 
 pending the embargo to certain specified events, — the 
 removal of the French decrees ; the revocation of the 
 British orders. It differs from the bill, as it restricts 
 the range of the President's power to relieve the people 
 from this oppressive measure. In this point of view, it 
 appears to me even more objectionable than the bill 
 itself. To neither can I yield my sanction. And, as 
 the view which I shall offer will be different from any 
 which has been taken of this subject, I solicit the indul- 
 gence of the committee. 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMUAKGO. 33 
 
 A few daj^s since, when the principle of this bill was 
 under discussion, in the form of a resolution, a wide 
 field was opened. Almost every subject had the honors 
 of debate except that which was the real ol)ject of it. 
 Our British and French relations, the merits and de- 
 merits of the expired and rejected treaty, as well as 
 those of tlie late negotiators, and of the present admin- 
 istration, — all were canvassed. I enter not upon these 
 topics. They are of a high and most interesting 
 nature ; but their connection with the principle of this 
 bill is, to say the least, remote. There are considera- 
 tions intimately connected with it, enough to interest 
 our zeal, and to awaken our anxiety. 
 
 The question referred to our consideration is, shall 
 the President be authorized to suspend the embargo on 
 the occurrence of certain specified contingencies ? The 
 same question is included in the proposed amendment 
 and the bill. Both limit the exercise of the power of 
 suspension of the embargo to the occurrence of certain 
 events. The only difference is, that the discretion 
 given by the former is more limited ; that given by the 
 latter is more liberal. 
 
 In the course of the former discussion, a constitu- 
 tional objection was raised, which, if well founded, puts 
 an end to both bill and amendment. It is impossible, 
 therefore, not to give it a short examination. It was 
 contended that the Constitution had not given this 
 House the power to authorize the President at his dis- 
 cretion to suspend a law. The gentleman from Mary- 
 land (Mr. Key), and the gentleman from Virginia 
 (Mr. Randolj)h),both of great authority and influence 
 in this House, maintained this doctrine with no less 
 
 3 
 
34 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 zeal than eloquence. I place my opinion, with great 
 diffidence, in the scale, opposite to theirs. But as my 
 conviction is different, I must give the reasons for it, — 
 why I adhere to the old canons ; those which have been 
 received as the rule, both of faith and practice, by 
 every political sect which has had power, ever since the 
 adoj)tion of the Constitution, rather than to these new 
 dogmas. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States, as I under- 
 stand it, has in every part reference to the nature of 
 things and the necessities of society. No portion of it 
 was intended as a mere ground for the trial of techni- 
 cal skill or verbal ingenuity. The direct, express pow- 
 ers, with which it invests Congress, are always to be so 
 construed as to enable the people to attain the end for 
 which they were given. This is to be gathered from 
 the nature of those powers, compared with the known 
 exigencies of society and the other provisions of the 
 Constitution. If a question arise, as in this case, con- 
 cerning the extent of the incidental and implied powers 
 vested in us by the Constitution, the instrument itself 
 contains the criterion by which it is to be decided. We 
 have authority to make " laAvs necessary and proper for 
 carrying into execution " powers unquestionably vested. 
 Reference must be had to the nature of these powers to 
 know what is " necessary and proper " for their wise 
 execution. When this necessity and propriety appear, 
 the Constitution has eijabled us to make the correspond- 
 ent provisions. To the execution of many of the 
 powers vested in us by the Constitution, a discretion is 
 necessarily and properly incident. And when this 
 appears from the nature of any particular power, it is 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. oO 
 
 certainl}'' competent for us to provide by law tluit such 
 a discretion shall he exercised. Thus, for instance, the 
 power to borrow money must in its exercise be regu- 
 lated, from its very nature, by circumstances, not always 
 to be anticipated by the legislature at the time of 
 passing a law authorizing a loan. Will any man con- 
 tend that the legislature is necessitated to direct either 
 absolutely that a certain sum shall be borrowed, or to 
 limit the event on which the loan is to take place ? 
 Cannot it vest a general discretion to borrow or not 'to 
 borrow, according to the view which the executive may 
 possess of the state of the Treasury, and of the general 
 exigencies of the country; particularly in cases where 
 the loan is contemplated at some future day, when per- 
 haps Congress is not in session, and when the state of 
 the Treasury, or of the country, cannot be foreseen ? 
 In the case of the two millions appropriated for the 
 purchase of the Floridas, such a discretion was invested 
 in the executive. He was authorized, " if necessary, to 
 borrow the sum, or any part thereof." This authority 
 he never exercised, and thus, according to the argument 
 of gentlemen on the other side, he has made null a leg- 
 islative act. For, so far as it depended upon his discre- 
 tion, this not being exercised, it is a nullity. The power 
 " to pay the debts of the United States " will present a 
 case in which, from the nature of the power, a discretion 
 to suspend the operation of a law may be necessary and 
 proper to its execution. Congress by one law directs 
 the executive to pay off the eight per cent stock. 
 Will gentlemen seriously contend that by another it 
 may not invest him with a general discretion to stop the 
 payment ; that is, to suspend the operation of the former 
 
36 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 law, if the state of the Treasury, or even more generally 
 if the public good should in his opinion require it ? An 
 epidemic prevails in one of our commercial cities ; inter- 
 course is prohibited with it ; Congres§ is about to ter- 
 minate its session, and the distemper still rages. Can it 
 be questioned that it is within our constitutional power 
 to authorize the President to suspend the operation of 
 the law, whenever the public safety will permit? 
 whenever, in his opinion, it is expedient ? The meanest 
 individual in society, in the most humble transactions of 
 business, can avail himself of the discretion of his con- 
 fidential agent, in cases where his own cannot be ap- 
 plied. Is it possible that the combined wisdom of the 
 nation is debarred from investing a similar discretion, 
 whenever, from the nature of the particular power, it is 
 necessary. and proper to its execution? 
 
 The power of suspending laws, against which we have 
 so many warnings in history, was a power exercised con- 
 trary to the law, or in denial of its authority, and not 
 under the law and by virtue of its express enactment. 
 Without entering more minutely into the argument, I 
 cannot doubt but that Congress does possess the power 
 to authorize the President by law to exercise a discretion- 
 ary suspension of a law. A contrary doctrine would 
 lead to multiplied inconveniences, and would be wholly 
 inconsistent with the proj)er execution of some of the 
 powers of the Constitution. It is true that this, like 
 every other power, is liable to abuse. But we are not 
 to forego a healthy action, because, in its excess, it may 
 be injurious. 
 
 The expediency of investing the executive with such 
 an authority is always a critical question. In this case, 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 37 
 
 from the magnitude of the subject and the manner in 
 which the embargo oppresses all our interests, the 
 inquiry into our duty in relation to it is most solemn 
 and weighty. It is certain some provision must be 
 made touching the embargo previous to our adjourn- 
 ment. A whole people is laboring under a most griev- 
 ous oppression. All the business of the nation is 
 deranged. All its active hopes are frustrated. All its 
 industry stagnant. Its numerous products hastening to 
 their market, are stopped in their course. A dam is 
 thrown across the current, and every hour the strength 
 and the tendency towards resistance is accumulating. 
 The scene we are now witnessing is altogether unpar- 
 alleled in history. The tales of fiction have no parallel 
 for it. A new writ is executed upon a whole people. 
 Not, indeed, the old monarchial writ, ne exeat regno, 
 but a new republican writ, ne exeat repuhlicd. Free- 
 men, in the pride of their liberty, have restraints im- 
 posed on them which despotism never exercised. They 
 are fastened down to the soil l)y the enchantment of 
 law ; and their property vanishes in the very process of 
 preservation. It is impossible for us to separate and 
 leave such a people at such a moment as this, without 
 administering some opiate to their distress. Some hope, 
 however distant, of alleviation must be proffered ; some 
 prospect of relief opened. Otherwise, justly might we 
 fear for the result of such an unexamj)led pressure. 
 Who can say what counsels despair might suggest, or 
 what weapons it might furnish? Some provision, then, 
 in relation to the embargo, is unavoidable. The nature 
 of it, is the inquir3\ Three courses have been pro- 
 posed, — to repeal it ; to stay here and watch it ; to 
 
38 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 leave with the executive the power to suspend it. 
 Concerning repeal I will say nothing. I respect the 
 known and immutable determination of the majority of 
 this House. However convinced I may be that repeal 
 is the only wise and probably the only safe course, I 
 cannot persuade myself to urge arguments which have 
 been often repeated, and to which, so far from granting 
 them any weight, very few seem willing to listen. The 
 end to which I aim will not counteract the settled plan 
 of policy. I consider the embargo as a measure from 
 which we are not to recede, at least not during the 
 present session. And my object of research is, in what 
 hands, and under what auspices it shall be left, so as 
 best to effect its avowed purpose and least to injure 
 the communit3^ Repeal, then, is out of the question. 
 Shall we stay by and watch ? This has been recom- 
 mended. Watch ! what ? " Why, the crisis ! " And 
 do gentlemen seriously believe that any crisis which 
 events in Europe are likely to produce will be either 
 l^revented or ameliorated, by such a body as this re- 
 maining, during the whole summer, perched upon this 
 bill ? To the tempest which is abroad we can give no 
 direction : over it we have no control. It may spend 
 its force on the ocean, now desolate by our laws, or it 
 may lay waste our shores. We iiave abandoned the 
 former, and for the latter, though we have been six 
 months in session, we have prepared no adequate 
 shield. Besides, in my a^^prehension, it is the first duty 
 of this House to expedite the return of its members to 
 their constituents. We have been six months in con- 
 tinued session. We begin, I fear, to lose our sympa- 
 thies for those whom we represent. What can we 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 39 
 
 know, in this wilderness, of the effects of our measures 
 i^)on civilized and commercial life? We see nothing, 
 Ave feel nothing, but through the intervention of news- 
 papers, or of letters. The one obscured by the filth of 
 party ; the other often distorted by personal feeling or 
 by private interest. It is our immediate, our indispen- 
 sable dut}', to mingle with the mass of our brethren 
 and by direct intercourse to learn their will ; to realize 
 the temperature of their minds ; to ascertain their sen- 
 timents concerning our measures. The only course 
 that remains is to leave with the executive the power 
 to suspend the embargo. But the degree of power with 
 which he ought to be vested is made a question. Shall 
 he be limited only b}" his sense of the public good, to 
 be collected from all the unforeseen circumstances 
 which may occur during the recess ; or shall it be exer- 
 cised only on the occurrence of certain specified contin- 
 gencies? The bill proposes the last mode. It also 
 contains other provisions highly exceptionable and dan- 
 gerous ; inasmuch as it permits the President to raise 
 the embargo, " in part or in whole," and authorizes him 
 to exercise an unlimited discretion as to the penalties 
 and restrictions he may lay upon the commerce he shall 
 allow. My objections to the bill, therefore, are first, 
 that it limits the exercise of the executive as to the 
 whole embargo, to particular events, Avhich if they do 
 not occur, no discretion can be exercised, and let the 
 necessity of abandoning the measure be, in other re- 
 spects, ever so great, the specified events not occurring, 
 the embargo is absolute at least until the ensuing ses- 
 sion ; next, that if the events do happen, the whole of 
 the commerce he may in his discretion set free is en- 
 
40 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 tirely at his merc}^ : the door is opened to every species 
 of favoritism, personal or locaL This power may not be 
 abused, but it ought not to be intrusted. The true, 
 the only safe ground on which this measure, during our 
 absence, ought to be placed is that which was taken 
 in the year 1794. The President ought to have author- 
 ity to take off the prohibition whenever, in his judg- 
 ment, the public good shall require ; not partially, not 
 under arbitrary bonds and restrictions, but totally, if at 
 all. I know that this will be rung in the popular ear 
 as an unlimited power. Dictatorships, protectorships, 
 " shadows dire, will throng into the memory." But let 
 gentlemen weigh the real nature of the power I advo- 
 cate, and they will find it not so enormous as it first 
 appears, and in effect much less than the bill itself pro- 
 poses to invest. In the one case he has the simple and 
 solitary power of raising or retaining the prohibition, 
 according to his view of the public good. In the other 
 he is not only the judge of the events specified in the 
 bill, but also of the degree of commerce to be per- 
 mitted, of the place from which and to which it is to 
 be allowed ; he is the judge of its nature, and has 
 the power to impose whatever regulation he pleases. 
 Surely there can be no question but that the latter 
 power is of much more magnitude and more portentous 
 than the former. I solicit gentlemen to lay aside their 
 prepossessions and to investigate what the substantial 
 interest of this country requires ; to consider by what 
 dispositions this measure may be made least dangerous 
 to the tranquillity and interests of this people, and most 
 productive of that peculiar good which is avowed to be 
 its object. I address not those who deny our constitu" 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 41 
 
 tional power to invest a discretion to suspend, but I 
 address the great majority who are friendly to this bill, 
 who, by adopting it, sanction the constitutionality of 
 the grant of fresh authority, to whom, therefore, the 
 degree of discretion is a fair question of expediency. 
 In recommending that a discretion, not limited by 
 events, should be vested in the executive, I can have 
 no personal wish to augment his power. He is no 
 political friend of mine. I deem it essential, both for 
 the tranquillity of the people and for the success of the 
 measure, that such a power should be committed to 
 him. Neither personal nor party feelings shall prevent 
 me from advocating a measure, in my estimation, salu- 
 tar}?- to the most important interests of this country. 
 It is true that I am among the earliest and the most 
 uniform opponents of the embargo. I have seen noth- 
 ing to varj'" my original belief, that its policy was 
 equally cruel to individuals and mischievous to society. 
 As a weapon to control foreign powers, it seemed to me 
 dubious in its theory, uncertain in its operation ; of all 
 possible machinery the most difficult to set up and the 
 most expensive to maintain. As a means to preserve 
 our resources, nothing could, to my mind, be more ill 
 adapted. The best guarantees of the interest society 
 has in the wealth of the members which compose it, are 
 the industry, intelligence, and enterprise of the indi- 
 vidual proprietors, strengthened as they always are by 
 knowledge of business, and quickened by that which 
 gives the keenest edge to human ingenuity, — self-inter- 
 est. When all the property of a multitude is at hazard, 
 the simplest and surest Avay of securing the greatest 
 portion is not to limit individual exertion, but to stiin- 
 
42 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 iilate it ; not to conceal the nature of the exposure, 
 but, hy giving a full knowledge of the state of things, 
 to leave the Avit of every proprietor free to work out 
 the salvation of his property, according to the opportu- 
 nities he may discern. Notwithstanding the decrees of 
 the belligerents, there appeared to me a field wide 
 enough to occupy and reward mercantile enterprise. 
 If we left commerce at liberty we might, according to 
 the fable, lose some of her golden eggs ; but if we 
 crushed commerce, the parent which produced them, 
 with her our future hopes perished. Without entering 
 into the particular details whence these conclusions 
 resulted, it is enough that they were such as satisfied 
 my mind as to the duty of opposition to the system in 
 its incipient state, and in all the restrictions' which have 
 grown out of it. But the system is adopted. May 
 it be successful ! It is not to diminish but to increase 
 the chance of that success that I urge that a discretion, 
 unlimited by events, should be vested in the executive. 
 I shall rejoice if this great miracle be worked. I shall 
 congratulate my country if the experiment shall prove 
 that the old world can be controlled by fear of being 
 excluded from the commerce of the new. Happy shall 
 I be if, on the other side of this dark valley of the 
 shadow of death through which our commercial hopes 
 • are passing, shall be found regions of future safety and 
 felicity. 
 
 Among all the propositions offered to this House, 
 no man has suggested that we ought to rise and leave 
 this embargo, until our return, pressing upon the people, 
 without some power of suspension vested in the execu- 
 tive. Why this uniformity of ophiion ? The reason is 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBAKGO. 43 
 
 obvious. If the people were left six months without 
 hope, no man could anticipate the consecjuencos. All 
 agree that such an experiment would be unwise and 
 dangerous. Now, precisely the same reasons which 
 induce the majority not to go away without making 
 some i^rovision for its removal, on which to feed popular 
 expectation, is conclusive in my mind that the discretion 
 proposed to be invested should not be limited by con- 
 tingencies. The embargo power, which now holds in 
 its palsying gripe all the hopes of this nation, is distin- 
 guished by two characteristics of material import, in 
 deciding what control shall be left over it during our 
 recess. I allude to its greatness and its novelty. 
 
 As to its greatness, nothing is like it. Every class of 
 men feels it. Every interest in the nation is affected 
 by it. The merchant, the farmer, the planter, the 
 mechanic, the laboring poor, — all are sinking under its 
 weight. But there is this that is peculiar to it, that 
 there is no equality in its nature. It is not like taxa- 
 tion, which raises revenue according to the average of 
 Avealth ; burdening the rich and letting the poor go free. 
 But it presses upon the particular classes of society, in 
 an inverse ratio to the ca})acity of each to bear it. From 
 those who have much, it takes indeed something. But 
 from those who have little, it takes all. For what hope 
 is left to the industrious poor when enterprise, activit}^' 
 and capital are proscribed their legitimate exercise? 
 This power resembles not the mild influences of an 
 intelligent mind balancing the interests and condition of 
 men, and so conducting a complicated machine as to 
 make inevitable pressure bear ujjon its strongest parts ; 
 but it is like one of the blind visitations of nature, — a 
 
44 SPEECH OjS^ the 
 
 tornado or a whirlwind. It sweeps away the weak; it 
 only shakes the strong. The humble plant, uprooted, 
 is overwhelmed by the tempest. The oak escapes with 
 the loss' of nothing except its annual honors. It is 
 true the sheriff does not enter any man's house to collect 
 a tax from his property. But want knocks at his door, 
 and povert}^ thrusts its face in at the window. And what 
 relief can the rich extend ? They sit upon their heaps 
 and feel them mouldering into ruins under them. The 
 regulations of society forbid what was once property to 
 be so any longer. For property depends on circulation, 
 on exchange ; on ideal value. The power of property 
 is all relative. It depends not merely upon opinion 
 here, but upon opinion in other countries. If it be cut 
 off from its destined market, much of it is worth noth- 
 ing, and all of it is worth infinitely less than when cir- 
 culation is unobstructed. 
 
 This embargo power is, therefore, of all powers the 
 most enormous, in the manner in which it affects the 
 hopes and interests of a nation. But its magnitude is 
 not more remarkable than its novelty. An experiment, 
 such as is now making, was never before — I will not 
 say tried- — it never before entered into the human 
 imagination. There is nothing like it in the narrations 
 of history or in the tales of fiction. All the habits of a 
 mighty nation are at once counteracted. All their 
 property depreciated. All their external connections 
 violated. Five millions of people are encaged. They 
 cannot go beyond the limits of that once free country' ; 
 now they are not even permitted to thrust their own 
 property through the grates. I am not now questioning- 
 its policy, its wisdom, or its practicability : I am merely 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 45 
 
 stating the fact. And I ask if such a power as this, 
 thus great, thus novel, thus interfering with all the 
 great passions and interests of a whole people, ought to 
 be left for six months in operation, without any power 
 of control, except upon the occurrence of certain speci- 
 fied and arbitrary contingencies? Who can foretell 
 when the spirit of endurance will cease ? Who, when 
 the strength of nature shall outgrow the strength of 
 your bonds ? Or if they do, who can give a pledge that 
 the patience of the people will not first be exhausted. 
 I make a supposition, Mr. Chairman. You are a great 
 physician ; you take a hearty, hale man, in the very 
 pride of health, his young blood all active in his veins, 
 and you outstretch him on a bed ; you stop up all his 
 natural orifices, you hermetically seal down his pores, so 
 that nothing shall escape outwards, and that all his 
 functions and all his humors shall be turned inward 
 upon his S3'Stem. While your patient is laboring in the 
 very crisis of this course of treatment, you, his physi- 
 cian, take a journey into a far country, and you say to 
 his attendant, — "I have a great experiment here in 
 process, and a new one. It is all for the good of the 
 young man, so do not fail to adhere to it. These are 
 my directions, and the power with which I invest you. 
 No attention is to be paid to any internal symptom 
 which may occur. Let the patient be convulsed as 
 much as he will, you are to remove none of my band- 
 ages. But, in case something external should happen, — 
 if the sky should fall, and larks should begin to abound, 
 if three birds of Paradise should fly into the window, — 
 the great purpose of all these sufferings is answered. 
 Then, and then only, have you my authority to admin- 
 ister relief." 
 
46 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 The conduct of such a physician, in such a case, 
 would not be more extraordinary than that of this House 
 in the present, should it adjourn and limit the discretion 
 of the executive to certain specified events arbitrarily 
 anticipated ; leaving him destitute of the power to 
 grant relief should internal symptoms indicate that 
 nothing else would prevent convulsions. If the events 
 you specify do not happen, then the embargo is abso- 
 lutely fixed until our return. Is there one among us 
 that has such an enlarged view of the nature and neces- 
 sities of this people as to warrant that such a system 
 can continue six months longer? It is a proposition 
 which no known facts substantiate, and which the strength 
 and the universality of the passions such a pressure 
 will set at work in the community render, to say the 
 least, of very dubious issue. My argument in this part 
 has this prudential truth for its basis : if a great power 
 is put in motion, affecting great interests, the power 
 which is left to manage it should be adequate to its 
 control. If the power be not only great in its nature, 
 but novel in its mode of operation, the superintending 
 power should be permitted to exercise a wise discretion ; 
 for if you limit him by contingencies, the experiment 
 may fail, or its results be unexpected. In either case, 
 nothing but shame or ruin would be our portion. 
 
 But I ask the House to view this subject in relation to 
 the success of this measure, which the majority have 
 justly so much at heart. Which position of invested 
 power is the most auspicious to a happy issue ? 
 
 As soon as this House has risen, what think you will 
 be the first question every man in this nation will put to 
 his neighbor ? Will it not be, — " What has Congress 
 
SUvSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 47 
 
 done with the embargo ? " Sui^pose the reply should 
 be, — " They have made no provision. This corroding 
 cancer is to be left to prey on our vitals six months 
 longer." Is there a man who doubts but that such a 
 reply would sink the heart of every owner of property, 
 and of every laborer in the community? No man can 
 hesitate. The magnitude of the evil, the certain pros- 
 pect of so terrible a calamit}^ thus long protracted, 
 would itself tend to counteract the continuance of the 
 measure by the discontent and despair it could not fail 
 to produce in the great body of the people. But sup- 
 pose in reply to such a question, it should be said — 
 " the removal of the embargo depends upon events. 
 France must retrace her steps. England must apologize 
 and atone for her insolence. Two of the proudest and 
 most powerful nations on the globe must truckle for our 
 favor, or we shall persist in maintaining our dignified 
 retirement." What, then, would be the consequence ? 
 would not every reflecting man in the nation set him- 
 self at work to calculate the probalHlity of the occur- 
 rence of these events ? If they were likely to happen, 
 the distress and discontent would be scarcely less than 
 in the case of absolute certainty for six months' perpet- 
 uation of it. For if the events do not happen, the 
 embargo is absolute. Such a state of popular mind all 
 agree is little favorable either to perseverance in the 
 measure, or to its ultimate success. But suppose that 
 the people should find a discretionary power was invested 
 in the executive, to act as in his judgment, according to 
 circumstances, the public good should require. Would 
 not such a state of things have a direct tendency to 
 allay fear, to tranquillize discontent, and encourage 
 
48 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 endurance of suffering? Should experience prove that 
 it is absolutely insupportable, there is a constitutional 
 way of relief. The way of escape is not wholly closed. 
 The knoAvledge of this fact would be alone a support to 
 the people. They would endure it longer. They would 
 endure it better. They would be secure of a more 
 cordial co-operation in the measure as the people would 
 see they were not wholly hopeless, in case the experi- 
 ment was too oppressive. Surely, nothing can be more 
 favorable to its success than producing such a state of 
 public sentiment. 
 
 We are but a young nation. The United States are 
 scarcely yet hardened into the bone of manhood. The 
 whole period of our national existence has been nothing 
 else than a continued series of prosperity. The miseries 
 of the Revolutionary war were but as the pangs of 
 parturition. The experience of that period was of 
 a nature not to be very useful after our nation had 
 acquired an individual form and a manly constitu- 
 tional stamina. It is to be feared we have grown 
 giddy with good fortune ; attributing the greatness 
 of our prosperity to our own wisdom, rather than 
 to a course of events and a guidance over which 
 we had no influence. It is to be feared that we are 
 now entering that school of adversity, the first bles- 
 sing of which is to chastise an overweening conceit 
 of ourselves. A nation mistakes its relative conse- 
 quence, when it thinks its countenance, or its inter- 
 course, or its existence, all important to the rest of the 
 world. There is scarcely any people, and none of any 
 weight in the society of nations, which does not possess 
 within its own sphere all that is essential to its exist- 
 
SUSPENSION OF THE EMBARGO. 49 
 
 ence. An individual who should retire from conversa- 
 tion with the workl for the purpose of taking vengeance 
 on it for some real or imaginary wrong would soon find 
 himself grievously mistaken : notwithstanding the delu- 
 sions of self-flattery, he would certainly be taught that 
 the world was moving along just as well, after his digni- 
 fied retirement, as it did while he intermeddled with its 
 concerns. The case of a nation wdiich should make a 
 similar trial of its importance to other nations would 
 not be very different from that of such an individual. 
 The intercourse of human life has its basis in a natural 
 reciprocity, which always exists, although the vanity of 
 nations, as well as of individuals, wall often suggest to 
 inflated fancies that they give more than they gain in 
 the interchange of friendship, of civilities, or of busi- 
 ness. I conjure gentlemen not to commit the nation as 
 to the purpose of this embargo measure, but, by leaving 
 a wise discretion during our absence with the executive, 
 neither to admit nor deny by the terms of our law that 
 its object is to coerce foreign nations. Such a state of 
 things is safest for our own honor and the wisest to 
 secure success for this system of policy. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE FIRST RESOLUTION REPORTED BY 
 THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 Nov. 28, 1808. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE FIRST RESOLUTION REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 Nov. 28, 1808. ■ 
 
 [The necessity of some more important protection of the sea- 
 board cities than that provided by Mr. Jefferson's government 
 grew more and more apparent, as the relations of tlie United 
 States with France and England became more and more compli- 
 cated. To resent the injury done to American commerce by 
 the new rulings of Lord Stowell in the Court of Admiralty, and 
 the insult to the American flag in the right claimed and exer- 
 cised by England of searching our merchant-ships for English 
 sailors and impressing them wherever found, the law known as 
 the Non-importation Act had been passed shortly before the 
 speech of April 14th, 1806, was delivered. By this act the 
 importation from Great Britain, or any of her dependencies, of 
 all the articles of her commerce with the United States was for- 
 bidden. As this measure did not have the desired effect of 
 bringing England to her senses, Mr. Jefferson prepared to push 
 still further his attempt to conquer her by a war of commercial 
 restrictions. The governing party had most exaggerated notions 
 of the dependence of England upon the commerce of America, 
 and believed that she would submit to any terms rather than 
 lose it. In retaliation for the Berlin decree of Bonaparte, 
 declaring the British Islands in a state of blockade and forbid- 
 ding all neutral intercourse with them, the British government 
 in November, 1807, issued the famous Orders in Council, for- 
 bidding any commercial intercourse with France or her allies, 
 
54 SPEECH ON rOEEIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 excepting through some port of Great Britain or Ireland. All 
 ships engaged in this trade were to touch at one of the ports of 
 the United Kingdom and pay certain fees and take out a license 
 for permission to jn'oceed on their voyage. To these orders 
 Bonaparte sooa replied by the Milan decree, by which he 
 declared every vessel which complied with their conditions to be 
 " denationalized," and lawful prize. As the Americans were 
 the only neutrals, inasmuch as all the continent was either in 
 alliance with or in subjection to Bonaparte, their commerce was 
 very effectually destroyed. But as if the agreement in policy of 
 the two great belligerents of Europe were not sufficient for its 
 utter extinction, Mr. Jefferson devised his celebrated embargo to 
 hinder adventurous merchants from taking the chance of capture 
 at their own risk. On the 18th of December, 1807, he sent the 
 shortest presidential message on record, of two sentences only, 
 to both Houses, recommending an embargo, or prohibition of all 
 vessels from leaving the ports of the United States. Tliis mes- 
 sage was received and discussed in secret session, and was 
 despatched in four hours by the Senate, and had its preliminary 
 reading despatched in the House with even greater speed, 
 though the discussion in the committee of the whole continued 
 for three days and nearly three nights, — the more recent 
 application of the j^J'evious question as a daily instrument for 
 the suppression of debate not having then been imagined. The 
 act finally passed by a vote of eighty-two yeas to forty-four 
 nays. The promulgation of this law carried dismay and ruin 
 to the whole seaboard. Massachusetts, which then included 
 Maine, felt the blow most severely, which struck not merely at 
 her wealth, but at her daily bread. And the victims of this cruel 
 measure were told that its object was only their own protection 
 and advantage! And although both belligerents were ostensibly 
 included in the recital of grievances which led to the measure, 
 yet it was scarcely denied that it was aimed chiefly at Eng- 
 land, the trade with Erance being comparatively of no impor- 
 tance. And Bonaparte himself took this view of the matter, 
 regarding the American embargo as a necessary complement of 
 his continental system, for the destruction of England through 
 
SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 55 
 
 that of her commerce. Before the adjournmcMit of Congress, in 
 April, 1808, an act was passed authorizing the President, in 
 case of peace between the belligerents, or such other change 
 in their measures as to neutral commerce as should in his judg- 
 ment justify such action, to suspend the operation of the em- 
 bargo. Mr. Quincy moved to invest the President with full 
 powers, unrestricted by any conditions, and made the following 
 speech in sui)port of his motion. It came to nothing, of course. 
 Congress soon after adjourned. 
 
 When it reassembled, by adjournment, at the beginning of 
 November, 1808, the embargo and the state of our relations 
 with foreign powers formed the staple of debate, as it had of men's 
 thoughts and talk in the interval. The committee to which so 
 much of the President's message as treated of foreign relations 
 having reported the following resolution : " Resolved : that the 
 United States cannot without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, 
 and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and 
 France," upon this hint Mr. Quincy spoke as follows, ou the 
 28th of November. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Chairman, — I am not, in general, a friend to 
 abstract legislation. Ostentations declaration of gen- 
 eral principles is so often the resort of weakness and of 
 ignorance ; it is so frequently the subterfuge of men 
 who are willing to amuse or who mean to delude the 
 people, that it is with great reluctance I yield to such a 
 course my sanction. 
 
 If, however, a formal annunciation of a determination 
 to perform one of the most common and undeniable of 
 national duties be deemed by a majority of this House 
 essential to their character, or to the attainment of pub- 
 lic confidence, I am willing to admit that the one now 
 offered, is as unexceptionable as any it would be likely 
 to propose. 
 
 In this view, however, I lay wholly out of sight the 
 
56 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 report of the committee, l)y Avhicli it is accompanied 
 and introduced. The course advocated in that report 
 is, in my opinion, loathsome ; the spirit it breathes dis- 
 graceful ; the temper it is likely to inspire, neither 
 calculated to regain the rights we have lost, nor to 
 preserve those which remain to us. It is an established 
 maxim that, in adopting a resolution offered by a com- 
 mittee in this House, no member is pledged to support 
 the reasoning, or made sponsor for the facts which they 
 have seen fit to insert in it. I exercise, therefore, a 
 common right, when I subscribe to the resolution, not 
 on the princij^les of the committee, but on those which 
 obviously result from its terms, and are the plain mean- 
 ing of its expressions. 
 
 I agree to this resolution, because, in my apprehen- 
 sion, it offers a solemn pledge to this nation — a pledge 
 not to be mistaken, and not to be evaded — that the 
 present system of public measures shall be totally aban- 
 doned. Adopt it, and there is an end of the policy of 
 deserting our rights, under a pretence of maintaining 
 them. Adopt it, and we no longer yield to the beck of 
 haughty belligerents the rights of navigating the ocean, 
 that cho-ice inheritance bequeathed to us by our fathers. 
 Adopt it, and there is a termination of that base and 
 abject submission by which this country has for these 
 eleven months been disgraced and brought to the brink 
 of ruin. 
 
 That the natural import and necessary implication of 
 the terms of this resolution are such as I have sug- 
 gested will be apparent from a very transient consider- 
 ation. What do its terms necessarily include ? They 
 contain an assertion and a pledge. The assertion is, 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 57 
 
 that the edicts of Great Britain and France are contrary 
 to our rights, honor, and independence. The pledge is, 
 that we will not snbmit to them. 
 
 Concerning the assertion contained in this resolu- 
 tion, I wonld say nothing, were it not that I fear that 
 those who have so long been in the habit of looking at 
 the orders and decrees of foreign powers as the meas- 
 ure of the rights of our own citizens, and have been 
 accustomed, in direct subserviency to them, of prohibit- 
 ing commerce altogether, might apprehend that there 
 was some lurking danger in such an assertion. They 
 may be assured there can be nothing more harmless. 
 Neither Great Britain or France ever pretended that 
 those edicts were consistent with American rights. On 
 the contrar}^, both these nations ground those edicts on 
 the principle of imperious necessity, which admits the 
 injustice done, at the very instant of executing the act 
 of oppression. No gentleman need have any difficulty 
 in screwing his courage up to this assertion. Neither 
 of the bellio-erents will contradict it. Mr. Turreau and 
 Mr. Erskine will both of them countersign the declara- 
 tion to-morrow. 
 
 With respect to the pledge contained in this resolu- 
 tion, understood according to its true import, it is a 
 glorious one. It opens new prospects. It promises a 
 change in the disposition of this House. It is a solemn 
 assurance to the nation, that it will no longer submit to 
 these edicts. 
 
 It remains for us, therefore, to consider what submis- 
 sion is, and what the pledge not to submit implies. 
 
 One man submits to the order, decree, or edict of 
 another, when he does that thing which such order, 
 
58 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 decree, or edict commands ; or when he omits to do that 
 thing which such order, decree, or edict prohibits. 
 This, then, is submission. It is to do as we are bidden. 
 It is to take the will of another as the measure of our 
 rights. It is to yield to his power ; to go Avhere he 
 directs, or to refrain from going where he forbids us. 
 
 If this be submission, then the pledge not to submit 
 implies the reverse of all this. It is a solemn declara- 
 tion, that we will not do that thing which such order, 
 decree, or edict commands, or that we will do what 
 it prohibits. This, then, is freedom. This is honor. 
 This is independence. It consists in taking the nature 
 of things, and not the will of another, as the measure 
 of our rights. What God and nature offer us, we will 
 enjoy in despite of the commands, regardless of the 
 menaces of iniquitous power. 
 
 Let us apply these correct and undeniable principles 
 to tlie edicts of Great Britain and France, and the con- 
 sequent abandonment of the ocean by the American 
 government. The decrees of France pi'ohibit us from 
 trading with Great Britain. The orders of Great 
 Britain prohibit us from trading with France. And 
 what do we? Why — in direct subserviency to the 
 edicts of each — we prohibit our citizens from trading 
 with either. We do more, as if unqualified submission 
 was not humiliating enough, we descend to an act of 
 supererogation in servility : we abandon trade alto- 
 gether ; we not only refrain from that particular trade, 
 which their respective edicts proscribe, but lest the 
 ingenuity of our merchants should enable them to evade 
 their operation, to make submission doubly sure, the 
 American government virtually re-enact the edicts of 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 50 
 
 the belligerents, and abandon all the trade which, not- 
 withstanding the practical effects of their edicts, remains 
 to us. The same conclusion will result if we consider 
 our embargo in relation to the objects of this belligerent 
 policy. France by her edicts would compress Great 
 Britain, by destroying her commerce and cutting off her 
 supplies. All the continent of Europe, in the hand of 
 Bonaparte, is made subservient to this policy. The 
 embargo law of the United States, in its operation, is an 
 union Avith this continental coalition against British 
 commerce, at the very moment most auspicious to its 
 success. Can any thing be more in direct subserviency 
 to the views of the French emperor? If we consider 
 the orders of Great Britain, the result will be the same. 
 I proceed at present on the supposition of a perfect 
 impartiality in our administration towards both belliger- 
 ents, so far as relates to the embargo law. Great Britain 
 had two objects in issuing her orders. First, to excite 
 discontent in the people of the continent, by depriving 
 them of their accustomed colonial supplies. Second, to 
 secure to herself that commerce of which she deprived 
 neutrals. Our embargo co-operates with the British 
 views in both respects. By our dereliction of the 
 ocean, the continent is much more deprived of the 
 advantages of commerce than it would be possible for 
 the British navy to effect, and, by removing our compe- 
 tition, all the commerce of the continent which can be 
 forced, is wholly left to be reaped by Great Britain. 
 'The language of each sovereign is in direct conformity 
 wdth these ideas. Napoleon tells the American minister, 
 virtually, that we are very good Americans ; that 
 although he will not allow- the property he has in his 
 
60 SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 hands to escape him, nor desist from' burning and cap- 
 turing our vessels on every occasion, yet that he is, thus 
 far, satisfied with our co-operation. And what is the 
 language of George the Third, when our minister pre- 
 sents to his consideration the embargo laws. Is it Le 
 Roi savisera? The king will reflect upon them. No, 
 it is the pure language of royal approbation. Le Roi 
 le veut. The kiug wills it. Were you colonies, he 
 could expect no more. His subjects as inevitably get 
 that commerce which you abandon, as the water will 
 certainly run into the only channel which remains after 
 all the others are obstructed. In whatever point of 
 view you consider these embargo laws in relation to 
 those edicts and decrees, we shall find them co-operating 
 with each belligerent in its policy. In this way, I grant, 
 our conduct may be impartial ; but what has become of 
 our American rights to navigate the ocean ? They are 
 abandoned in strict conformity to the decrees of both 
 belligerents. This resolution declares that we will no 
 longer submit to such degrading humiliation. Little as 
 I relish, I will take it as the harbinger of a new day, 
 the pledge of a new system of measures. 
 
 Perhaps here, in strictness, I ought to close my obser- 
 vations. But the report of the committee, contrary to 
 what I deem the principle of the resolution, unquestion- 
 ably recommends the continuance of the embargo laws. 
 And such is the state of the nation, and in particular 
 that portion of it which in part I represent, under their 
 oppression, that I cannot refrain from submitting some 
 considerations on that subject. 
 
 When I enter on the subject of the embargo, I am 
 struck with wonder at the very threshold. I know ]iot 
 
SPEECH ON" FOEEIGIT RELATIONS. 61 
 
 with what words to express my astonishment. At the 
 time I departed from Massachusetts, if there Avas an 
 impression which I thought universal, it was that, at 
 the commencement of this session, an end would Ije put 
 to this measure. The opinion was not so much that it 
 would be terminated as that it was then at an end. 
 Sir, the prevailing sentiment, according to my apprehen- 
 sion, was stronger than this, — even that the pressure 
 Avas so great that it could not possibly be endured ; that 
 it would soon be absolutely insupportable. And this 
 opinion, as I then had reason to believe, was not con- 
 fined to anyone class or description or party, — that 
 even those who were friends of the existing adminis- 
 tration, and unwilling to abandon it, were yet satisfied 
 that a sufficient trial had been given to this measure. 
 With these impressions, I arrive in this city. I hear the 
 incantations of the great enchanter. I feel his spell. I 
 see the legislative machineiy begin to move. The scene 
 opens. And I am commanded to forget all my recollec- 
 tions, to disl)elieve the evidence of m}^ senses, to contra- 
 dict what I have seen and heard and felt. I hear that 
 all this discontent was mere party clamor, electioneering 
 artifice ; that the people of New England are able and 
 willing to endure this embargo for an indefinite, unlim- 
 ited period ; some say for six months ; some a year, 
 some two years. The gentleman from North Carolina 
 (Mr. Macon) told us that he preferred three years of 
 embargo to a war. And the gentleman from Virginia 
 (Mr. Clopton) said expressly, that he hoped we should 
 never allow our vessels to go upon the ocean again, 
 until the orders and decrees of the belligerents were 
 rescinded. In plain English, until France and Great 
 
62 SPEECH ON" FOREIGN EELATIONS. 
 
 Britain should, in their great condescension permit. 
 Good Heavens ! Mr. Chairman, are men mad ? Is this 
 House touched with that insanit}^ which is the never- 
 faihng precursor of the intention of Heaven to destroy ! 
 The people of New England, after eleven months depri- 
 vation of the ocean, to be commanded still longer to 
 abandon it, for an undefined period ; to liold their un- 
 alienable rights, at the tenure of the Avill of Britain or 
 of Bonaparte ! A people, commercial in all aspects, in 
 all their relations, in all their hopes, i!i__xill their recol- 
 lections of the past, in all their prospects of the future : 
 a people whose first love was the ocean, the choice of 
 their childhood, the approbation of their manly years, 
 the most precious inheritance of their fathers, in the 
 midst of their success, in the moment of the most ex- 
 quisite perception of commercial prosperity, to be com- 
 manded to abandon it, not for a time limited, but for a 
 time unlimited ; not until they can be prepared to 
 defend themselves there (for that is not pretended), 
 but until their rivals recede from it ; not until their 
 necessities reqiiire, but until foreign nations permit ! I 
 am lost in astonishment, Mr. Chairman. I have not 
 words to express the matchless absurdity of this at- 
 tempt. I have no tongue to express the swift and 
 headlong destruction which a blind perseverance in 
 such a system must bring upon this nation. 
 
 But men from New England, representatives on this 
 floor, equally with myself the constitutional guardians 
 of her interests, differ from me in these opinions. My 
 honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) took occasion in 
 secret session, to deny that there did exist all that dis- 
 content and distress, which I had attempted in an 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. G8 
 
 humble Avay to describe. He told us he had travelled 
 in j\Iassachusetts, that the people were not thus dissat- 
 isfied, that the embargo had not produced any such 
 tragical effects. Really, sir, my honorable colleague 
 has travelled all the way from Stockbridge to Hudson ; 
 from Berkshire to Boston ; from inn to inn ; from county 
 court to county court ; and doubtless he collected all 
 that important information which an acute intelligence 
 never fails to retain on such occasions. He found tea, 
 sugar, salt, West India rum, and molasses dearer ; beef, 
 pork, butter, and cheese cheaper. Reflection enabled 
 him to arrive at this difficult result, that in this way 
 the evil and the good of the embargo equalize one 
 another. But has my honorable colleague travelled on 
 the seaboard ? Has he witnessed the state of our 
 cities ? Has he seen our ships rotting at our wharves, 
 our wharves deserted, our stores tenantless, our streets 
 bereft of active business ; industry forsaking her beloved 
 haunts, and hope fled away from places where she had 
 from earliest time been accustomed to make and to ful- 
 fil her most precious promises ? Has he conversed with 
 the merchant, and heard the tale of his embarrassments, 
 — his capital arrested in his hands, forbidden by your 
 laws to resort to a market, with property four times 
 sufficient to discharge all his engagements, obliged to 
 hang on the precarious mercy of moneyed institutions 
 for that indulgence which preserves him from stopping 
 payment, the first step towards bankruptcy ? Has he 
 conversed with our mechanics? Has he seen them 
 either destitute of employment or obliged to seek it in 
 labors odious to them, because they Avere not educated 
 to them ? That mechanic, who the day before this em- 
 
64 SPEECH ON FOEEIGN EELATIONS. 
 
 bargo passed, the very da}^ that you took this bit, and 
 rolled it like a sweet morsel under your tongue, had 
 more business than he had hands or time or thought 
 to employ in it, now soliciting at reduced prices 
 that emj)loyment which the rich, owing to the uncer- 
 tainty in which jonr laws have involved their capital, 
 cannot afford. I could heighten this picture. I could' 
 show you laboring poor in the almshouse, and will- 
 ing industry, dependent upon charity. But I con- 
 fine myself to particulars which have fallen under my 
 own observation, and of which ten thousand suffering 
 mdividuals on the seaboard of New England are living 
 witnesses. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, — Other gentlemen must take their 
 responsibilities : I shall take mine. This embargo must 
 be repealed. You cannot enforce it for any important 
 period of time longer. When I speak of your inability 
 to enforce this law, let no gentleman misunderstand me. 
 I mean not to intimate insurrections or open defiances 
 of them. Although it is impossible to foresee in what 
 acts that "oppression" will finally terminate which, we 
 are told, " makes wise men mad." I speak of an inabil- 
 ity resulting from very different causes. 
 
 The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Macon), 
 exclaimed the other day in a strain of patriotic ardor, 
 "What! shall not our laws be executed? Shall their 
 authority be defied ? I am for enforcing them at every 
 hazard." I honor that gentleman's zeal ; and I mean 
 no deviation from that true respect I entertain for him, 
 when I tell him that, in this instance, " his zeal is not 
 according to knowledge." 
 
 I ask this House, is there no control to its authority, 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 65 
 
 is there no limit to the power of this national legisla- 
 ture ? I hope I shall offend no man, when I intimate 
 that two limits exist, — nature and the Constitution. 
 Should this House undertake to declare that this atmos- 
 phere should no longer surround us, that water should 
 cease to flow, that gravity should not hereafter operate, 
 that the needle should not vibrate to the pole, I do sup- 
 pose, Mr. Chairman, — sir, I mean no disrespect to the 
 authority of this House ; I know the high notions some 
 gentlemen entertain on this subject, — I do suppose, — 
 sir, I hope I shall not offend, — I think I may venture 
 to affirm, that such a law to the contrary notwithstand- 
 ing the air would continue to circulate, the Mississippi, 
 the Hudson, and the Potomac would hurl their floods 
 to the ocean, heavy bodies continue to descend, and the 
 mysterious magnet hold on its course to its celestial 
 cynosure. 
 
 Just as utterly absurd and contrary to nature is it, to 
 attempt to prohibit the people of New England, for any 
 considerable length of time, from the ocean. Commerce 
 is not only associated with all the feelings, the habits, 
 the interests, and relations, of that people, but the 
 nature of our soil and of our coasts, the state of our 
 population and its mode of distribution over our terri- 
 tory, renders it indispensable. We have five hundred 
 miles of sea-coast ; all furnished with harbors, bays, 
 creeks, rivers, inlets, basins, with every variety of invi- 
 tation to the sea, with every species of facility to violate 
 such laws as these : our people are not scattered over 
 an immense surface, at a solemn distance from each 
 other, in lordly retirement, in the midst of extended 
 plantations and intervening wastes. They are collected 
 
Q6 SPEECH ON FOREIGN EELATIOKS. 
 
 on the margin of the ocean, b}^ the sides of rivers, at 
 the heads of bays, looking into the water or on the sur- 
 face of it for the incitement and the reward of their 
 industry. Among a people thus situated, thus edu- 
 cated, thus numerous, laws prohibiting them from the 
 exercise of their natural rights will have a binding 
 effect not one moment longer than the public senti- 
 ment su]3ports them. Gentlemen talk of twelve reve- 
 nue cutters additional to enforce the embargo laws. 
 Multiply the number by twelve, multiply it by an hun- 
 dred, join all your ships of war, all jour gunboats, and 
 all your militia, in despite of them all, such laws as 
 these are of no avail when they become odious to public 
 sentiment. Continue these laws any considerable time 
 longer, and it is very doubtful if you will have officers 
 to execute, juries to convict, or purchasers to bid for 
 your confiscations. Cases have begun to occur. Ask 
 your revenue officers, and they will tell you that already 
 at public sales in your cities, under these laws, the 
 owner has bought his property at less than four per cent 
 upon the real value. Public o^jinion begins to look with 
 such a jealous and hateful eye upon these laws, that 
 even self-interest will not co-operate to enforce their 
 penalties. 
 
 But where is our love of order ? Where our respect 
 for the laws ? Let legislators beware lest, by the very 
 nature of their laws, they weaken that sentiment of 
 respect for them, so important to be inspired, and so 
 difficult to be reinstated when it has once been driven 
 from the mind. Regulate not the multitude to their 
 ruin. Disgust not men of virtue by the tendency of 
 3^our laws, lest when they cannot yield them the sane- 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 67 
 
 tion of their approbation, tlie enterprising and the 
 necessitous find a principal check upon their fears of 
 violating them removed. It is not enough for men in 
 place to exclaim, " the worthless part of society." 
 Words cannot alter the nature of things. You cannot 
 identify the violator of such laws as these, in our j^art 
 of the country, for any great length of time, with the 
 common smuggler, nor bring the former down to the 
 level of the latter. The reason is obvious. You bring 
 the duties the citizen owes to society into competition, 
 not only with the strongest interests, but, which is more, 
 with the most sacred private obligations. When you 
 present to the choice of a citizen, bankruptcy, a total 
 loss of the accumulated wealth of his whole life, or a 
 violation of a positive law, restrictive of the exercise of 
 the most common rights, it presents to him a most criti- 
 cal alternative. I will not say how sublime casuists 
 may decide. But it is easy to foretell that nature will 
 plead too strong in the bosom to make obedience long 
 possible. I state no imaginary case. Thousands in 
 New England see in the continuance of this embargo and 
 in obedience to it irremediable ruin to themselves and 
 families. But where is our patriotism? Sir, you call 
 upon patriotism for sacrifices to which it is unequal ; 
 and require its operation in a way in which that passion 
 cannot long subsist. Patriotism is a great comfort to 
 men in the interior, to the farmer and the planter, who 
 are denied a market by jouv laws, whose local situation 
 is such that they can neither sell their produce, nor 
 scarcely give it away, and who are made to believe that 
 their privations will ultimately redound to the benefit of 
 tlie country. But on the seaboard, where men feel not 
 
68 SPEECH ON FOREIGN EELATIONS. 
 
 only their annual profit, but their whole capital perish- 
 ing, where they know the utter inefficacy of your laws 
 to coerce foreign nations, and their utter futility as a 
 means of saving our own property ; to such laws in such 
 a situation, patriotism is, to say the least, a very inactive 
 assistant. You cannot lay a man upon the rack and 
 crack his muscles, bj' a slow torment, and call patriotism 
 to soothe the sufferer. 
 
 But there is another obstacle to a long and effectual 
 continuance of this law, — the doubt which hangs over 
 its constitutionality. I know I shall be told that the 
 sanction of the judiciary has been added to this act of 
 the legislature. Sir, I honor that tribunal. I revere the 
 individual whose opinion declared in this instance the 
 constitutionality of the law. But it is one thing to ven- 
 erate our courts of justice ; it is one thing to deem this 
 law obligatory upon the citizen, while it has all these 
 sanctions ; it is another, on this floor, in the high court 
 of the people's privileges, to advocate its repeal on the 
 ground that it is an invasion of their rights. The em- 
 bargo laws have unquestionable sanction. They are 
 laws of this land. Yet, who shall deny to a representa- 
 tive of this people the right, in their own favorite tribu- 
 nal, of bringing your laws to the test of the principles 
 of the Constitution ? 
 
 Is there any principle more wise, or more generally 
 received among statesmen, than that a law, in propor- 
 tion to its pressure uj)on the people, should have its 
 basis in unquestionable authority, as well as necessity ? 
 A legislature may sport with the rights of an individual. 
 It may violate the constitution to the ruin of whole 
 classes of men. But once let it begin, by its laws, to 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGlSr RELATIONS. 69 
 
 crush the hopes of the great mass of the citizens ; let it 
 bring every eye in the land to the scrutiny of its laws 
 and its authority, to be permanent those laws must pos- 
 sess no flaw in their foundation. 
 
 I ask in what page of the Constitution you find the 
 power of laying an embargo? Directly given it is no- 
 where. You have it, then, by construction or by prece- 
 dent. B}"- construction of the power to regulate. I lay 
 out of the question the common-place argument, that 
 regulation cannot mean annihilation ; and that what is 
 annihilated cannot be regulated. I ask this question. 
 Can a power be ever obtained by construction which 
 had never been exercised at the time of the authority 
 given ; the like of which had not only never been seen, 
 but the idea of which had never entered into human 
 imagination, I will not say in this country, but in the 
 world ? Yet such is this power which by construction 
 you assume to exercise. Never before did society wit- 
 ness a total prohibition of all intercourse like this in 
 a commercial nation. Did the peoj^le of the United 
 States invest this House with a power of which, at the 
 time of investment, that people had not and could not 
 have had any idea ? for even in works of fiction it had 
 never existed. But we have precedent. Precedent is 
 directly against you. For the only precedent, that in 
 1794, was in conformity to the embargo power, as it 
 had been exercised in other countries. It was limited. 
 Its duration was known. The power passed from the 
 representatives of this House only for sixty days. In 
 that day the legislature would not trust even Washing- 
 ton, amid all his well-earned influence, with any other 
 than a limited j)Ower. But away, sir, with such deduc- 
 
70 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 tions as these : I appeal to the history of the times when 
 this national compact was formed. This Constitution 
 grew out of our necessities, and it was in every stage of 
 its formation obstructed by the jealousies and diverse 
 interests of the different States. The gentlemen of the 
 South had certain species of property with the control 
 of which they would not trust us in the North. And 
 wisely ; for we neither appreciate it as they do, nor could 
 regulate it safely for them. In the east our sentiment 
 concerning their interest in commerce, and their power 
 to understand its true interests, was in a great degree 
 similar. The writings of that period exhibit this jeal- 
 ousy, and the fears excited by it formed in that portion 
 of the United States a formidable objection to its adop- 
 tion. In this state of things, would the people of New 
 England consent to convey to a legislature, constituted 
 as this in time must be, a power, not only to regulate 
 commerce, but to annihilate it, for a time unlimited, or 
 altogether? Suppose, in 1788, in the Convention of 
 Massachusetts, while debating upon the adoption of this 
 Constitution, some hoary sage had arisen, and with an 
 eye looking deep into futurity, with a prophet's ken, 
 had thus addressed the assembly. " Fellow-citizens 
 of Massachusetts, to what ruin are you hastening ? 
 Twenty years shall not elapse before, under a secret 
 and dubious construction of the instrument now pro- 
 posed for your adoption, your commerce shall be anni- 
 hilated ; the wbole of your vast trade prohibited ; not 
 a boat shall cross your harbor, not a coaster shall be 
 permitted to go out of your ports, unless under permis- 
 sion of the distant head of your nation, and after 
 a grievous visitation of a custom-house officer ? " Sir, 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 71 
 
 does any man believe that, with such a prospect into 
 futurity, the people of that State would have for one 
 moment listened to its adoption ? Rather would they 
 not have rejected it with indignation ? Yet this, now, 
 is not prophecy. It is history. But this law is not per- 
 petual, it is said. Show the limit to it. Show by what 
 terms it can be made more perpetual. 
 
 The universal opinion entertained in New England 
 among commercial men of the total imbecility of this 
 law, as a measure of coercion of either belligerent, is 
 another cause pregnant with discontent in that country. 
 It ma}^ do well enough to amuse ourselves with calcula- 
 tions of this kind on this floor ; but intelligent mer- 
 chants, masters of vessels, seamen, who are acquainted 
 with the West Indies, and with the European dominions 
 of both powers, speak with sovereign contempt of the 
 idea of starving either of these powers into submission 
 to our plans of policy. The entire failure of this 
 scheme, after a trial of eleven months, would, I should 
 suppose, have satisfied the most obstinate of its hope- 
 lessness. Yet it is revived again at this session. We 
 are told from high authority of the failure of the wheat 
 harvest in Great Britain, and this has been urged as a 
 farther reason for a continuance of this measure. Have 
 gentlemen who press this argument informed them- 
 selves how exceedingly small a proportion our export of 
 wheat bears to the whole consumption of the British 
 dominions ? Our whole export to all the world of 
 wheat in its natural and manufactured state does not 
 amount to seven millions of bushels. The whole con- 
 sumption of the British dominions exceeds one hundred 
 and fifty millions. Let gentlemen consider what a 
 
72 SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 small object this amount is, in a national point of view, 
 even could the attainment of the whole suppl}^ be 
 assumed, as the condition of her yielding to the terms 
 we should prescribe. Are not the borders of the Black 
 Sea, the coast of Africa, and South America, all wheat 
 countries, open to her commerce ? 
 
 But the embargo saves our resources. It may justly 
 be questioned, whether, in this point of view, the em- 
 bargo is so eifectual as, at first, men are led to imagine. 
 It may be doubted if the seed wheat for this harvest is 
 not worth more than the whole crop. I say nothing of 
 the embarrassments of our commerce, of the loss of our 
 seamen, of the sunken value of real estate. But our 
 dead, irredeemable loss, by this embargo, during the 
 present year, cannot be stated at less than ten per 
 cent on account of interest and profit on the whole ex- 
 port of our country, — that is, on the one hundred and 
 eight millions, — ten million eight hundred thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 Nor can our loss upon a million tons of unemployed 
 shipping be stated at less than at twenty dollars the 
 ton, twenty millions of dollars. Thirty millions of 
 dollars is a serious outfit for any voyage of salvation, 
 and the profit ought to be very unquestionable, before a 
 wise man would be persuaded to renew or prolong it. 
 Besides, is it true that the articles the embargo retains 
 are in the common acceptation of the term resources ? 
 I suppose that by this word, so ostentatiously used, on 
 all occasions, it is meant to convey the idea that the 
 produce thus retained in the country will be a resource 
 for use or defence in case of war, or any other misfor- 
 tune happening to it. But is this true ? Our exports 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 73 
 
 are surplus products, — what we raise beyond what we 
 consume. Because we cannot use them, they are sur- 
 plus. Of course in this country they have little or no 
 value in use, but only in exchange. Take away the 
 power of exchange, and how can they be called re- 
 sources ? Every year produces sufiBcient for its own 
 consumption, and a surplus. Suppose an embargo of 
 ten years, — will gentlemen seriously contend that the 
 accumulating surplus of fish, cotton, tobacco, and flour 
 would be a resource for any national exigencies ? We 
 cannot consume it, because the annual product is equal 
 to our annual consumption. Our embargo forbids us to 
 sell it. How, then, is it a resource ; are we stronger or 
 richer for it ? The reverse, we are weaker and poorer. 
 Weaker by all the loss of motive to activity, by all the 
 diminution of the industry of the country, which such a 
 deprivation of the power to exchange produces. And 
 what can be poorer than he who is obliged to keep 
 what he cannot use, and to labor for that which profiteth 
 not? 
 
 But the inequality of the pressure of this measure of 
 embargo upon the people of the Eastern States is an- 
 other source of great discontent with it. Every gentle- 
 man who has spoken upon the subject has seemed to 
 take it for granted that this was a burden which pressed 
 equally. But is this the case ? I shall confine myself 
 to a single fact, although the point admits of other elu- 
 cidations. Compare the State of Virginia with that of 
 Massachusetts, in the single particular of the amount of 
 capital embarrassed by this law. Virginia with a popu- 
 lation, according to the last census, of nine hundred 
 thousand souls, has four million seven hundred thou- 
 
74 SPEECH ON FOREIGN^ RELATIONS. 
 
 sand dollars in exports, forty thousand eight hundred 
 tons of registered shipping at thirty dollars the ton, 
 amounting to one million seven hundred dollars in 
 value ; constituting an aggregate capital of six millions 
 of dollars, obstructed by this embargo. Massachusetts, 
 on the other hand, has in exports twenty millions one 
 hundred thousand dollars, and three hundred and six 
 thousand tons of registered shipping, equal nearly to 
 ten millions of dollars, in value ; constituting an aggre- 
 gate of capital, in Massachusetts, equal to thirty mil- 
 lions of dollars, obstructed by this law. By the last 
 census, the population of Massachusetts is about six 
 hundred thousand souls. So that in Virginia, nine 
 hundred thousand souls have to bear a pressure of 
 embarrassed capital equal to six millions of dollars, and 
 in Massachusetts six hundred thousand souls a pressure 
 of thirty millions. To equalize the pressurfe of Virginia 
 with Massachusetts, the capital of the former ought to 
 be forty -five millions instead of six millions. I wish 
 not to bring into view any unpleasant comj)arisons, but 
 when gentlemen wonder at our complaints they ought 
 rightly to appreciate their causes. The pressure result- 
 ing from the embarrassments of this immense capital is 
 the more sensibly felt, inasmuch as it is not divided in 
 great masses among rich individuals, but in moderate 
 portions among the middling classes of our citizens, who 
 have many of them the earnings of a whole life invested 
 in single articles destined for a foreign market, from 
 which your embargo alone prohibits them. 
 
 It is in vain to say that if the embargo was raised 
 there would be no market. The merchants understand 
 that subject better than you ; and the eagerness with 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 75 
 
 Avhich preparations to load were carried on previous to 
 the commencement of this session speaks, in a language 
 not to be mistaken, their oi)inion of the foreign markets. 
 But it has been asked in debate, " Will not Massachu- 
 setts, the cradle of liberty, submit to such privations ? " 
 An embargo liberty was never cradled in Massachusetts. 
 Our liberty was not so much a mountain as a sea 
 nymph. She was free as air. She could swim, or she 
 could run. The ocean was her cradle. Our fathers 
 met her as she came, like the goddess of beauty, from 
 the waves. They caught her as she was sporting on 
 the beach. They courted her whilst she was spreading 
 her nets upon the rocks. But an embargo liberty, — a 
 hand-cuffed liberty ; a liberty in fetters ; a liberty trav- 
 ersing between the four sides of a prison and beating 
 her head against the walls, is none of our offspring. 
 We abjure the monster. Its parentage is all inland. 
 
 The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr Macon) 
 exclaimed the other day, " Where is the spirit of '76 ? " 
 Aye, sir ; where is it ? Would to heaven, that at our 
 invocation it would condescend to alight on this floor. 
 But let gentlemen remember that the spirit of '76 was 
 not a spirit of empty declaration, or of abstract proposi- 
 tions. It did not content itself with non-importation 
 acts or non-intercourse laws. It Avas a spirit of active 
 preparation, of dignified energy. It studied both to 
 know our rights and to devise the effectual means of 
 maintaining them. In all the annals of '76, you will 
 find no such degrading doctrine as that maintained in 
 this report. It never presented to the people of the 
 United States the alternative of war or a suspension of 
 our rights, and recommended the latter rather than to 
 
76 SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. J 
 
 incur the risk of the former. What was the language 
 of that period in one of the addresses of Congress to 
 Great Britain ? " You attempt to reduce us, by the 
 sword, to base and abject submission. On the sword, 
 therefore, we rely for protection." In that day there 
 were no alternatives presented to dishearten, — no 
 abandonment of our rights under the pretence of main- 
 taining them, — no gaining the battle by running 
 away. In the whole history of that period there are no 
 such terras as " embargo, — dignified retirement, — try- 
 ing who can do each other the most harm." At that 
 time we had a navy, that name so odious to the influ- 
 ences of the present day. Yes, sir, in 1776, though but 
 in our infancy, we had a navy scouring our coasts, and 
 defending our commerce, which was never for one 
 moment wholly suspended. In 1776 we had an army 
 also ; and a glorious army it was ! not composed of 
 men halting from the stews, or swept from the jails, but 
 of the best blood, the real yeomanry of the countr}'-, 
 noble cavaliers, men without fear and without reproach. 
 We had such an army in 1776, and Washington at its 
 head. We have an army in 1808, and a head to it. 
 
 I will not humiliate those who lead the fortunes of 
 the nation at the present day by any comparison with 
 the great men of that period. But I recommend the 
 advocates of the present system of public measures to 
 study well the true spirit of 1776, before they venture 
 to call it in aid of their purjDoses. It may bring in its 
 train some recollections not suited to give ease or hope 
 to their bosoms. I beg gentlemen who are so frequent 
 in their recurrence to that period to remember that, 
 among the causes which led to a separation from Great 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 77 
 
 Britain, the following are enumerated, — unnecessary 
 restrictions upon trade ; cutting off commercial inter- 
 course between the colonies ; embarrassing our fish- 
 eries ; wantonly depriving our citizens of necessaries ; 
 invasion of private property by governmental edicts ; 
 the authority of the commander-in-chief, and under him 
 of the brigadier-general, being rendered supreme in the 
 civil government ; the commander-in-chief of the army 
 made governor of a colony ; citizens transferred fi-om 
 their native country for trial. Let gentlemen beware 
 how they appeal to the spirit of '76, lest it come with 
 the aspect, not of a friend, but of a tormentor ; lest 
 they find a warning, when they look for support, and 
 instead of encouragement they are presented with an 
 awful lesson. 
 
 But repealing the embargo will be submission to trib- 
 ute. The popular ear is fretted with this word " tribute." 
 And an odium is attempted to be thrown upon those 
 who are indignant at this abandonment of their rights, 
 by representing them as the advocates of tribute. Sir, 
 who advocates it ? No man, in this country, I believe. 
 This outcry about tribute is the veriest bugbear that 
 was ever raised, in order to persuade men to quit rights 
 which God and nature had given them. In the first 
 place, it is scarce possible that, if left to himself, the 
 interest of the merchant could ever permit him to pay 
 the British re-exportation duty, denominated tribute. 
 France, under penalty of confiscation, prohibits our 
 vessels from receiving a visit from an English ship, or 
 touching at an English port. In this state of things, 
 England pretends to permit us to export to France cer- 
 tain articles, paying her a duty. The statement of the 
 
78 SPEECH ON rOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 case shows the futility of the attempt. Who will pn}- 
 a duty to England for permission to go to France to Le 
 confiscated ? But, suppose there is a mistake in this, 
 and that it may be the interest of the merchant to pay 
 such duty, for the purpose of going to certain destruc- 
 tion, have not you full powers over this matter ? Can- 
 not you, by pains and penalties, prohibit the merchant 
 from the payment of such a duty ? No man will ob- 
 struct you. There is, as I believe, but one opinion 
 upon this subject : I hope, therefore, that gentlemen 
 will cease this outcry about tribute. 
 
 However, suppose that the payment of this duty is 
 inevitable, which it certainly is not. Let me ask, is 
 embargo independence ? Deceive not yourselves. It 
 is palpable submission. Gentlemen exclaim, Great 
 Britain " smites us on one cheek ; " and what does ad- 
 ministration ? "It turns the other also." Gentlemen 
 say, Great Britain is a robber ; she " takes our cloak ; " 
 and what say administration ? " Let her take our coat 
 also." France and Great Britain requires you to relin- 
 quish a part of your commerce, and you yield it entirely. 
 Sir, this conduct may be the way to dignity and honor 
 in another world, but it will never secure safety and 
 independence in this. 
 
 At every corner of this great city we meet some gen- 
 tlemen of the majority, wringing their hands and ex- 
 claiming, "What shall we do? Nothing but embargo 
 will save us. Remove it, and what shall we do ? " Sir, 
 it is not for me, an humble and uninfluential individual, 
 at an awful distance from the predominant influences, 
 to suggest plans of government. But, to my eye, the 
 path of our duty is as distinct as the milky way ; all 
 
SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 79 
 
 studded Avitli living sapphires ; gloAving with cumulat- 
 ing light. It is the path of active preparation, of dig- 
 nified energy. It is the path of 1776. It consists, not 
 in abandoning our rights, but in supporting them, as 
 they exist, and where they exist, — on the ocean, as 
 well as on the land. It consists, in taking the nature 
 of things as the measure of the rights of your citizens, 
 not the orders and decrees of imperious foreigners. 
 Give what protection you can. Take no counsel of 
 fear. Your strength will increase with the trial, and 
 prove greater than you are now aAvare. 
 
 But I shall be told, " This may lead to war." I ask, 
 " Are we now at peace ? " Certainly not, unless retir- 
 ing from insult be peace, unless shrinking under the 
 lash be peace. The surest way to prevent war is not to 
 fear it. The idea that nothing oa earth is so dreadful 
 as war is inculcated too studiously among us. Dis- 
 grace is worse. Abandonment of essential rights is 
 worse. 
 
 Sir, I could not refrain from seizing the first opportu- 
 nity of spreading before this House the sufferings and 
 exigencies of New England under this embargo. Some 
 gentlemen may deem it not strictly before us. In my 
 opinion, it is necessaril3\ For, if the idea of the com- 
 mittee be correct, and embargo is resistance, then this 
 resolution sanctions its continuance. If, on the con- 
 trary, as I contend, embargo is submission, then this 
 resolution is a pledge of its repeal. 
 
SECOND SPEECH 
 
 ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN 
 RELATIONS; IN REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS 
 OF MR. BACON. 
 
 Dec. 7, 1808. 
 
SECOND SPEECH 
 
 ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN 
 RELATIONS; IN REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF 
 MR. BACON. 
 
 Dec. 7, 1808. 
 
 [The speech of the 28th of November made Mr. Quincy for 
 the time being what Daniel O'Connell said of himself, " the best 
 abused man living," both in Congress and by the Democratic 
 press throughout the country. He was consoled, however, by 
 Federal praise, quite as warm as the Democratic censure. On 
 the 7th of the next month he took or made occasion for the fol- 
 lowing speech, in reply to his chief assailants, — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I offer myself to the view of this 
 House with very sensible embarrassment, in attempting 
 to follow the honorable member from Tennessee (Mr. 
 Campbell), — a gentleman who holds so distinguished a 
 station on this floor, through thy blessing, Mr. Speaker, 
 on his talents and industry. I place myself, with much 
 reluctance, in competition with this our great political 
 ^neas, — an illustrious leader of antiquity, whom in his 
 present relations, and with his present projects, the gen- 
 tleman from Tennessee not a little resembles. Since, 
 in order to evade the ruin impending over our cities, 
 taking m}^ honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) by one hand, 
 and the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. INIont- 
 gomery) by the other, little lulus, and Avife Creusa, he 
 
84 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 is posting away into the "woods, with Father Anchises 
 and all the household gods. 
 
 When I had the honor of addressing this House, a 
 few days ago, I touched this famous report of our com- 
 mittee on foreign relations, perhaps, a little too carelessly; 
 perhaj)s, I handled it a little too roughly, considering 
 its tender age and the manifest delicacy of its con- 
 stitution. But, sir, I had no idea of affecting very 
 exquisitely the sensibilities of any gentleman. I thought 
 that this was a common report of one of our ordinary 
 committees, which I had a right to canvass, or to slight, 
 to applaud, or to censure, without raising any extraor- 
 dinary concern, either here or elsewhere. But, from the 
 general excitement which my inconsiderate treatment 
 of this subject occasions, I fear that I have been mis- 
 taken. This can be no mortal fabric, Mr. Speaker. This 
 must be that image which fell down from Jupiter, — 
 present or future. Surely nothing but a being of 
 celestial origin would raise such tumult in minds 
 attempered like those which lead the destinies of 
 this House. 
 
 Sir, I thought that this report had been a common 
 piece of wood, — " Inutile lignum.''^ Sir, just such a piece 
 of wood as any day laborer might have hewed out, in an 
 hour, had he health and a hatchet. But it seems that 
 our honorable chairman of the committee of foreign 
 relations " maluit esse Deum.^^ Well, sir, I have no 
 objections. If the workmen will, a god it shall be. 
 I only wish, when gentlemen bring their sacred things 
 upon this floor, that they would " blow a trumpet before 
 them, as the heathens do," on such occasions, to the 
 end that all true believers may prepare themselves to 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 85 
 
 adore and tremble, and that all unbelievers may turn 
 aside, and not disturb their devotions. 
 
 I assure gentlemen that I meant to commit no sacri- 
 lege. I had no intention, sir, of canvassing very strictly 
 this report. I supposed that, when it had been published 
 and circulated, it had answered all the purposes of its 
 authors, and I felt no disposition to interfere with them. 
 But the House is my witness that I am compelled, by 
 the clamor raised, on all sides, by the friends of ad- 
 ministration, to descend to particulars, and to examine it 
 somewhat minutely. 
 
 My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was i^leased the 
 other day to assert : . . . Sir, in referring to his observa- 
 tions on a former occasion, I beg the House not to 
 imagine that I am about to follow him. No, sir, I 
 will neither follow nor imitate him. I hang upon no 
 man's skirts. I run barking at no man's heel. I can- 
 vass principles and measures, solely with a view to the 
 great interests of my country. The idea of personal 
 victory is lost in the total absorption of sense and mind 
 in the importance of impending consequences. I say 
 he was pleased to assert that I had dealt in general 
 allegations against this report, without pointing out any 
 particular objection. And the honorable chairman (Mr. 
 Campbell) has reiterated the charge. Both have treated 
 this alleged omission with no little asperity. Yet, 
 sir, it is very remarkable that, so far from dealing 
 in general allegations, I explicitly stated my objections. 
 The alternatives presented by the report — war or sus- 
 pension of our rights, and the recommendation of the 
 latter, rather than take the risk of the former — I ex- 
 pressly censured. I went farther, — I compared these 
 
86 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 alternatives with an extract from an address made by 
 the first Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Great 
 Britain, and attempted to show, by way of contrast, 
 what I thought the disgraceful spirit of the report. 
 Yet these gentlemen complain that I dealt in general 
 allegations. Before I close, sir, they will have, I hope, 
 no reason to repeat such objections. I trust I shall be 
 particular to their content. 
 
 Before entering upon an examination of this report, it 
 may be useful to recollect how it originated. 
 
 By the 3d section of the 2d article of the Constitution, 
 it is declared that the President of the United States 
 " shall, from time to time, give to Congress information 
 of the state of the Union, and recommend to their con- 
 sideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and 
 expedient." It is, then, the duty of the President to 
 recommend such measures as in his judgment Congress 
 ought to adopt. A great crisis is impending over our 
 country. It is a time of alarm and peril and distress. 
 How has the President performed this constitutional 
 duty ? Why, after recapitulating, in a formal message, 
 our dangers and his trials, he expresses his confidence 
 that we shall, " with an unerring regard to the essential 
 rights and interests of the nation, weigh and compare 
 the painful alternatives out of which a choice is to be 
 made," and that " the alternative chosen will be main- 
 tained with fortitude and patriotism." In this way our 
 chief magistrate performs his duty. A storm is ap- 
 proaching, — the captain calls his choice hands upon 
 deck, leaves the rudder swinging, and sets the crew to 
 scuffle about alternatives. This message, pregnant with 
 nondescript alternatives, is received b}^ this House. 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 87 
 
 And Avliat do we ? Why, constitute a great committee 
 of foreign relations, and, lest they should not have their 
 attention completely occupied by the pressing exigencies 
 of those with France and Great Britain, thej^ are en- 
 dowed with the whole mass, British, Spanish, and 
 French ; Barbary powers and Indian neighbors. And 
 what does this committee ? Why, after seven days' 
 solemn conclave, they present to this House an illustri- 
 ous report, loaded with alternatives, — nothing but 
 alternatives. The cold meat of the palace is hashed and 
 served up to us, piping hot, from our committee room. 
 
 In considering this report, I shall pay no attention to 
 either its beginning or its conclusion. The former con- 
 sists of shavings from old documents, and the latter of 
 birdlime for new converts. The twelfth iMge is the 
 heart of this rejjort. That I mean to canvass. And I do 
 assert that there is not one of all the principal positions 
 contained in it which is true, in the sense and to the 
 extent assumed by the committee. Let us examine 
 each separately. 
 
 " Your committee can perceive no other alternative 
 but abject and degrading submission, — war with both 
 nations, or a continuance and enforcement of the pres- 
 ent suspension of our commerce." Here is a trifurcate 
 alternative. Let us consider each branch, and see if 
 either be true in the sense assumed l)y the committee. 
 The first, " abject and degrading submission," takes two 
 things for granted, — that trading, pending the edicts of 
 France and Great Britain, is submission ; and next, that 
 it is submission in its nature, abject and degrading. 
 Neither is true. It is not submission to trade, pending 
 those edicts, because they do not command you to trade. 
 
00 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN EELATIONS. 
 
 They command you not to trade. When you refuse to 
 trade you submit, not when 3'ou carry on that trade, as far 
 as you can, which they prohibit. Agam, it is not true that 
 such trading is abject and disgraceful, and that, too, upon 
 the principles avowed by the advocates of this report. 
 Trading, while these edicts are suspended over our com- 
 merce, is submission, sa}'' they, because we have not 
 jjhysical force to resist the power of these belligerents ; 
 of course, if we trade, we must submit to these restric- 
 tions ; not having power to evade, or break through 
 them. Now, admit for the sake of argument what, 
 however, in fact I deny, that the belligerents have the 
 power to carry into effect their decrees so perfectly that, 
 by reason of the orders of Great Britain, we are physi- 
 cally disabled from going to France, and that by the 
 edicts of France, we are, in like manner, disabled from 
 going to Great Britain. If such be our case, in relation 
 to these powers, the question is, whether submitting to 
 exercise all the trade which remains to us, notwith- 
 standing the edicts, is " abject and degrading." 
 
 In the first place, I observe that submission is not to 
 beings constituted as we are always " abject and degrad- 
 ing." We submit to the decrees of providence, — to the 
 laws of our nature, — absolute weakness submits to abso- 
 lute power, — and there is nothing, in such submission, 
 shameful or degrading. It is no dishonor, for finite, not 
 to contend with infinite. There is no loss of reputation 
 if creatures such as men perform not impossibilities. If, 
 then, it be true, in the sense asserted by some of the 
 advocates of this report, that it is physically impossible 
 for us to trade with France and Great Britain and their 
 dependencies by reason of these edicts, still there is 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 89 
 
 nothing " abject or degrading " in carrying on such 
 trade as these edicts leave open to us, let it be never so 
 small or so trifling ; which, however, it might be easily 
 shown, as it has been, that it is neither the one nor the 
 other. Sir, in this point of view, it is no more disgrace- 
 ful for us to trade to Sweden, to China, to the North- 
 West coast, or to Spain and her dependencies, not one 
 of which countries is now included in those edicts, than 
 it is disgraceful for us to walk, because we are unable 
 to fly ; no more than it is shameful for man to use and 
 enjoy the surface of this globe, because he has not at 
 his command the whole circle of nature, and cannot 
 range at will over all the glorious spheres which 
 constitute the universe. 
 
 Tlie gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) called 
 upon us just now to tell him what was disgraceful sub- 
 mission, if carrying on commerce under these restrictions 
 was not such submission. I will tell that gentleman. 
 That submission is " abject and disgraceful,'' which 
 yields to the decrees of frail and feeble power, as though 
 they were irresistible, — which takes counsel of fear, and 
 weighs not our comparative force, — which abandons the 
 whole at a summons to deliver up a part, — which 
 makes the will of others the measure of rights which 
 God and nature, not only have constituted eternal and 
 unalienable, but have also indued us with ample means 
 to maintain. 
 
 My argument, on this clause of the report of the com- 
 mittee, may be presented in this form. Either the United 
 States have, or they have not, physical ability to carry on 
 commerce, in defiance of the edicts of both, or of either, 
 of these nations. If we have not physical ability to carry 
 
90 SECOND SPEECH ON FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 on the trade which they prohibit, then it is no disgrace 
 to exercise that commerce which these irresistible de- 
 crees permit. 'If we have such physical ability, then to 
 the degree in which we abandon that commerce which 
 we have the power to carry on, is our submission " abject 
 and disgraceful." It is yielding without struggle. It is 
 sacrificing our rights, not because we have not force, but 
 because we have not sj^irit, to maintain them. It is 
 in this point of view that I am disgusted with this 
 report. It abjures what it recommends. It declaims 
 in heroics against submission, and proposes in creeping 
 prose a tame and servile subserviency. 
 
 It cannot be concealed, let gentlemen try as much 
 as they Avill, that we can trade, not only with one, but 
 with both these belligerents, notwithstanding these 
 restrictive decrees. The risk to Great Britain against 
 French capture scarcely amounts to two per cent. That 
 to France against Great Britain is, unquestionably, much 
 greater. But what is that to us ? It is not our fault, if 
 the power of Britain on the ocean is superior to that of 
 Bonaparte. It is equal and exact justice, between both 
 nations, for us to trade with both as far as it is in our 
 power. Great as the power of Britain is on the ocean, 
 the enterprise and . intrepidity of our merchants are 
 more than a match for it. They will get your products 
 to the Continent, in spite of her navy. But suppose 
 they do not? Suppose they fail, and are captured in 
 the attempt ? What is that to us after we have given 
 them full notice of all their dangers, and perfect warn- 
 ing, either of our inabilitv or of our determination not 
 to protect them ? If they take the risk it is at their peril. 
 And upon whom does the loss fall ? As it does now, 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 91 
 
 through the operation of your embargo, on the planter, 
 on the farmer, on the mechanic, on the day laborer ? 
 No, sir. On the insurer, on the capitalist, on those 
 who, in the full exercise of their intelligence, apprised 
 of all circumstances, are willing to take the hazard for 
 the sake of the profit. 
 
 I will illustrate my general idea by a supposition. 
 There are two avenues to the ocean from the harbor of 
 New York, — by the Narrows and through Long Island 
 Sound. Suppose the fleets both of France and Great 
 Britain should block up the Narrows, so that to pass 
 them would be physically impossible in the relative 
 state of our naval force. Will gentlemen seriously con- 
 tend that there would be any thing " abject or disgrace- 
 ful *' if the people of New York should submit to carry 
 on their trade through the Sound ? Would the remedy 
 for this interference with our rights be abandoning the 
 ocean altogether ? Again, suppose that, instead of both 
 nations blockading the same, each should station its 
 force at a different one, — France at the mouth of the 
 Sound, Britain at the Narrows. In such case would 
 staying at liome and refusing any more to go upon 
 the sea be exercise of independence in the citizens of 
 New York? Great philosophers may call it "dignified 
 retirement" if they will. I call it, and I am mistaken 
 if the people would not also call it, " base and abject 
 submission." Sir, what in such a case would be true 
 honor ? Why, to consider well which adversary is 
 weakest, and cut our way to our rights through the 
 path which he obstructs. Having removed the smaller 
 impediment, we should return with courage strength- 
 ened by trial and animated by success, to the relief of our 
 
92 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 rights from the pressure of the strongest assailant. But 
 all this is war. And war is never to be incurred. If 
 this be the national principle, avow it. Tell your mer- 
 chants you will not protect them. But for heaven's 
 sake do not deny them the power of relieving their 
 own and the nation's burdens by the exercise of their 
 own ingenuity. Sir, impassable as the barriers offered 
 by these edicts are in the estimation of members on this 
 floor, the merchants abroad do not estimate them as in- 
 surmountable. Their anxiety to risk their property in 
 defiance of them is full evidence of this. The great 
 danger to mercantile ingenuity is internal envy ; the cor- 
 rosion of weakness or prejudice. Its external hazard 
 is ever infinitely smaller. That practical intelligence 
 which this class of men possesses beyond any other in 
 the community, excited by self-interest, the strongest 
 of human passions, is too elastic to be confined by 
 the limits of exterior human powers, however great or 
 uncommon. Build a Chinese wall, the wit of your 
 merchants, if permitted freely to operate, will break 
 through it, or overleap it, or under-creep it. 
 
 ..." mille adde catenas, 
 
 EflFugiet tameii hsec sceleratus vinciila Proteus." 
 
 The second branch of the alternatives under considera- 
 tion is equally deceptive : " War with both nations." 
 Can this ever be an alternative ? Did you ever read in 
 history, can you conceive in fancy, a war with two 
 nations, each of whom is at war with the other, with- 
 out an union with one against the other immediately 
 resulting ? It cannot exist in nature. The very idea 
 is absurd. It never can be an alternative whether we 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 93 
 
 shall fight two nations, each hostile to the other. But 
 it may be, and, if we are to fight at all, it is a very 
 serious question, which of the two we are to select as 
 an adversary. As to the third branch of these cele- 
 brated alternatives, " a continuance and enforcement of 
 the present system of commerce," I need not spend 
 time to show that this does not include all the alterna- 
 tives which exist under this head, since the committee 
 immediately admit that there does exist another alter- 
 native, "partial repeal," about which they proceed to 
 reason. 
 
 The report proceeds: "The first" (abject and de- 
 grading submission) " cannot require any discussion." 
 Certainly not. Submission of that quality which the 
 committee assume, and with the epithets of which they 
 choose to invest it, can never require discussion at any 
 time. But whether trading under these orders and de- 
 crees be such submission, whether we are not competent 
 to resist them, in part, if not in whole, without a total 
 abandonment of the exercise of all our maritime rights, 
 the comparative effects of the edicts of each upon our 
 commerce, and the means we possess to influence or 
 control either, are all fair and proper subjects of discus- 
 sion, some of which the committee have wholly neg- 
 lected, and none of which have they examined as the 
 House had a right to expect. 
 
 The committee proceed " to dissipate the illusion " 
 that there is any "middle course," and to reassert the 
 position before examined, that " there is no other alter- 
 native than war with both nations, or a continuance 
 of the present system." This position they undertake 
 to support by two assertions: First, that "war with 
 
94 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 one of the belligerents only would be submission to the 
 edicts and will of the other ; " second, that " repeal, in 
 whole or in part, of the embargo must necessarily be 
 war or submission." 
 
 As to the first assertion, it is a miserable fallacy, con- 
 founding coincidence of interest with a subjection of 
 will ; things in their nature palpably distinct. A man 
 may do what another wills, nay, what he commands, 
 and not act in submission to his will or in obedience to 
 his command. Our interest or duty may coincide with 
 the line of conduct another presumes to prescribe. Shall 
 we vindicate our independence at the expense of our 
 social or moral obligations ? I exemplify my idea in 
 this way : Two bullies beset your door, from which 
 there are but two avenues. One of them forbids you 
 to go by the left, the other forbids you to go by the 
 right avenue. Each is willing that you should pass by 
 the way which he permits. In such case, what will 
 you do ? Will you keep house for ever rather than 
 make cbgice of the path through which you will re- 
 sume your external rights ? You cannot go both ways 
 at once ; you must make your election. Yet in making 
 such election you must necessarily coincide with the 
 wishes and act according to the commands of one of 
 the bullies. Yet who, before this committee, ever 
 thought an election of one of two inevitable courses 
 made under such circumstances " abject and degrading 
 submission " to the will of either of the assailants. The 
 second assertion, that " repeal, in whole or in part, of 
 the embargo must necessarily be war or submission " 
 the committee proceed to maintain by several subsid- 
 iary assertions : First, " A general repeal, without 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 95 
 
 arming", would be submission to both nations." So far 
 from this being true, the reverse is the fact : it would 
 be submission to neither. Great Britain does not say, 
 "You shall trade with me." France does not sa}-, " You 
 shall trade with me." If this was the language of their 
 edicts, there might be some cause for the assertion of the 
 committee, If we trade with either we submit. The 
 edicts of each declare you shall not trade with my 
 adversary. Our servile, knee-crooking embargo says, 
 " You shall, therefore, not trade." Can any submission 
 be more palpable, more " abject, more disgraceful ! " 
 A general repeal without arming would be only an 
 exercise of our natural rights under the protection of 
 our mercantile ingenuity, and not under that of physical 
 power. Whether our merchants shall arm or not is a 
 question of political expediency and of relative force. 
 It may be very true that we can fight our M^ay to neither 
 country, and yet it may be also very true that we may 
 carry on a very important commerce with both. The 
 strength of the national arm may not be equal to con- 
 tend with either, and yet the wit of our merchants may 
 be an overmatch for the edicts of all. The question of 
 arming or not arming has reference only to the mode in 
 which we shall best enjoy our rights, and not at all to 
 the quality of the act of trading during these edicts. 
 To exercise commerce is our absolute right. If we arm, 
 we may possibly extend the field beyond that which 
 mere ingenuity would open to us. Whether the exten- 
 sion thus required be worthy of the risk and expense is 
 a fair question. But, decide it either way, how is trad- 
 ing as far as we have ability made more abject than not 
 trading at all. 
 
96 vSECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 I come to the second subsidiary assertion : "A gen- 
 eral repeal and arming of merchant vessels would be 
 war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the 
 enemies to plunder us without retaliation upon them." 
 
 I have before exposed the absurdity of a war with 
 two belligerents, each hostile to the other. It cannot 
 be true, therefore, that " a general repeal and arming 
 our merchant vessels " would be such a war. Neither 
 if war resulted would it be " war of the worst kind." 
 In my humble apprehension a war in which our ene- 
 mies are permitted to plunder us and our merchants not 
 permitted to defend their pro^Dcrty, is somewhat worse 
 than a war like this, in which, with arms in their hands, 
 our brave seamen might sometimes prove too strong for 
 their piratical assailants. By the whole amount of prop- 
 erty which we might be able to preserve by these means, 
 would such a war be better than that in which we are 
 now engaged. For the committee assure us (page 14) 
 that the aggressions to which we are subject " are to all 
 intents and purposes a maritime war, waged by both 
 nations against the United States." 
 
 The last assertion of the committee in this most mas- 
 terlj^ page is, that " a jDartial repeal must, from the situ- 
 ation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one 
 of the aggressors, and war with the other." In the 
 name of common sense, how can this be true ? The 
 trade to Sweden, to Spain, to China, are not now af- 
 fected by the orders or decrees of either belligerent. 
 How is it submission, then, to these orders for us to 
 trade to Gottenburg, when neither France nor Britain 
 command nor prohibit it ? Of what consequence is it 
 to us in what way the Gottenburg merchant disposes of 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN KELATIONS. 97 
 
 ouv products after he has paid us our price ? I am not 
 about to deny that a trade to Gottenburg would defeat 
 the purpose of coercing Great Britain through the want 
 of our supplies. But I reason on the report upon its 
 avowed. principles. If gentlemen adhere to their system 
 as a means of coercion, let the administration avow it as 
 such, and support the system by arguments such as their 
 friends use every day on this floor. Let them avow, as 
 those friends do, that this is our mode of hostility against 
 Great Britain ; that it is better than " ball and gun- 
 powder." Let them show that the means are adequate 
 to the end ; let them exhibit to us, beyond the term of 
 all this suffering, a happy salvation and a glorious vic- 
 tory, and the people may then submit to it, even with- 
 out murmur. But while the administration support their 
 system only as a municipal regulation, as a means of 
 safety and preservation, those who canvass their prin- 
 ciple are not called upon to contest with them on ground 
 which not only they do not take, but which officially 
 the}^ disavow. -As partial repeal would not be submis- 
 sion to either, so also it would not be war with either. 
 A trade to Sweden would not be war with Great Britain ; 
 that nation is her ally, and she permits it : nor with 
 France ; though Sweden is her enemy, she does not 
 prohibit it. "Ah! but," say the committee (page 13), 
 " a measure which would supply exclusively one of the 
 belligerents would be war with the other." This is the 
 state secret ; this is the master-key to the whole policy. 
 You must not only not do what the letter of these orders 
 prohibits, but you must not sin against the spirit of them. 
 The great purpose is to prevent your products from 
 getting to our enemy ; and to effect this you must not 
 
98 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 only so act as to obey the terms of the decrees ; but, 
 keeping the great purpose of them always in sight, you 
 must extend their construction to cases which they can- 
 not by any rule of reason be made to include. 
 
 Sir, I have done with this report. I would not have 
 submitted to the task of canvassing it if gentlemen had 
 not thrown the gauntlet with the air of sturdy defiance. 
 I willingly leave to this House and the nation to decide 
 whether the position I took in the commencement of 
 my argument is not maintained, — that there is not one 
 of the princij)al positions contained in this twelfth page, 
 the heart of this report, which is true in the sense and 
 to the extent assumed by the committee. 
 
 It was under these general impressions that I used 
 the word " loathsome," which has so often been re- 
 peated. Sir, it may not have been a well-chosen word. 
 It was that which happened to come to hand first. I 
 meant to express my disgust at what appeared to me a 
 mass of bold assumptions and of ill-cemented sophisms. 
 
 I said, also, that "the spirit which it breathed was 
 disgraceful." Sir, I meant no reflection upon the com- 
 mittee. Honest men and wise men may mistake the 
 character of the spirit which they recommend, or by 
 which they are actuated. When called upon to reason 
 concerning that which by adoption is to become identi- 
 fied with the national character, I am bound to speak of 
 it as it appears to my vision. I may be mistaken, yet 
 I ask the question. Is not the spirit which it breathes 
 disgraceful ? Is it not disgraceful to abandon the exer- 
 cise of all our commercial rights because our rivals 
 interfere with a part ? not only to refrain from exercis- 
 ing that trade which they prohibit, but for fear of giving 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 99 
 
 offence to decline that which they permit ? Is it not 
 disgraceful, after inflammatory recapitulation of insults 
 and plunderings and burnings and confiscations and 
 murders and actual war made upon us, to talk of 
 nothing but alternatives, of general declarations, of 
 still longer suspension of our rights, and retreating 
 further out of " harm's way " ? If this course be 
 adopted by my country, I hope I am in error concern- 
 ing its real character. But to my sense this whole 
 report is nothing else than a recommendation to us of 
 the abandonment of our essential rights, and apologies 
 for doing it. 
 
 Before I sit down, I feel myself compelled to notice 
 some observations which have been made in different 
 quarters of this House on the remarks which, at an early 
 stage of this debate, I had the honor of submitting to 
 its consideration. My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) 
 was pleased to represent me as appealing to the people, 
 over the heads of the whole government, against the 
 authority of a law which had not only the sanction of 
 all the legislative branches o^f the government, but also 
 of the judiciary. Sir, I made no such appeal. I did 
 not so much as threaten it. I admitted expressly the 
 binding authority of the law. But I claim a right, 
 which I ever will claim and ever will exercise, to urge 
 on this floor my opinion of the unconstitutionality of a 
 laAV and my reasons for that opinion as a valid ground 
 for its repeal. Sir, I will not only do this, I will do 
 more. If a law be, in my apprehension, dangerous in 
 its principles, ruinous in its consequences, above all if 
 it be unconstitutional, I will not fail, in every fair and 
 honorable way, to awaken the people to a sense of their 
 
100 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 peril, and to quicken them, by the exercise of their con- 
 stitutional privileges, to vindicate themselves and pos- 
 terity from ruin. 
 
 My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was also pleased 
 to refer to me as a man of divisions and distinctions, 
 waging war with adverbs and dealing in figures. Sir, I 
 am sorry that my honorable colleague should stoop " from 
 his pride of place " at such humble game as my poor style 
 presents to him. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but 
 confess that " deeming high" of this station which I 
 hold ; standing, as it were, in the awful presence of an 
 assembled people, — I am more than ordinarily anxious, 
 on all occasions, to select the best thoughts in ni}^ nar- 
 row storehouse, and to adapt to them the most appro- 
 priate dress in my intellectual wardrobe. I know not 
 whether on this account I am justly obnoxious to the 
 asperity of my honorable colleague. But on the subject 
 of figures, Mr. Speaker, this I know, and cannot refrain 
 from assuring this House, that as, on the one hand, I 
 shall, to the extent of my humble talents, always be 
 ambitious, and never cease striving, to make a decent 
 figure on this floor, so, on the other, I never can be am- 
 bitious, but, on the contrary, shall ever strive chiefly 
 to avoid cutting a figure like my honorable colleague. 
 
 The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup), the other 
 day, told this House that, if commerce were permitted, 
 such was the state of our foreign relations, none but 
 bankrupts would carry on trade. Sir, the honorable 
 gentleman has not attained correct information in this 
 particular. I do not believe that I state any thing 
 above the real fact when I say that, on the day this leg- 
 islature assembled, one hundred vessels, at least, were 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 101 
 
 lying in the different ports and harbors of New England, 
 loaded, riding at single anchor, ready and anxious for 
 nothing so much as for your leave to depart. Certainly, 
 this does not look much like any doubt that a field of 
 advantageous commerce would open if you would unbar 
 the door to our citizens. That this was the case in 
 JNIassachusetts, I know. Before I left that part of the 
 country, I had several applications from men who stated 
 that they had property in such situations, and soliciting 
 me to give them the earliest information of your proba- 
 ble policy. The men so applying, sir, I can assure the 
 House, were not bankrupts, but intelligent merchants, 
 shrewd to perceive their true interests, keen to pursue 
 them. An honorable gentleman (Mr. Troup, of Geor- 
 gia) was also pleased to speak of "a paltry trade in 
 potash and codfish," and to refer to me as the repre- 
 sentative of men who raised " beef and pork, and butter 
 and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages." Well, sir, I 
 confess the fact. I am the representative, in part, of 
 men the products of whose industry are beef and pork, 
 and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages. And 
 let me tell that honorable gentleman that I would not 
 yield the honor of representing such men to be the rep- 
 sentative of all the growers of cotton and rice and to- 
 bacco and indigo in the whole world. Sir, the men 
 wliom I represent not only raise these humble articles, 
 but they do it with the labor of their own hands, M'ith 
 the sweat of their own brows. And by this, their hab- 
 itual mode of hardy industry, they acquire a vigor of 
 nerve, a strength of muscle, and a spirit and intelligence 
 somewhat characteristic. And let me assure that hon- 
 orable gentleman that the men of whom I speak will 
 
102 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 not, at his call nor at the invitation of any set of men 
 from his quarter of the Union, undertake to " drive one 
 another into the ocean." But, on the contrary, when- 
 ever they once realize that their rights are invaded, 
 they will unite, like a band of brothers, and drive their 
 enemies there. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. John- 
 son), speaking of the embargo, said that this was the 
 kind of conflict which our fathers waged ; and my hon- 
 orable colleague (Mr. Bacon) made a poor attempt to 
 confound this policy with the non-intercourse and non- 
 importation agreement of 1774 and 1775. Sir, nothing- 
 can be more dissimilar. The non-intercourse and non- 
 importation agreement of that period, so far from de- 
 stroying commerce, fostered and encouraged it. The 
 trade with Great Britain was, indeed, voluntarily ob- 
 structed, but the enterprise of our merchants found a 
 new incentive in the commerce with all the other 
 nations of the globe, which succeeded immediately on 
 our escape from the monopoly of the mother country. 
 Our navigation was never suspended. The field of 
 commerce, at that period, so far from being blasted by 
 pestiferous regulations, was extended by the effect of 
 the restrictions adopted. 
 
 But, let us grant all they assert. Admit, for the sake 
 of argument, that the embargo which restrains us now 
 from communication with all the world is precisely 
 synonymous with that non-intercourse and non-impor- 
 tation which restrained us then from Great Britain. 
 Suppose the war which we now wage with that nation 
 is in every respect the same as that which our fathers 
 wa,ged with her in 1774 and 1775. Have we, from the 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 103 
 
 effects of their trial, any lively hope of success in our 
 present attempt ? Did our fathers either effect a change 
 in her injurious policy, or prevent a war, by non-impor- 
 tation and non-intercourse ? Sir, they did neither the 
 one nor the other. Her policy was never changed 
 until she had been beaten on our soil in an eight years' 
 war. Our fathers never relied upon non-intercourse 
 and non-importation as measures of hostile coercion. 
 They placed their dependence upon them solely as 
 means of pacific influence among the people of that 
 nation. The relation in which this country stood at 
 that time, with regard to Great Britain, gave a weight 
 and a potency to these measures then which, in our 
 present relation to her, we can neither hope nor imagine 
 possible. At that period we were her colonies, a part 
 of her family. Our prosperity was essentially hers. So 
 it was avowed in this country, so it was admitted in 
 Great Britain. Every refusal of intercourse which had 
 a tendency to show the importance of these, then colo- 
 nies, to the parent country, of the part to the whole, 
 was a natural and a wise means of giving weight to our 
 remonstrances. We pretended not to control, but to 
 influence, by making her feel our importance. In this 
 attempt, we excited no national pride on the other side 
 of the Atlantic. Our success was no national degra- 
 dation ; for the more we developed our resources and 
 relative weight, the more we discovered the strength 
 and resources of the British power. We were then 
 component parts of it. All the measures of the colonies, 
 antecedent to the Declaration of Independence, had this 
 princijile for its basis. As such, non-importation and 
 non-intercourse were adopted in this countr3^ As such, 
 
104 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 they met the co-operation of the patriots of Great 
 Britain, who deemed tliemselves deviating from none of 
 their national duties Avhen they avowed themselves the 
 allies of American patriots, to drive, through the influ- 
 ence of the loss of our trade, the ministry from their 
 places or their measures. Those patriots did co-operate 
 with our fathers, and that openly, in exciting discontent 
 under the effect of our non-intercourse agreements. In 
 so doing, they failed in none of their obligations to their 
 sovereign. In no nation, can it ever be a failure of duty 
 to maintain that the safety of the whole depends on 
 preserving its due weight to every part. Yet, notwith- 
 standing the natural and little suspicious use of these 
 instruments of influence ; notwithstanding the zeal of 
 the American people coincided with the views of the 
 Congress, and a mighty party existed in Great Britain 
 openly leagued with our fathers to give weight and 
 effect to their measures, — they did not effect the pur- 
 poses for which they were put into operation. The 
 British policy was not abandoned. War was not pre- 
 vented. How, then, can any encouragement be drawn 
 from that precedent, to support us under the pri- 
 vations of the present system of commercial suspen- 
 sion ? Can any nation admit that the trade of another 
 is so important to her welfare as that, on its being 
 withdrawn, any obnoxious policy must be abandoned, 
 without at the same time admitting that she is no 
 longer independent ? Sir, I could indeed wish that 
 it were in our power to regulate not only Great Britain 
 but the whole world by opening or closing our ports. It 
 would be a glorious thing for our country to j)ossess 
 such a mighty weapon of offence. But, acting in a 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 105 
 
 public capacity, with the high responsibilities resulting 
 from the great interests dependent upon my decision, I 
 cannot yield to the wishes of love-sick patriots, or the 
 visions of teeming enthusiasts. I must see the ade- 
 quac}' of means to their ends. I must see not merely 
 that it is very desirable that Great Britain should be 
 brought to our feet by this embargo, but that there is 
 some likelihood of such a consequence to the measure, 
 before I can concur in that universal distress and ruin 
 which, if much longer continued, will inevitably result 
 from it. Since, then, every dictate of sense and reflec- 
 tion convinces me of the utter futility of this system, 
 as a means of coercion on Great Britain, I shall not hesi- 
 tate to urge its abandonment. No, sir, not even, al- 
 though, like others, I should be assailed by all the terrors 
 of the outcry of British influence. 
 
 Reall}^ Mr. Speaker, I know not how to express the 
 shame and disgust with which I am filled when I hear 
 language of this kind cast out upon this floor, and 
 thrown in the faces of men standing justly at no mean 
 height in the confidence of their countrymen. Sir, I 
 did indeed know that such vulgar aspersions were cir- 
 culating among the lower passions of our nature. I 
 knew that such vile substances were ever tempering 
 between the paws of some printer's devil. I knew that 
 foul exhalations, like these, daily rose in our cities, and 
 crept along the ground, just as high as the spirits of 
 lamp-black and saline oil could elevate ; falling soon, by 
 native baseness, into oblivion. I knew, too, that this 
 species of party insinuation Avas a mighty engine in 
 this quarter of the country on an election day, played 
 off from the top of a stump, or the toj? of a hogshead, 
 
106 SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 
 
 while the gin circulated, while barbecue was roasting ; 
 in those happy, fraternal associations and consociations, 
 when those who speak utter without responsibility and 
 those who listen hear without scrutiny. But little did 
 I think that such odious shapes would dare to obtrude 
 themselves on this national floor, among honorable men, 
 and select representatives, the confidential agents of a 
 wise, a thoughtful, and a virtuous people. I want lan- 
 guage to express my contempt and indignation at the 
 sight. 
 
 So far as respects the attempt which has been made 
 to cast such aspersion on that part of the country which 
 I have the honor to represent, I beg this honorable 
 House to understand that, so long as they who circulated 
 such insinuations deal only in generals and touch not 
 particulars, they may gain among the ignorant and the 
 stupid a vacant and a staring audience. But when 
 once these suggestions are brought to bear upon those 
 individuals who, in New England, have naturally the 
 confidence of their countrymen, there is no power in 
 these calumnies. The men who now lead the influences 
 of that country, and in whose councils the peoj)le on 
 the day when the tempest shall come Avill seek refuge, 
 are men whose stake is in the soil, whose interests are 
 identified with those of the mass of their brethren, 
 whose private lives and public sacrifices present a never- 
 failing antidote to the poison of malicious invectives. 
 On such men, sir, party spirit may indeed cast its 
 odious filth, but there is a polish in their virtues to 
 which no such slime can adhere. They are owners of 
 the soil, real yeomanry ; many of them men who led in 
 the councils of our country in the dark day which pre- 
 
SECOND SPEECH ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 107 
 
 ceded national independence ; many of them men who, 
 like my honorable friend from Connecticut, on my left 
 (Colonel Talmage), stood foremost on the perilous edge 
 of battle, making their breasts in the day of danger a 
 bulwark for their country. 
 
 True it is, Mr. Speaker, there is another and a much 
 more numerous class, composed of such as, through 
 defect of age, can claim no share in the glories of our 
 Revolution : such as have not yet been blest with the 
 happy opportunity of "playing the man" for their 
 country ; generous sons of illustrious sires ; men not 
 to be deterred from fulfilling the high obligations they 
 owe to this people by the sight of these foul and offen- 
 sive weapons. Men who, with little experience of their 
 own to boast, will fly to the tombs of their fathers, and 
 questioning concerning their duties the spirit which 
 hovers there, will no more shrink from maintaining their 
 native rights, through fear of the sharpness of malevo- 
 lent tongues, than they will, if put to the trial, shrink 
 from defending them, through fear of the sharpness of 
 their enemies' swords. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR RAISING FIFTY THOUSAND 
 VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 Dec. 30. 1808. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR RAISING FIFTY THOUSAND 
 VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 Dec. 30, 1808. 
 
 [In the course of December, 1808, a bill was introcluced for 
 raising fifty thousand volunteers. It caused excited discussions 
 between the two parties. The administration affirmed that this 
 force should be j^rovided in case the embargo should foil of its 
 purpose and war should ensue. The Federalists were willing 
 to vote for the bill provided its object was defined. If the ad- 
 ministration contemplated war, they would vote for an}- necessary 
 force to carry it on. But, if the purpose of the proposed army 
 was to enforce the embargo, they should resist it to the utmost 
 of their ability. It was on this occasion that Mr, Quincy made 
 the following speech, on the 30th of December, 1808, which 
 caused a great excitement, as will be seen by the interruptions 
 of the friends of the bill. — Ed,] 
 
 I AGREE with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
 Ej)pes) that the present is a period in which it becomes 
 members of this legislature to maintain their indepen- 
 dence and not to shrink from responsibility. I agree that 
 it is a time in which all men in places of trust should 
 weigh well the principles by which they are actuated 
 and the ends at which the}'' aim ; and that they should 
 mark both so distinctly as that they may be fully under- 
 
112 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING 
 
 stood by the people. But I hope it is not, and that there 
 never will be, a time in which it becomes the duty of 
 an}' man or set of men on this floor, under pretence of 
 national exigencies, to concur in an infrijigement of the 
 limits of the Constitution. I trust it is not a time, for a 
 member of such a legislature as this, thoughtlessly to 
 strengthen hands which already hold powers inconsistent 
 with civil liberty, by our surrender of authority, espe- 
 cially intrusted to us by the people, into the exclusive 
 possession of another department of the government. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) alleges 
 that the men whom he calls Federalists have, for party 
 purposes, represented the embargo as a permanent meas- 
 ure. He disclaims such an idea, both on his own 
 account and on that of a majority of this House. On this 
 head, I am ready to maintain that the embargo law, as 
 it was originally passed, was an abuse of the powers 
 vested in this branch of the legislature, and, as it has 
 been subsequently enforced by supplementary laws, is a 
 manifest violation of the Constitution, and an assumption 
 of powers vested in the States ; and that, until I have 
 some satisfaction on these points, I am not disposed to 
 pass a law for raising such an additional military force 
 as this bill contemplates. 
 
 Concerning the permanency of the embargo, about 
 which so much wire-drawing ingenuity has been exer- 
 cised, this I assert, that, so far as relates to the powers 
 of this House, the embargo is permanent. That control 
 over commerce which the Constitution has vested in us, 
 we have transferred to the executive. Whether the 
 people shall ever enjoy any commerce again, or whether 
 we shall ever have any power in its regulation, depends 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 113 
 
 not upon the will of this House, but upon the will of 
 the President and of twelve members of the Senate. 
 The manner in which the powers vested in this branch 
 of the legislature have been exercised, I hesitate not to 
 declare a flagrant abuse of those powers and a violation 
 of the most acknowledged safeguards of civil liberty. 
 
 Sir, what is the relation in which this House, in the 
 eye of the Constitution, stands to the people ? Is it not 
 composed of men emanating from the mass of the com- 
 munity ? Are not our interests peculiarly identified with 
 theirs ? Is not this the place in which the people have 
 a right naturally to look for the strongest struggle for 
 our constitutional privileges, and the last surrender of 
 them unconditionally to the executive ? Is not the 
 power to regulate commerce one of the most important 
 of all the trusts reposed in us by the people ? Yet how 
 have we exercised this most interesting power ? Why, 
 sir, we have so exercised it as not only to annihilate 
 commerce for the present, but so as that we can never, 
 hereafter, have any commerce to regulate, until the 
 President and twelve Senators permit. Gentlemen, 
 when pressed upon the constitutional point resulting 
 from the permanent nature of this embargo, repel it, as 
 the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) did just now, 
 by a broad denial. " It is not permanent," say they. 
 " It was never intended to be permanent." Yet it has 
 every feature of permanency. It is impossible for terms 
 to give it a more unlimited duration. With respect to in- 
 tentions, the President and Senate have a right to speak 
 on that subject. The}' have a power to- permit 
 commerce again to be prosecuted, or to continue its 
 prohibition. But what right have we to talk in this 
 
114 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR EAISIXG 
 
 manner ? I know that we every clay amuse ourselves 
 in making some law about commerce. Sir, this is per- 
 mitted. It is a part of the delusion which we prac- 
 tise upon the peoj)le, and perhaps upon ourselves. 
 While engaged in debate, we feel as, if the power to 
 regulate commerce was yet in this House. But put this 
 matter to the test. Pass a law unanimously to-morrow 
 repealing the embargo. Let two-thirds of the Senate 
 concur. Let the President and twelve men determine 
 not to repeal. I ask, is there any power in this House 
 to prevent them from continuing this embargo for ever ? 
 The fact is undeniable. Let the President and twelve 
 men obstinately persist in adherence to this measure, 
 and, in spite of the intentions of this House, the people 
 can alone again obtain their commerce by a revolution. 
 It follows, from what I have stated, that those may well 
 enough talk about what they intend who have the 
 power of fulfilling their intentions. But on that sub- 
 ject it becomes the members of this House to be silent, 
 since that power which we once possessed has by our 
 own act departed. So far as this House can ever here- 
 after enjoy the opportunity of again regulating com- 
 merce, it depends not upon the gift it received from the 
 people, but upon the restoration to us of that power 
 which, the people having intrusted to our care, we have 
 without limitation transferred to the executive. 
 
 Yes, sir. The people 07ice had a commerce. Once 
 this House possessed the power to regulate it. Of all 
 the grants in the Constitution, perhaps this was most 
 highly prized by the people. It was truly the apple 
 of their eye. To their concern for it the Constitu- 
 tion almost owes its existence. They brought this, the 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 115 
 
 object of their choice affections, and delivered it to tlie 
 custody of this House, as a tender parent would deliver 
 the hope of his declining years, with a trembling solici- 
 tude, to its selected guardians. And how have we con- 
 ducted in this sacred trust? Why, delivered it over to 
 the care of twelve dry-nurses, concerning whose tem- 
 pers we know nothing ; for whose intentions we cannot 
 vouch ; and who, for any thing we know, may some of 
 them have an interest in destroying it. 
 
 Yes, sir, the people did intrust us with that great 
 poAver, — the regulation of commerce. It was their 
 most precious jewel. Richer than all the mines of Peru 
 and Golconda. But we have sported with it as though 
 it Avere common dust. With a thoughtless indifference, 
 — in the dead of the night, not under the cover of the 
 cheering pinions of our eagle, but under the mortal 
 shade of the bat's wing, — we surrendered this rich de- 
 posit. It is gone. And we have nothing else to do 
 than to beg back, at the footstool of the executive, the 
 people's patrimony. Sir, I know the answer which will, 
 and it is the only one which can, be given. " There is 
 no fear of an improper use of this power by the Pres- 
 ident and Senate. There is no danger in trusting 
 this most excellent man." Why, sir, this is the very 
 slave's gibberish. What other reason could the cross- 
 legged Turk or the cringing Parisian give for that 
 implicit confidence they yield to their sovereigns, except 
 that it is impossible they should abuse their power. 
 
 The state of things I mention does not terminate in 
 mere verbal precision or constructive distinctions. The 
 very continuance of the measure has, in my opinion, its 
 root in the situation which results from this, as I deem 
 
116 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR EAISING 
 
 it, abuse of our constitutional powers. Does any man 
 believe, if the embargo had been originally limited, 
 that a bill continuing it could now be passed through 
 all the branches? I know that gentlemen who origi- 
 nally voted for this embargo, and will probably for the 
 enforcement of it, have urged the situation of this 
 House, in relation to it, as a reason for farther adher- 
 ence. " It is a measure of the executive," say they. 
 " Suppose this House should pass a law repeahng it. 
 Should he negative, what effect would result but to 
 show distracted councils. .In the present situation of 
 our countr}^, nothing is so desirable as unanimity." I 
 know that, substantially, such arguments have been 
 urged. 
 
 [Mr. J. G. Jackson wished the gentleman to name 
 the persons to whom he alluded. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that he did not deem himself bound 
 to state names connected with facts by which he had 
 acquired the knowledge of particular dispositions in the 
 House. It was enough for him to state them, and leave 
 the nation to judge if there were, under the circum- 
 stances, any thing improbable or unnatural in them. 
 
 Mr. Nicholas called the gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts to order. He regretted to say that throughout the 
 whole session there had been a total departure from the 
 idea which he had of order. When it was attempted to 
 palm upon those with whom he acted opinions which 
 all must disclaim, he was compelled to object to the dis- 
 orderly course pursued. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that he had no intention to palm 
 upon any gentlemen sentiments which they disavowed. 
 We did not suppose that the gentlemen who enter- 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 117 
 
 tained such sentiments would disavow them. He said 
 he should certainly not mention names. He did not 
 think that the argument derived any strength from the 
 fact that such expressions had been used by any gen- 
 tleman. The}^ are natural and inevitable from the situ- 
 ation in which gentlemen are placed in relation to the 
 executive. Men willing to take off the embargo, yet 
 not willing to counteract the system of the President, 
 were necessitated to adopt such reasoning as this. It 
 was unavoidable when they came to reflect upon the 
 powers which remained to this House in relation to the 
 repeal of this law. 
 
 Mil. Nicholas required that the gentleman should 
 observe order. 
 
 Mr. G. W. Campbell said that, as the gentleman had 
 made a reflection on members in the majority, he must 
 be permitted to observe that he utterly disclaimed any 
 such opinion as the gentleman had charged indiscrimi- 
 nately upon the majority. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that he had made no such indis- 
 criminate charge on the majority. An attempt had 
 been made to give the discussion a turn which he 
 neither anticipated nor intended. I understand, said 
 Mr. Quincy, the cause of this interruption. It is not 
 the fact intimated, but the force of the argument stated, 
 which startles gentlemen from their seats. They like 
 not to hear the truth elucidated concerning their abuse 
 of power intrusted to them by the people. In reply to 
 the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes), who alleged 
 that for party purposes the embargo had been repre- 
 sented permanent, I undertook to show that, as far as 
 respects this House, it was to all intents permanent. 
 This is the insupportable position. The embargo — 
 
118 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR EAISING 
 
 Mr. J. G. Jackson called Mr. Quincy to order. This 
 disorder, he said, had progressed too long. There had 
 not only been disorder on the floor of the House, but in 
 the galleries, and from British subjects too, Avhich had 
 interrupted the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes), 
 whilst he had been speaking a few moments ago. It 
 was not in order to discuss the subject of embargo on 
 this question. Every thing which presented itself to 
 the House was made a question of embargo. It was 
 the watchword of the day. 
 
 The Speaker requested Mr. Quincy to take his seat, 
 and asked Mr. Jackson to put down in writing the 
 words to which he objected. 
 
 Mr. Jackson said he could not specify particular 
 words to which he had objected, unless, indeed, he were 
 to include the gentleman's whole speech. He wished, 
 however, to know of the Speaker, is it in order, on a 
 question for raising volunteer troops, to discuss the 
 constitutionality of the embargo ? 
 
 The Speaker observed that a very wide range had 
 been taken in debate, and that, excluding personal mat- 
 ter, the gentleman was in order to reply to observations 
 of other gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that he had been drawn unexpect- 
 edly into this course of debate by following the gentle- 
 man from Virginia (Mr. Eppes). He said that he 
 wished to lay before the House and the nation — 
 
 Mr. Eppes said that he had said nothing concerning 
 the supplementary embargo law, now before the House, 
 which he conceived the gentleman was about to intro- 
 duce into the discussion. He hoped the gentleman 
 would suspend his observations upon the subject until 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 110 
 
 it came before the House, when, notwithstanding all 
 the clamor on the subject, it would be found that there 
 was not a provision contained in it which was not to 
 be found in the present revenue laws. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said he was not about to bring the sup- 
 plementary embargo bill into debate. The gentleman 
 had asserted that the embargo law was not permanent ; 
 that the Constitution had not been violated. He had 
 taken the gentleman upon that ground. And the course 
 of his observations had been to prove that the embargo 
 was permanent, so far as respected the powers of this 
 House to repeal, and that the Constitution had been 
 violated. 
 
 Mr. Eppes said that he had not said that the Consti- 
 tution had not been violated. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that he had no particular inclina- 
 tion to speak at that moment, and if gentlemen did not 
 wish to hear — 
 
 Mr. Eppes said he had no objection to hear the gen- 
 tleman state any violations of the Constitution, and he 
 should take the privilege of a member to answer them, 
 if they were plausible. 
 
 Mr. Masters made some observations upon the point 
 of order ; and, as the House was rather in a state of 
 agitation, moved to adjourn. Mr. Quinc}^ having given 
 Avay for the purpose, — negatived ; ayes, 22.] 
 
 Notwithstanding all the interruptions I have experi- 
 enced, my observations have been perfectly in order. 
 The reason I am opposed to the resolution is, that the 
 force proposed to be raised is, in my opinion, intended 
 not to meet a foreign enemy, but to enforce the embargo 
 laws. Now is it not the most pertinent and strongest 
 
120 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOE EAISING 
 
 of all arguments against the adoption of such a resolu- 
 tion, to prove that the powers of the executive, in these 
 respects, already transcend the limits of the Constitu- 
 tion, and that these laws proposed thus to be enforced 
 are open violations of it ? Considering, however, the 
 temper of the House, I shall limit myself to the state- 
 ment and elucidation of a single position. And the 
 argument I shall offer will be only in outline. I will 
 not enter into the wide field which the greatness of the 
 question naturally opens. I know that, as soon as my 
 position is stated, gentlemen advocating the present 
 measures will be ready to exclaim, It is a small objec- 
 tion! But I warn gentlemen that, small as it may 
 appear to them, if the principle receive the sanction of 
 the people and the support of the State legislatures, 
 there is an end of this destructive system of embargo. 
 
 The position I take, and which I mean to maintain is, 
 that those provisions of tliQ embargo laws which assume 
 to regulate the coasting trade, between ports and ports 
 of the same State, are gross invasions of the rights of 
 the States, and palpable grasps of power beyond the 
 limits of the Constitution. I ask the attention of the 
 House to a very short argument upon this subject. I 
 present it, not by way of crimination, but as worthy of 
 its consideration and candid examination.' I feel no 
 passions on the question. If any have been exhibited 
 by me, they were caught at the flame enkindled by the 
 gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes). 
 
 The powers granted to Congress, in relation to com- 
 merce, are contained in the eighth section of the first 
 article of the Constitution, in these words : " The Con- 
 gress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 121 
 
 nations, and among the several States, and with the 
 Indian tribes." The particular power to whicli I object, 
 as being assumed, if granted at all, is contained within 
 the terms, " commerce among the several States." In 
 reference to which I ask this question : Can the grant of 
 a power to regulate commerce among the States, by any- 
 fair construction, be made to include a power to regu- 
 late commerce within a State? It is a simple question. 
 The strength and certainty of the conclusion results 
 from its simplicity. There is no need of any refined 
 argument to arrive at conviction. It is a plain appeal 
 to the common-sense of the people, — to that common- 
 sense which, on most practical subjects, is a much surer 
 guide than all the reasoning of the learned. It is scarce 
 possible, there can be but one answer to this question. 
 To bring the subject more directly into the course of 
 the reasonings of common life, suppose that ten house- 
 holders who live in a neighborhood should agree upon 
 a tribunal which should possess powers to regulate 
 commerce or intercourse among their houses, could 
 such an authority be fairly extended to the regulation 
 of the intercourse of the members of their families 
 within their respective houses ? Under a grant of 
 power like this, would such a tribunal have a right to 
 regulate the intercourse between room and room within 
 each dwelling-house ? It is impossible. Nothing can 
 be plainer. The general government has no color for 
 interfering with the interior commerce of each State, 
 let it be carried on by water or by land. The regula- 
 tion of the commerce between ports and ports of the 
 same State belongs exclusively to the States respec- 
 tively. 
 
122 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING 
 
 In farther support of this position, a strong argument 
 results from the ninth section of the first article : " No 
 tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any 
 State. No preference shall be given by any regulation 
 of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over 
 those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from one 
 State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in an- 
 other." In this clause of the Constitution, the people 
 restrict the general power over commerce granted to 
 Congress. And to what objects do these restrictions 
 apply ? To exports from a State ; to preferences of 
 the ports of one State over those of another ; to ves- 
 sels bound to or from another State. Not one word 
 of restriction of the powers of Congress touching that 
 great portion of commerce between ports and ports of 
 the same State. Now. can any thing. be more conclusive 
 that the general power of regulating commerce did not, 
 in the opinion of the people, include the right to regu- 
 late commerce between ports and ports of the same 
 State than this fact, that they have not thought it nec- 
 essary even to enumerate it among these restrictions ? 
 If it were included in the grant of the general power, 
 can a reason be shown why it was not, as well as the 
 others, included within these restrictions ? That it is 
 not provided for among these restrictions is perfect con- 
 viction, to my mind, that it was never included in the 
 general power. A contrary doctrine leads to this mon- 
 strous absurdity, that Congress, which, in consequence 
 of these constitutional restrictions, can neither grant 
 any preference to the ports of one State over those of 
 another State, nor oblige vessels to enter, clear, or pay 
 duties when bound to or from the ports of one State in 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 123 
 
 another, yet that it may grant preferences to the ports 
 of one State over ports in the same State, and may obUge 
 vessels to enter, clear, and pay duties when bound from 
 port to port within the same State. This enormous 
 consequence is inevitable. The conclusion, therefore, 
 to my mind, is perfectly clear, that the reason why the 
 peojile did not restrict the abuse of this species of power 
 was, that the power itself was not granted to Congress. 
 I shall state only one other corroborative argument, 
 drawn from another part of the Constitution. By the 
 second clause of the tenth section and first article, it is 
 provided that " no State shall, without the consent of 
 Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or ex- 
 ports, except what may be absolutely necessary for 
 executing its inspection laws, &c. Now can it for one 
 moment be admitted that, in consequence of this restric- 
 tion, the individual States are prohibited from laying 
 transit duties on articles passing from port to port 
 within their State limits ? Can the States lay no toll 
 upon ferries across their rivers ? no tax upon vessels 
 plying up and down their rivers, or across their bays ? 
 May not the State of New York impose a duty upon 
 vessels going from Hudson or Albany to New York ? 
 Yet, if it be true that the general power of regulating 
 commerce among the States includes the power of regu- 
 lating commerce between ports and ports of the same 
 State, all this great branch of State prerogative is abso- 
 lutely gone from the individual States, — a construction 
 of the Constitution in which, if realized by the people 
 and the legislature of the States in all its consequences, 
 they never can acquiesce. The language of this clause 
 
124 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING 
 
 is in strict consonance with that construction of the 
 Constitution for which I contend. It strongly, and con- 
 chisively to my mind, implies that the general power 
 does not include the power to regulate commerce be- 
 tween ports and ports of the same State. The language 
 of this clause is, " no State shall lay any imposts or 
 duties on imports or exports." These terms " imports 
 and exports " are exclusively appropriate to duties upon 
 goods passing into a State or passing out of a State, and 
 can never be made, by any fair construction, to extend 
 to duties upon goods passing wholly within the limits of 
 a State. On goods in this situation, — that is, on goods 
 passing between ports and ports of the same State, — the 
 individual States have, notwithstanding this restriction 
 in the Constitution, the power to lay transit duties. Of 
 consequence, the regulation of this branch of trade is not 
 included in the grant to Congress of the general power 
 over commerce among the States. 
 
 This is the point of view which I take in this matter, 
 of the limits of the Constitution. On this ground it is, 
 that I asserted that the rights of the States have been 
 invaded in your embargo laws, and that this legislature 
 has grasped a power not given to it by the Constitution. 
 And, so far as the liberties of this people are dependent 
 upon the preservation of the State and national authori- 
 ties in their respective orbits, I hesitate not to declare 
 the embargo laws a manifest infringement of those lib- 
 erties. 
 
 On a question of this magnitude, I cannot condescend 
 to inquire whether, in the early revenue laws, any reg- 
 ulations were made affecting this particular branch of 
 
FIFTY THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS. 125 
 
 trade. A practice in direct violation of the Consti- 
 tution can have no binding force. Violations of the 
 Constitution touching only a few solitary individuals, 
 small in amount or in inconvenience, may for a long 
 period be submitted to without a struggle or a murmur. 
 When the extension of the principle begins to affect 
 whole classes of the community, the interest of the 
 nation claims a solemn and satisfactory decision. The 
 truth is, I can find but a single attempt in all your rev- 
 enue laws contrary to the construction for which I 
 contend. In the case of carrying distilled spirits, or 
 imported goods of a specified amount, from port to port 
 within a State, the master is obliged to make a manifest 
 and take an oath that the duties have been paid. The 
 infringement of the Constitution was in this instance, 
 and in its immediate consequences, so trifling that it has 
 passed without notice, and been submitted to without a 
 question. But, surely, on the silent acquiescence of 
 the people in such a practice as this can never be built 
 the fabric of so enormous a power as your embargo laws 
 attempt to exercise. 
 
 Gentlemen say the embargo is brought into view on 
 all occasions. Certainly, sir, it is connected with almost 
 all national questions. I have no objection to voting 
 for fifty thousand men, if I can be informed to what use 
 they are to be applied. Let me only understand the 
 system proposed. Is it intended to repeal the embargo 
 and go to war? Or are these men only intended to 
 enforce it ? If the former, I have no objection to any 
 requisite army. If the latter, I am in dirct hostility to 
 this proposition. Deeming the embargo laws unconsti- 
 
126 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR RAISING, ETC. 
 
 tutional, and powers vested in the executive which 
 ought never to have passed out of the possession of this 
 House, I will never acquiesce in augmentation of the 
 military until I am satisfied that the system is not to 
 support by it still farther the violations of this Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 1 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE BILL FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SES- 
 SION OF CONGRESS IN MAY NEXT. 
 
 Jan. 19, 1809. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ox THE BILL FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION OF 
 CONGRESS IN MAY NEXT. 
 
 Jan. 19, 1809. 
 
 [The discontents caused by the embargo had grown so fierce 
 that the Democrats themselves had become alarmed by them. 
 The Northern public men, who had stood by Mr. Jefferson in his 
 favorite policy of conquering England through the ruin of Amer- 
 ican commerce, began, towards the close of his administration, to 
 tremble for themselves, if not for their country. He still re- 
 mained firm in his faith, and saw with grief the appi'oaching 
 defection of his followers. Even sight could not shake his faith. 
 After the first disturbance of trade arising from an embargo was 
 past, the English merchants, far from asking for the restoi'ation 
 of American commerce through the repeal of the Orders in 
 Council, wished them to be made more rigid yet, so that they them- 
 selves might have the monopoly of the continental trade ; thus 
 literally fulfilling Mr. Quincy's proi^hecy at the time the em- 
 bargo was first proposed. The importation of cotton into Eng- 
 land was first absolutely prohibited, in order to cripple the 
 manufacturing of the continent, which Bonaparte wished to 
 establish as a part of his system. Then, as the Democratic ora- 
 tors and presses denounced the duty which England demanded 
 for the privilege of re-exportation to the continent, as a tribute 
 to that haughty power, the British government removed this 
 particular ground of complaint by forbidding any importation 
 whatever from America for the purpose of reshipment. And 
 
 9 
 
130 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 Mr. Canning called the particular attention of the American 
 government, through Mr. Pinkuey, its representative, " to this 
 concession to the sensibilities of the American people" ! 
 
 Mr. Jefferson's reign was drawing to a close, and the alle- 
 giance of his partisans naturally grew weaker and weaker ; and 
 during the short session of 1808-9, previous to the accession of 
 Mr. Madison, the unquestioning obedience of the Democratic 
 majority in Congress to the behests of Mr. Jefferson was greatly 
 though secretly shaken. The New England and New York 
 members showed strong symptoms of rebellion, which Mr. Jeffer- 
 son attiibuted to "an unaccountable revolution of opinion and 
 kind of panic " among them. The revolution in opinion and the 
 panic grew out of their observation of the effects of the embargo 
 on the interests of their constituents and their apprehensions of 
 its influence at the polls. In this state of things, an extra ses- 
 sion of Congress was proposed, in May, 1809, by way of pacify- 
 ing the growing discontent under the embargo with the prospect 
 of its removal, but with the additional pretence that the time 
 would then have arrived for substituting an open war for that 
 by commercial restrictions. It was on this bill that Mi\ Quincy 
 niatie the- following speech, which caused a great excitement in 
 the House, and made a strong impression on the country. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — If the bill under consideration had 
 no other aspect on the fates of this country than its 
 terms indicate, I shoukl have continued silent. If the 
 question upon it involved no other consequences than 
 those of personal inconvenience to us and of expense to 
 the public, I would not now ask the indulgence of the 
 House. But I deem this bill to be a materially com- 
 ponent part of that system of commercial restriction 
 under which the best hopes of this nation are oppressed. 
 I consider this measure as intended to induce this peo- 
 ple still longer to endure patiently the embargo, and all 
 the e\ils which it brings in its train, by exciting and 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 131 
 
 fostering in them delusive expectations. A great crisis 
 is, to all Iiuman appearance, advancing upon our coun- 
 tr3\ Gentlemen may attempt to conceal it from the 
 nation, perhajDS from themselves, but every step they 
 take has an influence upon that crisis ; and, small as they 
 may deem the decision on this bill, in its effects it will 
 be among the most important of any of the acts of this 
 session. 
 
 It is very painful to me, Mr. Speaker, to be compelled 
 to place my opposition to this bill on ground resulting 
 from the conduct of the administration of this nation. 
 I say, sir, this is very painful to me, because I have no 
 personal animosity to any individual of that administra- 
 tion. Nor, if I know myself, am I induced to this oppo- 
 sition from any party motive. But, sir, acting in a 
 public capacity, and reasoning concerning events as 
 they occur, with reference to the high duties of my 
 station, I shall not, when I arrive in my conception at 
 a just conclusion, shrink from any projDcr responsibility 
 in spreading that conclusion before this House and 
 nation. One thing I shall hope and certainly shall 
 deserve from the friends of administration, — the ac- 
 knowledgment that I shall aim no insidious bloAv. It 
 shall be made openly, distinctly, in the daylight. Be 
 it strong or be it weak, I invite those friends to parry 
 it. If they are successful, I shall rejoice in it not less 
 than they. 
 
 This is the position in relation to the conduct of ad- 
 ministration which I take, and on which I rest my 
 opposition to this bill : that this House, when it passed 
 the embargo law. was under a deception touching the 
 motives of administration in recommending that raeas- 
 
132 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 ure ; that it has been, in adopting that measure, instru- 
 mental in deceiving this people as to the motives which 
 induced that law ; that if it passes this bill it will again 
 act under a deception touching those motives, and again 
 be instrumental, unwarily and unwillingly, as I believe, 
 in deceiving this people in relation to them. I think I 
 have stated my ground of opposition so clearly as to 
 admit of no misconception, and invite gentlemen to 
 meet me candidly upon it. When I speak of deception, 
 I beg gentlemen not to misunderstand me. I will be as 
 just to the administration as I mean to be true and fear- 
 less in the performance of my duty to the people. By 
 this term, I do not mean any moral obliquity, any direct 
 falsehood or palpable misrepresentation. But I intend 
 by it political deception, — that species of cunning, not 
 uncommon among politicians, which Lord Bacon calls 
 " left-handed wisdom." This is exhibited when osten- 
 sible and popular motives are presented as inducements 
 to a particular line of conduct, and the real and critical 
 ones are kept behind the curtain. This is practised 
 when those who have obtained an influence over others 
 troll them by the means of fair promises upon trundles 
 in a downhill path, and so are enabled gradually to 
 shove them, by gentle motions, farther than at first they 
 had any intention to go. We witness this sjjecies of 
 political deception when we see men meshed in the 
 toils of a complicated policy, and then dragged whither- 
 soever their leaders will, through sheer shame at break- 
 ing the cords of that net in which they have suffered 
 themselves incautiously to be entangled. 
 
 In support of my first position, — that this House, 
 when it passed the embargo law, was under a deception 
 
FOE HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 133 
 
 touching the motives of administration, — I shall ask 
 the House to recollect, as far as possible, all the motives 
 which induced it to pass the embargo law, and then I 
 will attempt to show that the motives of administration 
 were different, in kind or in degree, from those which 
 operated on this floor. I will recapitulate them as dis- 
 tinctly as possible, excluding no one which I have any 
 reason to think had an influence in the House, imput- 
 ing none which did not exist. One motive was the pres- 
 ervation of our resources ; that is, the saving of our 
 seamen and navigation. This was the ostensible and 
 popular motive, — that avowed by administration. An- 
 other motive was, that many thought war was inevitable, 
 and that embargo would give an opportunity to prepare 
 for it. Again : some thought that it would have a 
 good effect on the negotiation then daily expected, and 
 frighten Mr. Rose. Again : others supposed that it 
 would straiten Great Britain at a moment the most 
 favorable to make her feel the importance of the United 
 States. The system of commercial pressure was in full 
 operation in Europe ; and, should this country complete 
 the circle of compression, they thought that it would 
 be impossible for her not to yield to our pretensions. 
 Again : some thought that the French emperor was con- 
 tending for maritime rights, and that it was time for us 
 to co-operate. [Here Messrs. Smilie and Eppes required 
 of Mr. Quincy to know to whom he had allusion.] I 
 am surprised, said Mr. Quincy, to hear that question 
 asked by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If, how- 
 ever, it be denied as a motive, I have no objection to 
 withdraw it. What I am now doing ought to excite no 
 passion. I am not about to question the motives of this 
 
134 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 House. I am only recapitulating all those which there 
 is any reason to believe existed. If any gentlemen say 
 a particular one did not exist, for the present argument 
 I reject it. My present object only is to be complete in 
 my enumeration, in order to make more forcible the 
 bearing of my princij)al argument, that it does not 
 include those which principally had an influence with 
 administration in recommending the measure. I do not 
 recollect but two other motives besides those already 
 mentioned. Some voted for this embargo, because they 
 thought this House ought to do something, and they 
 did not know what else to do. Others intimated that 
 it might have an effect to injure France in the few 
 West India possessions which remained to her. But 
 this was urged so faintly, and with such little show of 
 reason, that I doubt if it were an influential motive 
 with any man. The preceding enumeration includes 
 all the motives, as I believe, either urged on this floor, 
 or in any way silently operative in producing that 
 measure. Now I do not think I state my position too 
 strongly when I say that not a man in this House 
 deemed the embargo intended chiefly as a measure of 
 coercion on Great Britain ; that it was to be made per- 
 manent at all hazards, until it had effected that object ; 
 and that nothing else effectual was to be done for the 
 support of our maritime rights. If any individual was 
 influenced by such motives, certainly they were not 
 those of a majority of this House. Now, sir, on my 
 conscience, I do believe that these were the motives 
 and intentions of administration when they recom- 
 mended the embargo to the adoption of this House. 
 Sir, I believe these continue to be still their motives and 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 135 
 
 intentions. And if this were fairly understood by the 
 l^eople to be the fact, I do not believe that they would 
 countenance the continuance of such an oppressive 
 measure for such a purpose without better assurance 
 than has ever yet been given to them, that, by adher- 
 ence to this policy, the great and real object of it will 
 be effected. 
 
 The proposition which I undertake to maintain con- 
 sists of three particulars : first, that it was and is the 
 intention of administration to coerce Great Britain by 
 the embargo, and that this, and not precaution, is and- 
 was the principal object of the policy ; second, tliat it 
 was and is intended to persevere in this measure until 
 it effect, if possible, the proposed object ; third, that 
 it was and is the intention of administration to do 
 nothing else effectual in support of our maritime rights. 
 
 Having in my own mind a perfect conviction of the 
 truth of every one of these propositions, I should be 
 false to myself and to my country at such a crisis as 
 this if I did not state that conviction to this House, and 
 through it to my fellow-citizens. I shall not, however, 
 take refuge in mere declaration of individual opinion, or 
 content myself simply with assertions. I shall state the 
 grounds and the reasonings by which I arrive at this re- 
 sult. I invite gentlemen to reply to them in the spirit 
 in which they are offered, not with the design of awak- 
 ening any personal or party passion, but to fulfil the 
 high duties which, according to my apprehension of 
 them, I owe to this people. 
 
 When we attempt to penetrate into the intentions of 
 men, we are all sensible how thick and mysterious is 
 that veil which, by the law of our nature, is spread over 
 
136 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 them. At times it is scarcely permitted to an individual 
 to be absolutely certain of his own motives. But when 
 the question is concerning the purposes of others, ex- 
 perience daily tells how hard a task it is to descend into 
 the hidden recesses of the mind, and pluck intentions 
 from that granite cell in which they delight to incrust 
 themselves. The only mode of discovery is to consider 
 language and conduct in their relation to the real and 
 avowed object, and thence to conclude, as fairly as we 
 can, Avhich is the one and which the other. This course 
 I shall ado]3t. If there be any thing fallacious, let the 
 friends of administration oppose it. 
 
 When I state that precaution was not, but that coer- 
 cion on Great Britain was, the principal motive with 
 administration in advising the embargo, I do not mean 
 to aver that precaution did not enter into the view, but 
 only that it was a minor consideration, and did by no 
 means bear so great a proportion in producing that 
 policy in the cabinet as it did before the world. This 
 will appear presently. That the principal object of 
 the embargo policy was coercion on Great Britain, I 
 conclude from the language of the friends of adminis- 
 tration in this country and the language which the min- 
 ister of administration was directed to hold across the 
 Atlantic, as also from their subsequent conduct. Here 
 all the leading calculations had relation to coercion. 
 The dependence of Great Britain upon her manufac- 
 tures, and their dependence upon us for supply and 
 consumption ; the greatness of her debt ; her solitary 
 state, engaged with a world in arras ; the fortunes and 
 the power of the French emperor ; the certain effect of 
 the commercial prohibitions of combined Europe upon 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 137 
 
 her maritime power, — such were the uniform consider- 
 ations in support of this policy adduced by the friends of 
 administration on this floor or in this nation. 
 
 There, on the contrary, the considerations urged as 
 the motive for it were altogether different. Let us 
 recur to the language which our minister was directed 
 to hold to the court of Great Britain on this subject. 
 The Secretary of State, in his letter of the 23d of 
 December, 1807, to Mr. Pinkney, thus dictates to him 
 the course he is to pursue in impressing on the British 
 cabinet the objects of the embargo : " I avail myself of 
 the opportunity to enclose you a copy of a message from 
 the President to Congress, and their act, in pursuance 
 of it, laying an embargo on our vessels and exports. 
 The policy and causes of the measure are explained in 
 the message itself. But it may be proper to authorize 
 you to assure the British government, as has been just 
 expressed to its minister here, that the act is a measure 
 of precaution only, called for by the occasion ; that it is 
 to be considered as neither hostile in its character, nor 
 as justifying or inviting or leading to hostility with 
 any nation whatever, and particularly as opposing no 
 obstacle whatever to amicable negotiations and satis- 
 factory adjustments with Great Britain on the subjects 
 of difference between the two countries." Here our 
 administration expressly declare that " the policy and 
 causes of the measure are explained in the message 
 itself." And in that message the " dangers with which 
 our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise are threat- 
 ened ; " and " the great importance of keeping in safety 
 these essential resources," — are the sole causes enumer- 
 ated as explanatory of that policy. At the court of 
 
138 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 Great Britain, then, our minister was directed to repre- 
 sent this measure as merely intended to save our essen- 
 tial resources. But administration were not content 
 with the direct assertion of this motive : they abjure any 
 other. They expressly direct our minister " to assure 
 the British government that the act is a measure of 
 precaution only," and " that it opposes no obstacle 
 whatever to amicable negotiations between the two 
 countries." Here, then, the friends of administration, 
 speaking, as is well known, its language allege in this 
 country that the embargo is a measure of coercion, and 
 that, if persisted in vigorously, it will reduce Great 
 Britain to our terms ; whereas the minister of the United 
 States, speaking also the language of administration, 
 is directed, unequivocally, to deny all this in Great 
 Britain, and to exclude the idea of coercion by declar- 
 ing it to be a measure of precaution only. Certainly, 
 never was there a policy more perfectly characteristic. 
 It is precisely that policy which one deeply skilled in 
 the knowledge of the human character described as " a 
 language official and a language confidential," — a lan- 
 guage for the ear of the American people, an opposite 
 for the ear of the British cabinet. If this had been, as 
 the minister of the United States was directed to assure 
 the British cabinet, " a measure of precaution only," 
 why were the friends of administration permitted to 
 advocate it as a measure of coercion ? Why is it 
 continued after all pretence of precaution has ceased ? 
 Did not administration know that, if it were supported 
 here on the ground of coercion, this fact would neces- 
 sarily be understood in Great Britain, and that it must 
 form " an obstacle to negotiation," notwithstanding 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 139 
 
 all their declarations ? If, therefore, it had been truly 
 " a measure of precaution only," would not admin- 
 istration have been the first to have counteracted 
 such an opinion, and not permitted it to have gained 
 any ground here or elsewhere ? Yet they countenance 
 this opinion in America at the moment they are denying 
 it in Great Britain. And wh}- ? The reason is obvious, 
 and is conclusive in support of the position that it was 
 at first, as it is now, simply a measure of coercion. The 
 mode adopted by administration is the only one they 
 could adopt with any hope of success in case the object 
 was coercion, and the very mode they would avoid had 
 it been really precaution. There is not an individual in 
 the United States so much of a child as not to know 
 that the argument of precaution was good only for 
 ninety, or, at farthest, an hundred and twenty days. 
 After our ships and seamen were in port, which within 
 that time would have been principally the case, the rea- 
 son of precaution was at an end. Upon the principle 
 that the self-interest and intelligence of the merchant 
 and navigator are the best guides and patrons of their 
 own concerns, and that the stake which society has in 
 the property of the citizen is better secured by his own 
 knowledge and activity than by any general regula- 
 tions whatsoever, it was necessary, therefore, in the 
 United States, to resort early to the idea of coercion, 
 and to press it vigorously : otherwise the people of 
 America could not be induced to endurance beyond the 
 time when the reason of precaution had ceased. In 
 America, therefore, it was coercion. But in Great 
 Britain the state of things was altogether the reverse. 
 Administration knew perfectly well, not only from the 
 
140 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 character of the British nation, but also from the most 
 common principles of human nature, that once present 
 this embargo to it as a measure of coercion, to compel 
 it to adopt or retract any principle of adopted policy, 
 and there was an end of negotiation. It would have 
 been like laying a drawn sword upon the table, and 
 declaring, " Yield us what we demand, or we will push 
 it to the hilt into j^our vitals." In such case, it was 
 perfectly apparent that there could be received from an 
 independent nation but one answer. " Take awa}^ 3''0ur 
 sword ; withdraw your menace : while these continue 
 we listen to nothing. Aware of this inevitable conse- 
 quence, administration not only aver that it is precau- 
 tion, but even condescend to deny it is any thing else, 
 by declaring that it is this, and this only. Thus in 
 Great Britain precaution was the veil under which a 
 sword was passed into her side. But in the United 
 States coercion was the palatable liquor wdth which 
 administration softened and gargled the passage, while 
 it thrust, at the point of the bayonet, the bitter pill of 
 embargo down the throats of the American people. It 
 is this variation of the avowed motive to suit the un- 
 questionable diversity of the state of things in this 
 country and Great Britain, combined with the fact that 
 the embargo is continued long after the plea of precau- 
 tion has ceased to be effectual, that produces a perfect 
 conviction in my mind that precaution was little more 
 than the pretext, and that coercion was in fact the prin- 
 cipal purpose, of the policy. Indeed, how is it possible 
 to conclude otherwise when the very mode of argu- 
 ment adopted in each country was the only one which 
 could have made coercion successful, and the very one 
 
FOB, HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 141 
 
 which would have been avoided if precaution had been 
 the real and only motive ? I cheerfully submit the cor- 
 rectness of this conclusion to the consideration of the 
 people. 
 
 I come now to my second proposition, — that it was 
 the intention of administration to persevere in this 
 measure of embargo until it should effect, if possible, 
 the proposed object, and, as I believe, at all hazard. 
 The evidence of this intention I gather not only from the 
 subsequent perseverance in this system, in spite of the 
 cries of distress heard in one quarter of the Union, 
 and the dangers not to be concealed resulting from an 
 adherence to it, but from the very tenor of the law, 
 from its original form and feature. If this had been, as 
 it was asserted by administration, originally a measure 
 of precaution only, there was every reason why it 
 should be limited, and none why its duration should be 
 unlimited. A limited embargo was conformable to prec- 
 edent in this country. It was conformable to practice 
 in others. There was less question of its constitution- 
 ality ; and, certainly, much less reason to be jealous of 
 it as a transfer of power to the executive. The ques- 
 tion of precaution having reference to the interests of 
 the merchant, and of the other classes of the commu- 
 nity, was naturally one which the members of this House, 
 emanating directly from the people, were best qualified 
 to decide, and was the last which they ought or would, 
 in such case, have submitted to the entire control of 
 another branch of the legislature. But as, notwith- 
 standing assertions, it was in fact a measure of coercion, 
 a very different principle operated in its formation. It 
 was to be used as a weapon against Great Britain. If 
 
142 SPEECH ON THE BH^L 
 
 drawn against her, it was necessary to be put into such 
 a situation as most certainly to effect its purpose. If 
 drawn, it was not to be sheathed, until this had been 
 done, or until it had reached the marrow and the vitals 
 of the enemy. But, with such a purpose, a limited 
 embargo would have been a nerveless weapon. At 
 every term of its limitation, it would have been under 
 the control of this House ; a body deeply responsible to 
 the people, liable intimately to be affected by their feel- 
 ings and passions. These would have instantly operated 
 upon this House, which never could have been brought 
 to continue the measure one moment longer than it was 
 for the interest and consentaneous to the wishes of the 
 mass of their fellow-citizens. But if the intention was 
 to keep if possible these restrictions upon the people, 
 until they effected their object at all hazards, then no 
 other course could be adopted but that of unlimited 
 embargo. The whole commercial power given to us by 
 the Constitution was thus transferred absolutely to the 
 President and twelve men in the other branch of the 
 legislature,^ — men, from their situation and their tenure 
 of office, not so likely to be affected by the interests of 
 the people, or so able to sympathize with them, as the 
 members of this House. If it were intended, then, to 
 keep this instrument of coercion aloof from the influ- 
 ence of the people, so that it might be maintained long 
 after they had ceased to approve of it, this was the only 
 course which could be adopted. This House could not 
 be trusted with the power of re-enacting it. The 
 weapon would be shortened and weakened, if it re- 
 
 1 Twelve senators held the balance of power in the Senate, who could 
 be depended upon to support the administration. 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 143 
 
 mained in our control. But, in the exclusive possession 
 of the President and twelve men, its whole force might 
 be wielded with the greatest ' possible efficacy. It is 
 from this feature of the embargo law, reconcilable to no 
 other intention than a predetermination to persevere in it 
 regardless of the people's sufferings until it had effected, 
 if possible, its object, as well as from the actual obstinacy 
 of adherence after the most manifest symptoms of dis- 
 content in the commercial States, that I draw the con- 
 clusion that such was the original determination of 
 administration. And not only so, but I am perfectly of 
 opinion that such is still their intention, and that, if the 
 people will bear it, this embargo will be continued not 
 only until next May, but until next September; yes, 
 sir, to next May twelvemonth. Having this convic- 
 tion, a sense of duty obliges me to declare it, and thus 
 to state the reasons of it. 
 
 I come now to my third position, — not only that 
 embargo was resorted to as a means of coercion ; but 
 that, from the first, it was never intended by adminis- 
 tration to do any thing else effectual for the support of 
 our maritime rights. Sir, I am sick, sick to loathing, of 
 this eternal clamor of " war, war, war," which has 
 been kept up almost incessantly on this floor, now for 
 more than two years, sir. If I can help it, the old 
 women of this country shall not be frightened in this 
 way any longer. I have been a long time a close ob- 
 server of what has been done and said by the majority of 
 this House ; and, for one, I am satisfied that no insult, 
 however gross, offered to us by either France or Great 
 Britain, could force this majority into the declaration of 
 war. To use a strong but common expression, it could 
 
144 SPEECH ON THE BH^L 
 
 not be kicked into such a declaration by either nation. 
 Letters are read from the British minister. Passions 
 are excited bj his sarcasms. Men get up and recapitu- 
 late insults. They rise and exclaim "perfidy," "rob- 
 bery," " falsehood," " murder " ! 
 
 ..." Unpacking hearts with words, 
 And fall a cursing, like a very drab, 
 A scullion." 
 
 Sir, is this the way to maintain national honor or 
 dignity ? Is it the way to respect abroad or at home ? 
 Is the perpetual recapitulation of wrongs the ready path 
 to redress, or even the means to keep alive a just sense 
 of them in our minds ? Are those sensibilities likely to 
 remain for a long time very keen which are kept con- 
 stantly under the lash of the tongue ? 
 
 The grounds on which I conclude that it was the 
 intention of administration to do nothing else effectual, 
 in support of our maritime rights, are these, that, if it 
 had ever been contemplated to fight for them, less would 
 have been said about war, and more pre23aration made 
 for it. The observation is common and just as true of 
 collective bodies of men as of individuals, that those 
 fight the best who make the least noise upon the sub- 
 ject. The man of determined character shows his 
 strength in his muscles, in the attitude he assumes, in 
 the dignified position in which he places himself. Just 
 so is it with men determined to maintain the rights and 
 honor of the nation. They consider the nature of the 
 exigency, the power of the nation with which they are 
 likely to involve their country, what preparations are 
 necessary to its ultimate success. They do not content 
 
 J 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 145 
 
 themselves witli evaporating words of passion. They 
 look to the end, and devise and put in train such means 
 as are suited to a safe and honorable issue. This con- 
 duct speaks more terribly than any words to the fears of 
 foreign nations. And as to our citizens, they find in it 
 an assurance, which can be given them by no enumera- 
 tion of wrongs, however accurate or eloquent. But it 
 is not merely by what has been said, but by what has 
 been done, that my mind is satisfied that administration 
 never seriously contemplated a war with any nation 
 under heaven. That all this clamor so ostentatiously 
 raised, and all this detail of the horrors of war, are 
 nothing else than the machinery by which it is intended 
 to keep this people quiet, through apprehension of a 
 worse state, under their most oppressive evil, the em- 
 bargo. We have been told from divine authority, " By 
 their deeds ye shall know them." The rule is just as 
 true in relation to professors in politics as to professors 
 in religion. I ask, sir, what has this majority done, 
 during the two years past, in every moment of which 
 the people have been kept under almost a daily antici- 
 pation of war, towards an effectual maintenance of their 
 rights, should war in fact result ? Why, we have built 
 seventy gunboats ; we have in requisition one hundred 
 thousand militia. Are either of these intended to fight 
 Great Britain ? or competent to maintain our maritime 
 rights ? But we have an army of five thousand men. 
 And how have you appointed officers to that army ? 
 Have you done it in a manner to create that sentiment 
 of unanimity so necessary to be inspired, if your inten- 
 tion be to fight seriously a foreign enemy ? In the last 
 session, when the proposal to raise that army was before 
 
 10 
 
146 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 the House, no cry was so universal as that of " Union." 
 Well, sir, and how did those gentlemen whose senti- 
 ments usually coincide with mine act upon that occa- 
 sion ? Did we make a party question of it ? No : it 
 was supported very generally by us. Now, upon what 
 princijile have you conducted in your appointment of 
 officers to that army? as though you wished to unite 
 every heart and hand in the nation in opposition to a 
 foreign enemy ? No : but as though you had no other 
 project than to reward political adherents or to enforce 
 the embargo laws. I mean not unjustly to charge any 
 member of the administration. But I am obliged to 
 state that I have satisfactory evidence to my mind that 
 it has been established as a principle by the Secretary'- 
 at War not to apjDoint any man to a command in that 
 army who was not an open partisan of the existing 
 administration. If I am in an error, appoint a committee 
 of inquiry ; and I will be the happiest, if it be proved, to 
 acknowledge it. [Mr. Love asked if Mr. Quincy was 
 in order. Mr. Speaker conceived he was not.] Mr. 
 Quincy continued : I am performing what I deem a great 
 duty ; and, if the connection between this topic and the 
 subject before the House be denied, I am prepared to 
 establish it. I am contending that if the purpose for 
 which this army was raised were to meet a foreign 
 enemy, this principle would never have been adopted in 
 the appointment of officers. I do not believe the fact I 
 state will be denied. But if it should be, it is easily to be 
 ascertained by comparing the applications for appoint- 
 ments to those offices with the list of those appointments. 
 Now, sir, if the intention were to unite the nation as 
 one man against a foreign enemy, is not this the last 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 147 
 
 policy Avliich any administration ought ever to have 
 adopted ? Of all engines, is not a party army the most 
 dreadful and detestable ? Is it not the most likely to 
 awaken suspicion, and to sow discontent rather tlian 
 concord ? This is one reason on which I rest my opinion, 
 that it was not the intention to go to war, or they would 
 have adopted a principle more harmonizing in relation 
 to the organization of that army. 
 
 Again, sir, you talk of going to war against Great 
 Britain with, I believe, only one frigate and five sloops- 
 of-war in commission ! And yet you have not the reso- 
 lution to meet the expense of the paltry little navy 
 which is rotting in the Potomac ! Already we have 
 heard it rung on this floor that if we fit out that little 
 nav}^ our treasury will be emptied. If you had ever a 
 serious intention of going to war, would you have frit- 
 tered down the resources of this nation in the manner 
 we witness ? you go to war, with all the revenue to be 
 derived from commerce annihilated, and possessing no 
 other resource than loans, or direct or other internal 
 taxes ! you, a party that rose into power by declaim- 
 ing against direct taxes and loans ! Do you hope to 
 make the people of this country, much more foreign 
 nations, believe that such is your intention, when you 
 have reduced your revenue to such a condition ? [Mr. 
 G. W. Campbell asked the gentleman if he could tell 
 how much money there was now in the treasury.] Mr. 
 QuiNCY continued : My memory has not at present at 
 command the precise sum, but perhajis twelve or thir- 
 teen millions of dollars, charged with the expenses and 
 appropriations for the year. But what is this ? Make 
 any material preparation for such a war as j^ou must 
 
148 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 wage, if you engage with either of the European pow- 
 ers, and your whole treasury is exhausted. I am not 
 now examining the present state of our finances. But 
 I would address myself to men of sense, and ask them 
 to examine the adequacy of our revenues in their future 
 product to the inevitable exigencies of war. Sir, you 
 have no other resources, commerce being gone, than 
 loans or internal taxes. Great Britain and France know 
 this fact as well as you. Nothing can be conducted in 
 such a country as ours without public notoriety. The 
 general resources of our country are as well known in 
 Europe as they are here. But we are about to raise an 
 army of fifty thousand volunteers. For what purpose ? 
 I have heard gentlemen say, " We can invade Canada." 
 But, sir, does not all the world, as well as you, know 
 that Great Britain holds, as it were, a pledge for 
 Canada ? and one sufficient to induce you to lefrain 
 from such a project, when you begin seriously to weigh 
 all the consequences of such invasion. I mean that 
 pledge which results from the defenceless state of your 
 seaport towns. For what purpose would you attack 
 Canada ? For territory ? No : you have enough of 
 that. Do you want citizen refugees ? No : you would 
 be willing to dispense with them. Do you want plun- 
 der ? This is the only hope an invasion of Canada can 
 oifer you. And is it not very doubtful whether she 
 could not in one month destroy more property on your 
 seaboard than you can acquire by the most successful 
 invasion of that province ? Sir, in this state of things, 
 I cannot hear such perpetual outcries about war without 
 declaring my opinion concerning them. 
 
 When 1 say, sir, that this administration could not be 
 
FOR HOLDIKG AN EXTRA SESSION. 149 
 
 induced into a war, I mean by its own self-motion. 
 War may — I will not assert that it will not — come. 
 But such a state administration do not contemplate, nor 
 are they prepared for it. On the contrary, I do believe 
 that the very tendency of all imbecile measures is to 
 bring on the very event their advisers deprecate. Well 
 did the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup) warn you 
 the other day not to get into war. He told you it was 
 the design of the Federalists to lead you into that state, 
 in order that they might get your places. Now, I agree 
 with the gentleman that, if by your measures you get 
 this country into a war, that you will lose your places. 
 But I do not agree that in such case the Federalists 
 would get them. No, sir. The course of affairs in 
 popular revolutions proceeds, not from bad to better, 
 but from bad to worse. After Condorcet and Brissot 
 came Danton and Robespierre. Well may gentlemen 
 dread, on account of their places, being involved in 
 war ! For let the people once begin to look on the state 
 of the country with that anxiety which the actual per- 
 ception of present danger never fails to awaken : let 
 them realize the exigencies which that state involves, 
 and compare with them your preparations for it : let 
 them see an army in which, perhaps, a full half of your 
 citizens cannot confide ; a small navy, rendered less by 
 natural decay, and even the few ships we have not in a 
 state to give battle ; our treasury exhausted, as it will 
 soon be, and all the ordinary sources of commercial sup- 
 ply dried away, — and they will hurl you from your 
 seats with as little remorse, with as much indifference, 
 as a mischievous boy would shy so many blind and 
 trembling kittens, six to a litter, into a horse-pond. 
 
150 SPEECH ON THE BILL 
 
 Yes, sir, be assured that war is the termination of your 
 political power, unless you have the prescience to pre- 
 pare an effectual force, worthy of this nation, worthy 
 of either adversary you may elect to engage. But 
 remember you must rely upon something else than the 
 paltry surpluses of your treasury, — which, in fact, in 
 one year will not exist, — upon something else than 
 loans or direct taxes. 
 
 This bill I consider as a continuation of the same 
 deception as to the motive as that which operated in 
 the j)assage of the original embargo law. If we pass it, 
 I fear we shall again be instrumental in deceiving this 
 people. The effect of this bill, whatever maj^ be its 
 avowed design, is calculated to soothe the people, impa- 
 tient under the embargo, until the spring elections are 
 passed, and until the first session of the State legislat- 
 ures are finished. By a new session of the next Con- 
 gress, in May, the people are to be led to hope that next 
 May will bring them relief. But let the embargo be 
 kept on until May, and, as the honorable gentleman 
 from North Carolina (Mr. Macon) told you very ingen- 
 uously, it will then be found necessary to keep it on 
 until September, and perhaps for another year. This is 
 the keystone of the whole j)olicy of this bill, as I appre- 
 hend. If it be your real intention to remove this em- 
 bargo after May, why do you not adopt a provision 
 similar to that proposed the other day by the gentleman 
 from Connecticut (Mr. Sturges), and annex it to this 
 bill ? Why not limit the continuance of the embargo 
 law until next June, and thereby leave the new Con- 
 gress free, relative to this measure, from the power of 
 the executive ? Give the people a pledge that the em- 
 
JFOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 151 
 
 bargo shall be removed at a limited time. At least put 
 it into the power of your successors, by refusing to re- 
 enact the law, to control the executive's will. This 
 pledge the people have a right to claim, if it be your 
 real purpose to abandon the measure after May. If, 
 however, this be not your policy, avow your intentions. 
 Tell the people at once that it is a power of coercion, in 
 which you mean to persevere until it has effected its 
 object. Show them the reasons on which you rely that 
 it will be successful. Perhaps they will consent to 
 endure it. But with the present state of things they 
 cannot, they ought not to, be satisfied. At least get 
 back, by limiting the present law, your commercial 
 power, which you have absolutely surrendered to the 
 President and twelve men. Permit your successors to 
 be as independent of the executive in continuing this 
 system as you were when you consented to adopt it. 
 
 The only consistent advocates of the embargo system 
 are such gentlemen as those from North and South 
 Carolina (Messrs. Macon and D. R. Williams), and they 
 are opposed to this bill. They tell you that this is an 
 effectual weapon against Great Britain, and believing 
 this, as they do, they say truly that a session in May 
 will evidence timidity and defeat the effect of the wea- 
 pon. You ought to take one or the other ground de- 
 cidedly. Either you still confide in its efficacy, or you 
 begin to doubt of it. If the former, show your con- 
 fidence to be rational, and leave the weapon to have its 
 full operation, not unnerved by the hope of a May 
 session. If the latter, either repeal it instantl}^ or give 
 the people an assurance that it will be done in May. 
 
152 SPEECH OK THE BILL 
 
 The course you are pursuing has no other tendency than 
 to excite suspicions, to agitate and embarrass. 
 
 I ask gentlemen to consider what will be their situa- 
 tion in INIay. "Will you be in a better condition to go to 
 war then than you are now ? No : you will be in a 
 worse. You will be more embarrassed ; you will have 
 less revenue ; you will have more discontent. Your 
 efficient force will not be materially greater. Will you 
 have more encouragement then to strike at the Canadas 
 than exists at present ? and what other point of attack 
 have you on Great Britain ? Will you be a whit more 
 inclined in May or June to remove the embargo than 
 you are at this moment ? No : it will be stepping back 
 then just as it is now. That dreadful thought will be, 
 I fear, sufficient to induce then, as now, adherence to 
 the measure six months longer. And, after abundance 
 of war speeches. Congress will rise, and leave that 
 measure bending down the people until next De- 
 cember. 
 
 Sir, these are the general reasons which I have to 
 urge against the adoption of this bill. In what I have 
 said, my only view has been to exhibit to this House 
 and nation the real motives which, as I apprehend, 
 caused the original imposition of the embargo, and which 
 still operate in support of this bill. I do not believe 
 that it is the intention of a majority of this House at 
 present to continue this system after ]\Iay. But I do 
 believe that it is the intention of administration. My 
 design has been to recall the recollection of gentlemen 
 to the difference between the arguments now urged for 
 its continuance and the official reasons at first given for 
 
FOR HOLDING AN EXTRA SESSION. 153 
 
 its adoption. And I would warn them that, if they 
 mean to gain credit with the people for the intention of 
 repealing the embargo in May, they will not obtain it, 
 if they leave the next Congress at the mercy of the 
 executive, by rising without affixing some limitation 
 to it. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE RESOLUTION OF CENSURE ON FRANCIS J. 
 JACKSON, THE BRITISH MINISTER. 
 
 Dec. 28, 1809. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE RESOLUTION OF CENSURE ON FRANCIS J. 
 JACKSON, THE BRITISH MINISTER. 
 
 Dec. 28, 1809. 
 
 [In the winter of 1809, just before Mr. Jefferson gave way to 
 Mr. Madison, his favorite measure of the embargo was repealed. 
 It had answered none of the expectations of its inventors. It 
 had paralyzed American commerce, ruined multitudes of mer- 
 chants, and reduced the laboring classes, who depended on trade 
 for their support, to hopeless poverty, while in England its effects 
 had been the very opposite of what had been hoped from it. 
 After the first disturbance caused by the withdrawal of the 
 American trade was over, the British merchants found that the 
 monopoly of the trade of the world which it secured to them 
 much more than overbalanced any lo?s it occasioned. Mr. Jef- 
 ferson had lost none of his faith in his policy of conquering Eng- 
 land by ruining the commerce of America, and he lamented the 
 conversion of his own partisans to " the fatal measure of repeal." 
 But the tide was too strong to be stemmed, and Mr. Jefferson 
 had to see the policy which he had identified with his j^olitical 
 life end with it. The mortification attending this compulsion, 
 however, was mitigated by the substitution of an Act of Non- 
 intercourse with both belligerents. Though this measure was 
 far enough from restoring the prosperity the embargo had de- 
 stroyed, it was an improvement upon what it replaced, as it 
 opened the rest of the world to American commerce, and re- 
 moved the worst of the restrictions on the coastwise trade. 
 
158 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 Mr. Madison, on his accession to the Presidency in March, 
 1809, naturally and justly wished to signalize the beginning of 
 his administration by the restoration of friendly commercial 
 relations with Great Britain. Accordingly, he entered into 
 negotiations with this view with Mr. David Erskine, the eldest 
 son of the great Lord Erskine, who had been made minister to 
 "Washington by the administration of " All the Talents" in 1806. 
 He was a man of about thirty, of small diplomatic experience, 
 and by no means a match for such experienced hands as Mr. 
 Madison and Mr. Gallatin, who wished to cover their own retreat 
 from the position taken up under Mr. Jefferson as gracefully as 
 they could. In this they were seconded by Mr. Erskine, who 
 was connected by marriage with this country and naturally 
 wished to be the means of reconciling the two nations, to both 
 of which he, in a manner, belonged. But, unfortunately, his 
 discretion was not equal to his zeal. The administration of the 
 Duke of Portland, in which Mr. Canning was Secretary for 
 Foreign Affairs, gave Mr. Erskine very exact instructions as to 
 the conditions on which it would revoke the Orders in Council, 
 which were carefully guarded so as to save the pride of the 
 English nation. The particulars will be found in the histories 
 of the times, and need not be recapitulated here. Mr. Erskine 
 was authorized to show the desjDatch to the American govern- 
 ment, which, however, he omitted to do, fearing, probably, that 
 this would stop the negotiation on this side the Atlantic, and 
 hoping that the advantages of the Arrangement, as it was called, 
 would cause his departure from his instructions to be overlooked 
 on the other. The announcement of the Erskine Arrangement, 
 made by proclamation on the 17th of April, diffused a general 
 joy throughout the country, as it provided for the repeal of the 
 Orders in Council. But the joy was soon damped by another 
 proclamation of the 9th of August, announcing that the English 
 administration had repudiated the Arrangement, as made in 
 direct violation of their express instructions. They were tech- 
 nically justified in thus acting, but it may be doubted whether it 
 was a wise and statesmanlike step. By the Arrangement Eng- 
 land would have gained every thing she demanded, without re- 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 159 
 
 nouncing tlie right of search and impressment. The war of 
 1812 would not liave occurred, and the irritation of spirit and 
 bitterness of feeling which it left behind it — hardly yet ap- 
 peased — would have been avoided. 
 
 Mr. Erskine was recalled in disgrace, and he was replaced by 
 Mr. Francis J. Jackson, an experienced diplomatist, known at 
 the time as " Copenhagen Jackson," from the part he played as 
 minister to Denmark at the time of the seizure of the Danish 
 fleet by Nelson in 1807, Mr. Madison was deeply mortified by 
 the result of his negotiations with Mr. Erskine, and was ill dis- 
 posed to give a gracious reception to his successor. A quarrel 
 was soon established between them, and on the ground that Mr. 
 Jackson had intimated — which he denied — that the President 
 knew at the time of the negotiation of the Arrangement that Mr. 
 Erskine had no authority to make it, all diplomatic communica- 
 tion with him was broken oft', and his recall demanded of his gov- 
 ernment. Of course tlie Democratic party in Congress sustained 
 Mr. IMadison, and it was on a joint resolution, approving his 
 course and severely censuring that of Mr. Jackson, that Mr. 
 Quiucy delivered the following speech, December the 28th, 1809. 
 
 It may be proper to say here that Mr. Jackson, jirevious to 
 his return to England, had an edition of this speech printed to 
 take home with him, as the best defence of himself. A copy of 
 this edition is in the possession of the family. — Ed.] 
 
 It is not my intention, ]Mr. Speaker, to offer any 
 common-place apology for the few observations I shall 
 submit to the House on the subject now under consid- 
 eration. Such is the character, and such the conse- 
 quences of these resolutions, that no man, who has at 
 heart the honor and happiness of this country, ought 
 to continue silent, so long as any topic of illustration 
 is unexhausted, or any important point of view unoc- 
 cupied. 
 
 It is proposed, sir, that this solemn assembly, the rep- 
 
160 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 resentative of the American people, the depositary of 
 their power, and, in a constitutional light, the image 
 of their wisdom, should descend from the dignity of 
 its legislative duties to the task of uttering against 
 an individual the mingled language of indignation and 
 reproach. Not satisfied with seeing that individual 
 prohibited the exercise of his official character, we are 
 invited to pursue him with the joint terrors of legisla- 
 tive wrath, couched in terms selected to convey oppro- 
 brium and infix a stigma. "Indecorum," "insolence," 
 "affront," "more insolence," "more affront," "direct 
 premeditated insult and affront," " disguises, fallacious 
 and false," — these are the stains we are called upon to 
 cast, these the wounds we are about to inflict. It is 
 scarcely possible to comprise, within the same compass, 
 more of the spirit of whatever is bitter in invective and 
 humiliating in aspersion. This heaped-up measure of 
 legislative contumely is prepared for whom ? For a 
 private, unassisted, insulated, unallied individual ? No, 
 sir. For the accredited minister of a great and power- 
 ful sovereign, whose character he in this country rep- 
 resents, whose confidence he shares ; of a sovereign 
 who is not bound, and perhaps will not be disposed, to 
 uphold him in misconduct, but who is bound by the 
 highest moral obligations and by the most impressive 
 political considerations to vindicate his wrongs, whether 
 they affect his person or reputation ; and to take care 
 that whatever treatment he shall receive shall not ex- 
 ceed the measure of justice, and, above all, that it does 
 not amount to national indignity. 
 
 Important as is this view of these resolutions, it is 
 not their most serious aspect. This bull of anathemas, 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 161 
 
 scarcely less than papal, is to be fulminated in the name 
 of the American people from the high tower of their 
 authority, under the pretence of asserting their rights 
 and vindicating their wrongs. What will that people 
 say, if, after the passions and excitements of this day 
 shall have subsided, they shall find, and find I fear they 
 will, that this resolution is false ; in fact, that a false- 
 hood is the basis of these aspersions upon the character 
 of a public minister ? What will be their just indigna- 
 tion when they find national embarrassment multiplied, 
 perhaps their peace gone, their character disgraced, for 
 no better reason than that you, their representatives, 
 following headlong a temporary current, insist on mak- 
 ing assertions, as they may then, and, I believe, will, 
 realize to be not authorized by truth, under circum- 
 stances and in terms not warranted by wisdom ? 
 
 Let us not be deceived. It is no slight responsibility 
 which this House is about to assume. This is not one 
 of those holiday resolutions which frets and fumes its 
 hour upon the stage and is forgotten for ever. Very dif- 
 ferent is its character and consequences. It attempts 
 to stamp dishonor and falsehood on the forehead of a 
 foreign minister. If the allegation itself be false, it will 
 turn to plague the accuser. In its train will follow 
 severe retribution, perhaj)s in war ; certainly in addi- 
 tional embarrassments ; and most certainly in, worst of 
 all, the loss of that sentiment of self-esteem which to 
 nations as well as individuals is the " pearl of great 
 price," which power cannot purchase nor gold measure. 
 
 In this point of view, all the other questions, which 
 have been agitated in the course of this debate, dwin- 
 dle into utter insignificance. The attack or defence 
 
 11 
 
162 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 of administration, the detection of fault, or even the 
 exposure of crime, are of no importance when brought 
 into competition with the duty of rescuing this House 
 and nation from the guilt of asserting what is false, and 
 making that falsehood the basis of outrage and viru- 
 lence. I avoid, therefore, all questions of censure or 
 reproach, on either the British minister or the American 
 Secretary of State. I confine myself to an examination 
 of this resolution, particularly of the first branch of it. 
 This is the foundation of all that follows. I shall sub- 
 mit it to a rigid analysis, not for the purpose of discov- 
 ering how others have performed their duties, but of 
 learning how we shall perform ours. The obligation to 
 truth is the highest of moral and social duties. 
 
 It is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that of all the gentle- 
 men who have spoken, no one has taken the precise 
 terms of the resolution as the basis of his argument, and 
 followed that course of investigation which those terms 
 naturally prescribe. Yet the obvious and only safe 
 course in a case of such high responsibility is first to 
 form a distinct idea of the assertion we are about -to 
 make, and then carefully to examine how that assertion 
 is supported, if supported at all, by the evidence. With 
 this view I recur to the resolution in the form in which 
 it is proposed for our adoption, and make it the basis of 
 my inquiries. 
 
 " Resolved^ By the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives of the United States of America, in Congress 
 assembled. That the expressions contained in the official 
 letter of Francis J. Jackson, minister pleniiDotentiary of 
 his Britannic Majesty near the United States, dated the 
 twenty-third day of October, 1809, and addressed to 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 163 
 
 Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the idea that 
 the executive government of the United States had a 
 knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. 
 Erskine, his predecessor, in behalf of his government, 
 with the government of the United States was entered 
 into without competent powers on the part of Mr. 
 Erskine for that purpose, were highly indecorous and 
 insolent." 
 
 This part of the resolution, it will not be denied, is 
 the foundation of the whole : for if no such " idea was 
 conveyed " in the letter of the 23d of October, then 
 there could be no " repetition " of that idea in the 
 letter of the 4th of November ; and if, in the former 
 part of his correspondence, Mr. Jackson had made no 
 such " insinuation," then the assertion in this letter that 
 he had made none was perfectly harmless and justifiable. 
 This part, therefore, includes the pith of the resolution. 
 If we analyze it, we shall find that it contains two dis- 
 tinct assertions. First, that the expressions alluded to 
 convey a certain idea ; second, that this idea, so con- 
 veyed, is indecorous and insolent. Here, again, we are 
 enabled to limit the field of our investigation ; for if no 
 such idea as is asserted was conveyed, then the inquiry, 
 whether such idea is indecorous and insolent, is wholly 
 superseded. The true and only question, therefore, is, 
 whether the expressions alluded to do convey the as- 
 serted idea. I place the subject in this abstract form 
 before the House, to the end that, if possible, we may 
 exclude all those prejudices and partialities which so 
 naturally and imperceptibly bias the judgment. In the 
 light in which it now stands, it must be apparent to 
 every one who will reflect that the question has, so far 
 
164 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 as it respects the principles on which onr decision ought 
 to proceed, no more to do with the relations between 
 Great Britain and the United States than it has with 
 those between the United States and China, and no 
 more connection with Mr. Francis J. Jackson and Mr. 
 Robert Smith than with the late Charles of Sweden 
 and the old Duke of Sudermania. It is a simple philo- 
 logical disquisition, which is to be decided by known 
 rules of construction. The only investigation is touch- 
 ing the power or capacity of certain terms to convey an 
 alleged idea. However ill suited a question like this 
 may be for the discussion of an assembly like the 
 present, yet, if we would be just to ourselves and the 
 people, we must submit to an examination of it in that 
 form in which alone certainty can be attained. It is 
 only by stripping the subject of all adventitious circum- 
 stances that we can arrive at that perfect view of its 
 nature which can satisfy minds scrupulous of truth and 
 anxious concerning duty. It is only by such a rigorous 
 scrutiny that we shall be able to form that judgment 
 which will stand the test of time, and do honor to us 
 and our country when the passions of the day are 
 passed away and forgotten. 
 
 The natural course of inquiry now is into the idea 
 which is asserted to be conveyed, and the expressions 
 which are said to convey it. Concerning the first there 
 is no difficulty. The idea asserted to be conveyed is, 
 " that the arrangement made between Mr. Erskine and 
 Mr. Smith was entered into by the American govern- 
 ment, with a knowledge that the powers of Mr. Erskine 
 were incompetent for that purpose." It would save a 
 world of trouble if the expressions in which this idea is 
 
CENSURE OP FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 105 
 
 said to be coiivej'ed were equally easy of ascertainment. 
 But on this point those gentlemen who maintain this 
 insult are far from being agreed : some being of opinion 
 that it is to be found in one place ; some in another ; 
 and others, again, assert that it is to be found in the 
 whole correspondence taken together. Never was au 
 argument of this nature before so strangely conducted. 
 Gentlemen seem wholly to lay out of sight that this 
 resolution pledges this House to the assertion of a par- 
 ticular fact, and expresses no general sentiment concern- 
 ing the conduct of Mr. Jackson or the conduct of his 
 government. Yet, as if the whole subject of the Brit- 
 ish relations was under discussion, they have deemed 
 themselves at liberty to course through these documents, 
 collect every thing which seems to them indecorous, 
 insolent, or unsuitable in Mr. Jackson's language, and 
 add to the heap thus made the whole list of injuries 
 received from Great Britain, impressments, affair of 
 the Chesapeake, murder of Pierce ; and all this for what 
 purpose ? Why, truly, to justify this House in making 
 a solemn asseveration of a particular fact ! as if any 
 injury in the world could be even an apology for the 
 deliberate utterance of a falsehood. Let the conduct of 
 Mr. Jackson or of Great Britain be as atrocious as it 
 will, if the fact which we assert do not exist, we and 
 this nation are disgraced. It is evident, then, that irk- 
 some as such a task is, it is necessary that we should 
 submit to a precise inquir}^ into the truth of that to 
 M'hicli we are about to pledge our reputation and that 
 of this people. 
 
 In our investigation let us follow the natural course 
 pointed out in the resolution. This alleges that the 
 
166 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 obnoxious expressions are contained in the letter of 
 the 23d of October, and to this limits our assertion. 
 In this letter, therefore, either directly or by way of 
 reference to some other, this obnoxious idea or insinua- 
 tion must be found. For if it be not in this, even if it 
 should be contained in other parts of the correspond- 
 ence, which is not, however, pretended, still our asser- 
 tion would be false. Concerning this letter of the 
 23d of October, I confidently assert, without fear of 
 contradiction, that the obnoxious idea, if contained 
 in that letter, is conveyed in the jDaragraph I am now 
 about to quote. No man has pretended to cite any 
 part of this letter as evidence of the asserted insult 
 except the ensuing ; and although there is not a perfect 
 coincidence in opinion as to the particular part in which 
 it resides, yet all agree that it lurks somewhere in this 
 paragraph, if it have any dwelling-place in this letter. 
 
 " I have therefore no hesitation in informing you that 
 his Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement con- 
 cluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was 
 concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, 
 and altogether without authority to subscribe to the 
 terms of it. These instructions I now understand by 
 your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which 
 I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th in- 
 stant, were at the time, in substance, made known to 
 you ; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of 
 the deviation from them which occurred, than by a 
 reference to the terms of your agreement. Nothing can 
 be more notorious than the frequency with which, in 
 the course of complicated negotiations, ministers are 
 furnished with a gradation of conditions on which they 
 
CENSUKE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 167 
 
 may l)e successively authorized to conclude. So com- 
 mon is the case which you put hypothetically, that 
 in acceding to the justice of your statement I feel myself 
 compelled to make only one observation upon it, which 
 is, that it does not strike me as bearing upon the con- 
 sideration of the unauthorized agreement concluded 
 here, inasmuch as, in point of fact, Mr. Erskine had no 
 such graduated instructions. You are already acquainted 
 with that which was given, and I have had the honor of 
 informing you that it was the only one by which the 
 conditions on which he was to conclude were prescribed. 
 So far from the terms which he was actually induced to 
 accept having been contemplated in that instruction, he 
 himself states that they were substituted by you in lieu 
 of those originally proposed." 
 
 I have quoted the whole paragraph, because in that 
 obscure and general mode of argument in which gentle- 
 men have indulged, it has been read as that entire 
 portion in which the insult is conveyed. It is difficult 
 to conceive how some parts of this paragraph can be 
 thought to convey any insult. However, in prosecution 
 of ni}^ plan, I shall first exclude all those parts in which 
 the obnoxious idea cannot be pretended to exist, and 
 then limit my investigation to that part in which it must 
 exist, if in the letter of the 23d of October it be con- 
 ve}' ed at all. 
 
 With respect to the first sentence in this paragraph, I 
 say confidently that the insult is not contained there. 
 It is simply a declaration of the causes of the disavowal. 
 So far is it from including the obnoxious idea of a knowl- 
 edge in our government of the incompetency of Erskine's 
 powers, that in a manner it excludes that idea, by enu- 
 
168 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 merating violation of instructions and want of authority 
 as the only causes of the disavowal. In the first sen- 
 tence, then, the insult is not. I pass by the second, as 
 it will be the subject of a distinct examination hereafter. 
 The third and fourth sentences it will not even be pre- 
 tended convey this obnoxious idea. They simply ac- 
 knowledge the frequency of graduated instructions, and 
 assert the fact that Mr. Erskine's were not of that 
 character. In this there is no insult. As little can it 
 be pretended to exist in the fifth sentence. It merely 
 asserts that Mr. Smith " already " — that is, at or before 
 the time Mr. Jackson was then writing — is acquainted 
 with the instructions (a fact not denied, and not sug- 
 gested to be an insult), and that the fact of these 
 instructions being the only ones, Mr. Smith knows from 
 the information of Mr. Jackson; an assertion which, so 
 far from intimating the obnoxious idea of a knowledge 
 in Mr. Smith at the time of the arrangement with Mr. 
 Erskine, that it conveys a contrary idea, by declaring 
 that he was indebted for it to his, Mr. Jackson's, infor- 
 mation. Here, then, the insult is not. With respect to 
 the last sentence in this paragraph, the only assertions 
 it contains are the fact that the terms accepted were not 
 contained in the instructions, and the evidence of this 
 fact, derived from the statement of Mr. Erskine, that 
 those acceded to were substituted b}^ Mr. Smith in heu 
 of those originally proposed. In all this, the knowledge 
 of Mr. Smith of the incompetency of Mr. Erskine's 
 powers is not so much as intimated. Indeed, no one has 
 pretended directly to assert that they have found it in 
 the parts of this paragraph, from which I have thus 
 excluded the obnoxious idea. Yet as the whole has 
 
CENSUEE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 109 
 
 been cited and made the basis of desultory declamation, 
 I thought it not time lost to clear out of the way all 
 irrelevant matter, and to leave for distinct examination 
 the only sentence of this paragraph in which the insult 
 lurks, if it have any existence in this letter. This point 
 we have now attained. And as little inclined as gen- 
 tlemen may be to precise investigation, they must yield 
 to it. I say, therefore, confidently, and without fear of 
 contradiction, that if the assertion contained in this 
 resolution be capable of justification, by any part of 
 the letter of the 23d of October, it is by the follow- 
 ing, the only remaining sentence of the cited para- 
 graph wdiich I have not yet examined : " These 
 instructions I now understand by your letter, as well 
 as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty 
 of making in mine of the 11th instant, were, at the 
 time, in substance made known to you ; no stronger 
 illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation 
 from them which occurred, than by a reference to the 
 terms of your agreement." The latter- part of this 
 sentence being merely a conclusion from the preceding 
 part, and having no relation to the knowledge of our 
 government at the time of the arrangement, will be laid 
 out of consideration, as being, obviously, wholly with- 
 out the possibility of any agency in convejdng the ob- 
 noxious idea. There remains only the preceding part 
 of this sentence for the residence of the insult. Here, if 
 anywdiere, it must exist. Accordingly, this is usually 
 shown as the spot where the ghost of insinuation first 
 appeared before the eyes of our astonished administra- 
 tion. Here we shall again find it; unless, indeed, it 
 were in fact a mere delusion of the fancy, formed of 
 
170 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 " such stuff as dreams are made of." Let us examine 
 by way of analysis. 
 
 The sentence to which the advocates of this insult- 
 ing insinuation are now reduced contains, first, a fact 
 asserted ; second, the sources from which a knowledge 
 of that fact is derived. The fact asserted is, that " the 
 instructions were, at the time, in substance made known 
 to you." The sources stated are, Mr. Smith's letter 
 of the 19th of October, and the obvious deductions in 
 his (Mr. Jackson's) letter of the 11th." The ques- 
 tion is, whether, in either of these branches, or in both 
 taken together, directly or in the way of reference, 
 the following idea is by any fair construction conveyed, 
 viz., " That at the time of the arrangement with Mr. 
 Erskine the government of the United States had a 
 knowledge of the incompetency of Erskine's powers." 
 
 Previous to proceeding further, I wish to make a 
 single observation, by way of illustrating the nature 
 and strength of the argument I shall offer. To induce 
 this House to adopt a resolution so pregnant with conse- 
 quences to the hopes and character of this people, it 
 cannot be sufficient merely to show that the insinuation 
 on which their assertion is predicated may be conveyed, 
 it will require certainty that not only this idea is, but 
 also that no other possibly can be. Surely if it be 
 possible to show, or even make it probable, that 
 another and an innocent idea may be conveyed, this 
 House will never consent to make an assertion of such 
 high responsibility, on such dubious ground. For the 
 purpose of defeating this resolution, it would therefore 
 be amply sufficient for me to show that an idea other 
 than the obnoxious one may be conveyed. But I do 
 
CENSUEE OF FKANCIS J. JACKSON. 171 
 
 not limit myself to this task : I undertake to show not 
 only that another idea than the obnoxious one may be 
 conveyed, but that another is, and that the idea asserted 
 in this resolution is not, and by any fair construction of 
 language cannot possibly be, conveyed by these expres- 
 sions. 
 
 The question recurs in the fact asserted in this sen- 
 tence, is the knowledge of our government of the incom- 
 petence of Mr. Erskine's powers intimated? So far from 
 conveying such an idea that it intimates nothing con- 
 cerning the knowledge of our government in relation 
 to the general state of Mr. Erskine's powers, the 
 simple assertion is, " You knew the substance of those 
 instructions," because you admit you knew the condi- 
 tions, and I tell you these were the substance. So far 
 from this assertion conveying the idea of a knowledge 
 in our government of the general state of Mr. Erskine's 
 powers, that if jNIr. Jackson had here expressly asserted 
 that these instructions were shown in extenso to our 
 government, although this, after the denial of Mr. Smith, 
 might have been an insult, yet it would not have con- 
 ve3"ed the obnoxious idea, nor authorized this resolution, 
 unless he had also asserted, or it was a fact, that those 
 instructions included an exclusion of all other powers ; 
 because the assertion of the knowledge of a particular 
 power, which does not include such an exclusion, can 
 never convey the idea of the general incompetency of 
 the agent. In order to make my argument distinct, I 
 will state it more generally : If a particular power con- 
 tain an exclusion of all other powers, except those 
 expressed in it, then an assertion that this particular 
 power was known may convey the idea of a knowledge 
 
172 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 of the general incompetency of the agent. But if such 
 particular power do not, in fact, contain an exclusion of 
 all other powers, then to assert that this particular power 
 was known can never convey the idea of a knowledge 
 of such general incompetency. In this case, it is not 
 even suggested that the instructions in question did 
 include any such exclusion of other powers. An as- 
 sertion, therefore, that they were known can never con- 
 vey the idea of a general knowledge of the incompetency 
 of the agent, unless a part can be made to include the 
 whole, and an assertion that one thing is known can be 
 made to convey the idea that every thing is known. If, 
 then, an assertion of a knowledge in our government of 
 the instructions in extenso would not have conveyed the 
 idea of. a general knowledge of Mr. Erskine's powers, 
 by much stronger reason a simple assertion that only 
 the substance of those instructions was known cannot 
 convey that idea. I say, therefore, that, so far as re- 
 spects the fact here asserted, not only another idea than 
 the obnoxious one may be conveyed, but that another 
 idea is, and that the idea this resolution asserts cannot 
 by any possibility be conveyed. So that if this idea is 
 to be found anywhere in this letter of the 23d of Octo- 
 ber, it must be in consequence of the reference to the 
 two letters of the 19th and the 11th, which Mr. Jackson 
 says were the sources by means of which he understood 
 the fact he asserts. Into these letters, therefore, we 
 must look after the insulting idea ; for we have now 
 shown that it is not in the letter of the 23d of October, 
 unless it be by virtue of this reference. 
 
 With respect to Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th, the 
 assertion, " I understand by your letter (that of the 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 173 
 
 19th) that the substance of these instructions was 
 known to you," has been represented as insolent. So 
 far from being insolent, it is not so much as a contra- 
 diction. Mr. Smith says, " I knew the three condi- 
 tions." " That is what I say," replies Mr. Jackson ; 
 " you knew the substance, because I tell you that those 
 three conditions were the substance." Here is no con- 
 tradiction. The only fact open to dispute is, whether 
 the three conditions were the substance. Mr. Jackson, 
 indeed, asserts, but Mr. Smith does not deny, this fact. 
 He only admits that he knew the three conditions ; 
 neither admitting nor controverting the fact asserted by 
 Mr. Jackson that they were the substance. But, taking 
 it for granted that this assertion was insolent, general 
 insolence is no justification to this House for asserting 
 a particular fact. It is enough, however, for the pres- 
 ent argument to observe that the obnoxious idea, which 
 is the basis of the resolution, cannot be conveyed by 
 means of this reference to the letter of the 19th, not 
 only from the argument just now adduced, showing 
 that even the assertion that these instructions were 
 kno^Vn in extenso^ would not have conveyed that idea, 
 but also from this further consideration, that no gentle- 
 man has pretended that it was in consequence of this 
 reference to that letter that this obnoxious idea was 
 conveyed. 
 
 The advocates of this insult and of this resolution 
 are, therefore, driven back to the letter of the 11th. If 
 it be not foimd here, it can be found nowhere, at least 
 to justify this resolution. With respect to this letter 
 of the 11th, we are subjected to the same difficulty to 
 which we were reduced in relation to the letter of the 
 
174 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 23d. Many passages have been read for the purpose of 
 general comment, to which, in pursuance of my plan, I 
 shall make no allusion. I confine myself only to those 
 passages which have been cited to prove the particular 
 idea asserted in this resolution. None of these I shall 
 omit. With any thing else under this resolution we 
 have nothing to do, unless we are willing, by suffering 
 extraneous influence to operate, to mislead our own 
 judgments, and to deceive our fellow-citizens. 
 
 The following paragraph, in the letter of the 11th of 
 October, is the first, and the one principally relied upon, 
 to prove the existence of that obnoxious insinuation 
 which is the basis of the resolution. " I observe that 
 in the records of this mission there is no trace of com- 
 plaint on the part of the United States of his Majesty's 
 having disavowed the act of his minister. You have 
 not, in the conferences we have hitherto held, distinctly 
 announced an}^ such complaint ; and I have seen with 
 pleasure, in this forbearance on your part, an instance 
 of that candor which I doubt not will prevail in all our 
 communications, inasmuch as you could not but have 
 thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal 
 of an act done under such circumstances as could only 
 lead to the consequences that have actually followed." 
 Here is the insult, the advocates of this resolution as- 
 sert, in a sort of embryo state. Let us look at it through 
 the spectacles of the friends of the administration, with- 
 out any disposition to distort or to change any of its 
 proportions. The features of this insult, say these gen- 
 tlemen, consist in this : first, in referring to the thoughts 
 of Mr. Smith ; second, in intimating that his thoughts 
 must have been such as to satisf}^ him that it was 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 175 
 
 unreasonable to complain of an act done under such 
 circumstances. In this the insult consists. In other 
 words, in this the obnoxious idea is conveyed ; be- 
 cause it implies a knowledge in Mr. Smith that it was 
 done under circumstances which could only lead to a 
 disavowal. Now, say they, the circumstance which 
 could only lead to a disavowal is a knowledge in Mr. 
 Smith, at the time of the arrangement, of the incompe- 
 tency of Mr. Erskine's powers. Thus, say they, the 
 knowledge of that incompetency is implied, and the 
 idea asserted in this resolution conveyed. This is a fair 
 and full statement of their argument. I reply, I do 
 agree that these expressions do imply a knowledge 
 in Mr. Smith that it was done under circumstances 
 which could only lead to a disavowal. But it does not 
 imply that this knowledge existed in Mr. Smith at the 
 time of the arrangement made ; but, on the contrary, 
 does imply, and can imply only, a knowledge in Mr. 
 Smith at the time the disavowal was known. The former 
 is the only implication which can possibly be obnoxious; 
 the latter is most innocent, because, at the time of the 
 disavowal known, the circumstances which led to that 
 disavowal were communicated. An intimation of this 
 knowledge in Mr. Smith could not but be, therefore, 
 perfectly inoffensive. That these expressions cannot 
 imply a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the 
 arrangement made, and can only imjjly a knowledge in 
 him at the time of disavowal known, I argue from 
 this fact, that the only time intimated is the time when 
 Mr. Smith " could not but have thought it unreasonable 
 to complain of the disavowal." Now, Mr. Smith could 
 not have begun to think of complaining of the disavowal 
 
176 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 until the disavowal was known to him, and with that 
 knowledge came also the knowledge of the circum- 
 stances which led to it. Nothing, therefore, can be 
 more plain than that the time here implied is the time 
 after disavowal known, and not the time of the arrange- 
 ment made. The fair construction of these expressions 
 is, "You must have thought it, Mr. Smith, unreasonable 
 to complain after you knew of the disavowal ; for that 
 knowledge apprised you that the act was done under 
 circumstances which could only lead to a disavowal." 
 I say, therefore, that the idea asserted in this resolution 
 (a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the arrange- 
 ment) is not conveyed in this paragraph : another idea 
 is conveyed ; viz., a knowledge at the time of disavowal 
 known. I say, further, that the idea of knowledge of 
 the incompetency of Mr. Erskine's powers in Mr. Smith 
 at the time of the arrangement cannot by any possibility 
 be conveyed, unless the assertion of a knowledge, exist- 
 ing at a time subsequent, can be made to express such 
 knowledge, limited to a time antecedent. The only 
 knowledge implied is siibsequent to disavowal, and so 
 by no possibility can be wrested to express the state of 
 knowledge at a time antecedent to disavowal. 
 
 The ensuing paragraph I cite at large, because it has 
 been quoted by some of the advocates of this resolution 
 as containing the obnoxious idea, although it requires 
 onl}'' a single perusal to satisfy any mind that it is im- 
 possible that the far greatest part of it can contain any 
 thing offensive. It is the only paragraph remaining 
 unexamined which has been thus quoted, and will re- 
 quire a very short elucidation. " It was not known 
 when I left England whether Mr. Erskine had, accord- 
 
CENSURE OF FEANCIS J. JACKSON. 177 
 
 ing to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you in 
 extenso his original instructions. It now appears that he 
 did not. But, in reverting to this official correspond- 
 ence, and particularly to a dispatch addressed, on the 
 20.th of April, to his Majesty's Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs, I find that he there states that he had 
 submitted to your consideration the three conditions 
 specified in those instructions, as the groundwork of an 
 arrangement, which, according to information received 
 from this country, it was thought in England might be 
 made with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. 
 Erskine then reports, verbatim et seriatim^ your observa- 
 tions upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons 
 which induced you to think that others might be substi- 
 tuted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded 
 between you that these latter were an equivalent for 
 the original conditions ; but the very act of substitution 
 evidently shows that those original conditions were in 
 fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you, 
 of course, laid before the President for his consideration. 
 I need hardly add that the difference between these 
 conditions and those contained in the arrangement of 
 the 18th and 19th of April is sufficiently obvious to 
 require no elucidation ; nor need I draw the conclusion, 
 which I consider as admitted, by all absence of com- 
 plaint on the part of the American government, viz., 
 that under such circumstances his Majesty had an un- 
 doubted and incontrovertible right to disavow the act 
 of his minister." 
 
 On this passage it is only necessary to remark that, 
 so far as it respects the assertion that Mr. Erskine had 
 submitted to Mr. Smith the three conditions specified in 
 
 12 
 
178 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 • 
 
 those instructions, the fact is admitted by Mr. Smith , 
 that so far as it respects Mr. Jackson's assertion that 
 Mr. Erskine reports, in his official correspondence, the 
 reasons which induced Mr. Smith to think that others 
 might be substituted in lieu of them, that it is not 
 denied by Mr. Smith. For in his letter of the 19th, 
 Mr. Smith, referring to this subject, expresses himself 
 very cautiously, that Mr. Erskine " on finding his first 
 proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable terms com- 
 prised in the arrangement respecting the orders in coun- 
 cil were adopted," without denying, as he would if it 
 had been false, and he had thought it material, that he 
 had offered " reasons to Mr, Erskine, which induced him 
 [Mr. Smith] to think that others might be substituted in 
 lieu of them." But whether true or false, the asser- 
 tion that Mr. Smith had offered such reasons to Mr. 
 Erskine can never, by any fair construction, be made 
 to convey the idea that Mr. Smith knew that Mr. 
 Erskine's powers were limited to the three conditions, 
 or, in other words, that Erskine's powers were incom- 
 petent. Upon the next sentence the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor) lays great stress, asserting 
 that " it conveys the idea that Mr. Smith had over- 
 reached Mr. Erskine." Concerning this sentence, my 
 first assertion is, that whatever else it may convey, it 
 can never convey the idea asserted in this resolution. 
 For, certainly, to say of two classes of conditions under 
 consideration, that Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine con- 
 cluded together that the one was equivalent to the 
 other, can only imply a comparison and a knowledge of 
 those classes, and by no possibility can imply the state 
 of Mr. Smith's knowledge in relation to Mr. Erskine's 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 179 
 
 right to conclude concerning either of thorn. So that 
 for all the purposes of supporting this resolution, it is 
 utterly useless, whatever other demerit it may have. 
 The strenuousness of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 (Mr. Milnor) on this point shows the crude ideas which 
 even he, usually so acute and correct, entertains con- 
 cerning his duties on this occasion. His great aim was 
 to show that Mr. Jackson here intimates the idea that 
 Mr. Smith had overreached Mr. Erskine. Well, sup- 
 pose he had said this directly, in so man}'- words, 
 would this justify the House in voting that Mr. Jack- 
 son had conveyed the idea asserted in this resolution ? 
 It is the universal fallacy, prove any thing rude or in- 
 solent, and it is a sufficient justification to this House 
 for asserting a particular, independent fact. Is it pos- 
 sible for any mode of conduct to be more unjustifiable 
 or thoughtless ; more calculated to bring shame upon 
 ourselves and disgrace upon the nation ? 
 
 The next and last sentence in this paragraph is 
 merely a declaration of the obvious difference between 
 the conditions in the instructions and those contained 
 in the arrangement, accompanied by a reference, by way 
 of recapitulation to the circumstances alluded to in the 
 paragraph which has been before considered. As it has 
 been shown that this paragraph did not contain the 
 obnoxious idea, it needs no argument to show it is not 
 contained in this sentence. Indeed, I have not heard it 
 pretended that this is the place of the insult. 
 
 I have thus far proceeded by way of a strict analysis 
 of every part of the correspondence in which the in- 
 sulting idea asserted in this resolution has been said to 
 be conveyed. I havQ omitted no part which has been 
 
180 
 
 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 cited in support of this first resolution, and think I 
 have shown that it exists nowhere in the letter of 
 the 28d of October, either in direct assertion or by 
 way of reference. And it is concerning what is con- 
 tained in that letter alone that the resolution under 
 consideration has to do. The House will observe 
 that, according to all rules of fair reasoning, it would 
 have been sufficient for me to have limited myself to 
 show the fallacy of the arguments of the advocates 
 of this insult, it being always incumbent on those who 
 assert the existence of any thing to prove it. I have 
 not, however, thought my duty on so important an 
 occasion fulfilled, unless I undertook to prove what the 
 lawyers call " a negative," and to show, with as much 
 strength of reasoning as I had, the non-existence of the 
 idea asserted in this resolution. With what success, I 
 cheerfully leave to the decision of such thoughtful men 
 in the nation who will take the trouble to understand 
 the argument. There is, however, a corroborative view 
 of this subject, which ought not to be omitted. 
 
 The insulting idea said to be convej'ed is, that Mr. 
 Smith had a knowledge at the time of the arrangement 
 of the incompetency of Erskine's powers; and this 
 because such a knowledge was one of the essential 
 circumstances which could only lead to a disavowal. 
 Now it does happen that neither Mr. Erskine nor his 
 government enumerate this knowledge of our govern- 
 ment as one of those essential circumstances. On the 
 contrary, they constantly omit it, when formally enum- 
 erating those circumstances. Mr. Canning places the 
 disavowal solely on the footing of Mr. Erskine's hav- 
 ing " acted not only not in conformity, but in direct 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 181 
 
 contradiction to his instructions." Mr. Jackson, also, 
 in his letter of the 23d, \yhen formally enumerating 
 the causes of the disavowal, says expressly that the 
 disavowal was " because the agreement was concluded 
 in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and alto- 
 gether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it." 
 Now is it not most extraordinary that after such formal 
 statements, not including the knowledge of our govern- 
 ment among the essential circumstances, that it is on 
 this knowledge the British government intend to rely 
 for the justification of their disavowal ? I simply ask 
 this question, if the British did intend thus to rely on 
 the previous knowledge of our government, why do they 
 always omit it in their formal enumerations ? And if 
 they do not intend thus to rely, in what possible way 
 could it serve that government thus darkly to insinuate 
 it ? But as if it were intended to leave this House 
 wholly without excuse, in passing this resolution, 
 Mr. Jackson expressly asserts, in this very letter of 
 the 23d of October, that the information of that 
 fact was derived from him, the knowledge of which, 
 this resolution asserts, he intended to intimate was 
 known at the time of the arrangement with Mr. Ers- 
 kine. For he specifically says, " I have had the honor 
 of informing you that it " (Mr. Erskine's instruction) 
 " was the only one b}^ which the conditions on which 
 he was to conclude were prescribed." Now if Mr. 
 Jackson had remotely intended to intimate that Mr. 
 Smith had a previous knowledge of that fact, would he 
 have asserted that he was indebted to him (Mr. Jack- 
 son) for the information? Conclusive as this argument 
 is, there is yet another in reserve, which is a clincher ; 
 
182 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 and that is, that this yery knowledge, which we pro- 
 pose solemnly to affirm Mr. Jackson intimated our gov- 
 ernment possessed at the time of the arrangement, it 
 is, from the nature of things, impossible they should 
 have possessed. The idea asserted to be intended to 
 be conveyed is a knowledge in our government that 
 the arrangement was entered into without competent 
 powers on the part of Mr. Erskine. Now the fact that 
 Mr. Erskine's powers were incompetent, it was impos- 
 sible for our government to know, except from the 
 confession of Mr. Erskine. But Mr. Erskine before, at 
 the time, and ever since, has uniformly asserted the 
 reverse. So that, besides all the other absurdities grow- 
 ing out of this resolution, there is this additional one, 
 that it accuses Mr. Jackson of the senseless stupidity of 
 insinuating as a fact a knowledge in our government, 
 which, from the undeniable nature of things, it is not 
 possible tbey should have possessed. Mr. Sj)eaker, can 
 any argument be more conclusive ? 
 
 1. The idea is not conveyed by the form of expres- 
 sion. 2. Mr. Jackson, though expressly enumerating 
 the only causes which led to disavowal, does not suggest 
 this. 3. Mr. Jackson expressly asserts that the knowl- 
 edge that these were the only instructions was derived 
 from him ; of course it could not have been known pre- 
 vious to the arrangement. 4. Had he been absurd 
 enough to attempt to convey such an idea, the very 
 nature of things shows that it could not exist. I con- 
 fess I am ignorant by what reasoning the non-existence 
 of an insiuuation can be demonstrated, if it be not by 
 this concurrence of arguments. 
 
 Before I conclude this part of the subject, it will be 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 183 
 
 necessary to make a single observation or two on the 
 following passage in Mr. Jackson's letter of the 4th 
 of November ; for althongh our assertion has relation, 
 in the part of the resolution under consideration, only 
 to the letter of the 23d of October, yet this subse- 
 quent passage has been adduced as a sort of accessory 
 after the fact. " You will find that, in my correspond- 
 ence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing con- 
 clusions that did not necessarily follow from the j^rem- 
 ises advanced by me, and least of all should I think 
 of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to sub- 
 stantiate a fact. To facts, as I have become acquainted 
 with them, I have scrupulously adhered." This the 
 subsequent part of the resolution under debate denom- 
 inates " the repetition of the same intimation." But if 
 the argument I have offered be correct, there was no 
 such " intimation " in the preceding letters, and of 
 course no repetitLon of it here. For if he had, as I 
 think I have proved in his former letters, uttered no 
 such insinuation as is asserted, then all the allegations 
 in this paragraph are wholly harmless and decorous ; 
 neither disrespectful nor improper. " But this," says 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. INIilnor), "is 
 conclusive to my mind that Mr. Jackson did intend to 
 insidt ; for if he had not, would he have refrained from 
 giving an explanation when it was asked ? " That 
 gentleman will recollect that the assertion of this 
 House is as to the idea which Mr. Jackson has con- 
 veyed in the letter of the 23d, not as to the idea which 
 he intended to convey. Suppose he intended it, and 
 has not done it, our assertion is still false. But will 
 that gentleman seriously conclude, contrary to so obvi- 
 
184 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 ous a course of argument, that he has asserted, or even 
 intended to assert, this particular idea, merely because 
 he does not choose to explain it ? Are there not a 
 thousand reasons which might have induced Mr. Jack- 
 son not to explain, consistent with being perfectly inno- 
 cent of the intention originally to convey it ? Perhaps 
 ■he thought that he had already been explicit enough. 
 Perhaps he thought the explanation was asked in terms 
 which did not entitle Mr. Smith to receive it. Perhaps 
 he did not choose to give this satisfaction. Well, that 
 now is " very ungentlemanly," says the gentleman 
 from Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor). I agree, if he pleases, 
 so it was. But does that justify this resolution? 
 Because he is not a gentleman, shall we assert a false- 
 hood ? 
 
 I briefly recapitulate the leading points of my argu- 
 ment. When Mr. Jackson asserts " that the substance 
 of the instructions was known to our government," the 
 expression cannot convey the obnoxious idea, because 
 it is not pretended that in those instructions the exist- 
 ence of other powers was excluded. When he saj^s, 
 " you must have thought it unreasonable to complain 
 of disavowal," the time of knowledge implied is confined 
 by the structure of the sentence to the time the disavowal 
 was knoAvn, and cannot be limited backwards to the time 
 the arrangement was made. It is also absurd to suppose 
 that Mr. Jackson would intimate, by implication, the 
 knowledge of our government of Mr. Erskine's incompe- 
 tency of powers at the time of arrangement as an essen- 
 tial circumstance, on which the king's right of disavowal 
 was founded, and yet omit that circumstance in a formal 
 enumeration. And, lastly, it is still more absurd to sup- 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 185 
 
 pose that he would undertake to insmuate a knowledge 
 which, from the nature of things, could not possibly 
 exist, 
 
 I have thus, Mr. Speaker, submitted to a strict and 
 minute scrutiny all the parts of this correspondence 
 which have been adduced by any one in support of the 
 fact asserted in this resolution. This course, however 
 irksome, I thought it my duty to adopt, to the end that 
 no exertion of mine might be wanting to prevent this 
 House from passing a resolution which, in my appre- 
 hension, is pregnant with national disgrace and other 
 innumerable evils. 
 
 But let us suppose for one moment that the fact 
 asserted in this resolution is true ; that the insult has 
 been offered ; and that the proof is not obscure and 
 doubtful, but certain and clear. I ask, is it wise, is it 
 politic, is it manly for a national legislature to utter on 
 any occasion, particularly against an individual, invec- 
 tives so full of contumely and bitterness ? Shall we 
 gain any thing by it? Have such expressions a ten- 
 dency to strengthen our cause, or add weight and 
 respectability to those who advocate it ? In private 
 life do men increase respect or multiply their friends by 
 using the language of intemperate abuse? Sudden 
 anger may be an excuse for an individual ; inability to 
 avenge an insult may afford an apology to him for 
 resorting to these women's weapons : but what can 
 excuse a nation for humiliating itself by the use of such 
 vindictive aspersions ? Can we plead sudden rage ? 
 we on whose wrath thirty suns have gone down ? Is 
 this nation prepared to resort for apologies to its weak- 
 ness, and to confess that, being unable to do any thing 
 
186 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 else, it will strive to envenom its adversary witli the 
 tongue ? But our honor is assailed. Is this a medica- 
 ment for its wounds ? If not, why engage in such re- 
 taliatory insults ? Which is best, to leave the British 
 monarch at liberty to decide upon the conduct of his 
 minister, without any deduction or sympathy on ac- 
 count of our virulence, or to necessitate him, in meas- 
 uring out justice, to put your intemperance in the scale 
 against his imprudence ? Railing for railing is a fair 
 offset all over the world. And I ask gentlemen to con- 
 sider whetlier it be not an equivalent for a constructive 
 insinuation. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the hand of the 
 chief magistrate of this nation is in this thing. In every 
 aspect this resolution is at war with that wise and tem- 
 perate ground on which he has placed this insult in 
 the letter to Mr. Pinkney. " You are particularly 
 instructed, in making those communications, to do it in 
 a manner that will leave no doubt of the undiminished 
 desire of the United States to unite in all the means 
 the best calculated to establish the relations of the two 
 countries on the solid foundation of justice, of friend- 
 ship, and of mutual interests." Is there a man in this 
 House who can lay his hand on his heart and say that, 
 by adopting this resolution, we are about " to unite in 
 all means the best calculated to establish the relations 
 of the two countries on the solid foundations of justice, 
 friendship, and mutual interest " ? I hesitate not to say 
 that there is no man who can make such an assevera- 
 tion. 
 
 But if it would be wise and politic to refrain from 
 uttering this opprobrious resolution, in case the insult 
 
CENSURE OF FRANCIS J. JACKSON. 187 
 
 was gross, palpable, and undeniable, how much more 
 wise and politic if this insult be only dubious, and has, 
 at best, but a glimmering existence ? But suppose the 
 assertion contained in this resolution be, as it appears to 
 many minds, — and certainly to mine, — false, I ask, what 
 worse disgrace, what lower depth of infamy, can there 
 be for a nation than deliberately to assert a falsehood, 
 and to make that falsehood the groundwork of a grad- 
 uated scale of atrocious aspersions upon the character of 
 a public minister ? 
 
 When I say that the assertion contained in this reso- 
 lution is false, I beg gentlemen distinctly to understand 
 me. I speak only as it respects the effects of evidence 
 upon my mind. I pretend not to make my perceptions 
 the standard of those of any other. I know the nature 
 of the human mind, and how imperceptibly even to 
 ourselves passion and preconception will throw, as it 
 were, a mist before the intellectual eye, and bend or 
 scatter the rays of evidence before they strike o-n its 
 vision. On a question of this kind, as I would not trust 
 the casual impressions of others, so I have been equally 
 unwilling to trust my own. I have therefore submitted 
 the grounds of my opinion to a rigid analysis. The 
 process and the result of my reasonings I have laid 
 before this House. If that which to me appears a pal- 
 pable falsehood, to others appeared a truth, I condemn 
 not them, — I can only lament such a diversity on a 
 point which, in its consequences, may be so important 
 to the" peace and the character of the country. 
 
 But this resolution was devised for the purpose of 
 promoting unanimity. Is there a man in this House who 
 believes it ? Did you ever hear, Mr. Speaker, that Ian- 
 
188 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 guage of reproach and of insult was the signal for con- 
 ciliation ? Did you ever know contending parties made 
 to harmonize by terms of insult, of reproach, and con- 
 tumely? No, sir. I deprecate this resolution on this 
 very account, that it is much more like the torch of the 
 furies than like the token of friendship. Accordingly, 
 it has had the effect of enkindling party passions in the 
 House, which had begun in some degree to be allayed. 
 It could not possibly be otherwise. A question is raised 
 concerning a constructive insult. Of all topics of dispute, 
 those relative to the meaning of terms are most likely 
 to beget diversity and obstinacy in opinion. But this 
 is not all. On a question merely relative to the con- 
 struction of particular expressions, all the great and 
 critical relations of the nation have been discussed. Is 
 it possible to conceive that such a question as this, on 
 which the debate has been thus conducted, could be 
 productive of any thing else than discord and conten- 
 tion ? 
 
 For my own part, I have purposely avoided all refer- 
 ence to any of the great questions which agitate the 
 nation. I should deem myself humiliated to discuss 
 them under a resolution of this kind, which in truth 
 decides nothing but our opinion of the meaning of Mr. 
 Jackson's language, and our sense of its nature ; and has, 
 strictly speaking, nothing to do with any of the national 
 questions which have been drawn into debate. 
 
 I declare, therefore, distinctly that I oppose and vote 
 against this resolution from no one consideration rela- 
 tive ' to Great Britain or the United States ; from none 
 of friendship or animosity to any one man, or set of men : 
 but simply and solely for this one reason, that in my 
 
CENSURE OF FEANCIS J. JACKSON. 189 
 
 conception the assertion contained in this resolution is 
 a falsehood. 
 
 But it is said that this resolution must be taken as " a 
 test of patriotism." To this I have but one answer. If 
 patriotism ask me to assert a falsehood, I have no hesi- 
 tation in telling patriotism, " I am not prepared to 
 make that sacrifice." The duty we owe to our country 
 is indeed among the most solemn and impressive of all 
 obligations ; yet, high as it may be, it is nevertheless 
 subordinate to that which we owe to that Being with 
 whose name and character truth is identified. In this 
 respect, I deem myself acting upon this resolution 
 under a higher responsibility than either to this House 
 or to this people. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL TO ENABLE THE 
 PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS TO 
 FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, 
 AND FOR THE ADMISSION OF SUCH STATE INTO 
 THE UNION. 
 
 Jan. 14, 1811. 
 
/y^ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE 
 OF THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS TO FORM A CON- 
 STITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE 
 ADMISSION OF SUCH STATE INTO THE UNION. 
 
 Jan. 14, 1811. 
 
 [This is the most famous speech Mr. Quincy ever delivered. 
 It made the deepest impression of any at the time it was 
 delivered, and has continued to be quoted, rightly or wrongly, 
 almost to the present day. It was recalled to recollection at the 
 time of the excitement attending the admission of Texas, and, 
 indeed, at all times when questions as to gross violations of the 
 Constitution were under discussion. It was cited especially at 
 the time of the Rebellioti, and with an approbation I am sure it 
 did not deserve, on both sides of the Atlantic, as containing the 
 same doctrine of secession which was held by the jn'omoters 
 and defenders of that revolt. I do not apprehend that any 
 candid reader of the speech will deem this opinion well grounded. 
 Mr. Quincy did not hold that a State had a constitutional or a 
 natural right to withdraw from the Union when it thought it best 
 for its own interests. He did maintain that such a violation of 
 the fundamental compact might be made that the moral obligation 
 to maintain it ceased and the right of revolution attached. And 
 he undoubtedly believed and emphatically affirmed in this speech 
 that this act was such a violation of the Constitution as released 
 the States from their constitutional obligations, and remitted 
 them to their original right anterior to the Constitution, if they 
 chose to appeal to it, to form such a new government as should 
 
 13 
 
194 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 be most for their own advantage. Right or wrong, he adhered 
 to the opinions expressed in this speech to the dny of his death. 
 
 It will be observed that neither he nor his party objected to 
 the admission of Louisiana in itself considered. It was neces- 
 sary for the protection of the South-western States that the free 
 navigation of the Mississipjii should be secured by the United 
 States. His position was, that the provision in the Constitution 
 for the erecting of new States applied only to the territory in the 
 possession of the nation at the time of its adoption, and that it 
 never entered into the hearts of its fraraers to conceive that the 
 whole continent might be annexed by virtue of that provision ; 
 and that such annexation could be constitutionally effected only by 
 an amendment of the Constitution authorizing it. This was also 
 the opinion of Mr. Jefferson himself, as appears from his own 
 letters. In one to Mr. Breckenridge, August 12, 1802, he writes 
 of the purchase of this territory : " They (the two Houses of 
 Congress), I presume, will do their duty to their country in rati- 
 fying and paying for it ; but I suppose they must then appeal to 
 the nation for an additional article in the Constitution approv- 
 ing and confirming an act which the nation had not previously 
 authorized. The Constitution has made no provision for our 
 holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign 
 nations into our Union." And, again, in a letter of Levi Lincoln, 
 August 30, 1803, he says : " The less said about any constitutional 
 difficulty the better. I find but one opinion as to the necessity of 
 shutting up the Constitution for some time." 
 
 The object of this coup d'etat, thus profligately perpetrated, 
 was not merely the acquisition of the vast territory opened to 
 slave labor comprised within the Territory of Orleans. Its 
 design was to place the indefinite extension of slave territory in 
 the hands of a majority of Congress, in which the united South 
 were always sure of holding the balance of power. The pur- 
 chase of Florida, the annexation of Texas, the Mexican war 
 and the enormous addition of territory consequent upon it, were 
 all effected by acts of Congress, and all in the interest of 
 slavery. By this act the control of the nation was delivered 
 over to the slave powers for fifty years, and it is impossible to 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 195 
 
 say how much longer that domination might have lasted had it 
 not been for the pride going before destruction that it fostered, 
 and which tempted it to take the sword by which it perished. 
 I am not afraid to rest Mr. Quincy's fame, as a sagacious states- 
 man and a true prophet, upon this speech. The history of the 
 next half-century, I think, justifies this claim, by the tale it tells 
 of the supremacy of slaveiy through the operation of the prin- 
 ciple of this very bill, and of the convulsion which followed the 
 first successful resistance to its absolute sway and unlimited 
 extension. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I address you, sir, with an anxiety 
 and distress of mind, with me, wholly unprecedented. 
 The friends of this bill seem to consider it as the exer- 
 cise of a common power, as an ordinary affair, a mere 
 municipal regulation which they expect to see pass with- 
 out other questions than those concerning details. But, 
 sir, the principle of this bill materially affects the liber- 
 ties and rights of the wliole people of the United States. 
 To me it appears that it would justify a revolution in 
 this country ; and that, in no great length of time, it may 
 produce it. When I see the zeal and perseverance with 
 which this bill has been urged along its parliamentary 
 patli, when I know the local interests and associated 
 projects which combine to promote its success, all oppo- 
 sition to it seems manifestly unavailing. I am almost 
 tempted to leave, without a struggle, ni}'- country to its 
 fate. But, sir, while there is life, there is hope. So 
 long as the fatal shaft has not yet sped, if heaven so 
 will, the bow may be broken and the vigor of the mis- 
 chief-meditating arm withered. If there be a man in 
 this House or nation who cherishes the Constitution 
 under which we are assembled, as the chief stay of his 
 
196 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 hope, as the light which is destined to gladden his own 
 day, and to soften even the gloom of the grave by the 
 prospect it sheds over his children, I fall not behind 
 him in such sentiments. I will yield to no man in 
 attachment to this Constitution, in veneration for the 
 sages who laid its foundations, in devotion to those 
 principles which form its cement and constitute its 
 proportions. What, then, must be my feelings, — what 
 ought to be the feelings of a man cherishing such sen- 
 timents, when he sees an act contemplated which lays 
 ruin at the root of all these hopes? when he sees a 
 principle of action about to be usurped, before the oper- 
 ation of which the bands of this Constitution are no 
 more than flax before the fire, or stubble before the 
 whirlwind. When this bill passes, such an act is done, 
 and such a principle usurped. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, there is a great rule of human con- 
 duct which he who honestly observes cannot err widely 
 from the path of his sought duty. It is to be very 
 scrupulous concerning the principles you select as the 
 test of your rights and obligations ; to be very faithful 
 in noticing the result of their apjilication ; and to be 
 very fearless in tracing and exposing their immediate 
 effects and distant consequences. Under the sanction 
 of this rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare it as 
 my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of 
 this Union are virtually dissolved ; that the States tvhich 
 compose it are free from their moral obligations ; and that 
 as it ivill be the right of all, so it ivill be the duty of some 
 to prepare definitely for a separation — amicably, if they 
 can ; violently, if they must. 
 
 [Mr. Quincy was here called to order by Mr. Poiu- 
 
 \ 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 197 
 
 dexter, delegate from the Mississii")!)! Territory, for the 
 words quoted. After it was decided, upon an appeal 
 to the House, that Mr. Quincy was in order, he pro- 
 ceeded.] 
 
 I rejoice, Mr. Speaker, at the result of this appeal ; 
 not from any personal consideration, but from the re- 
 spect paid to the essential rights of the people in one 
 of their representatives. .When I spoke of the separa- 
 tion of the States, as resulting from the violation of the 
 Constitution contemplated in this bill, I spoke of it as 
 a necessity deeply to be deprecated, but as resulting 
 from causes so certain and obvious as to be absolutely 
 inevitable, when the effect of the principle is practically 
 experienced. It is to preserve, to guard the Constitu- 
 tion of my countrj^ that I denounce this attempt. I 
 would rouse the attention of gentlemen from the apathy 
 with which they seem beset. These observations are 
 not made in a corner ; there is no low intrigue, — no 
 secret machination. I am on the people's own ground ; 
 to them I appeal concerning their own rights, their own 
 liberties, their own intent in adopting this Constitution. 
 The voice I have uttered, at which gentlemen startle 
 with such agitation, is no unfriendly voice. I intended 
 it as a voice of warning. By this people and by the 
 event, if this bill passes, I am willing to be judged, 
 whether it be not a voice of wisdom. 
 
 The bill which is now proposed to be passed has this 
 assumed principle for its basis, — that the three branches 
 of this national government, without recurrence to con- 
 ventions of the people in the States, or to the legisla- 
 tures of the States, are authorized to admit new partners 
 to a share of the political power in countries out of the 
 
198 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 original limits of the United States. Now this assumed 
 principle I maintain to be altogether without any sanc- 
 tion in the Constitution. I declare it to be a manifest 
 and atrocious usurpation of power ; of a nature dissolv- 
 ing, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the 
 obligations of our national compact, and leading to all 
 the awful consequences which flow from such a state of 
 things. 
 
 Concerning this assumed principle, which is the basis 
 of this bill, this is the general position on which I rest 
 my argument, — that if the authority now proposed to be 
 exercised be delegated to the three branches of the gov- 
 ernment, by virtue of the Constitution, it results either 
 from its general nature or from its particular provisions. 
 I shall consider distinctly both these sources, in relation 
 to this pretended jjower. 
 
 Touching the general nature of the instrument called 
 the Constitution of the United States, there is no ob- 
 scurity : it has no fabled descent, like the palladium of 
 ancient Troy, from the heavens. Its origin is not con- 
 fused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness 
 of past, unexplored ages : it is the fabric of our day. 
 Some now living had a share in its construction : all of 
 us stood by and saw the rising of the edifice. There 
 can be no doubt about its nature. It is a political com- 
 pact. By whom ? and about what ? The preamble to 
 the instrument will answer these questions : — 
 
 " We, the people of the United States, in order to 
 form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure do- 
 mestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings 
 of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 199 
 
 establish this Constitution for the United States of 
 America." 
 
 It is we, the people of the United States, for our- 
 selves and our posterity, not for the people of Louisi- 
 ana, nor for the people of New Orleans, or of Canada. 
 None of these enter into the scope of the instrument : it 
 embraces only " the United States of America." Who 
 these are it may seem strange in this place to inquire. 
 But truly, sir, our imaginations have, of late, been so 
 accustomed to wander after new settlements to the 
 very ends of the earth, that it will not be time ill spent 
 to inquire what this phrase means and what it includes. 
 These are not terms adopted at hazard ; they have refer- 
 ence to a state of things existing anterior to the Consti- 
 tution. When the people of the present United States 
 began to contemplate a severance from their parent 
 State, it was a long time before they fixed definitively 
 the name by which they would be designated. In 177'!, 
 they called themselves " the Colonies and Provinces of 
 North America ; " in 1775, " the Representatives of the 
 United Colonies of North America ; " in the Declaration 
 of Independence, " the Representatives of the United 
 States of America ; " and, finally, in the articles of con- 
 federation the style of the confederacy is declared to be 
 " the United States of America." It was with refer- 
 ence to the old articles of confederation, and to preserve 
 the identity and established individuality of their char- 
 acter, that the preamble to this Constitution, not con- 
 tent simply with declaring that it is " we the people of 
 the United States " who enter into this compact, adds 
 that it is for " the United States of America." Con- 
 cerning the territory contemplated by the people of 
 
200 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 the United States in these general terms, there can be 
 no dispute : it is settled by the treaty of peace, and 
 included within the Atlantic Ocean, the St. Croix, the 
 lakes, and more precisely, so far as relates to the fron- 
 tier, having relation to the present argument, within 
 " a line to be drawn through the middle of the river 
 Mississippi until it intersect the northernmost part of 
 the thirtj^-first degree of north latitude, thence within 
 a line drawn due east on this degree of latitude to the 
 river Appalachicola, thence along the middle of this river 
 to its junction with the Flint river, thence straight to 
 the head of the St. Mary's river, and thence down the 
 St. Mary's to the Atlantic Ocean." 
 
 I have been thus particular to draw the minds of gen- 
 tlemen distinctly to the meaning of the terms used in 
 the preamble ; to the extent which " the United States " 
 then included ; and to the fact that neither New 
 Orleans nor Louisiana was within the comprehension 
 of the terms of this instrument. It is sufficient for the 
 present branch of ni}^ argument to say that there is 
 nothing in the general nature of this compact from 
 which the power contemplated to be exercised in this 
 bill results. On the contrary, as the introduction of a 
 new associate in political power implies, necessarily, a 
 new division of power and consequent diminution of 
 the relative proportion of the former proprietors of it, 
 there can certainly be nothing more obvious than that, 
 from the general nature of the instrument, no power can 
 result to diminish and give away to strangers any pro- 
 portion of the rights of the original partners. If such 
 a power exist, it must be found, then, in the particu- 
 lar provisions in the Constitution. The question now 
 
LOUISIANA A& A STATE. 201 
 
 arising is, in whicli of these provisions is given the 
 power to admit new States, to be created in Territories 
 beyond the limits of the old United States. If it exist 
 anywhere, it is either in the third section of the fourth 
 article of the Constitution or in the treaty-making 
 power. If it result from neither of these, it is not 
 pretended to be found anywhere else. 
 
 That part of the third section of the fourth article 
 on which the advocates of this bill rely is the following : 
 " New States may be admitted, by the Congress, into 
 this Union ; but no new State shall be formed or erected 
 within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State 
 be formed by the junction of two or more States, or 
 parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures 
 of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress." 
 
 I know, Mr. Speaker, that the first clause of this para- 
 graph has been read, with all the superciliousness of a 
 grammarian's triumph, " New States may be admitted, 
 by the Congress, into this Union," accompanied with 
 this most consequential inquiry : " Is not this a new 
 State to be admitted ? And is not here an express 
 authority ? " I have no doubt this is a full and satis- 
 factory argument to every one who is content with the 
 mere colors and superficies of things. And if we were 
 now at the bar of some stall-fed justice, the inquiry 
 would insure victory to the maker of it, to the manifest 
 delight of the constables and suitors of his court. But, 
 sir, we are now before the tribunal of the whole Ameri- 
 can people ; reasoning concerning their liberties, their 
 rights, their Constitution. These are not to be made 
 the victims of the inevitable obscurity of general terms, 
 nor the sport of verbal criticism. The question is con- 
 
202 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 cerning the intent of the American people, the proprie- 
 tors of the old United States, when they agreed to this 
 article. Dictionaries and spelling-books are here of no 
 authority. Neither Johnson nor Walker nor Webster 
 nor Dilworth has any voice in this matter. Sir, the 
 question concerns the proportion of power reserved by 
 this Constitution to every State in this Union. Have 
 the three branches of this government a right, at will, 
 to weaken and outweigh the influence respectively se- 
 cured to each State in this compact, by introducing 
 at pleasure new partners situate beyond the old limits 
 of the United States ? The question has not relation 
 merely to New Orleans. The great objection is to the 
 principle of the bill. If this principle be admitted, the 
 V whole space of Louisiana — greater, it is said, than the 
 entire extent of the old United States — will be a mighty 
 theatre in which this government assumes the right of 
 exercising this unparalleled power. And it will be — 
 there is no concealment it is intended to be — exercised. 
 Nor will it stop until the very name and nature of the 
 old partners be overwhelmed by new-comers into the 
 confederacy. Sir, the question goes to the very root of 
 the power and influence of the present members of this 
 Union. The real intent of this article is, therefore, an 
 inquiry of most serious import ; and is to be settled only 
 by a recurrence to the known history and known rela- 
 tions of this people and their Constitution. These, I 
 maintain, support this position, that the terms " new 
 States," in this article, do intend new political sover- 
 eignties, to be formed within the original limits of the 
 United States ; and do not intend new political sov- 
 ereignties, with territorial annexations, to be created 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 203 
 
 without the original limits of the United States. I 
 undertake to support both branches of this position to 
 the satisfaction of the people of these United States. 
 As to any expectation of conviction on this floor, I know 
 the nature of the ground, and how hopeless any argu- 
 ments are which thwart a concerted course of meas- 
 ures. 
 
 I recur, in the first place, to the evidence of history. 
 This furnishes the following leading fact, — that before, 
 and at the time of, the adoption of this Constitution, 
 the creation of new political sovereignties, within the 
 limits of the old United States, was contemplated. 
 Among the records of the old Congress, will be found a 
 resolution, passed as long ago as the 10th of October, 
 1780, contemplating the cession of unappropriated 
 lands to the United States, accompanied by a provision, 
 " that they shall be disposed of for the common benefit 
 of the United States and be settled and formed into dis- 
 tinct republican States, which shall become members of 
 the federal union, and have the same rights of sover- 
 eignty, freedom, and independence as the other States." 
 Afterwards, on the 7th of July, 1786, the subject of 
 " laying out and forming into States "the country lying 
 north-west of the river Ohio came under the considera- 
 tion of the same body ; and another resolution was passed 
 recommending to the legislature of Virginia to revise 
 their act of cession, so as to permit a more eligible divi- 
 sion of that portion of territory derived from her ; 
 " which States," it proceeds to declare, " shall hereafter 
 become members of the federal union, and have the 
 same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence 
 as the original States, in conformity with the resolution 
 
204 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 of Congress of the lOtli of October, 1780." All the 
 Territories to which these resolutions had reference 
 were, undeniably, within the ancient limits of the 
 United States. Here, then, is a leading fact, that the 
 article in the Constitution had a condition of things, 
 notorious at the time when it was adopted, upon which 
 it was to act, and to meet the exigency resulting from 
 which such an article was requisite. That is to say, 
 
 ' new States, within the limits of the old United States, 
 were contemplated at the time when the foundations 
 of the Constitution were laid. But we have another 
 authority upon this point, which is, in truth, a contem- 
 poraneous exposition of this article of the Constitution. 
 I allude to the resolution passed on the 3d of July, 1788, 
 in the words following : " Whereas application has been 
 lately made to Congress by the legislature of Virginia, 
 and the district of Kentucky, for the admission of the 
 said district into the federal union, as a separate mem- 
 
 . ber thereof, on the terms contained in the acts of the 
 said legislature, and in the resolutions of the said dis- 
 trict, relative to the premises : And whereas Congress, 
 having fully considered the subject, did, on the third 
 day of June last, resolve that it is expedient that the 
 said district be erected into a sovereign and independent 
 State and a separate member of the federal union ; and 
 appointed a committee to report and act accordingi}'^, 
 which committee on the second instant was discharged, 
 it appearing that nine States had adopted the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, lately submitted to conven- 
 tions of the people : And whereas a new confederacy 
 is formed among the ratifying States, and there is rea- 
 son to believe that the State of Virginia, including the 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 205 
 
 said district, did, on the 25th of June last, become a 
 member of the said confederacy : And whereas an act 
 of Congress, in the present state of the government of 
 the country, severing a part of the said State from the 
 other parts thereof, and admitting it into the confed- 
 eracy, formed by the articles of confederation and per- 
 petual union, as an independent member thereof, may 
 be attended with many inconveniences, while it can 
 have no effect to make the said district a separate mem- 
 ber of the federal union formed by the adoption of the 
 said Constitution, and therefore it must be manifestly 
 improper for Congress, assembled under the articles of 
 confederation, to adopt any other measures relative to the 
 premises than those which express their sense that 
 the said district ought to be an independent member of 
 the Union as soon as circumstances shall permit proper 
 measures to be adopted for that purpose, — " Resolved, 
 that a copy of the proceedings of Congress, relative to 
 the independency of the district of Kentucky, be trans- 
 mitted to the legislature of Virginia, and also to Samuel 
 M'Dowell, Esq., late President of the said Convention ; 
 and that the said legislature, and the inhabitants of the 
 district aforesaid, be informed that, as the Constitution 
 of the United States is now ratified. Congress think it 
 unadvisable to adopt any further measures for admit- 
 ting the district of Kentucky into the federal union, as 
 an independent member thereof, under the articles of 
 confederation and perpetual union ; but that Congress, 
 thinking it expedient that the said district be made a 
 separate State and member of the Union, as soon after 
 proceedings shall commence under the said Constitution 
 as circumstances shall permit, recommends it to the 
 
206 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 said legislature, and to the inhabitants of the said dis- 
 trict, so to alter their acts and resolutions relative to the 
 premises, as to render them conformable to the provi- 
 sions made in the said Constitution, to the end that no 
 impediment may be in the way of the speedy accom- 
 plishment of this important business." 
 
 In this resolution of the old Congress it is expressly 
 declared that the Constitution of the United States 
 having been adopted by nine States, an act of the old 
 Congress could have no effect to make Kentucky a 
 separate member of the Union, and that, although they 
 thought it expedient that it should so be admitted, yet 
 that this could only be done under the provisions made 
 in the new Constitution. It is impossible to have a more 
 direct contemporaneous evidence that the case con- 
 templated in this article was that of Territories within 
 the limits of the old United States ; yet the gentleman 
 from North Carolina, Mr. Macon, for whose integrit}'- 
 and independence I have very great respect, told us the 
 other day, that " if this article had not Territories with- 
 out the limits of the old United States to act upon, it 
 would be wholly without meaning ; because the ordinance 
 of the old Congress had secured the right to the States 
 within the old United States, and a provision for that 
 object in the new Constitution was wholly unnecessary." 
 Now, I will appeal to the gentleman's own candor if the 
 very reverse of the conclusion he draws is not the true 
 one, after he has considered the following fact, — that by 
 this ordinance of the old Congress it was declared that 
 the boundaries of the contemplated States, and the 
 terms of their admission, should be, in certain particu- 
 lars specified in the ordinance, subject to the control of 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 207 
 
 Congress. Now, as by the new Constitution the old 
 Congress was about to be annihilated, it was absolutely 
 necessary for the very fulfilment of this ordinance that 
 the new Constitution should have this power for the 
 admission of new States within the ancient limits ; so 
 that the ordinance of the old Congress, far from show- 
 ing the inutility of such a provision for the Territories 
 within the ancient limits, expressly proves the reverse, 
 and is an evidence of its necessity to effect the object of 
 the ordinance itself. 
 
 I think there can be no more satisfactory evidence 
 adduced or required of the first part of the position, — 
 that the terms " new States " did intend new political 
 sovereignties within the limits of the old United States. 
 For it is here shown that the creation of such States, 
 within the territorial limits fixed by the treaty of 1783, 
 had been contemplated ; that the old Congress itself 
 expressly asserts that the new Constitution gave the 
 power for that object ; that the nature of the old ordi- 
 nance required such a power for the purpose of carrying 
 its provisions into effect ; and that it has been, from the 
 time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution unto 
 this hour, applied exclusively to the admission of States 
 within the limits of the old United States, and was 
 never attempted to be extended to any other object. 
 Now, having shown a purpose, at the time of the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States, sufiicient 
 to occupy the Avhole scope of the terms of the article, 
 ought juot the evidence to be very strong to satisfy the 
 mintl that the terms really intended something else 
 besides this obvious purpose ; that it may be fairly 
 extended to the entire circle of the globe, wherever title 
 
208 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OP 
 
 can be obtained by purchase or conquest, and that new 
 partners in the political power may be admitted, at the 
 mere discretion of this legislature, anywhere that it wills. 
 A principle, thus monstrous, is asserted in this bill. 
 
 But I think it may be made satisfactorily to aj^pear, 
 not only that the terms, " new States," in this article, 
 did mean political sovereignties to be formed within the 
 original limits of the United States, as has just been 
 shown, but also negatively, that it did not intend new 
 political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to 
 be created without those original limits. This appears 
 first from the very tenor of the article. All its limi- 
 tations have respect to the creation of States within 
 the original limits. Two States shall not be joined ; no 
 new State shall be erected within the jurisdiction of 
 any other State, — without the consent of the legislat- 
 ures of the States concerned as well as of Congress. 
 Now, had foreign territories been contemplated ; had 
 the new habits, customs, manners, and language of 
 other nations been in the idea of the framers of this 
 Constitution, — would not some limitation have been 
 devised to guard against the abuse of a power in its 
 nature so enormous, and so obviously calculated to excite 
 just jealousy among the States, whose relative weight 
 would be so essentially affected by such an infusion at 
 once of a mass of foreigners into their councils and 
 into all the rights of the country? The want of all 
 limitation of such power would be a strong evidence, 
 were others wanting, that the powers, now about to be 
 exercised, never entered into the imagination of those 
 thoughtful and prescient men who constructed the 
 fabric. But there is another most powerful argument 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 209 
 
 against the extension of the terms of this article to 
 embrace the right to create States, without the original 
 hmits of the United States, deducible from the utter 
 silence of all debates at the period of the adoption of 
 the Federal Constitution, touching the power here pro- 
 posed to be usurped. If ever there was a time, in 
 which the ingenuity of the greatest men of an age was 
 taxed to find arguments in favor of and against any 
 political measure, it was at the time of the adoption of 
 this Constitution. All the faculties of the human mind 
 were, on the one side and the other, put upon their 
 utmost stretch, to find the real and imaginary blessings 
 or evils likely to result from the proposed measure. 
 Now I call upon the advocates of this bill to point out, 
 in all the debates of that period, in any one publication, 
 in any one pamphlet, in any one newspaper of those 
 times, a single intimation, by friend or foe to the Con- 
 stitution, approving or censuring it for containing the 
 power here proposed to be usurped, or a single sugges- 
 tion that it might be extended to such an object as is 
 now proposed. I do not say that no such suggestion 
 was ever made. But this I will say, that I do not 
 believe there is such an one anywhere to be found. 
 Certain I am, I have never been able to meet the shadow 
 of such a suggestion ; and I have made no inconsiderable 
 research upon the point. Such may exist; but, until 
 it be produced, we have a right to reason as though it 
 had no existence. No, sir, the people of this country, 
 at that day, had no idea of the territorial avidity of 
 their successors. It was, on the contrary, an argument 
 used against the success of the project, that the territory 
 was too extensive for a republican form of government. 
 
 14 
 
210 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 But now there are no limits to our ambitious hopes. 
 We are about to cross the Mississippi. The Missouri 
 and Red River are but roads on which our imagination 
 travels to new lands and new States to be raised and 
 admitted (under the power now first usurped) into 
 this Union, among the undiscovered lands in the West. 
 But it has been suggested that the Convention had 
 Canada in view in this article, and the gentleman from' 
 North Carolina t'old this House that a member of the 
 Convention, as I understood him, either now or lately 
 a member of the Senate, informed him that the article 
 had that reference. Sir, I have no doubt the gentleman 
 from North Carolina has had a communication such as 
 he intimates. But, for myself, I have no sort of faith 
 in these convenient recollections, suited to serve a turn, 
 to furnish an apology for a party or give color to a proj- 
 ect. I do not deny, on the contrary I believe it very 
 probable, that among the coursings of some discursive 
 and craving fancy, such thoughts might be started ; 
 but that is not the question. Was this an avowed 
 object in the Convention when it formed this article ? 
 Did it enter into the conception of the people when its 
 principles were discussed ? Sir, it did not ; it could not. 
 The very intention would have been a disgrace both to 
 this people and the Convention. What, sir? Shall it be 
 intimated, shall it for a moment be admitted, that the 
 noblest and purest band of patriots this or any other 
 country ever could boast were engaged in machinating 
 means for the dismemberment of the territories of a 
 power to which they had pledged friendship, and the 
 observance of all the obligations, which grow out of a 
 strict and perfect amity? The honor of our country 
 forbids and disdains such a suggestion. 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 211 
 
 But there is an argument stronger even than all those 
 which liave been produced, to be drawn from the nature 
 of the power here proposed to be exercised. Is it possi- 
 ble tliat such a power, if it had been intended to be given 
 by the people, should be left dependent upon the effect 
 of general expressions ? and such, too, as were obviously 
 applicable to another subject, to a particular exigency 
 contemplated at the time ? Sir, what is this power we 
 propose now to usurp ? Nothing less than a power 
 changing all the proportions of the weight and influence 
 possessed by the potent sovereignties composing this 
 Union. A stranger is to be introduced to an equal 
 share without their consent. Upon a principle pre- 
 tended to be deduced from the Constitution this gov- 
 ernment, after this bill passes, may and will multijily 
 foreign partners in power at its own mere motion, at its 
 irresponsible pleasure ; in other words, as local interests, 
 party passions, or ambitious views, may suggest. It is a 
 power that from its nature never could be delegated, 
 never was delegated ; and, as it breaks down all the 
 proportions of power guaranteed by the Constitution to 
 the States, upon which their essential security depends, 
 utterly annihilates the moral force of this political con- 
 tract. Would this people, so wisely vigilant concerning 
 their rights, have transferred to Congress a power to 
 balance at its will the political weight of any one State, 
 much more of all the States, by authorizing it to create 
 new States at its pleasure in foreign countries, not pre- 
 tended to be within the scope of the Constitution or 
 the conception of the people at the time of passing it ? 
 This is not so much a question concerning the exercise 
 of sovereignty as it is who shall be sovereign ; whether 
 
212 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 the proprietors of the good old United States shall man- 
 age their own affairs in their own way, or whether they 
 and their Constitution and their political rights shall be 
 trampled under foot by foreigners, introduced through 
 a breach of the Constitution. The proportion of the 
 political weight of each sovereign State constituting 
 this Union depends upon the number of the States 
 which have a voice under the compact. This number 
 the Constitution permits us to multiply at pleasure 
 within the limits of the original United States, observing 
 only the expressed limitations in the Constitution. But 
 when, in order to increase your power of augmenting 
 this number, you pass the old limits, you are guilty of a 
 violation of the Constitution in a fundamental point, 
 and in one also which is totally inconsistent with the 
 intent of the contract and the safety of the States 
 which established the association. What is the practi- 
 cal difference to the old partners whether they hold 
 their liberties at the will of a master, or whether, by 
 admitting exterior States on an equal footing with the 
 original States, arbiters are constituted, who, by avail- 
 ing themselves of the contrariety of interests and view s 
 which in such a confederacy necessarily will arise, hold 
 the balance among the parties which exist and govern 
 us by throwing themselves into the scale most conform- 
 able to their purposes ? In both cases there is an effec- 
 tive despotism. But the last is the more galling, as we 
 carry the chain in the name and with the gait of free- 
 men. 
 
 I have thus shown, and whether fairly I am willing to 
 be judged by the sound discretion of the American peo- 
 ple, that the power proposed to be usurped in this bill 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 213 
 
 results neither from the general nature nor the particu- 
 lar provisions of the Federal Constitution, and that it is 
 a palpable violation of it in a fmuhimental point, whence 
 flow all the consequences I have intimated. 
 
 But says the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rhea), 
 " These people have been seven years citizens of the 
 U-nited States." I deny it, sir. , As citizens of New 
 Orleans or of Louisiana they never have been, and by 
 the mode proposed they never will be, citizens of the 
 United States. They may be girt upon us for a mo- 
 ment, but no real cement can grow from such an asso- 
 ciation. What the real situation of the inhabitants of 
 those foreign countries is, I shall have occasion to 
 show presently. But says the same gentleman, " If I 
 have a farm, have not I a right to purchase another 
 farm in my neighborhood, and settle my sons upon it, 
 and in time admit them to a share in the management 
 of my household? " Doubtless, sir. But are these cases 
 parallel ? Are the three branches of this government 
 owners of this farm called the United States ? I desire 
 to thank heaven they are not. I hold my life, libert}^ 
 and property, and the people of the State from which I 
 have the honor to be a representative hold theirs, by a 
 better tenure than any this national government can 
 give. Sir, I know your virtue ; and I thank the Great 
 Giver of every good gift that neither the gentleman 
 from Tennessee nor his comrades, nor any nor all the 
 members of this House, nor of the other branch of 
 the legislature, nor the good gentleman who lives in the 
 palace yonder, nor all combined, can touch these my 
 essential rights, and those of my friends and constitu- 
 ents, except in a limited and prescribed form. No, sir: 
 
214 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 we hold these by the laws, customs, and principles of 
 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Behind her am- 
 ple shield we find refuge and feel safety. I beg gentle- 
 men not to act upon the principle that the Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts is their farm. 
 
 But the gentleman adds, " AVhat shall we do if we 
 do not. admit the people of Louisiana into our Union ? 
 Our children are settling that country." Sir, it is no 
 concern of mine what he does. Because his children 
 have run wild and uncovered into the woods, is that a 
 reason for him to break into my house or the houses of 
 my friends to filch our children's clothes in order to 
 cover his children's nakedness ? This Constitution never 
 was and never can be strained to lap over all the wilder- 
 ness of the West without essentially affecting both the 
 rights and convenience of its real proprietors. It was 
 never constructed to form a covering for the inhabitants 
 of the Missouri and the Red River country ; and when- 
 ever it is attempted to be stretched over them it will 
 rend asunder. I have done with this part of my argu- 
 ment. It rests upon this fundamental principle, that 
 the proportion of political power, subject only to the 
 internal modifications permitted by the Constitution, is 
 an unalienable, essential, intangible right. When it is 
 touched, the fabric is annihilated ; for on the preserva- 
 tion of these proportions depend our rights and liber- 
 ties. 
 
 If we recur to the known relations existing among 
 the States at the time of the adoption of this Constitu- 
 tion, the same conclusion will result. The various in- 
 terests, habits, manners, prejudices, education, situation, 
 and views, which excited jealousies and anxieties in the 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 215 
 
 breasts of some of our most distinguished citizens touch- 
 ing the result of the proposed Constitution, were potent 
 obstacles to its adoption. The immortal leader of our 
 Revolution, in his letter to the President of the old 
 Congress, written as President of the Convention which 
 formed this compact, thus speaks on this subject : " It 
 is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line 
 between those rights which must be surrendered and 
 those which may be reserved ; and, on the present occa- 
 sion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among 
 the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, 
 and particular interests." The debates of that period 
 will show that the effect of the slave votes upon the 
 political influence of this part of the country, and 
 the anticipated variation of the weight of power to the 
 West, were subjects of great and just jealousy to some 
 of the best patriots in the Northern and Eastern States. 
 Suppose, then, that it had been distinctly foreseen that, 
 in addition to the effect of this weight, the whole popu- 
 lation of a world beyond the Mississippi was to be 
 brought into this and the other branch of the legis- 
 lature to form our laws, control our rights, and decide 
 our destiny. Sir, can it be pretended that the patriots 
 of that day would for one moment have listened to it? 
 They were not madmen. They had not taken degrees 
 at the hospital of idiocy. They knew the nature of 
 man, and the effect of his combinations in political 
 societies. They knew that when the weight of par- 
 ticular sections of a confederacy was greatly unequal, 
 the resulting power would be abused ; that it was not 
 in the nature of man to exercise it with moderation. 
 The verv extravagance of the intended use is a conclu- 
 
216 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 sive evidence against the possibility of the grant of such 
 a power as is here proposed. Why, sir, I have already 
 heard of six States, and some say there will be at no 
 great distance of time more. I have also heard that 
 the mouth of the Ohio will be far to the east of the cen- 
 tre of the contemplated empire. If the bill is passed, 
 the principle is recognized. All the rest are mere ques- 
 tions of exj)ediency. It is impossible such a power 
 sj could be granted. It was not for these men that our 
 
 I fathers fought. It was not for them this Constitution 
 was adopted. You have no authority to throw the 
 
 ' rights and liberties and property of this people into 
 " hotch-pot " with the wild men on the Missouri, nor 
 with the mixed, though more respectable, race of Anglo- 
 Hispano-Gallo- Americans who bask on the sands in the 
 mouth of the Mississippi. I make no objection to these 
 from their want of moral qualities or political light. 
 The inhabitants of New Orleans are, I suppose, like 
 those of all other countries, — some good, some bad, 
 some indifferent. 
 
 As then the power in this bill proposed to be usurped 
 is neither to be drawn from the general nature of the 
 instrument nor from the clause just examined, it follows 
 that, if it exist anywhere, it must result from the treaty- 
 making power. This the gentleman from Tennessee 
 (Mr. Rhea) asserts, but the gentleman from North 
 Carolina (Mr. Macon) denies, and very justly ; for 
 what a monstrous position is this, that the treaty-making 
 power has the competency to change the fundamental 
 relations of the Constitution itself ! that a power under 
 the Constitution should have the ability to change and 
 annihilate the instrument from which it derives all its 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 217 
 
 power! and if the treaty-making power can introduce 
 new partners to the political rights of the States, there 
 is no length, however extravagant or inconsistent with 
 the end, to which it may not be wrested. The present 
 President of the United States, when a member of the 
 Virginia Convention for ado2:)ting the Constitution, 
 expressly declares that the treaty-making power has 
 limitations ; and he states this as one, " that it cannot 
 alienate any essential right." Now is not here an 
 essential right to be alienated ? — the right to that pro- 
 portion of political power which the Constitution has 
 secured to every State, modified only by such internal 
 increase of States as the existing limits of the territories 
 at the time of the adoption of the Constitution per- 
 mitted. The debates of that period chiefly turned upon 
 the competency of this power to bargain away any of 
 the old States. It was agreed, at that time, that by 
 this power old States, within the ancient limits, could 
 not be sold from us ; and I maintain that by it new 
 States, without the ancient limits, cannot be saddled 
 upon us. It was agreed, at that time, that the treaty- 
 making power " could not cut off a limb ; " and I main- 
 tain that neither has it the competency to clap a hump 
 upon our shoulders. The fair proportions devised by 
 the Constitution are in both cases marred, and the fate 
 and felicity of the political being, in material particulars 
 related to the essence of his constitution, affected. It 
 was never pretended, by the most enthusiastic advocates 
 for the extent of the treaty-making power, that it 
 exceeded that of the king of Great Britain. Yet I ask, 
 suppose that monarch should make a treaty stipulating 
 that Hanover or Hindostan should have a rioht of 
 
218 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 representation on the floor of Parliament, would such 
 a treaty be binding ? No, sir ; not, as I believe, if a 
 House of Commons and of Lords could be found venal 
 enough to agree to it. But although, in that country, 
 the three branches of its legislature are called omnipo- 
 tent, and the people might not deem themselves justified 
 in resistance, yet here there is no apology of this kind. 
 The limits of our power are distinctly marked ; and, 
 when the three branches of this government usurp upon 
 this Constitution in particulars vital to the liberties of 
 this people, the deed is at their peril. 
 
 I have done with the constitutional argument. 
 Whether I have been able to convince any member of 
 this House, I am ignorant : I had almost said indiffer- 
 ent ; but this I will not say, because I am indeed deeply 
 anxious to prevent the passage of this bill. Of this I 
 am certain, however, that when the dissensions of this 
 day are passed away ; when party spirit shall no longer 
 prevent the people of the United States from look- 
 ing at the principle assumed in it, independent of 
 gross and deceptive attachments and antipathies, — the 
 ground here defended will be acknowledged as a high 
 constitutional bulwark, and that the princi]3les here 
 advanced will be appreciated. 
 
 I will add one word touching the situation of New 
 Orleans. The provision of the treaty of 1803 which 
 stipulates that it shall be " admitted as soon as possible " 
 does not therefore imply a violation of the Constitution. 
 There are ways in which this may constitutionally be 
 effected, — by an amendment of the Constitution, or by 
 reference to Conventions of the people in the States. 
 And I do suppose that, in relation to the objects of the 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 219 
 
 present bill (the people of New Orleans), no great diffi- 
 culty would arise. Considered as an important accom- 
 modation to the Western States, there would be no 
 violent objection to the measure. But this would not 
 answer all the projects to which the principle of this 
 bill, when once admitted, leads, and is intended to be 
 applied. The whole extent of Louisiana is to be cut up 
 into independent States, to counterbalance and to par- 
 alyze whatever there is of influence in other quarters 
 of the Union, — such a power I am well aware that the 
 people of the States would never grant you. And 
 therefore, if you get it, the only way is by the mode 
 adopted in this bill, — by usurpation. 
 
 The objection here urged is not a new one. I refer 
 with great delicacy to the course pursued by any mem- 
 ber of the other branch of the legislature ; yet I have 
 it, from such authority that I have an entire belief of 
 the fact, that our present minister in Russia,* then a 
 member of that body when the Louisiana treaty was 
 under the consideration of the Senate, although he was 
 in favor of the treaty, yet expressed great doubts, on 
 the ground of constitutionality, in relation to our con- 
 trol over the destinies of that people, and the manner 
 and the principles on which they could be admitted 
 into the Union. And it does appear that he made two 
 several motions in that body, having for their object, 
 as avowed and as gathered from their nature, an alter- 
 ation in the Constitution to enable us to comply with 
 the stipulations of that Convention. 
 
 I will add only a few words, in relation to the moral 
 
 * Mr. John Quincy Adams. 
 
220 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 and political consequences of usurping this power. I 
 have said that it would be a virtual dissolution of the 
 Union ; and gentlemen express great sensibility at the 
 expression. But the true source of terror is not the 
 declaration I have made, but the deed you propose. Is 
 there a moral principle of public law better settled, or 
 more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason, 
 than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties 
 may be considered as exempting the other from its 
 obligations ? Suppose, in private life, thirteen form a 
 partnership, and ten of them undertake to admit a new 
 partner without the concurrence of the other three, 
 would it not be at their option to abandon the partner- 
 ship after so palpable an infringement of their rights ? 
 How much more in the political partnership, where the 
 admission of new associates, without previous authority, 
 is so pregnant with obvious dangers and evils ! Again : 
 it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on 
 public law, that no person can be obliged beyond his 
 intent at the time of the contract. Now who believes, 
 who dare assert, that it was the intention of the people, 
 when they adopted this Constitution, to assign event- 
 ually to New Orleans and Louisiana a portion of their 
 political power, and to invest all the people those 
 extensive regions might hereafter contain with an 
 / authority over themselves and their descendants ? 
 When jou throw the weight of Louisiana into the scale, 
 you destroy the political equipoise contemplated at the 
 time of forming the contract. Can any man venture to 
 affirm that the people did intend such a comj^rehension 
 as you now by construction give it ? or can it be con- 
 cealed that, beyond its fair and acknowledged intent, 
 
 In 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 221 
 
 such a compact has no moral force ? If gentlemen are 
 so alarmed at the bare mention of the consequences, let 
 them abandon a measure which, sooner or later, will 
 produce them. How long before the seeds of discontent 
 will ripen no man can foretell ; but it is the part of 
 wisdom not to multiply or scatter them. Do j^ou sup- 
 pose the people of the Northern and Atlantic States 
 will or ought to look on with patience and see Repre- 
 sentatives and Senators, from the Red River and Mis- 
 souri, pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, 
 managing the concerns of a sea-board fifteen hundred 
 miles at least from their residence, and having a pre- 
 ponderancy in councils into which, constitutionally, 
 they could never have been admitted? I have no hesi- 
 tation upon this point. They neither will see it, nor 
 ought to see it, with content. It is the part of a wise 
 man to foresee danger and to hide himself. This great 
 usurpation, which creeps into this House under the 
 plausible appearance of giving content to that important 
 point. New Orleans, starts up a gigantic power to control 
 the nation. Upon the actual condition of things, there 
 is, there can be, no need of concealment. It is apparent 
 to the blindest vision. By the course of nature and 
 conformable to the acknowledged principles of the Con- 
 stitution, the sceptre of power in this country is jjassing 
 towards the North-west, Sir, there is to this no objec- 
 tion. The right belongs to that quarter of the country : 
 enjoy it. It is yours. Use the powers granted, as you 
 please ; but take care, in your haste after effectual 
 dominion, not to overload the scale by heaping it with 
 these new acquisitions. Grasp not too eagerly at 3'our 
 purpose. In your speed after uncontrolled sway, 
 
222 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF 
 
 trample not clown this Constitution. Already the old 
 States sink in the estimation of members, when brought 
 into comparison with these new countries. We have 
 been told that " New Orleans was the most important 
 point in the Union." A place, out of the Union, the 
 most important place within it ! We have been asked 
 " what are some of the small States, when compared 
 with the Mississippi Territory ? " The gentleman from 
 that territor}'- (Mr. Poindexter) spoke the other day of 
 the Mississippi as "of a high road between'' — Good 
 heavens ! between what, Mr. Speaker ? Why, " The 
 Eastern and Western States," So that all the north- 
 western territories, all the countries once the extreme 
 western boundary of our Union, are hereafter to be 
 denominated Eastern States ! 
 
 [Mr. Poindexter explained. He said that he had not 
 said that the Mississippi was to be the boundary between 
 the Eastern and Western States. He had merely 
 thrown out a hint that, in erecting new States, it might 
 be a good high road between the States on its waters. 
 His idea had not extended beyond the new States on 
 the waters of the Mississij)pi.] 
 
 I make no great point of this matter. The gentleman 
 will find in the " National Intelligencer" the terms to 
 which I refer. There will be seen, I presume, what he 
 has said, and what he has not said. The argument is 
 not aifected by the explanation. New States are in- 
 tended to be formed beyond the Mississippi. There is 
 no limit to men's imaginations, on this subject, short of 
 California and Columbia river. When I said that the 
 bill would justify a revolution and would produce it, I 
 spoke of its principle and its practical consequences. 
 
LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 223 
 
 To this principle and those consequences I would call 
 the attention of this House and nation. If it he ahout 
 to introduce a condition of things absolutely insupport- 
 able, it becomes wise and honest men to anticipate the 
 evil, and to warn and prepare the people against the 
 event. I have no hesitation on the subject. The 
 extension of this principle to the States contemplated 
 beyond the Mississippi cannot, will not, and ought not 
 to be borne. And the sooner the people contemplate 
 the unavoidable result the better, — the more chance 
 that convulsions may be prevented, the more hope that 
 the evils may be palliated or removed. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, Avhat is this liberty of which so much 
 is said ? Is it to walk about this earth, to breathe this 
 air, and to partake the common blessings of God's provi- 
 dence ? The beasts of the field and the birds of the air 
 unite with us in such privileges as these. But man 
 boasts a purer and more ethereal temperature. His 
 mind grasps in its view the past and future, as well as 
 the present. We live not for ourselves alone. That 
 which we call liberty is that principle on which the 
 essential security of our political condition depends. It 
 results from the limitations of our political system pre- 
 scribed in the Constitution. These limitations, so long 
 as they are faithfully observed, maintain order, peace, 
 and safety. When they are violated in essential par- 
 ticulars, all the concurrent spheres of authority rush 
 against each other; and disorder, derangement, and con- 
 vulsion are, sooner or later, the necessary consequences. 
 
 With respect to this love of our Union, concerning 
 ■which so much sensil)ility is expressed, I have no fear 
 about analyzing its nature. There is 'in it nothing of 
 
224 ADMISSION OF LOUISIANA AS A STATE. 
 
 mysteiy. It depends upon the qualities of that Union, 
 and it results from its effects upon our and our country's 
 happiness. It is valued for " that sober certainty of 
 waking bliss " which it enables us to realize. It grows 
 out of the affections ; and has not, and cannot be made 
 to have, any thing universal in its nature. Sir, I con- 
 fess it, the first public love of my heart is the Common- 
 wealth of Massachusetts. There is my fireside ; there 
 are the tombs of my ancestors. 
 
 " Low lies that land, yet blest witli fruitful stores, 
 Strong are her sons, tliough rocky are her shores ; 
 And none, ah ! none, so lovely to my sight, 
 Of all the lands which heaven o'erspreads with light." 
 
 The love of this Union grows out of this attachment 
 to my native soil, and is rooted in it. I cherish it, 
 because it affords the best external hope of her peace, 
 her prosperity, her independence. I oppose this bill 
 from no animosity to the people of New Orleans, but 
 from the deep conviction that it contains a principle 
 incompatible with the liberties and safety of my country. 
 I have no concealment of my opinion. The bill, if it 
 passes, is a death-blow to the Constitution. It may 
 afterwards linger ; but lingering, its fate will, at no very 
 distant period, be consummated. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE INFLUENCE OF PLACE AND 
 PATRONAGE. 
 
 Jan. 30, 1811. 
 
 15 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE INFLUENCE OF PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 Jan. 30, 1811. 
 
 [Thr following ppeecli was one of the earliest protests in our 
 history against the abuse of making the otfices under government 
 a fund for buying political support. The Marcy heresy, that 
 " to the victors belong the spoils," had not yet been broached ; 
 and compared with the flood of corruption, the gates of which 
 were opened under the disgraceful administration of General 
 Jackson, and which have not yet been closed, the stream which 
 flowed from the White House sixty years since was but a rill. 
 But little things seemed great in those days of small things, and 
 Mr. Quincy was moved to utter the following words of admoni- 
 tion and reproof, as a relief to his own mind rather than with 
 any sanguine hope of eflTecting a reformation. Though its 
 assaults and its innuendoes could not have been well-pleasing to 
 the supporters of the administration, it was listened to with 
 apparent good-humor, and its hits met with abundant laughter. 
 Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, having moved that an amend- 
 ment to the Constitution be submitted to the people, providing 
 that no Senator or Rej^resentative should be appointed to any 
 office under government until the presidential term under which 
 he had served as such should have expired, Mr. Quincy moved 
 as an amendment that "no person standing to any Senator or 
 Representative in the relation of father, brother, or son, by blood 
 or marriage, shall be appointed to any civil office under the 
 United States, or shall receive any place, agency, contract, or 
 
228 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATllONAGE. 
 
 emolument from or under any department or officer thereof." 
 After his speech was finished, Mr. Wright, of Maryland, moved, 
 by way of reductio ad absurdiim, that " every Senator and Repre- 
 sentative, on taking his seat, should furnish a table of his 
 genealogy," which he afterwards modified, on the suggestion 
 that a Senator or Representative might marry, and thus change 
 his connections, so as to read, " Each member of the Senate and 
 House, when he takes his seat, shall file a list of his relatives 
 precluded by said resolution." It need hardly be told that not 
 only tlie amendments but the Self-denying Ordinance itself failed 
 of the necessary majority. This speech was well approved by 
 the Federalists, and Mr. Quincy received many assurances of 
 approval of it. President John Adams wrote him a letter 
 couched in terms of admiration, which even filial piety cannot 
 regard as otherwise than excessive, not to say hyperbolical. He 
 writes, " I owe you thanks for your speech on Place and Patron- 
 age ; the moral and patriotic sentiments are noble and exalted, 
 the eloquence masterly, and the satire inimitable. There are 
 not in Juvenal nor in Swift any images more exquisitely ridicu- 
 lous."— Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Chairman, — The amendment to the Constitu- 
 tion proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina is 
 of the nature of a remedy for an evil. The proposition 
 which I have the honor to submit is similar in jninciple, 
 but embraces a wider sphere of action, and is offered as 
 a medicament of a higher power. His amendment has 
 for its object to purify the legislature of that corruption 
 which springs from the hope of office for ourselves. 
 My proposition has for its object to purify the legislature 
 of that corruption which springs from the attainment 
 of office for our relations ; and if the House will take 
 the trouble to analyze the respective natures of these 
 two evils, it will find that the evil to which my proposi- 
 tion refers is higher in nature and more intense in 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 229 
 
 degree than that to which the amendment of the gentle- 
 man from North Carolina has reference ; that is to sa}^ 
 the present attainment of office for our relations, for 
 those near and dear to us, Avho are parts of our blood, 
 and, if our natures be generous, parts of ourselves, 
 is an application to the principle of human action, as 
 much more strong and alluring than the distant hope of 
 office for ourselves, as fruition is a nearer approximation 
 to bliss than expectation, or as payment in hand is 
 better than payment in promise. 
 
 I shall offer a few considerations in support of my 
 proposition, not only by Avay of elucidation to this 
 House, but also for the purpose of attracting the atten- 
 tion of the pul)lic to the subject ; for I am well aware 
 that, let it be discussed when it will, and under what 
 administration it will, it cannot fail to be in this and the 
 other branch of the legislature a bitter pill ; and, unless 
 it have the aid of external pressure, it will stick in the 
 passage. 
 
 I knoAV the nature of the subject, and am aAvare that 
 it is very delicate and very critical. Why, sir, it relates 
 to nothing less than our blood and our purses, — objects, 
 of all others, the most squeamishly sensitive, and the 
 most jealous of other people's interference. It shall be 
 my endeavor, however, to handle the topic with as much 
 caution as possible ; and, in order to avoid all appearance 
 of party or personality, I shall speak concerning things 
 past and things future, without particular notice of 
 things present. 
 
 In the first place, I would remark that our general 
 mode of speaking, both on this floor and in common 
 conversation, concerning this power of distributing 
 
230 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 offices, is, in my judgment, not strictly accurate in itself, 
 and may be questioned as unjust to the President of the 
 United States. It is denominated executive influence ; 
 by way of analogy and in conformity perhaps to the 
 practice in Great Britain, where the Crown, being 
 proprietor of offices, distributes them at will among 
 favorites. But the state of things is different in this 
 country. Here the executive has no proprietary interest 
 in the offices which he distributes. He does not create 
 them ; he does not, except in a few instances, even 
 designate the amount of emolument. All these, in fact, 
 proceed from the legislature. We are the creators ; he 
 is the channel for communicating them to their objects : 
 so that if the members of this and the other branch of 
 the legislature become venal in this countr}^ they are, 
 to say the least, half workers in their own corruption. 
 A mode of expression ought not, therefore, to be used 
 tending to throw the guilt exclusively on another branch 
 of the government. Another j)hrase is more just and 
 appropriate. Sir, it ought to be called pecuniary influ- 
 ence, — the love of money wrapped up in very thin 
 covers and disguises, called offices for ourselves and 
 offices for our relations. 
 
 I shall consider the principle of this amendment and 
 proposition in relation to the Constitution, its nature 
 and necessity. 
 
 If we look into the Constitution, we shall find no part 
 more palpably defective than its provision against the 
 effects of tliat executive influence, as it is called, resulting 
 from the power of distributing offices at pleasure among 
 the members of both branches of the legislature and their 
 relations. There is, I think, but one provision upon the 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 231 
 
 subject. This is contained in the following clause of the 
 last paragraph of the sixth section of the first article : 
 " No senator or representative shall, during the time for 
 which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office 
 under the authority of the United States, which shall 
 have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall 
 have been increased, during such time." This provision, 
 I say, considered as a security against that corruption 
 which springs from the distribution of offices, is palpably 
 defective. In relation to its objects it is limited, and in 
 its means w^ants efficiency. What are its objects ? It 
 aims only to prevent multiplication of offices and in- 
 crease of their emolument ; so that, provided we do not 
 create new offices, nor increase the old emolument, the 
 craving spirit of avarice has free range to solicit and 
 corrupt both branches of the legislature. All the 
 numerous allurements of existing offices, all the rich 
 reward of established salaries, are permitted to play 
 their bewitching fascinations before our eyes. So long 
 as a man does not attempt to take the fruit of seed of 
 his own sowing, he may botanize at his pleasure in this 
 great executive garden ; and whether he seek flower or 
 fruit he ma3% to the full, please his fancy or satiate his 
 appetite. And if we consider the means, it will be 
 found that they are inadequate. There is but one 
 limitation ..." during the time for which he was 
 elected." What is this, considered as security? It is 
 scarcely less than totally inefficient. Notwithstanding 
 this provision a man may, — I say may, Mr. Chairman, for 
 I would not be understood to affirm that anj^ such creat- 
 ure now exists, or has ever heretofore appeared in this 
 or the other branch of the legislature; but I speak of 
 
232 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 the possibility of that gross and debasing corruption, 
 such as has appeared in other countries, and may, there- 
 fore, hereafter appear in this, — a man may be a mere 
 spaniel to the executive : he may fetch and carry, run 
 upon all his errands, and, at his whistle, roll himself 
 over on these floors, without regard to either coat or 
 conscience ; and on the last day of the term for which 
 he was elected, when, perhaps, he has been ejected from 
 the people's favor as foul and odious, he may, in spite of 
 this provision, be instrumental in creating an office, or 
 increasing an emolument, of which the very next day he 
 shall take the profits. Is not such a provision, consid- 
 ered as a security against corruption from the distribu- 
 tion of offices, like tantalism to this people ? I would 
 not, however, be thought to hold at a mean rate this 
 part of our Constitution. Notwithstanding its defi- 
 ciency, it is precious ; because it recognizes the possi- 
 bility of the existence of this principle of corruption in 
 this and the other branch of the legislature ; because it 
 is a standing and a solemn warning against its effects. 
 It gives us ground to stand upon, and, through the in- 
 strumentality of the power of amendment, may enable 
 this people to wrench out of this soil by the roots this 
 foul and growing pollution. 
 
 If we compare the principle of this amendment and 
 my proposition with the principles of the Constitution, 
 we shall find that it no less harmonizes with them than 
 it does with this provision of the instrument. If there 
 be a principle universally allowed by men of all parties 
 to be the basis of liberty, with the existence of which 
 it is admitted on all hands that the essence of freedom 
 is identified, it is, that the three great departments of 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 233 
 
 power — the legislative, executive, and judicial — ought 
 to be separate and distinct. The consolidation of these 
 three powers into one has been denominated '' the defini- 
 tion of despotism ; " and in proportion as these powers 
 approximate to consolidation, the spirit of despotism 
 steals over us. At the time of the adoption of this 
 instrument, it Avas an objection raised against it b}" some 
 of its most enlightened opposers, that its tendency was 
 to such a consolidation, and on this account they strove 
 to rouse the spirit of liberty ; but their anticipations 
 had chiefly reference to the forms of the Constitution, 
 and particularly to that qualified control which the 
 executive has over the acts of the legislature. They 
 anticipated not at all, or at least very obscurely, that 
 consolidation which has grown and is strengthening 
 under the influence of the office-distributing power 
 vested in the executive : a consolidation perceptible to 
 all, and which is the more fixed and inseparable, inas- 
 much as the cement is constituted of the strongest of 
 all amalgams, — that of the precious metals. This state 
 of things is not the less to be deprecated, on account of 
 the fact that the forms of the Constitution are preserved 
 while its spirit is perishing. The members of both 
 branches may meet, deliberate, and act, but the spirit 
 of independence is gone whenever the action of the 
 ■legislature is identified with the Avill of the executive 
 b}^ the potent influence of the office-hoping and the 
 office-holding charm. 
 
 With respect to the nature of this influence, I re- 
 mark that a misconception seems to be entertained^ 
 concerning it. The bare suggestion of its existence is 
 almost thought to be indecorous, because of the gross 
 
234 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 and palpable corruption in which it is supposed to con- 
 sist. It is thought to imply a sort of precontract be- 
 tween the executive and his selected favorites, — so 
 many votes for so many offices, or such an office for 
 such a term of Swiss service. Sir, nothing of this kind 
 is pretended. Such sale of conscience and duty in open 
 market is not reconcilable with the present state of civ- 
 ilized society. And they are mightily offended if there 
 be any suggestion, ever so remote, of pollution, or any 
 hint that they have been about any thing else, in their 
 transactions with the executive, than pursuing the pure 
 love of glory and their country. But the corruption of 
 which I speak, and which is the object of both the 
 amendment and proposition, is of a nature neither very 
 gross nor very barefaced. Yet on these accounts it is 
 not the less to be deprecated. On the contrary, from 
 its very insidiousness and its appearing so often almost 
 in the garb of a virtue ought it to be watched and re- 
 stricted. 
 
 Such is its nature that it corrupts the very fountain 
 of action. It springs up out of the human heart and 
 the condition of things, so that it is almost impossible 
 that it should not exist, or that it should be altogether 
 resisted. It has its origin in that love of place which is 
 so inherent in the human heart that it may be called 
 almost an universal and instinctive passion. It cannot 
 be otherwise ; for so long as the love of honor and the 
 love of profit are natural to man, so long the love of 
 place, which includes either the one or the other or 
 both, must be a very general and prevalent impulse. 
 It cannot, therefore, but be true as a general principle, 
 and it casts no reflection to admit that all meinbers 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 235 
 
 of Congress may love offices at least as well as their 
 neighbors. Now, witli the love of place there is another 
 principle concurrent in relation to members of Congress, 
 wliicli is the result of our political condition, and is this : 
 that those most desirous of places in the executive gift 
 will not expect to be gratified except through their sup- 
 port of the executive. In referring to this principle as 
 the result of our political condition, I mean to cast no 
 particuUir reflection on our present chief magistrate. It 
 grows out of the nature of political combinations. But, 
 with some highly honorable exceptions, it has been true 
 in all past, and will be true in all future administrations, 
 that the general way for members of Congress to gain 
 offices for themselves or their relations is to coincide in 
 opinion, and vote with the executive. Out of the union 
 of these two principles, the love of office and the gen- 
 eral impression that coincidence with the executive is 
 an essential condition for obtaining office, grows that 
 corruption of the very fountain of action, the purifica- 
 tion of which is the aim of both the amendment and 
 my proposition under consideration. It exists without 
 any precontract with the executive. He knows our 
 wants, without any formal specification from us ; and we 
 know his terms, without any previous statement from 
 him. The parties proceed together, mutually gratifying 
 and gratified as occasions offer, and the harmonies of the 
 happy part of the legislature and of the executive are 
 complete ; and were it not that there is a third party 
 concerned, called the people of the United States, 
 nothing would seem more pleasant or unexceptionable 
 than this partnership in official felicity. But so it is, 
 in truth, that the interests and liberties of the peo- 
 
236 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 pie, which we are sent here to consult, will not only 
 be sometimes neglected, but at others absolutely sacri- 
 ficed, while the constituted guardians are gaping after 
 offices for themselves, or hunting them up for their rela- 
 tions. The nature of the corruption is such as not only 
 easily to be concealed from the world, but also in a 
 great measure from the individual himself. And so 
 long as that free access, which is at present permitted 
 by the Constitution, is unrestrained, it will continue, 
 and may increase. On every question which arises and 
 has relation to executive measures, in addition to all the 
 other conside:rations of honor, policy, justice, propriety, 
 and the like, this also is prepared to be thrown into the 
 scale, — that if a man means to gain office he must coin- 
 cide Avith the executive. It is not possible for any man 
 to decide what degree of influence this consideration 
 has upon another, and it is nearly, if not quite, as diffi- 
 cult for him to decide what degree of influence it may 
 have upon himself. For let any man reflect upon the 
 springs of any particular course of action, which vari- 
 ous, concurrent, complex motives have induced him to 
 adopt, and he will find it very difficult to apportion to 
 each of the concurring motives the j)recise degree of 
 influence which belongs to it. And he will also find 
 that, if there be in the group one motive base, and con- 
 sequently bashful of the light, it will shrink away into 
 the deepest recesses of the heart, and there cover itself 
 over with such an accumulation of plausible, specious 
 motives, that it is beyond the power of poor human nat- 
 ure, in the ordinary strength of its moral sense, always 
 to discover it. From the liability of having the source 
 of our public actions corrupted by the infusion of such 
 
SPEECH OX PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 237 
 
 a taint, every honest mind will be solicitous to be deliv- 
 ered ; for, whether the office which allures our fancy be 
 for ourselves or for our relatives, the result is the same. 
 No man can stand up wholly independent of the hand 
 by which he hopes to be fed, or which is in the act of 
 feeding his children and relatives. Nor can any man, 
 however honest or scrupulous, placed in such situa- 
 tion, be positively certain as to his own motive, or know 
 whether in such cases his polarity Avith the executive 
 be the result of the intrinsic nature and reason of things, 
 or whether it be the effect of the influence of those 
 metallic strata which unite that executive with the 
 centre of his best affections. 
 
 With respect to the degree in which this corruption 
 has heretofore or ma}^ hereafter exist, it is impossible 
 precisely to estimate ; because the offices in the gift of 
 the executive and the departments are so numerous, are 
 extended over so wide a surface, — being for the whole 
 United States, — and the relations of members of Con- 
 gress are so little known to each other and the world, that 
 it is not to be expected that we, much less that the people, 
 should be able to trace this influence in all its ramifica- 
 tions. But one thing is certain, that it exceeds popular 
 estimation as much as it evades legislative scrutiny. 
 Why, sir, there is annually distributed from the great 
 departments an amount not less than five and a half 
 millions of dollars, and from the post-office establish- 
 ment not less than four and a half millions, making the 
 annual agf^regate of ten millions of dollars. All this 
 abundant reservoir is distributable annually to its objects, 
 in streams of various magnitudes and in ever}^ direction, 
 at the executive will. Now, we stand at the very spot 
 
238 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 when this luscious fountain overflows in all its exuber- 
 ance. Having the power, can we promise that we shall 
 refrain from turning aside to ourselves and our relatives 
 at least a full portion of these pecuniary bounties ? Is 
 it in human nature generally to practise so much stoical 
 self-denial as a contrary conduct would imply ? I have 
 said that it was impossible to prove the full extent of 
 the accommodation which we and our relatives may 
 obtain in one shape and another out of the treasury, so 
 long as such a latitude is given to our capacity to re- 
 ceive ; yet, every now and then, some evidence occurs 
 tending to give a glimpse of the amount in which the 
 transfer of public money may be made to run in partic- 
 ular directions. At this moment there lies upon our 
 tables an account of the navy agent at Baltimore, who, 
 as it appears, under the directions of the then Secretary 
 of the Navy, did purchase, in about eighteen months, of 
 a single mercantile house in that city, bills of exchange to 
 the amount of two hundred and forty thousand dollars, 
 the head of which mercantile house was and is a senator 
 of the United States, and the brother of that Secretary 
 of the Navy. In referring to this subject, I beg to be 
 understood as giving no ojoinion on that transaction, or 
 as representing it as exceptionable in its nature. I 
 adduce it with no other design than to show the extent 
 to which relations may, if they please, accommodate one 
 another, so long as no constitutional restrictions exist, 
 and the impossibility of estimating the amount and of 
 pursuing the evil into all its ramifications. 
 
 Upon this subject of offices, my sentiments may, per- 
 haps, be too refined for the present condition of human 
 nature. And I am aware, in what I am about to say, 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 239" 
 
 that I may run athwart political friends as well as 
 political foes. Such considerations as these shall not, 
 however, deter me from introducing just and high no- 
 tions of their duties to the consideration of the mem- 
 bers of the legislature. I hold, sir, the acceptance of 
 an office of mere emolument, or which is principally 
 emolument, by a member of Congress, from the execu- 
 tive, as unworthy his station, and incompatible with 
 that high sense of irreproachable character which it is 
 one of the choicest terrestrial boons of virtue to attain. 
 For while the attainment of office is to members of Con- 
 gress the consequence, solely, of coincidence with the 
 executive, he who has the office carries on his forehead 
 the mark of having fulfilled the condition. And, al- 
 though his self-love may denominate his attainment of 
 the office to be the reward of merit, the world, which 
 usually judges acutely on these matters, will denomi- 
 nate it the reward of service. And in such cases, 
 ninety-nine times in the hundred, the world will be 
 right. An exception to this rule may, perhaps, exist in 
 the cases of offices of high responsibility, to Mdiich a 
 member of Congress may be called, on account of distin- 
 guished and peculiar qualifications ; in which the voice 
 of the executive is, in truth, what it ought always to be, 
 the voice of his country. Such cases are so rare that, 
 when they exist, they make a law for themselves. They 
 are exceptions which prove, rather than invalidate, the 
 rule. For us, it is honor enough to be thus intrusted 
 with the high concerns of this people ; to be thus debat- 
 ing ; thus maintaining their liberties, or striving to 
 improve their condition. Let us put it out of our power, 
 and remove from us the temptation, to grub in the low 
 pursuits of avarice and base ambition . 
 
240 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 Such is the opmion which, in my judgment, ought to 
 be entertained of the mere acceptance of office by mem- 
 bers of Congress. But as to that other class of persons, 
 who are open, notorious sohcitors of office, they give 
 occasion to reflections of a very different nature. This 
 class of persons, in all times past, have appeared, and 
 (for I say nothing of times present), in all times future, 
 Avill appear, on this and the other floor of Congress, — 
 creatures who, under pretence of serving the people, 
 are in fact serving themselves, — creatures who, while 
 their distant constituents, good easy men, industrious, 
 frugal, and unsuspicious, dream in visions that they are 
 laboring for their country's welfare, are in truth spend- 
 ing their time mousing at the doors of the j^alace or 
 the crannies of the departments, and lajdng low snares 
 to catch, for themselves and their relations, every stray 
 office that flits by them. For such men, chosen into 
 this high and responsible trust, to whom have been con- 
 fided the precious destinies of this people, and who thus 
 openly abandon their duties, and set their places and 
 their consciences to sale, in defiance of the multiplied 
 strong and tender ties by which they are bound to their 
 country, I have no language to express my contempt. 
 I never have seen, and I never shall see, any of these 
 notorious solicitors of office for themselves or their rela- 
 tions, standing on this or the other floor, bawling and 
 bullying, or coming down with dead votes in support of 
 executive measures, but I think I see a hacknej^ labor- 
 ing for hire in a most degrading service, — a 23oor 
 earth-spirited animal, trudging in his traces, with much 
 attrition of the sides and induration of the membranes, 
 encouraged by this special certainty, that, at the end of 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 241 
 
 his journey, he shall have measured out to him his pro- 
 portion of provender. 
 
 But I have heard that the bare suggestion of such 
 corruption was a libel upon this House, and upon this 
 people. I have heard that we were, in this country, so 
 virtuous that we were above the influence of these 
 allurements ; that beyond the Atlantic, in old govern- 
 ments, such things might be suspected, but that here we 
 were too j)ure for such guilt, too innocent for such sus- 
 picions. Mr. Chairman, I shall not hesitate, in spite of 
 such poj3ular declamation, to believe and follow the evi- 
 dence of my senses and the concurrent testimonies of 
 contemporaneous beholders. I shall not, in my estima- 
 tion of character, degrade this people below, nor exalt 
 them far above, the ordinary condition of cultivated 
 humanity. And of this be assured, that every system 
 of conduct, or course of policy, which has for its basis 
 an excess of virtue in this country beyond what human 
 nature exhibits in its improved state elsewhere, will be 
 found, on trial, fallacious. Is there on this earth any 
 collection of men in which exists a more intrinsic, hearty, 
 and desperate love of office or place, particularly of fat 
 places ? Is there any country more infested than this 
 with the vermin that breed in the corruptions of power ? 
 Is there any in which place and official emolument more 
 certainly follow distinguished servility at elections, or 
 base scurrility in the press ? And as to eagerness for 
 the reward, what is the fact? Let, now, one of your 
 great office-holders, a collector of the customs, a mar- 
 shal, a commissioner of loans, a postmaster in one of 
 your cities, or any officer, agent, or factor for your ter- 
 ritories or public lands, or person holding a place of 
 
 16 
 
242 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 minor distinction, but of considerable profit, be called 
 upon to pay the last great debt of nature. The poor 
 man shall hardly be dead, he shall not be cold, long 
 before the corpse is in the coffin, the mail shall be 
 crowded, to repletion, with letters and certificates, and 
 recommendations and representations, and every species 
 of sturdy, sycophantic solicitation, by which obtrusive 
 mendicity seeks charity or invites compassion. Why, 
 sir, we hear the clamor of the craving animals, at the 
 treasury trough, here in this capital. Such running, 
 such jostling, such wriggling, such clambering over one 
 another's backs, such squealing because the tub is so 
 narrow and the company so crowded ! No, sir, let us 
 not talk of stoical apathy towards the things of the 
 national treasury, either in this people or in their Rep- 
 resentatives or Senators. 
 
 But it will be asked, for it has been asked. Shall the 
 executive be suspected of corrupting the national legis- 
 lature ? Is he not virtuous ? Without making personal 
 distinctions or references, for the sake of argument it 
 may be admitted that all executives for the time being 
 are virtuous, — reasonably virtuous, Mr. Chairman, — 
 flesh and blood notwithstanding. And without meaning, 
 in this place, to cast any j)articular reflections upon this 
 or upon any other executive, this I will say, that if no 
 additional guards are provided, and now after the spirit 
 of party has brought into so full activity the spirit of 
 patronage, there never will be a President of these 
 United States, elected by means now in use, who, if he 
 deals honestly with himself, will not be able, on quitting, 
 to address his presidential chair as John Falstaff ad- 
 dressed Prince Hal: "Before I knew thee, I knew 
 
SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 243 
 
 nothing, and now I am but little better than one of 
 the wicked." The possession of that station, under the 
 reign of party, will make a man so acquainted with the 
 corrupt principles of human conduct, he will behold our 
 nature in so hungry and shivering and craving a state, 
 and be compelled so constantly to observe the solid 
 rewards daily demanded by way of compensation for 
 outrageous patriotism, that, if he escape out of that 
 atmosphere without partaking of its corruption, he 
 must be below or above the ordinary condition of mor- 
 tal nature. Is it possible, sir, that he should remain 
 altogether uninfected? What is the fact? The Con- 
 stitution prohibits the members of this and of the other 
 branch of the legislature from being electors of the 
 President of the United States. Yet what is done ? 
 The practice of late is so prevalent as to have grown 
 almost into a sanctioned usage party. Prior to the presi- 
 dential term of four years, members of Congress, having 
 received the privileged ticket of admission, assemble 
 themselves, in a sort of electoral college, on the floor of 
 the Senate or of the House of Representatives. They 
 select a candidate for the presidency. To their voice, 
 to their influence, he is indebted for his elevation. So 
 long as this condition of things continues, what ordinary 
 executive will refuse to accommodate those who, in so 
 distinguished a manner, have accommodated him ? Is 
 there a better reason, in the world, why a man should 
 give you, Mr. Chairman, an office worth two or three 
 thousand dollars a year, for which you are qualified, 
 ,and which he could give as well as not, than this, that 
 you had been greatly instrumental in giving him one, 
 worth five and twenty thousand, for which he was 
 
244 SPEECH ON PLACE AND PATRONAGE. 
 
 equally qualified ? It is in vain to conceal it. So long 
 as the present condition of things continues, it may rea- 
 sonably be expected that there shall take place regularly, 
 between the President of the United States and a por- 
 tion of both Houses of Congress, an interchange, strictly 
 speaking, of good offices. 
 
 The principle for which I contend, and which is the 
 basis both of the original amendment and of my prop- 
 osition, is this : Put it out of the power of the executive 
 to seem to pay any of the members of Congress, by 
 putting it out of their power to receive. " Avoid the ap- 
 pearance of evil." We have been taught to pray, " Lead 
 us not into temptation." They who rightly estimate 
 their duties may find in public life no less necessity 
 than in private life frequently to repeat this aspiration. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE PROPOSITION TO REVIVE AND ENFORCE 
 THE NON-INTERCOURSE LAW AGAINST GREAT 
 BRITAIN. 
 
 Feb. 25, 1811. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE PROPOSITION TO REVIVE AND ENFORCE THE 
 NON-INTERCOURSE LAW AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Feb, 25, 1811. 
 
 [The non-intercourse with England and France which had 
 been enacted at the time of the repeal of the embargo, expired 
 by its own limitation in May, 1810. It was then enacted that 
 in case either of the belligerent powers should revoke their acts 
 hostile to American neutrality, the fact should be announced by 
 proclamation, and, unless the other belligerent should do the 
 same within three months, the non-intercourse should revive as 
 to the contumacious nation. Bonapaite, professing to be satis- 
 fied with the act of May, informed General Armstrong, the 
 American minister, that he had revoked the Berlin and Milan 
 decrees, and that the revocation would take effect on the 1st of 
 November, provided England did the same by her Orders in 
 Council. Mr. Madison, in his eagerness to escaj^e from the 
 political perplexities in wiiich he was involved, issued his procla- 
 mation on the 2d of November, declaring the non-intercourse 
 at an end, without waiting to see whether England would or 
 would not revoke her Orders in Couucil, which was the condi- 
 tion precedent of Bonaparte's revocation of his decrees. It so 
 happened that England would do nothing of the kind, so that 
 Mr. Madison had the mortification of informing the nation of 
 this fact by proclamation of the date of Feb. 2, 1811. As 
 there was some doubt as to whether non-intercourse with Eng- 
 land could be legally revived under the law of May, inasmuch 
 as the ijroclamation of November had been issued without wait- 
 
248 SPEECH ON 
 
 ing for the action of England in the premises, it was thought 
 best to re-enact non-intercourse as to her. It was on this bill that 
 Mr. Quincy made the following speech. Bonaparte, it may 
 be well to say, had not merely seized and confiscated all the 
 American ships and cargoes he could lay his hands on dur- 
 ing the non-intercourse of 1809, but continued to do so even 
 after the President's proclamation of November had arrived in 
 France ; while he utterly refused to make compensation for any 
 of his seizures. This, he vouchsafed to explain, was merely done 
 to insure our enforcement of the non-intercourse with England. 
 — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — The amendments contained in the 
 sections under consideration contemplate the continu- 
 ance and enforcement of the non-intercourse law. 
 This proj)osition presents a great, an elevated, and 
 essential topic of discussion, due to the occasion and 
 claimed by this people, which comprehend within the 
 sphere and analogies of just argument the chief of those 
 questions, the decision of which at this day involves the 
 peace, the happiness, and honor of this nation. What- 
 ever has a tendency to show that, if the system of non- 
 intercourse exist, it ought not to be continued, or that, if 
 it do not exist, it ought not to be revived ; whatever has 
 a tendency to prove that we are under no obligation to 
 persist in it, or under an obligation to abandon it, — is 
 now within the fair range of debate. 
 
 After long delay and much coy demeanor, the admin- 
 istration of this country have condescended to develop 
 their policy. Though they have not spoken to our 
 mortal ears with their fleshly tongues, yet they have 
 whispered their puiposes through the constituted organs 
 of this House ; and these are the features of the policy 
 
NON-INTEECOUESE WITH J3NGLAND. 249 
 
 which they recommend : It is proposed to grant partic- 
 ular and individual relief from anticipated oppressions 
 of the commercial restrictive system ; it is proposed to 
 perpetuate that system indefinitely, and leave our citi- 
 zens still longer subject to its embarrassments, its uncer- 
 tainty, and its terrors. The chairman of our Committee 
 of Foreign Relations [Mr. Eppes], at the time he intro- 
 duced these amendments to the House, exhibited the 
 true character of this policy, when he told us that it was 
 " modelled upon the principle not to turn over to the 
 judiciary the decision of the existence of the non-inter- 
 course law, but to make it the subject of legislative 
 declaration." In other words, it is found that the 
 majority of this House have too much policy to deny, 
 and too much principle to assert, that the fact on which, 
 and on which alone, the President of the United States 
 was authorized to issue his proclamation of the 2d of 
 November last has occurred. A scheme has, therefore, 
 been devised by which, without any embarrassment on 
 this intricate point, the continuance and enforcement of 
 non-intercourse may be insured, and toils, acceptable 
 to France, woven by the hands of our own administra- 
 tion, spread over almost the only remaining avenue of 
 our commercial hope. 
 
 The proposition contained in these amendments has 
 relation to the most momentous and most elevated of 
 our legislative obligations. We are not now about to 
 discuss the policy by which a princely pirate may be 
 persuaded to relinquish his plunder ; nor yet the expec- 
 tation entertained of relaxation in her belligerent system 
 of a haughty and perhaps jealous rival ; nor yet the faith 
 which we owe to a treacherous tyrant ; nor yet the fond 
 
250 . SPEECH ON 
 
 but frail hopes of favors from a British regency, melting 
 into our arms in the honeymoon of power. The obliga- 
 tions which claim our observance are of a nature much 
 more tender and imperious, — the obligations which, as 
 representatives, we owe to our constituents ; the alle- 
 giance by which we are bound to the American people ; 
 the obedience which is due to that solemn faith by 
 which we are pledged to protect their peace, their pros- 
 perity, and tlieir honor. All these high considerations 
 are materially connected with this policy. 
 
 It is not ray intention, Mr. Speaker, to dilate on the 
 general nature and effects of this commercial restrictive 
 system. It is no longer a matter of speculation. We 
 have no need to resort for illustration of its nature to 
 the twilight lustre of history, nor yet to the vibrating 
 brightness of the human intellect. We have experience 
 of its effects. They are above, around, and beneath us. 
 They paralyze the enterprise of your cities ; they sicken 
 the industry of your fields ; they deprive the laborer 
 and the mechanic of his employment ; they subtract 
 from the husbandman and planter the just reward 
 for that product which he has moistened with the sweat 
 of his brow ; they crush individuals in the ruins of their 
 most flattering hopes, and shake the deep-rooted fabric 
 of general prosperity. 
 
 It will, however, be necessary to say a word on the 
 general nature of this system, not so much for the pur- 
 pose of elucidating, as to clear the way, and give dis- 
 tinctness to the course of my argument. It will also be 
 useful to deprive the advocates of this system of those 
 colors and popular lures to which the}' resort on a sub-- 
 ject in no way connected with the objects with which 
 they associate it. 
 
NON-INTERCOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 251 
 
 My argument proceeds upon the assumption of the 
 irrelevancy of four topics usually adduced in support of 
 the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and of 
 March, 1809, commonly called the Non-intercourse Sys- 
 tem. I take for granted that it is not advantageous ; in 
 other words, that it is injurious ; that it is not fiscal in 
 its nature, nor protective of manufactures, nor comjDC- 
 tent to coerce either belligerent. That it is injurious is 
 certain, not only because it is deprecated by that part of 
 the community which it directly affects, but because no 
 man advocates it as a permanent system, and every one 
 declares his desire to be rid of it. Fiscal it cannot be, 
 because it prohibits commerce and consequently revenue, 
 and, by the high price and great demand for foreign 
 articles which it produces, encourages smuggling. Pro- 
 tective of manufactures it cannot be, because it is indis- 
 criminate in its provisions and uncertain in its duration ; 
 and this uncertainty depends, not on our legislative dis- 
 cretion, but on the caprice of foreign powers, — our 
 enemies or rivals. No commercial system which is in- 
 discriminate in its restrictions can be generally protec- 
 tive to manufactures. It may give a forced vivacity to 
 a few particular manufactures ; but in all countries 
 some, and in this almost all, manufactures depend either 
 for instruments or materials on foreign supply. But, if 
 this w^ere not the case, a system whose continuance 
 depended upon the will or the ever-varying policy of 
 foreign nations can never offer such an inducement to 
 the capitalist as will encourage him to make extensive 
 investments in establishments resting on such precarious 
 foundations. As to the incompetency of this system to 
 coerce either belligerent, I take that for granted, because 
 
252 SPEECH ON 
 
 no man, as far as I recollect, ever pretended it ; at least, 
 no man ever did show, by any analj-sis or detailed 
 examination of its relative effects on us and either bel- 
 ligerent, that it would necessarily coerce either out of that 
 policy which it was proposed to counteract. Embargo 
 had its friends. There were those who had a confidence 
 in its success ; but who was ever the friend of non- 
 intercourse ? Who ever pretended to believe in its 
 efficacy ? The embargo had a known origin, and the 
 features of its character were distinct. But " where 
 and what was this execrable shape, if shape it may be 
 called, which shape has none ? " We all know that the 
 non-intercourse was not the product of any prospective 
 intelligence. It was the result of the casual concurrence 
 of chaotic opinions. It was agreed upon because the 
 majority could agree upon nothing else. They who 
 introduced it abjured it ; they who advocated it did not 
 wish, and scarcely knew, its use. And now that it is 
 said to be extended over us, no man in this nation, who 
 values his reputation, will take his Bible oath that it is 
 in effectual and legal operation. There is an old riddle 
 on a coffin, which, I presume, we all learnt when we 
 were boys, that is as perfect a representation of the 
 origin, progress, and present state of this thing, called 
 non-intercourse, as is possible to be conceived. 
 
 " There was a man bespoke a thing, 
 Which when the maker home did bring, 
 That same maker did refuse it ; 
 The man that spoke for it did not use it, 
 And he who had it did not know 
 Whetlier he had it, — yea or no." 
 
 True it is that if this non-intercourse shall ever be, in 
 reality, extended over us, the similitude will fail in a 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 253 
 
 material point. The poor tenant of the coffin is igno- 
 rant of his state ; but the poor people of the United 
 States will be literally buried alive in non-intercourse, 
 and realize the grave closing on themselves and their 
 hopes with a full and cruel consciousness of all the 
 horrors of their condition. 
 
 For these reasons I put all such commonplace topics 
 out of the field of debate. This, then, is the state of 
 my argument, that as this non -intercourse system is not 
 fiscal, nor protective of manufactures, nor competent to 
 coerce, and is injurious, it ought to be abandoned, unless 
 we are bound to persist in it by imperious obligations. 
 My object will be to show that no such obligations 
 exist ; that the present is a favorable opportunity, not to 
 be suffered to escape, totally to relinquish it ; that it is 
 time to manage our own commercial concerns according 
 to our own interests, and no longer put them into the 
 keeping of those who hate or those who envy their 
 prosperity ; that we are the constituted shepherds, and 
 ought no more to transfer our custody to the wolves. 
 
 It is agreed on all sides that it is desirable to abandon 
 this commercial restrictive system ; but the advocates of 
 the measures now proposed say that we cannot abandon 
 it, because our faith is plighted. Yes, sir, our faith is 
 plighted, and that, too, to that scrupulous gentleman. 
 Napoleon, a gentleman so distinguished for his own 
 regard of faith, for his kindness and mercies towards us, 
 for angelic whiteness of moral character, for overween- 
 ing affection for the American people and their pros- 
 perity. Truly, sir, it is not to be questioned but that 
 our faith should be a perfect work towards this paragon 
 of purity. On account of our faith plighted to him, it 
 is proposed to continue this non-intercourse. 
 
254 SPEECH OF 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, we may be allowed, I presume, to 
 inquire whether any such faith be plighted. I trust we 
 are yet freemen. We are not yet so far sunk in servility 
 that we are forbidden to examine into the grounds of our 
 national obligations. Under a belief that this is per- 
 mitted, I shall enter uj)on the task, and inquire whence 
 they arise, and what is their nature. 
 
 Whence they arise is agreed. Our obligations result, 
 if any exist, under the act of May 1, 1810, called " An 
 Act concerning the commercial intercourse between 
 the United States and Great Britain and France and 
 their dependencies, and for other purposes." It remains, 
 therefore, to inquire into the character of this act, and 
 the obligations arising under its provisions. 
 
 Before, however, I proceed, I would premise that 
 while I am doubtful whether I shall obtain, I am sure 
 that the nature of my argument deserves, the favor and 
 prepossession for its success of every member in the 
 House. My object is to show that the obligation which 
 we owe to the people of the United States is a free and 
 unrestricted commerce. The object of those who advo- 
 cate these measures is to show that the obligation we 
 owe to Napoleon Bonaparte is a commerce restricted 
 and enslaved. Now, as much as our allegiance is due 
 more to the people of the United States than it is to 
 Napoleon Bonaparte, just so much ought my argument 
 to be received by an American Congress with more 
 favor and prepossession than the argument of those who 
 advocate these measures. It is my intention to make 
 my course of reasoning as precise and distinct as possi- 
 ble, because I invite scrutiny. I contend for my country 
 according to my conscientious conceptions of its best 
 
NON-INTEECOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 255 
 
 » 
 
 interests. If there be fallacy, detect it. My invitation 
 is given to generous disputants. As to your stump 
 orators, who utter low invective, and mistake it for wit, 
 and gross personality, and pass it off for argument, I 
 descend not to their level, nor recognize their power to 
 injure, nor even to offend. 
 
 Whatever obligations are incumbent upon this nation 
 in consequence of the act of the 1st of May, 1810, 
 they result from the following section: ^'- And he it fur- 
 ther enacted, That in case either Great Britain or France 
 shall, before the third day of March next, so revoke or 
 modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the 
 neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the 
 President of the United States shall declare by procla- 
 mation, and if the other nation shall not within three 
 months thereafter so revoke or modify her edicts in like 
 manner, then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, 
 eighth, ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act 
 entitled ' An Act to interdict the commercial intercourse 
 between the United States and Great Britain and France 
 and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' shall, 
 from and after the expiration of three months fiom the 
 date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have 
 full force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions, 
 colonies, and dependencies of the nation thus refusing 
 or neglecting to revoke or modify her edicts in man- 
 ner aforesaid. And the restrictions imposed by this 
 act shall, from the date of such proclamation, cease and 
 be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or 
 modifying her decrees in the manner aforesaid." 
 
 Divested of technical expression, this is the abstract 
 form of this section : It provides that a new commercial 
 
256 SPEECH ON 
 
 condition shall result on the occurrence of a specified 
 fact, which fact the President shall declare. On this 
 state of the subject, I observe that nothing in the act 
 indicates whether the object of the United States in 
 providing for this eventual commercial condition was its 
 own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, or whether it was 
 in the nature of a proffer to foreign nations. It will, 
 however, be agreed on all sides that the object was 
 either the one or the other. If the object were our 
 own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, it will not be 
 pretended that we are under any obligation to continue 
 the system ; for that which was adopted solely for either 
 of these ends may, whenever our views concerning them 
 vary, be abandoned, it being the concern of no other. 
 But it is said that the act was, in truth, a proffer to the 
 two belligerents of commerce to the obsequious nation, 
 prohibition of commerce to the contumacious nation. 
 If this were the case, I shall agree, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that it ought to be fulfilled to the full extent of 
 the terms. But, inasmuch as there is in the terms of the 
 act no indication of such a proffer, it follows that its 
 nature must arise from the circumstances of the case, 
 and that the whole of the obligation, whatever it is, 
 grows out of an honorable understanding, and nothing 
 else. As such, I admit, it should be honorably fulfilled. 
 The nature of this proffer is that of a proposition upon 
 terms. Now, what I say is, and.it is the foundation of 
 my argument, that whoever claims an honorable com- 
 pliance with such a proposition must be able to show 
 on his part an honorable acceptance and fulfilment of 
 the terms. The terms our act proposed were an act to 
 be done, an effect to be produced. The act to be done 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 257 
 
 was the revocation or modification of tlie edicts. The 
 effect to be produced was, that this revocation or modi- 
 fication should be such as that these edicts should " cease 
 to violate our neutral commerce." Now the questions 
 which result are, Has the act been done ? If done, has 
 it been so done as to amount to an honorable fulfilment 
 or acceptance of our terms ? The examination of these 
 two points will explain the real situation of these United 
 States, and the actual state of their obligations. 
 
 In considering the question whether the fact of revo- 
 cation or modification has occurred, it is unfortunate 
 that it does involve, at least in popular estimation, the 
 propriety of the proclamation, issued on the 2d of No- 
 vember last by the President of the United States. I 
 regret as much as any one that such is the state of 
 things that the question whether a foreign despot has 
 done a particular act seems necessarily to be connected 
 with the question concerning the prudence or perspicac- 
 ity with which our own Chief Magistrate has done an- 
 other act. I say in popular estimation these subjects 
 seem so connected. I do not think that, in the estima- 
 tion of wise and reflecting men, they are necessarilj^ 
 thus connected ; for the fact might not have occurred 
 precisely in the form contemplated by the act of May, 
 1810 ; and yet the President of the United States, in 
 issuing his proclamation, might be either justifiable or 
 excusable. It might be justifiable. A power intrusted 
 to a politician, to be used on the occurrence of a partic- 
 ular event, for the purpose of obtaining a particular 
 end, he may sometimes be justifiable in using in a case 
 which may not be precisely that originally contemplated. 
 It may be effectually, though not formally, the same. 
 
 17 
 
258 SPEECH ON 
 
 It may be equally efficient in attaining the end. In 
 such case a politician never will, and perhaps ought not 
 to, hesitate at taking the responsibility which arises 
 from doing the act in a case not coming within the 
 verbal scope of his authority. Thus, in the present 
 instance, the President of the United States might 
 have deemed the terms, in the letter of the Duke of 
 Cadore, such as gave a reasonable expectation of accept- 
 ance on the part of Great Britain. He has taken the 
 responsibility ; he has been deceived. Neither Great 
 Britain accepts the terms, nor France performs her en- 
 gagements. The proclamation might thus have been 
 wise, though unfortunate in its result ; and as to excuse 
 will it be said that there is nothing of the sort in this 
 case ? Why, sir, our administration saw France by 
 Napoleon's confession, over head and ears in love with 
 the American people. At such a sight as this was it 
 to be expected of flesh and blood that they should hesi- 
 tate to plunge into a sea of bliss, and indulge in joy 
 with such an amorous cyprian ? 
 
 But whether the fact has occurred on which alone 
 this proclamation could have legally issued is a material 
 inquiry, and cannot be evaded, let it reach where or 
 whom it will ; for with this is connected the essential 
 condition of this country ; on this depends the multi- 
 plied rights of our fellow-citizens, whose property has 
 been, or may be, seized or confiscated under this law ; 
 and hence result our obligations, if anj-, as is pretended, 
 exist. It is important here to observe that, according 
 to the terms of the act of May 1, 1810, the law of 
 March 1, 1809, revives on the occurrence of the fact 
 required, and not on the proclamation issued. If the 
 
NON-INTEECOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 259 
 
 fact had not occurred, the proclamation is a dead letter, 
 and no subsequent performance of the required fact by 
 either belligerent can retroact so as to give validity to the 
 previous proclamation. The course required by the act 
 of the 1st of May, 1810, unquestionably is, that the fact 
 required to be done should be precedent, in point of 
 time, to the right accruing to issue the proclamation ; 
 and of consequence that by no construction can any 
 subsequent performance of the fact required operate 
 backward to supjDort a proclamation issued previous to 
 the occurrence of that fact. Whenever this fact is really 
 done, a new proclamation is required to comply with the 
 provisions of the act, and to give efficacy to them. I 
 am the more particular, in referring to this necessary 
 construction resulting from the terms of the act of the 
 1st of May last, because it is very obvious that a differ- 
 ent opinion did, until very lately, and probably does 
 now, prevail on this floor. We all recollect Avhat a 
 state of depression the conduct of Bonaparte, in seizing 
 our vessels subsequent to the 1st of November, pro- 
 duced as soon as it was known in this House, and what 
 a sudden joy was lighted up in it when the news of the 
 arrival of a French minister was communicated. Great 
 hopes were entertained and expressed that he would 
 bring some formal revocation of his edicts or disavowal 
 of the seizures, which might retroact and support the 
 proclamation. It was confidently expected that some 
 explanation, at least, of these outrages would be con- 
 tained in his portmanteau ; that, under his powder-puff 
 or in his snuff-box, some dust would be found to throw 
 into the eyes of the American people, which might so 
 far blind the sense as to induce them to acquiesce in the 
 
260 SPEECH ON 
 
 enforcement of the non-intercourse, without any very- 
 scrupulous scrutiny into the performance of the condi- 
 tions by Bonaparte. But, alas, sir ! the minister is as 
 parsimonious as his master is voracious. He has not 
 condescended to extend one particle, not one pinch, of 
 comfort to the administration. From any thing in the 
 messages of our President, it would not be so much as 
 known that such a blessed vision as was this new envoy 
 had saluted his eyes. His communications preserve an 
 ominous silence on the topic. Administration, after all 
 their hopes, have been compelled to resort to the old 
 specific, and have caused to be tipped up on our tables a 
 cart-load of sand, grit, and sawdust, from our meta- 
 physical mechanic, who see-saws at St. James as they 
 pull the wire here in Washington. Yes, sir : a letter, 
 written on the tenth day of December last by our min- 
 ister in London, is seriously introduced, to prove by ab- 
 stract reasoning that the Berlin and Milan decrees had 
 ceased to exist on the first of the preceding November, 
 of whose existence, as late as the 25th of last December, 
 we have, as far as tlie nature of things permit, ocular, 
 auricular, and tangible demonstration. And the people 
 of this country are invited to believe the logic of Mr. 
 Pinkney, in the face of the fact of a continued seizure 
 of all the vessels which came within the grasp of the 
 French custom-house, from the 1st of November down 
 to the date of our last accounts ; and in defiance of the 
 declaration of our charge -d'affaires^ made on the 10th 
 of December, that " it will not be pretended that the 
 decrees have, in fact, been revoked ; " and in utter dis- 
 credit of the allegation of the Duke of Massa, made 
 on the 25th of the same month, which in effect declares 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 261 
 
 the Berlin and Milan decrees exist, by declaring " that 
 they sluiU remain suspended." After such evidence as 
 this the question whether a revocation or modification of 
 the edicts of France has so occurred " as that they cease 
 to violate the neutral commerce of the United States " 
 does no longer depend upon the subtleties of syllogistic 
 skill, nor is to be disproved by any power of logical 
 illation. It is an affair of sense and feeling. And our 
 citizens — whose property has been since the 1st of 
 November uniformly seized, and of which they are avow- 
 edl}' to be deprived three months, and which is then 
 only to be returned to them on the condition of good 
 behavior — may as soon be made to believe by the teach- 
 ing philosophy that their rights are not violated, as a 
 wretch writhing under the lash of the executioner might 
 be made by a course of reasoning to believe that the 
 natural state of his flesh was not violated, and that his 
 shoulders, out of which blood was flowing at every 
 stroke, were in the quiet enjoyment of cuticular ease. 
 
 Whether the revocation expressed in the letter of the 
 Duke of Cadore was absolute or conditional, or whether 
 the conditions were precedent or subsequent, in the 
 present state of our evidence it seems scarcely important 
 to inquire. Yet the construction of that celebrated pas- 
 sage in his letter of the 6th of August has been, as far 
 as I have ever seen, given so much in the manner of 
 lawyers and so little in that of statesmen, that it deserves 
 a short elucidation. All the illustration of that letter 
 in the documents is drawn from the form and the force 
 of its technical expressions, — how much the words, " it 
 being understood that," in their particular position, are 
 worth ; and whether they have the efl"ect of a condition 
 
262 SPEECH ON 
 
 precedent or of a condition subsequent. A statesman 
 will look at the terms contained in that letter in a dif- 
 ferent aspect, — not for the jjurpose of ascertaining how 
 much a court of law might be able to make of them, but 
 to discern in what position of language the writer in- 
 tended to intrench himself, and to penetrate his real 
 policy, notwithstanding the veil in which he chose to 
 envelop it. He will consider the letter in connection 
 with the general course of French policy, and the par- 
 ticular circumstances which produced it. By these 
 lights, it is scarcely possible to mistake the character 
 and true construction of these expressions. Upon recur- 
 ring to the Berlin and Milan decrees, it will be found 
 that they contain a solemn pledge that " they shall con- 
 tinue to be vigorously in force, as long as that (the 
 English)- government does not return to the principle of 
 the law of nations." Their determination to support 
 this pledge the French government has uniformly and 
 undeviatingly declared. They have told us constantly 
 that they required a previous revocation on the part of 
 Great Britain as the condition of their rescinding those 
 edicts. The question, who should first revoke their 
 edicts, had come to be, notoriously, a sort of point of 
 honor between the two belligerents. Perfectly ac- 
 quainted with this state of things, we have been perpet- 
 ually negotiating between the one and the other, and 
 contending with each that it was his duty previously to 
 revoke. At length, the French government — either 
 tired with our solicitations, or, more probably, seeing 
 their own advantage in our anxiety to get rid of these 
 decrees, which yet, as an essential part of its continental 
 S3'stem of total commercial exclusion, it never intended 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. , 263 
 
 to abandon — devised this scheme of policy, which has 
 been the source of so much contest, and has puzzled all 
 the metaph3'sicians in England and the United States. 
 Cadore is directed to say to Mr. Armstrong, " In this 
 new stale of things, I am authorized to declare to you 
 sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, 
 and that, after the 1st of November, they will cease to 
 have effect ; it being understood that, in consequence of 
 this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in 
 Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade 
 which they have wished to establish ; or that the 
 United States, conformably to the act you have just 
 communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected 
 by the English." In this curious gallimaufry of time 
 present and time future, of doing and refraining to do, 
 of declaration and understanding, of English duties and 
 American duties, it is easy to trace the design and see 
 its adaptation to the past and present polic}^ of the French 
 Emperor. The time present was used, because the act 
 of the United States required that previously to procla- 
 mation the edicts " shall be " revoked. And this is the 
 mighty mystery of time present being used in express- 
 ing an act intended to be done in time future. For if, 
 as the order of time and the state of intention indicated, 
 time future had been used, and the letter of Cadore 
 had said the decrees shall be revoked on the 1st of 
 November next, then the proclamation could not be 
 issued, because the President would be obliged to wait 
 to have evidence that the act had been effectually done. 
 Now, as the French Emperor never intended that it 
 should be effectuated, and yet meant to have all the 
 advantage of an effectual deed without performing it, 
 
264 SPEECH ON 
 
 this notable scheme was invented. And, by French 
 finesse and American acquiescence, a thing is considered 
 as eifectually done if the declaration that it is done be 
 made in language of time present, notwithstanding the 
 time of performance is in the same breath declared to 
 be in time future. Having thus secured the concur- 
 rence of the American administration, the next part of 
 the scheme was so to arrange the expression that either 
 the British government should not accede, or, if it did 
 accede, that it should secure to France the point of 
 honor, — a previous revocation by the British ; and, if 
 they did not accede, that there should be a color for 
 seizures and sequestrations, and thus still farther to 
 bind the Americans over to their good behavior. All 
 this is attained by this well-devised expression, " It 
 being understood that, in consequence of this declara- 
 tion, the English shall revoke." Now Great Britain 
 either would accede to the terms, or she would not. 
 If she did, and did it, as the terms required, in conse- 
 quence of this declaration, then it must be done previous 
 to the 1st of November, and then the point of honor 
 was saved to France ; so that thus France by a revoca- 
 tion verbally present, effectually future, would attain 
 an effectual, previous revocation from the English. 
 But if, as France expected, Great Britain would not 
 trust in such paper security, and therefore not revoke 
 previously to the 1st of November, then an apology 
 might be found for France to justify her in refusing to 
 effectuate that present, future, absolute, conditional 
 revocation. And if ever the Duke of Cadore shall con- 
 descend, which, it is probable he never will, to reason 
 with our government on the subject, he may tell them 
 
NON-INTERCOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 265 
 
 that they knew that the French Emperor had issued 
 tliose decrees, upon the pledge that they AA^ere to con- 
 tinue until the British abandoned their maritime prin- 
 ciples ; that he told us, over and over and over again, 
 tliat previous revocation by the British Avas absolutely 
 required : that for the purpose of putting to trial the 
 sincerity of the British, he had indeed declared that the 
 French decrees " are revoked " on the first day of 
 November ensuing, but then it Avas on the expressed 
 condition that in consequence of that declaration, — not 
 of the revocation, but of that declaration, — the British 
 Avere to revoke, and, if they did not, the " understand- 
 ing " AA^as not realized, and his rights of enforcing his 
 S3'stera remained to him. And I confess I do not Avell 
 see AAdiat answer can be made to such an argument. 
 Let us examine the case in common life. You, Mr. 
 Speaker, have tAvo separate tracts of land, each lying 
 behind the farms of A and B, so that you cannot get 
 to one of the tracts without going over the farm of A, 
 nor to the other tract without going over the farm of B. 
 For some cause or other, both A and B have a mutual 
 interest that you should enjoy the right of passage to 
 your tract over the farm of each respectivel}'. A and 
 B get into quarrels and wish to invoh'e you in the dis- 
 pute. You keep aloof, but are perpetually negotiating 
 AA'ith each for your old right of passage-way, and telling 
 each that it is owing to him that the other prohibits 
 your enjoyment of it. At last A says, " Come. We 
 Avill put this B to trial. I, on this fifth day of August, 
 declare my prohibitions of passage-Avay are revoked, 
 and after the first day of November my prohibitions 
 shall cease to haA^e effect ; but it is understood that B, 
 
266 SPEECH ON 
 
 ill consequence of this declaration, shall also revoke his 
 prohibition of passage-way." If B refuses, does A, 
 under the circumstances of such a declaration, violate 
 any obligation should he refuse to permit the passage ? 
 Might not A urge, with great color and force of argu- 
 ment, that this arrangement was the effect of your 
 solicitation and assurance that B would be tempted 
 by such a proffer, and that the revocation of B was re- 
 quired, by the terms, to be the consequence of A's decla- 
 ration, for the ver}" purpose of indicating that it must 
 be anterior to the fact of A's effectual revocation. But, 
 let this be as it will, suppose that you, on the 1st of 
 November, in consequence of A's assurances, had sent 
 your servants and teams to bring home your products, 
 and A should seize your oxen and teams and products, 
 and drive your servants, after having stripped them, 
 from his farm, and should tell you that he should keep 
 this, and all other property of yours on which he can 
 lay his hands, for three months, and then he should 
 restore it to you or not as he saw fit, according to his 
 opinion of your good behavior, — I ask if, in any sense, 
 you could truly say that on the first day of November 
 the prohibitions or edicts of A were so revoked that 
 they ceased to violate your liberty of passage. Sir, 
 when viewed in relation to common life, the idea is 
 so absurd that it would be absolutelj' insulting to ask 
 the question. I refer the decision of so simple a case 
 to the sound sense of the American peoj^le, and not to 
 that of ' scurvy politicians, who seem to see the things 
 they do not.' In a condensed form my argument is this. 
 From a revocation merely verbal, no obligations result. 
 By tlie terms of our act the revocation must be effectual, 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 267 
 
 " SO as the edict shall cease to violate our rights." Now 
 the simple question is, whether an uniform seizure, since 
 the 1st of November, under those edicts (for none other 
 are pretended) of all their property, and holding it for 
 three months to see how they will behave, be or be 
 not a violation of the rights of the American people. 
 In relation to the revival by a formal declaration of the 
 non-intercourse system, as is proposed in one of these 
 sections, I offer this argtnnent. Either the fact on 
 which the President's proclamation coujd alone have 
 been issued has occurred, or it has not. If it have 
 occurred, then the law of March, 1809, is revived, and 
 this provision for its revival by a declarative law is 
 unnecessary. If it have not occurred, then there is no 
 obligation to revive it, for alone on the occurrence of 
 the specified fact does our obligation depend. In such 
 case the revival by declaration is a mere gratuity to 
 Napoleon. This is, in fact, the true character of the 
 law. As to the provisions for relief of our merchants 
 against anticipated seizure, I hold them scarcely deserv- 
 ing consideration. Heaven be praised ! we have inde- 
 pendent tribunals and intelligent juries. Our judges 
 are not corrupt, and our yeomanry will not be swayed, 
 in their decisions, by the hope of presidential favors, 
 nor be guided by party influence. The harpies of 3'our 
 custom-house dare as soon eat off their own claws, as 
 thrust them in the present state of the law of March, 
 1809, into the fatness of their fellow-citizens. The 
 timorous and light-shunning herd of spies and informers 
 have too much instinct to pounce on such a prey. 
 
 But, in order to cause any obligation to result under 
 the law of May 1, 1810, it is necessary, not only that 
 
268 SPEECH ON 
 
 the fact required be done, and the effect required pro- 
 duced, but also the terms of that act must be accepted. 
 The proffer we made, if such be the character of that 
 act, was only to revive the non-intercourse law against 
 the contumacious belligerent, after three months had 
 expired from the date of the proclamation. Now it is 
 remarkable that, so far from accepting the terms of the 
 proposition contained in our act as the extent of our 
 obligations, Bonaparte expressly tells us that he under- 
 stands that they mean something else ; and something, 
 too, that no man in this House will dare to aver they 
 reall}- intend. It is also remarkable that the terms of 
 this celebrated letter from the Duke of Cadore, of the 
 5th of August, which have been represented as a relax- 
 ation in the rigor of the French Emperor's policy, are in 
 fact something worse than the original terms of the 
 Milan decree, and that, instead of having obtained a 
 boon from a friend in this boasted letter, our adminis- 
 tration have only caught a gripe from a Tartar. By the 
 terms of the Milan decree, it was to " cease with respect 
 to all nations who compelled the English to respect their 
 flag." By the terms of the letter of Cadore, it was to 
 cease on condition that the United States " cause their 
 rights to be respected." Now, as much as an obligation 
 of an indefinite extent is worse than a definite obliga- 
 tion, just so much worse are the terms of the letter of 
 Cadore than the original terms of the Milan decree. 
 Mr. Speaker, let us not be deceived concerning the policy 
 of the French Emperor. It is stern, unrelenting, and 
 unrelaxing. So far from any deviation from his original 
 system being indicated in this letter of the Duke of Cadore, 
 a strict adherence to it is formally and carefully expressed. 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 269 
 
 Ever since the commencement of " his continental sys- 
 tem," as it is called, the policy of Napoleon has uniformly 
 been to oblige the United States to effectual co-opera- 
 tion in that system. As early as the 7th of October, 
 1807, his minister, Champagny, wrote to General Arm- 
 strong that the interests of all maritime powers were 
 common to unite in support of their rights against Eng- 
 land. After this followed the embargo which co-oper- 
 ated effectually, at the very critical moment, in his great 
 plan of continental commercial restriction. On the 24th 
 of the ensuing November, he resorts to the same lan- 
 guage, " In violating the rights of all nations, England 
 has united them all by a common interest, and it is for 
 them to have recourse to force against her." He then 
 proceeds to invite the United States to take with the 
 whole continent the part of guaranteeing itself from her 
 injustice," and "in forcing her to a peace." On the 
 15th of January, 1808, he is somewhat more pointed and 
 positive as to our efficient concurrence in his plan of 
 policy. For his minister, Champagny, then tells us that 
 " his Majest}^ has no doubt of a declaration of war 
 against England by the United States," and he then 
 proceeds to take the trouble of declaring war out of our 
 hands, and volunteers his services gratuitously to declare 
 it in our name and behalf. " War exists, then, in fact 
 between England and the United States ; and his Maj- 
 esty considers it as declared from the day on which 
 England published her decrees." And, in order to 
 make assurance doubly sure, he sequesters our vessels 
 in his ports " until a decision may be had on the dis- 
 positions to be expressed by the United States " on his 
 proposition of considering themselves " associated in the 
 
270 SPEECH ON 
 
 cause of all the powers " against England. Now in all 
 this there is no deception, and can be no mistake, as to 
 the purpose of his policy. He tells us, as plain as lan- 
 guage can speak, that " by causing our rights to be re- 
 spected," he means war, on his side, against Great 
 Britain ; that " our interests are common ; " that he con- 
 siders us already " associates in the war ; " and that he 
 sequesters our propert}^ by way of security for our dis- 
 positions. This is his old policy. I pray some gentle- 
 man on the other side of the House to point out in what 
 it differs from the new. The letter of Cadore on the 
 5th of August tells us it is expected that we " cause 
 our rights to be respected in conformity to our act," 
 and the same letter also tells us what he understands to 
 be the meaning of our act, — "In short Congress en- 
 gages to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent 
 powers which shall refuse to acknowledge the rights of 
 neutrals." In other words, " by causing our rights to 
 be respected " he means war on his side against Great 
 Britain. In perfect conformity with this uniform, unde- 
 viating policy, his minister, Turreau, tells our govern- 
 ment, in his letter of the 28th of November last, that 
 " the modifications to be given to the present absolute 
 exclusion of our products will not depend upon the 
 chance of events, but will be the result of measures, 
 firm and pursued with perseverance, Avhich the two 
 governments will continue to adopt, to withdraw, from 
 the monopoly and from the vexations of the common 
 enemy, a commerce loyal and necessary to France, as 
 well as the United States." And to the end that no 
 one feature of his policy should be changed, or even 
 appear to be relaxed, his Excellency the Duke of Massa, 
 
NON-TNTERCOUESE WITH ENGLAND. 271 
 
 and his Excellency the Duke of Gaetta, m then- respec- 
 tive letters of the 25th of December, declare that the 
 property taken shall be " only sequestered until the 
 United States have fulfilled their engagements to cause 
 their rights to be respected." Now, JNIr. Speaker, is 
 there a man in this House bold enough to maintain, or 
 with capacity enough to point out, any material varia- 
 tion between the policy of France to this country sub- 
 sequent to the Cadore letter of the 5th of August, and 
 its policy anterior to that period. The character of the 
 policy is one and indivisible. Bonaparte has not yielded 
 one inch to our administration. Now, as he has neither 
 performed the act required by the law of May, 1810 ; 
 nor produced the effect ; nor accepted the terms it pro- 
 posed, — whence arise our obligations? How is our 
 faith plighted ? In what way are we bound again to 
 launch our country into this dark sea of restrictions, 
 surrounded on all sides with perils and penalties ? 
 
 The true nature of this Cadore policy is alone to be 
 discovered in the character of his master. Napoleon is 
 an universal genius. " He can exchange shapes with 
 Proteus to advantage." He hesitates at no means, and 
 commands every skill. He toys with the weak ; he 
 tampers with the mean ; he browbeats the haught}* ; 
 with the cunning, he is a serpent ; for the courageous, 
 he has teeth and talons ; for the cowering, he has hoofs. 
 He found our administration a pen-and-ink gentry, — 
 parchment politicians ; and he has laid, for these ephem- 
 eral essences, a paper fly-trap dipped in French honey. 
 Hercules, finding that he could not reach our adminis- 
 tration with his club, and that they were out of their 
 wits at the sight of his lion's skin, has condescended to 
 
272 SPEECH ON 
 
 meet them in petticoats, and conquer them, spinning at 
 their own distaff. 
 
 As to those who, after the evidence now in our hands, 
 deny that the decrees exist, I can no more reason with 
 them than with those who should deny the sun to be in 
 the firmament at noon-day. The decrees revoked ! 
 The formal statute act of a despot revoked by the breath 
 of his servile minister, uttered on conditions not per- 
 formed by Great Britain ; and claiming terms, not in- 
 tended to be performed by us ! The fatness of our 
 commerce secure, when every wind of heaven is bur- 
 dened with the sighs of our suffering seamen, and the 
 coast of the whole continent heaped with the plunder of 
 our merchants ! The den of the tiger safe, yet the 
 tracks of those who enter it are innumerable, and not a 
 trace is to be seen of a returning footstep ! The den of 
 the tiger safe, while the cry of the mangled victims are 
 heard through the adamantine walls of his cave, — cries 
 which despair and anguish utter, and which despotism 
 itself cannot stifle ! 
 
 No, Mr. Speaker, let us speak the truth. The act 
 now proposed is required by no obligation. It is wholly 
 gratuitous, Call it, then, by its proper name, — the 
 first fruit of French allegiance ; a token of transatlantic 
 submission : any thing except an act of an American 
 Congress, the representatives of freemen. 
 
 The present is the most favorable moment for the 
 abandonment of these restrictions, unless a settled co- 
 operation with the French continental system be deter- 
 mined. We have tendered the provisions of this act to 
 both belligerents. Both have accepted. Both, as prin- 
 cipals or by their agents, have deceived us. 
 
NON-INTERCOURSE WITH ENGLAND. 273 
 
 We talk of the edicts of George the Third and of 
 Napoleon. Yet those of the President of the United 
 States, under your law, are far more detestable to your 
 merchants. Their edicts plunder the rich : his make 
 those who are poor still poorer. Their decrees attack 
 the extremities : his proclamation fixes upon the vitals, 
 and checks the action of the seat of commercial life. 
 
 I know that great hopes are entertained of relief from 
 the proposed law by the prospect of a British regency. 
 Between a mad monarch and a simpering successor, it 
 is expected that the whole system of that nation will be 
 abandoned. Let gentlemen beware, and not calculate 
 too certainly on the fulfilment by men in power of pro- 
 fessions made out of it. The majority need not go out 
 of our own country, nor beyond their own practice, to 
 be convinced how easily in such cases proud promises 
 may eventuate in meagre performance. 
 
 The whole bearing of my argument is to this point. 
 It is time to take our own rights into our own keeping. 
 It is time, if we will not protect, to refrain from ham- 
 pering by our own acts, the commerce of our country. 
 Put your merchants no longer under the guardianship 
 and caprice of foreign powers. Punish not, at the insti- 
 gation of foreigners, your own citizens for following 
 their righteous callings. We owe nothing to France. 
 We owe nothing to Great Britain. We owe every thing 
 to the American people. Let us show ourselves really 
 independent ; and look to a grateful, a powerful, and 
 then united, people for support against every aggressor. 
 
 18 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE PAY OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. 
 Jan. 5, 1813. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE PAY OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. 
 Jan. 5, 1813. 
 
 [This speech would be more correctly entitled one on the 
 Enlistment of Minors, — one clause of the bill authorizing the 
 enlistment of minors and apprentices without the previous consent 
 of parents, masters, and guardians. It greatly exasperated the 
 adrhinistratiou members, and called down on Mr. Quincy's head 
 the bitterest personalities and the most furious rage that had ever 
 yet been visited upon him. It was denounced as "a foul and 
 atrocious libel " and an " atrocious falsehood." None of these 
 things, however, moved his constant soul ; and he had the satis- 
 faction of knowing that the objectionable clause was struck out 
 by the Senate, after it had passed the House, mainly through 
 the influence of this speech. Only four Senators voted for it. 
 — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I am sensible that I owe an apology 
 for addressing you at so early a period of the session, 
 and so soon after taking my seat, if not to the House, 
 at least to my particular constituents. It is well known 
 to them, at least to very many of them, for I have taken 
 no pains to conceal the intention, that I came to this 
 session of Congress, with a settled determination to 
 take no part in the deliberations of the House. I had 
 adopted this resolution, not so much from a sense of 
 
278 SPEECH ON- THE 
 
 self-respect as of public duty. Seven j-ears' experience 
 in the business of this House has convinced me that 
 from this side of the House all argument is hopeless ; 
 that, whatever a majority has determined to do, it will 
 do, in spite of any moral suggestion or any illustration 
 made in this quarter. Whether it be from the nature 
 of man, or whether it be from the particular provisions 
 of our Constitution, I know not, but the experience of 
 my political life has perfectly convinced me of this fact, 
 that the will of the cabinet is the law of the land. 
 Under these impressions, I have felt it my duty not to 
 deceive my constituents, and had therefore resolved by 
 no act or expression of mine in any way to countenance 
 the belief that any representation I could make on this 
 floor could be useful to them, or that I could serve them 
 any farther than by a silent vote. Even now, sir, it is 
 not my intention to enter into this discussion. I shall 
 present you my thoughts, rather by way of protest than 
 of argument. And I shall not trouble myself afterwards 
 with any cavils that may be made ; neither by whom, 
 nor in what manner. 
 
 I should not have deviated from the resolution of 
 which I have spoken, were it not for what appears to 
 me the atrocity of the principle and the magnitude of 
 the mischief contained in the provisions of this bill. 
 When I speak of the principle as atrocious, I beg dis- 
 tinctly to be understood as not impeaching the motives 
 of any gentlemen, or representing them as advocating 
 an atrocious principle. I speak only of the manner in 
 which the object presents itself to my moral view. 
 
 It is the principle contained in the third section of 
 the bill of which I speak. That section provides that 
 
ENLISTMENT OF MINORS. 279 
 
 " every person above the age of eighteen j^ears, who 
 shall be enlisted by any officer, shall be held in the ser- 
 vice of the United States during the period of such 
 enlistment, any thing in any act to the contrary not- 
 withstanding." The nature of this provision is apparent ; 
 its tendency is not denied. It is to seduce minors of all 
 descriptions — be they wards, apprentices, or children — 
 from the service of their guardians, masters, and parents. 
 On this principle I rest my objection to the bill. I 
 meddle not with the nature of the war. Nor is it 
 because I am hostile to this war, both in its jorinciple 
 and its conduct, that I at present make any objection 
 to the provisions of tlie bill. I say nothing against its 
 waste of public money. If eight dollars a month for 
 the private be not enough, take sixteen dollars. If that 
 be not enough, take twenty. Economy is not my diffi- 
 culty. Nor do I think much of that objection of which 
 my honorable friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor) 
 seemed to think a great deal, — the liberation of debtors 
 from their obligations. So far as relates to the present 
 argument, without any objection from me, you may 
 take what temptations j^ou please, and apply them to 
 the ordinary haunts for enlistment, — clear the jails ; 
 exhaust the brothel ; make a desert of the tippling 
 shop ; lay what snares you please for overgrown vice, 
 for lunacy which is of full age and idiocy out of its 
 time. But here stop. Touch not private right; regard 
 the sacred ties of guardian and master ; corrupt not 
 our youth ; listen to the necessities of our mechanics 
 and manufacturers ; have compassion for the tears of 
 parents. 
 
 In order to give a clear view of ray subject, I shall 
 
280 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 consider it under three aspects. Its absurdity, its in- 
 equality, its immorality. In remarking on the absurdity 
 of this principle, it is necessary to recur to that part of 
 the message of the President of the United States, at 
 the opening of the present session of Congress, which 
 introduced the objects proposed in this bill to the con- 
 sideration of the House, and to observe the strange and 
 left-lianded conclusions it contains. The paragraph to 
 which I allude is the following : — 
 
 " With a view to that vigorous prosecution of the war 
 to which our national faculties are adequate, the atten- 
 tion of Congress will be particularly drawn to the insuf- 
 ficiency of existing provisions for filling up the military 
 establishment. Such is the happy condition of our 
 country arising from the facility of subsistence and the 
 high wages for every species of occupation that, not- 
 withstanding the augmented inducements provided at 
 the last session, a partial success only has attended 
 the recruiting service. The deficiency has been neces- 
 sarily supplied during the campaign by other than reg- 
 ular troops, with all the inconveniences and expense 
 incident to them. The remedy lies in establishing more 
 favorably for the private soldier the proportion between 
 his recompense and the term of enlistment. And it is 
 a subject which cannot too soon, or too seriously, be 
 taken into consideration." 
 
 Mr. Speaker, what a picture of felicity has the Presi- 
 dent of the United States here drawn in describing the 
 situation of the yeomanry of this country ? Their con- 
 dition happy, subsistence easy, wages high, full employ- 
 ment, — to such favored beings, what would be the 
 suggestions of love truly parental ? Surely that so much 
 
ENLISTMENT OF MINOKS. 281 
 
 happiness should not be put at hazard, that innocence 
 should not be tempted to scenes of guilt, that the 
 prospering ploughshare should not be exchanged for 
 the sword. Such would be the lessons of parental 
 love. And such will always be the lessons which a 
 President of the United States will teach in such a state 
 of things, whenever a father of his country is at the head 
 of the nation. Alas, Mr. Speaker, how different is this 
 message ! The burden of the thought is, how to decoy 
 the happy yeoman from home, from peace and pros- 
 perity, to scenes of blood, how to bait the man-trap ; 
 what inducements shall be held forth to avarice which 
 neither virtue nor habit nor wise influences can resist. 
 But this is not the whole. Our children are to be 
 seduced from their parents. Apprentices are invited 
 to abandon their masters. A legislative sanction is 
 offered to perfidy and treachery. Bounty and wages 
 to filial disobedience. Such are the moral means, by 
 which a war, not of defence or of necessity, but of pride 
 and ambition, should be prosecuted, — fit means to 
 such end ! 
 
 The absurdity of this bill consists in this, — in sup- 
 posing these provisions to be the remedy for the evil of 
 which the President complains. The difficult};^ is that 
 men cannot be enlisted. The remedy proposed is, more 
 money, and legislative liberty to corrupt our youth. 
 And how is this proved to be a remedy ? Why, it has 
 been told us, on the other side of the House, that this 
 is just the thing they do in France ; that the age 
 between eighteen and twenty-one is the best age to 
 make soldiers ; that it is the most favorite age in Bona- 
 parte's conscription. Well, sir, what then ? Are we in 
 
282 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 France? Is Napoleon our King? or is he the President 
 of the United States ? The style in which this example 
 has been urged on the House recalls to my recollection, 
 very strongly, a caricature print which was much circu- 
 lated in the early period of our revolutionary war. The 
 picture represented America as a hale youth, about eigh- 
 teen or twenty-one, with a huge purse in his pocket. 
 Lord North, with a pistol at his breast, was saying, 
 " Deliver your money." George III., pointing at the 
 young man and speaking to Lord North, said, " I give 
 you that man's money for my use." Behind the whole 
 group was a Frenchman capering, rubbing his hands for 
 joy, and exclaiming, " Begar, just so in France." Now, 
 Mr. Speaker, I have no manner of doubt that the day 
 that this act passes, and the whole class of our Northern 
 youth is made subject to the bribes of your recruiting 
 officers, that there will be thousands of Frenchmen in 
 these United States capering, rubbing their hands for 
 joy, and exclaiming, " Begar, just so in France." Sir, 
 the great mistake of tliis whole project lies in this, — 
 that French maxims are applied to American States. 
 Now, it ought never to be lost sight of by legislators in 
 this country that the people of it are not and never can 
 be Frenchmen ; and, on the contrary ; that they are, 
 and can never be any thing else than. Freemen. 
 
 The true source of the absurdity of this bill is a mis- 
 take in the nature of the evil. The President of the 
 United States tells us that the administration have not 
 sufficient men for their armies. The reason is, he adds, 
 the want of pecuniary motive. In this lies the error. 
 It is not pecuniary motive that is wanting to fill your 
 armies ; it is moral motive in which you are deficient. 
 
ENLISTMENT OF IMINORS. 283 
 
 Sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist among the 
 happy and Avise yeomanry of New England in relation 
 to the principle and necessity of this war, there is very 
 little or at least much less diversity of sentiment con- 
 cerning the invasion of Canada as a means of prosecuting 
 it. They do not want Canada as an ohject of ambition. 
 They do not want it as an object of plunder. They see 
 no imaginable connection between the conquest of that 
 province, and the attainment of those commercial rights 
 which were the pretended objects of the war. On the 
 contrary, they see, and very plainly too, that if our 
 cabinet be gratified in the object of its ambition, and 
 Canada become a conquered province, that an apology 
 is immediately given for extending and maintaining in 
 that country a large military force under pretence of 
 preserving the conquered territories ; really, with a view 
 to overawe the adjoining States. With this view of that 
 project, the yeomanry of New England want that moral 
 motive which will alone, in that country, fill your armies 
 with men worthy enlisting. They have no desire to be 
 the tools of the ambition of any man or any set of men. 
 Schemes of conquest have no charms for them. 
 
 Abandon your projects of invasion ; throw your 
 shield over the seaboard and the frontier ; awe into 
 silence the Indians in your territory ; fortify your cities ; 
 take the shackles from your commerce ; give us ships 
 and seamen ; and show the people of this country a 
 wise object of warfare, and there will be no want of 
 men, money, or spirit. 
 
 I proceed to my second objection, which was to the 
 inequality of the operation of the provisions of this bill. 
 It is never to be forgotten, in the conduct of the govern- 
 
 h 
 
284 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 ment of these United States, that it is a political associa- 
 tion of independent sovereignties, greatly differing in 
 respect of wealth, resource, enterprise, extent of terri- 
 tory, and preparation of arms. It ought also never to 
 Le forgotten that the proportion of physical force which 
 nature has given does not lie within precisely the same 
 line of division with the pro]3ortion of political influence 
 which the Constitution has provided. Now, sir, wise 
 men conducting a political association thus constructed, 
 ought always to have mainly in view not to disgust 
 any of the great sections of the country, either in regard 
 of their interests, their habits, or their prejudices. 
 Particularly ought they to be cautious not to burden 
 any of the great sections in a way peculiarly odious to 
 them, and in which the residue of the States cannot be 
 partakers, or at least only in a very small degree. I 
 think this principle of political action is incontrovertible. 
 Now, sir, of all the distinctions which exist in these 
 United States, that which results from the character of 
 the labor in different parts of the country is the most 
 obvious and critical. In the Southern States all the 
 laborious industry of the country is conducted by 
 slaves ; in the Northern States it is conducted by the 
 yeomanry, their apprentices or children. The truth is, 
 that the only real property in the labor of others which 
 exists in the Northern States is that which is possessed 
 in that of minors, the very class of which, at its most 
 valuable period, this law proposes to divest them. The 
 planter of the South can look round upon his fifty, his 
 hundred, and his thousand of human beings, and say, 
 " These are my property." The farmer of the North 
 has only one or two " ewe lambs," his children, of which 
 
ENLISTMENT OF MINORS. 285 
 
 he can say, and say with pride, like the Roman matron, 
 " These are my ornaments." Yet these this bill proposes 
 to take from him, or what is the same thing, proposes to 
 corrupt them, to bribe them out of his service, and that, 
 too, at the very age when the desire of freedom is the 
 most active, and the splendor of false glory the most 
 enticing. Yet your slaves are safe ; there is no project 
 for their manumission in the bill. The husbandman of 
 the North, the mechanic, the manufacturer, shall have 
 the property he holds in the minors subject to him put 
 to hazard. Your property in the labor of others is safe. 
 Where is the justice, — where the equality of such a 
 provision ? 
 
 It is very well known in our country — indeed, it is 
 obvious from the very nature of the thing — that the 
 exact period of life at which the temptation of this law 
 begins to operate upon the minor is the moment when 
 his services begin to be the most useful to the parent or 
 master. Until the age of eighteen the boy has hardly 
 paid to the parent or master the cost of his clothing and 
 education. Between the age of eighteen and twenty is 
 just the period of profit to the father and master. It is 
 also the period at which, from the approximation tow- 
 ards manhood, service begins to grow irksome and 
 the desire of liberty powerful. The passions are then, 
 also, in their most ungoverned sway ; and the judg- 
 ment, not yet ripe, can easily be infatuated and cor- 
 rupted by the vain dreams of military glory. At this 
 period your law appears with its instruments of seduc- 
 tion. It offers freedom to the minor's desire of liberty, 
 plunder to his avarice, glory to his weakness ; in short, it 
 offers bounty and wages for disobedience to his natural 
 
286 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 or social obligations. This is a true view of this law. 
 That.it will have that full operation which its advocates 
 hope and expect, that it will fill your armies with run- 
 aways from their masters and fathers, I do not believe. 
 But that it will have a very great operation I know. 
 The temptation to some of our youth will be irresistible. 
 With my consent they shall never be exposed to it. 
 
 I offer anotlier consideration. The Constitution of 
 the United States declares, in its seventh amendment, 
 — " Private property shall not be taken for public use, 
 wi'thout just compensation." Now, of all the property 
 which the laws of the Northern States secure to the 
 people of that countrj'-, that which consists in the labor 
 of the minor, and which by our laws is sacred to the 
 guardian, master, or parent, is perhaps the most valued 
 and most precious to uur mechanics, manufacturers, and 
 yeomen. Yet when the gentleman from New York 
 (Mr. Stowe) proposed to secure the wages and bounty 
 of the enlisting minor to those to whom his service 
 belonged, it was rejected. What is this but a palpable 
 violation of this provision of the Constitution ? What 
 is it but taking private property for public use without 
 compensation ? 
 
 But neither the pecuniary loss nor yet the violation 
 of the Constitution is the evil which I most deprecate. 
 It is the infringement of our moral rights, and the inroad 
 which the bill makes in the moral habits of our quarter 
 of the country. I know that gentlemen are very apt 
 to sneer when they hear any thing said about our 
 religious institutions or moral habits in the eastern 
 country ; but I will explain what I mean. It is not 
 our religious institutions, our sabbaths, our fasts, our 
 
ENLISTMENT OF MINORS. 287 
 
 thanksgivings ; nor yet our schools, colleges, and semi- 
 naries of education, — to which I refer Avhen I speak of 
 our moral habits. These are but means and precau- 
 tions. It is certain established principles of life and 
 conduct which, without being noticed in general laws, 
 are often the foundation of them, and which always rule 
 and control our positive institutions. I do not know, 
 for instance, that the extent of the moral tie which 
 binds the son to the father, or the apprentice to the 
 master, is precisely assigned by any of our laws. Yet 
 the principle upon which all our laws on this subject 
 rest, is this, — that this tie is sacred and inviolate. 
 The law regulates, but, except in case of misconduct, 
 never severs it. 
 
 I know it is said that in our country minors are sub- 
 jected to militia duty ; and so they are. But this very 
 service is a proof of the position which I maintain. 
 Their obligation to serve in the militia is always subject 
 to the paramount authority of the master and the 
 parent. 
 
 The law sa3^s, it is true, that minors shall be subject 
 to militia duty. But it also permits the father and the 
 master to relieve them from that obligation at an estab- 
 lished price. If either will pay the fine, he may retain 
 the service of the minor, free from the militia duty. 
 What is the consequence of all this ? Why, that the 
 minor always trains not free of tlxe will, but subject to 
 the will, of his natural or legal guardians. The moral 
 tie is sacred. It is never broken. It is a principle 
 that, cases of misconduct out of the question, the minor 
 shall never conceive himself capable of escaping from 
 the wholesome and wise control of his master or father. 
 
 I 
 
SPEECH ON THE ENLISTMENT OF MINOES. 
 
 The ijroposed law cuts athwart this wise principle. 
 It preaches infidelity. It makes every recruiting officer 
 in your country an apostle of perfidy. It says to every 
 vain, thoughtless, discontented, or ambitious minor : 
 " Come hither ; here is an asylum from your bonds ; 
 here are wages and bounty for disobedience : only con- 
 sent to go to Canada ; forget what you owe to nature 
 and your protectors ; go to Canada, and you shall find 
 freedom and glory." Such is the morality of this law. 
 
 Take a slave from his master, on any general and 
 novel principle, and there would be an earthquake from 
 the Potomac to the St. Mary's. Bribe an apprentice 
 from his master; seduce a son, worth all the slaves 
 Africa ever produced, from his father, — we are told 
 it is only a common affair. It will be right when there 
 is law for it. Such is now the law in France ! 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I hope what I am now about to say 
 will not be construed into a threat. It is not uttered 
 in that spirit ; but only to evince the strength of my 
 convictions concerning the effect of the provisions of 
 this law on the hoj)es of New England, particularly 
 of Massachusetts. But pass it, and, if the legislatures 
 of the injured States do not come down upon your re- 
 cruiting officers with the old laws against kidnappiing 
 and manstealing, they are false to themselves, their 
 posterity and their country. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 IN RELATION TO MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 Jan. 25, 1812. 
 
 19 
 
 k 
 
SPEECH 
 
 IN RELATION TO MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 Jan. 25, 1812. 
 
 [This speech had the singular good fortune, I believe unex- 
 rapled in Mr. Quincy's congressional life, of being applauded 
 by both sides of the House. As the conflict with England, 
 liich the war-party in Congress was bent upon bringing about, 
 became more and more imminent, the more intelligent of its 
 members could not shut their eyes to the necessity of some kind 
 of naval defence. Even the Southern democrats, who always 
 had resisted every attempt to strengthen the navy, as a pro- 
 tection only needed by the North, saw that a war with a great 
 maritime power must be waged on the ocean as well as on the 
 land. Accordingly, several of the principal Southern adminis- 
 tration members, and Mr. Calhoun in particular, applied to Mr. 
 Quincy for his assistance in this matter. The speech gave 
 general satisfaction, in and out of Congress, the only exceptions 
 being some Federal extremists, who looked upon any measures 
 for the defence of the country in case of war as a strengthening of 
 the hands of the administration, and encouraging it to provoke 
 one. Ex-President John Adams, whose decided opinions in favor 
 of a powerful naval establishment are well known, expressed 
 his approbation of this speech in these strong terms : " I thank 
 you for your speech in relation to Maritime Protection, and much 
 more for making it. It is the speech of a man, a citizen, and a 
 statesman. It is neither hyperbole nor flattery in me to say, it 
 is the most important speech ever uttered in that House since 
 1789. — Ed.] 
 
292 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I rise to address you on this occasion 
 with no affected diffidence, and with many doubts con- 
 cerning the expediency of taking any part in this debate. 
 On the one hand, the subject has been discussed with a 
 zeal, industry, and talent, which leave but little scope 
 for novelty either in topic or illustration. On the other 
 hand, arguments from this side of the House in favor of 
 this question are received with so natural a jealousy 
 that I know not whether more may not be lost than 
 gained by so unpropitious a support. Indeed, sir, if this 
 subject had been discussed on narrow or temporary or 
 party principles, I should have been silent. On such 
 ground I could not condescend to debate ; I could not 
 hope to influence. But the scale of discussion has been 
 enlarged and liberal, relative rather to the general 
 system than to the particular exigency ; in almost every 
 respect it has been honorable to the House and auspi- 
 cious to the prospects of the nation. In such a state of 
 feeling and sentiment, I could not refrain from indulging 
 the hope that suggestions, even from no favorite quar- 
 ter, would be received with candor, perhaps with atten- 
 tion. And, when I consider the deep interest which the 
 State from which I have the honor to be a Representative 
 has, according to my apprehension, in the event, I can- 
 not permit the opportunity entirely to pass without 
 bringing my small tribute of reflection into the general 
 stock of the House. 
 
 The object I shall chiefly attempt to enforce is the 
 necessity and duty of a systematic protection of our 
 maritime rights by maritime means. I would call the 
 thoughtful and intelligent men of this House and nation 
 to the contemplation of the essential connection between 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PKUTECTION. 293 
 
 a naval force proj)ortionate to the circumstances of our 
 sea-coast, the extent of our commerce, and the inlierent 
 enterprise of our people ; — I say, sir, I would call them 
 to the contemplation of the essential connection between 
 such a naval force and the safety, prosperity, and exist- 
 ence of our Union. In the course of my observations, 
 and as a subsidiary argument, I shall also attempt to 
 show the connection between the adoption of the prin- 
 ciple of a systematic maintenance of our maritime rights 
 by maritime means, and relief from our present national 
 embarrassments. 
 
 I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I never can look — 
 indeed, in my opinion, no American statesman ought ever 
 to look — on any question touching the vital interests 
 of this nation, or of any of its component parts, without 
 keeping at all times in distinct view the nature of our 
 political association, and the character of the indepen- 
 dent sovereignties which compose it. Among .States, the 
 only sure and permanent bond of union is interest ; and 
 the vital interests of States, although they may be some- 
 times obscured, can never, for a very long time, be 
 misapprehended. The natural protection which the 
 essential interests of the great component parts of our 
 political association require will be, sooner or later, 
 understood by the States concerned in those interests. 
 If a protection, upon system, be not provided, it is 
 impossible that discontent should not result. And need 
 I tell statesmen that, when great local discontent is 
 combined in those sections with great physical power 
 and with acknowledged portions of sovereignty, the 
 inbred ties of nature will be too strong for the artificial 
 ties of a parchment compact ? 
 
294 SPEECH ON MAEITEME PROTECTION. 
 
 Hence it results that tlie essential interests of the 
 great component parts of our association ought to be 
 the polar lights of all our statesmen ; by them they 
 should guide their course. According to the bearings 
 and variations of those lights should the statesmen of 
 such a country adjust their policy; always bearing in 
 mind two assurances, as fundamental principles of 
 action, which the nature of things teaches, — that 
 although temporary circumstances, party spirit, local 
 rivalries, personal jealousies, suggestions of subordinate 
 interests, may weaken or even destroy for a time the 
 influence of the leading and permanent interests of any 
 great section of the countr}^, yet those interests must 
 ultimately and necessarily predominate and swallow up 
 all these local, and temporary, and personal, and subor- 
 dinate considerations : in other words, the minor in- 
 terests will soon begin to realize the essential connection 
 which exists between their prosperity and the prosperity 
 of those great interests which, in such sections of the 
 countr}^, nature has made predominant, and that no 
 political connection among free States can be lasting, or 
 ought to be, which systematically oppresses or systemat- 
 ically refuses to protect the vital interests of any of 
 the sovereignties which compose it. 
 
 I have recurred to these general considerations to 
 introduce and elucidate this principle, which is the 
 basis of my argument, that, as it is the incumbent duty 
 of every nation to protect its essential interests, so it is 
 the most impressive and critical duty of a nation, com- 
 posed of a voluntary association of vast, powerful, and 
 independent States, to protect the essential interests of 
 all its great component parts. And I add that this pro- 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 295 
 
 tection must not be formal or fictitious, but that it 
 must be proportionate to the greatness of those interests, 
 and of a nature to give content to the States concerned 
 in their protection. 
 
 In reference to this principle, the course of my reflec- 
 tions will be guided by two general inquiries, — the 
 nature of the interest to be protected, the nature of the 
 protection to be extended. In pursuing these inquiries, 
 I shall touch very slightly, if at all, on the abstract duty 
 of protection, which is the very end of all political asso- 
 ciations, and without the attainment of which they are 
 burdens and no blessings. But I shall keep it mainly 
 in my purpose to establish the connection between a 
 naval force and commercial prosperity ; and to show 
 the nature of the necessity, and the degree of our 
 capacity, to give to our maritime rights a maritime 
 protection. 
 
 In contemplathig the nature of the interest to be pro- 
 tected, three prominent features strike the eye and 
 direct the course of reflection, — its locality, its great- 
 ness, and its permanency. 
 
 The locality of any great interest, in an association 
 of States such as compose this Union, will be a circum- 
 stance of primary importance in the estimation of every 
 wise statesman. When a great interest is equally dif- 
 fused over the whole mass, it may be neglected or 
 oppressed, or even abandoned, with less hazard of inter- 
 nal dissension. The equality of the pressure lightens the 
 burden. The common nature of the interest removes 
 the causes of jealousy. A concern equally affecting the 
 happiness of every part of -the nation, it is natural to 
 suppose is equally dear to all, and equally understood 
 
296 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 by all. Hence results acquiescence in any artificial or 
 political embarrassment of it. Sectional fears and sus- 
 picions, in such case, have no food for support and no 
 stimulant for activity. But it is far otherwise when a 
 great interest is, from its nature, either wholly, or in 
 a very great proportion, local. In relation to such a 
 local interest, it is impossible that jealousies and suspi- 
 cions should not arise whenever it is obstructed by any 
 artificial or political embarrassment. And it is also 
 impossible that they should not be, in a greater or less 
 degree, just. It is true of the wisest, and the best, and 
 the most thoughtful of our species that they are so con- 
 stituted as not deeply to realize the importance of 
 interests which affect them not at all or ver}^ remotely. 
 Every local circle of States, as well as of individuals, 
 has a set of interests, in the prosperity of which the 
 happiness of the section to which they belong is iden- 
 tified ; in relation to which interests the hopes and the 
 fears, the reasonings and the schemes, of the inhabitants 
 of such sections are necessarily fashioned and conducted. 
 It is morally impossible that those concerned in such 
 sectional interests should not look with some degree of 
 jealousy on schemes adopted in relation to those inter- 
 ests, and prosecuted by men a majority of which have 
 a very remote or very small stake in them. And this 
 jealousy must rise to an extreme height when the course 
 of measures adopted, whether they have relation to the 
 management or the protection of such interests, wholly 
 contravene the opinions and the practical experience 
 of the persons immediately concerned in them. This 
 course of reflection has a tendency to illustrate this 
 idea, that as, in every political association, it is of 
 
» 
 
 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 297 
 
 primary importance that the great interests of each 
 local section should be skilfully and honestly managed 
 and protected, so, in selecting the mode and means of 
 management and protection, an especial regard should 
 be had to the content and rational satisfaction of those 
 most deeply concerned in such sectional interests. 
 Theories and speculations of the closet, however abun- 
 dant in a show of wisdom, are never to be admitted to 
 take the place of those principles of conduct in which 
 experience has shown the prosperity and safety of such 
 interests to consist. Practical knowledge, and that 
 sagacity which results from long attention to great 
 interests, never fail to inspire a just self-confidence in 
 relation to those interests, — a confidence not to be 
 browbeaten by authority, nor circumvented by any 
 abstract reasoning. And, in a national point of view, 
 it is scarcely of more importance that the course adopted 
 should be wise than that content and rational satisfaction 
 should be given. 
 
 On this topic of locality, I shall confine myself to one 
 or two very plain statements. It seems sufiicient to 
 observe that commerce is, from the nature of things, 
 the leading interest of more than one-half, and that it 
 is the predominating interest of more than one-third, 
 of the people of these United States. The States north 
 of the Potomac contain nearly four millions of souls ; 
 and surely it needs no proof to convince the most casual 
 observer that the proportion which the commercial 
 interest bears to the other interests of that great section 
 of the Union is such as entitles it to the denomination 
 of a leading interest. The States north of the Hudson 
 contain nearly two and a half millions of souls ; and 
 
298 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 surely there is as little need of proof to show that the 
 proportion the commercial interest bears to the other 
 interests of that northern section of the Union is such 
 as entitles it there to the denomination of a predomi- 
 nating interest. In all the country between the PotO' 
 mac and the Hudson, the interest of commerce is so 
 great dn proportion to the other interests that its embar- 
 rassment clogs and weakens the energy of every other 
 description of industry. Yet the agricultural and man- 
 ufacturing interests of this section are of a nature and 
 a magnitude, both in respect of the staples of the one 
 and the objects of the other, as render them in a very 
 considerable degree independent of the commercial. 
 And although they feel the effect of the obstruction of 
 commerce, the feeling may be borne for a long time 
 without much individual suffering, or any general dis- 
 tress. But in the country north of the Hudson, the 
 proportion and connections of these great interests 
 are different. Both agriculture and manufactures have 
 there grown up in more intimate relation to commerce. 
 The industry of that section has its shape and energy 
 from commercial prosperity. To the construction, the 
 supply, and the support of navigation, its manufactures 
 have a direct or indirect reference. And it is not very 
 different with its agriculture. A country divided into 
 small farms, among a population great compared with 
 its extent, requires quick circulation and easy processes 
 in the exchange of its commodities. This can only be 
 obtained by an active and prosperous commerce. ^ 
 
 In order more clearly to apprehend the locality of the 
 commercial interest, cast your eyes upon the abstract of 
 tonnage lately laid upon our tables, according to annual 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 299 
 
 custom, by the Secretary of our Treasury. It will be 
 found that 
 
 TONS. 
 
 The aggregate tonnage of the United States is . . 1,424,000 
 
 Of this there is owned between the Mississippi and 
 
 the Potomac 221,000 
 
 Between the Potomac and the Hudson, .... 321,000 
 
 And north of the Hudson, 882,000 
 
 1,424,000 _ 
 
 If this tonnage be estimated, new and old, as it may 
 without extravagance, at an average value of fifty 
 dollars the ton : — 
 
 The total aggregate value of the tonnage of the 
 United States may be stated, in round numbers, 
 at $70,000,000 
 
 Of which four-sevenths are owned north of the 
 
 Hudson, equal to 40,000,000 
 
 Two-sevenths are owned between the Hudson and 
 
 the Potomac, equal to 20,000,000 
 
 One-seventh is owned south of the Potomac, equal 
 
 to 10,000,000 
 
 $70,000,000 
 
 To place the locality of this interest in a light still 
 more striking and impressive, I state that it appears by 
 that abstract that the single State of Massachusetts 
 alone, possesses nearly half a million of tonnage. Pre- 
 cisely, in round numbers, four hundred and niuety-six 
 thousand tons ; an amount of tonnage equal, within 
 ' fifty thousand tons, to the whole tonnage owned by all 
 the States south of the Hudson. 
 
 I refer to this excessive disproportion between the 
 tonnage owned in different States and sections of the 
 
300 SPEECH ON MAKITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 United States rather as a type than as an estimate of 
 the greatness of the comparative disproportion of the 
 whole commercial interest in those respective States and 
 sections. The truth is, this is much greater than the 
 proportion of tonnage indicates, inasmuch as the capital 
 and the industry occupied in finding employment for this 
 great amount of tonnage are almost wholly possessed 
 by the sections of the countr}^ to which that tonnage 
 belongs. A satisfactory estimate of the value of that 
 capital and industry would require a minuteness of 
 detail little reconcilable either with your patience or 
 with the necessity of the present argument. Enough 
 has been said to convince any one who will take the 
 trouble to reflect upon the subject that the interest is, 
 in its nature, eminently local ; that it is impossible it 
 can be systematically abandoned without convulsing 
 that whole section of country ; and that the States in- 
 terested in this commerce, so vital to their prosperity, 
 have a right to claim and ought not to be content with 
 less than efficient protection. 
 
 The imperious nature of this duty will be still farther 
 enforced by considering the greatness of this interest. 
 In doing this, I prefer to present a single view of it, 
 lest, by distracting the attention to a great variety of 
 particulars, the effect of the whole should be lost in the 
 multitude of details. Let us inquire into the amount 
 of property annually exposed to maritime depredation 
 and what the protection of it is worth to the nation 
 which is its proprietor. An estimate of this kind must 
 necessarily be very loose and general. But it will be 
 sufficiently accurate to answer all the purposes of the 
 argument. For the subject is of that massive character 
 
SPEECH ON MARITEME PROTECTION. 301 
 
 that a mistake of many millions makes no material alter- 
 ation in the conclusion to be drawn from the statement. 
 
 The total export of the Uuited States, in the 
 treasury year, endino: on the first day of Octo- 
 ber, 1807, was $108,000,000. That of the 
 year ending the first of October, 1811, was 
 $01,000,000. The average value exceeds 
 $80,000,000. But to avoid all cavil I state 
 the annual average value of exports of the 
 
 United States at $70,000,000 
 
 To this add the annual average value of the 
 shipping of the United States, which, new and 
 old, cannot be less than $50 the ton, and on 
 one million four hundred thousand tons is also 70,000,000 
 To this add the average annual value of freight, 
 out and home, which, calculated on voyages of 
 all descriptions, may be fairly stated at $70 the 
 
 ton, and is 98,000,000 
 
 For this estimate of the value of freight and 
 tonnage, I am indebted to an honorable friend and 
 colleague (Mr. Reed), whose information and 
 general intelligence concerning commercial sub- 
 jects are, perhaps, not exceeded by those of any 
 gentleman in either branch of Congress. 
 To this add the total average value of property 
 annually at risk in our coasting trade, which 
 cannot be less than and probably far exceeds . 100,000,000 
 Our seamen are also the subjects of annual ex- 
 posure. The value of this hardy, industrious, 
 and generous race of men is not to be esti- 
 mated in money. The pride, the hope, and, if 
 you would permit, the bulwark of this com- 
 mercial community, are not to be put into the 
 scale against silver or gold in any moral or 
 
 Amount carried forward . . . . ' . . $338,000,000 
 
302 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 Amount brought forward $338,000,000 
 
 political estimate. Yet, for the present object, 
 I may be permitted to state the value of the 
 skill and industry of these freemen to their 
 country, at $500 each, which, on 120,000 sea- 
 men, the unquestionable number is ... . 60,000,000 
 
 Making a gross aggregate of $398,000,000 
 
 Although I have no question of the entire correctness 
 of this calculation, yet, for the purpose of avoiding every 
 objection which might arise in relation to the value of 
 freight or tonnage, I put out of the question ninety-eight 
 millions of the above estimate, and state the amount of 
 annual maritime exposure at only three hundred millions 
 of dollars. 
 
 To this must be added the value of the property on 
 our seaboard, of all the lives of our citizens, and of all 
 the cities and habitations on the coast, exposed to 
 instant insult and violation from the most contemptible 
 maritime plunderer. No man can think that I am 
 extravagant if I add, on this account, an amount equal 
 to that annually exposed at sea, and state the whole 
 amount of maritime and sea-coast exposure in round 
 numbers at six hundred millions of dollars. 
 
 I am aware that this estimate falls short of the reality. 
 1 know that the safety of our domestic hearths and our 
 altars, and the security of all the dear and tender objects 
 of affection and duty which surround them, are beyond 
 the reach of pecuniary estimates. But I lay those con- 
 siderations out of the question, and simply inquire what 
 is the worth of a rational degree of security in time of 
 war for such an amount of property, considering it 
 merely as an interest to be insured at the market rate 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 303 
 
 of the worth of protection. Suppose an individual had 
 such a property at risk, which in time of peace was sub- 
 ject to so much plunder and insult, and in time of war 
 was liable to be swept away, would lie not be deemed 
 unwise, or rather absolutely mad, if he neglected, at the 
 annual sacrifice of one or two or even three per cent, to 
 obtain for this property a very high degree of security, — 
 as high perhaps, as the divine will permits man to enjoy 
 in relation to the possessions of this hfe, which, accord- 
 ing to the fixed dispensations of his Providence, are 
 necessarily uncertain and transitory ? But suppose that 
 instead of one, two, or three per cent, he could, by the 
 regular annual application of two-thirds of one per cent 
 upon the whole amount' of the property at risk, obtain a 
 security thus high and desirable, to what language of 
 wonder and contempt would such an individual subject 
 himself who, at so small a sacrifice, should refuse or 
 neglect to obtain so important a blessing ? What, then, 
 shall be said of a nation thus neglecting and thus refus- 
 ing, when to it attach not only all the considerations of 
 interest and preservation of property which belong to 
 the individual, but other, and far higher and more im- 
 pressive, — such as the maintenance of its peace, of its 
 honor ; the safety of the lives of its citizens, of its sea- 
 board from devastation, and even perhaps of its children 
 and females from massacre or brutal violence ? Is there 
 any language of contempt and detestation too strong for 
 such blind infatuation, such palpable improvidence ? 
 For let it be remembered that two-thirds of one per 
 cent, upon the amount of property thus annually ex- 
 posed, is four millions of dollars, the annual systematic 
 appropriation of which amount would answer all the 
 
304 SPEECH ON MAEITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 purposes and hopes of commerce of your cities and sea- 
 board. 
 
 But, perhaps, the greatness of this interest and our 
 pecuniary abilit}^ to protect it may be made more strik- 
 ingly apparent by a comparison of our commerce with 
 that of Great Britain in the single particular of export. 
 
 I state, then, as a fact of which any man may satisfy 
 himself by a reference to M'Pherson's " Annals of Com- 
 merce," where the tables of British export may be found, 
 that, taking the nine years prior to the war of our Revo- 
 lution, from 1766 to 1774 inclusive, the total average 
 export of Great Britain was sixteen million pounds ster- 
 ling, equal to seventy-one million dollars, — an amount 
 less by ten million of dollars than the present total aver- 
 age export of the United States. 
 
 And again, taking the nine years beginning with 1789, 
 and ending with 1797 inclusive, the total average annual 
 export of Great Britain was twenty-four million pounds 
 sterling, equal to one hundred and six million dollars, 
 which is less by two millions of dollars than the total 
 export, of the United States in 1807. It is true that 
 this is the official value of the British export, and that 
 the real value is somewhat higher, perhaps thirty per 
 cent. This circumstance, although it in a degree dimin- 
 ishes the approximation of the American to the British 
 commerce in point of amount, does not materially affect 
 the argument. Upon the basis of her commerce, Great 
 Britain maintains a maritime force of eight hundred or 
 a thousand vessels of war. And will it be seriously 
 contended that, upon the basis of a commerce, like ours, 
 thus treading upon the heels of British greatness, we are 
 absolutely without the ability of maintaining the security 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 305 
 
 of our sea-board, the safety of our cities and the unob- 
 structed course of our coasting trade ? 
 
 B}^ recurring to the permanency of this interest, the 
 folly and madness of this negligence, and misplaced 
 meanness, for it does not deserve the name of economy, 
 will be still more distinctly exhibited. If this com- 
 merce were the mushroom growth of a night, if it had 
 its vigor from the temporary excitement and the accu- 
 mulated nutriment which warring elements in Europe 
 had swept from the places of their natural deposit, then, 
 indeed, there might be some excuse for a temporizing 
 policy touching so transitory an interest. But com- 
 merce, in the Eastern States, is of no foreign growth, 
 and of no adventitious seed. Its root is of a fibre which 
 almost two centuries have nourished. And the per- 
 petuity of its destiny is written, in legible characters, . 
 as well in the nature of the country as in the disposi- 
 tions of its inhabitants. Indeed, sir, look along your 
 whole coast, from Passamaquody to Capes Henry and 
 Charles, and behold the deep and far-winding creeks and 
 inlets, the noble basins, the projecting headlands, the ma- 
 jestic rivers, and those sounds and bays, which are more 
 like inland seas than like any thing called by those names 
 in other quarters of the globe. Can any man do this, 
 and not realize that the destiny of the people inhabiting 
 such a country is essentially maritime ? Can any man 
 do this without being impressed by the conviction that, 
 although the poor projects of politicians may embarrass 
 for a time the dispositions growing out of the condition 
 of such a country, yet that nature will be too strong for 
 cobweb regulations, and will vindicate her rights with 
 certain effect, perhaps with awful perils ? No nation 
 
 20 
 
306 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 ever did, or ever ought to, resist such allurements and 
 invitations to a particular mode of industry. The pur- 
 poses of Providence, relative to the destination of men, 
 are to be gathered from the circumstances in which his 
 beneficence has placed them. And to refuse to make 
 use of the means of " prosperity which his goodness has 
 put into our hands, what is it but spurning at his bounty, 
 and rejecting the blessings which his infinite wisdom 
 has designated for us by the very nature of his allot- 
 ments ? The employments of industry, connected with 
 navigation and commercial enterprise, are precious to 
 the people of that quarter of the country by ancient 
 prejudice, not less than by recent profit. The occupa- 
 tion is rendered dear and venerable by all the cherished 
 associations of our infancy and all the sage and pruden- 
 tial maxims of our ancestors. And, as to the lessons of 
 encouragement derived from recent experience, what 
 nation ever, within a similar period, received so many 
 that were sweet and salutary ? What nation, in so 
 short a time, ever before ascended to such a height of 
 commercial greatness ? 
 
 It has been said, by some philosophers of the other 
 hemisphere, that nature in this new world had worked 
 by a sublime scale ; that our mountains and rivers and 
 lakes were, beyond all comparison, greater than any 
 thing the old world could boast ; that she had here made 
 nothing diminutive except its animals. And ought we 
 not to fear lest the bitterness of this sarcasm should be 
 concentrated on our country by a course of policy 
 wholly unworthy of the magnitude and nature of the 
 interests committed to our guardianship ? Have we 
 not reason to fear that some future cynic, with an 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 307 
 
 asperity which truth shall make piercing, will declare 
 that all things in these United States are great except 
 its statesmen ; and that we are pigmies to whom Provi- 
 dence has intrusted, for some inscrutable purpose, 
 gigantic labors ? Can we deny the justice of such 
 severity of remark, if, instead of adopting a scale of 
 thought and a standard of action proportionate to the 
 greatness of our trust and the multiplied necessities of 
 the people, we bring to our task the mere measures 
 of professional industry, and mete out contributions for 
 national safety by our fee-tables, our yardsticks, and 
 our gill-pots ? Can we refrain from subscribing to the 
 truth of such censure, if we do not rise, in some degree, 
 to the height of our obligations ; and teach ourselves to 
 conceive, and with the people to realize, the vastness 
 of those relations which are daily springing among 
 States which are not so much one empire as a congre- 
 gation of empires ? 
 
 Having concluded what I intended to suggest in 
 relation to the nature of the interest to be protected, I 
 proceed to consider the nature of the protection which 
 it is our duty to extend. 
 
 And here, Mr. Speaker, I am necessitated to make 
 an observation which is so simple and so obvious that, 
 were it not for the arguments urged against the princi- 
 ple of maritime protection, I should have deemed the 
 mere mention of it to require an apology. The remark 
 is this, that rights in their nature local can only be 
 maintained where they exist, and not where they do 
 not exist. If you had a field to defend in Georgia, it 
 would be very strange to put up a fence in Massa- 
 chusetts. And yet how does this differ from invading 
 
308 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 Canada, for the purpose of defending our maritime 
 rights ? I beg not to be understood, Mr. Speaker, bj 
 this remark as intending to chill the ardor for the 
 Canada expedition. It is very true that, to possess 
 ourselves of the Canadas and Nova Scotia and their 
 dependencies, it would cost these United States, at the 
 least estimate, fifty millions of dollars ; and that Great 
 Britain — national pride, and her pledge of protection to 
 the people of that country, being put out of the ques- 
 tion — would sell you the whole territory for half the 
 money. I make no objection, however, on this account. 
 On the contrary, for the purposes of tlie present argu- 
 ment, I may admit that pecuniary calculation ought to 
 be put out of the field when spirit is to be shown or 
 honor vindicated. I only design to inquire how our 
 maritime rights are protected by such invasion. Sup- 
 pose that, in every land project, you are successful. 
 Suppose both the Canadas, Quebec, Halifax, every 
 thing to the North Pole yours by fair conquest. Are 
 your rights on the ocean therefore secure ? Does your 
 flag float afterwards in honor ? Are your seamen safe 
 from impressment ? Is your course along the highway 
 of nations unobstructed ? No one pretends it. No one 
 has or can show, by any logical deduction or any detail 
 of facts, that the loss of those countries would so de- 
 press Great Britain as to induce her to abandon for one 
 hour any of her maritime pretensions. What, then, 
 results ? Why, sir, what is palpable as the day, that 
 maritime rights are only to be maintained by maritime 
 means. This species of protection must be given, or 
 all clamor about maritime rights will be understood by 
 the people interested in them to be hollow or false, or, 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PHOTECTION. 309 
 
 what is worse, an intention to co-operate with the 
 enemies of our commerce in a still farther embarrass- 
 ment of it. 
 
 While I am on this point, I cannot refrain from notic- 
 ing a strange solecism which seems to prevail touching 
 the term " flag." It is talked about as though there 
 was something mystical in its very nature ; as though 
 a rag, with certain stripes and stars upon it, tied to a 
 stick and called a flag was a wizard's wand, and entailed 
 security on every thing under it or within its sphere. 
 There is nothing like all this in the nature of the thing. 
 A flag is the evidence of power. A land flag is the 
 evidence of land power. A maritime flag is the evi- 
 dence of maritime power. You may have a piece of 
 bunting upon a staff, and call it a flag : but, if you have 
 no maritime power to maintain it, you have a name and 
 no reality ; you have the shadow without the substance ; 
 you have the sign of a flag, but in truth you have no 
 
 In considering this subject of maritime protection, I 
 shall recur to the nature and degree of it and to our 
 capacity to extend it. And here we are alwaj-s met, 
 at the very threshold, with this objection : " A naval 
 force requires much time to get it into readiness, and 
 the exigency will be past before the preparation can be 
 completed." Thus want of foresight in times past is 
 made an apology for want of foresight in the time 
 present. We were unwise in the beginning, and unwise 
 we resolve to continue until the end of the chapter. 
 We refuse to do any thing until the moment of exi- 
 gency, and then it is too late. Thus our improvidence 
 is made sponsor for our disinclination. But Avhat is the 
 
310 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 law of nature and the dictates of wisdom on this sub- 
 ject ? The casualties of life, the accidents to which 
 man is exposed, are the modes established by Providence 
 for his instruction. This is the law of our nature. 
 Hence it is that adversity is said to keep a school for 
 certain people who will learn in no other. Hence, too, 
 the poet likens it to " a toad ugly and venomous, which 
 bears a precious jewel in its head." And in another 
 place, but with the same general relation, "out of this 
 nettle danger, we pluck the flower safety." This law 
 is just as relative to nations as it is to individuals. For, 
 notwithstanding all the vaunting of statesmen, their 
 whole business is to apj)ly an enlarged common-sense 
 to the affairs intrusted to their management. It is as 
 much the duty of the rulers of a State, as it is that of 
 an individual, to learn wisdom from misfortune, and to 
 draw, from every particular instance of adversity, those 
 maxims of conduct by the collection and application of 
 which our intellectual and moral natures are distin- 
 guished and elevated. In all cases of this kind, the 
 inquiry ought to be. Is this exigency peculiar, or is it 
 general ? Is it one in which human effort is unavailing, 
 and therefore requires only the exercise of a resignation 
 and wise submission to the divine will? or is it one 
 which skill or power may limit or obviate ? On the 
 result of this inquiry our obligations depend. For when 
 man conducts toward a general evil as though it were 
 peculiar ; or when, through ignorance or pusillanimity, 
 he neglects to use the means of relief or prevention to 
 the extent in which he possesses them ; if he stretches 
 himself out in a stupid languor, and refuses to do any 
 thing, because he finds he cannot do every thing, — 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 311 
 
 then, indeed, all his clamors against the course of 
 nature, or the conduct of others, are but artifices by 
 which he would conceal from the world, perhaps from 
 himself, the texture of his own guilt. His misfortunes 
 are, in such case, his crimes. Let them proceed from 
 what source they will, he is himself, at least, a half- 
 worker in the fabric of his own miseries. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, can any one contemplate the exigency 
 which at this day depresses our country, and for one 
 moment deem it peculiar ? The degree of such com- 
 mercial exigencies may vary, but they must always exist. 
 It is absurd to suppose that such a population as is that 
 of the Atlantic States can be either driven or decoyed 
 from the ocean ? It is just as absurd to imagine that 
 wealth will not invite cupidity, and that weakness will 
 not insure both insult and plunder. The circumstances 
 of our age make this truth signally impressive. Who does 
 not see in the conduct of Europe a general departure 
 from those common principles which once constituted 
 national morality ? What is safe which power can seize 
 or ingenuity can circumvent ? or what truths more pal- 
 pable than these, — that there is no safety for national 
 rights but in the national arm ; and that important 
 interests systematically pursued must be systematically 
 protected ? 
 
 Touching the nature and degree of that maritime 
 protection which it may be wise in this nation to extend 
 to its maritime interests, it seems to me that our exer- 
 tions should rather be excited than graduated by the 
 present exigency ; that our duty is to inquire, upon a 
 general scale, what our commercial citizens have, in this 
 respect, a right to claim ; and what is the unquestion- 
 
812 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 able obligation of a commercial nation to so great a 
 class of its interests. For this purpose my observations 
 will have reference rather to the principles of the sys- 
 tem than to the provisions of the bill now under debate. 
 Undoubtedly an appropriation for the building of ten 
 or any other additional number of frigates would be so 
 distinct a manifestation of the intention of the national 
 legislature to extend to commerce its natural protection 
 as in itself to outweigh any theoretic preference for a 
 maritime force of a higher character. I cannot, there- 
 fore, but cordially support an appropriation for a species 
 of protection so important and desirable. Yet, in an 
 argument having relation to the sj'stem rather than to 
 the occasion, I trust I shall have the indulgence of the 
 House if my course of reflections should take a wider 
 range than the propositions on the table, and embrace 
 within the scope of remark the general principles by 
 which the nature and degree of systematic naval pro- 
 tection should in my judgment be regulated. 
 
 Here it seems hardly necessary to observe that a 
 main object of all protection is satisfaction to the per- 
 sons whose interests are intended to be protected ; and 
 to this object a peculiar attention ought to be paid when 
 it happens that the majority of the rulers of a nation are 
 composed" of persons not immediately concerned in 
 those interests, and not generally suspected of having 
 an overweening attachment to them. In such a state of 
 things it is peculiarly important that the course of con- 
 duct adopted should be such as to indicate systematic 
 intention as to the end, and wise adaptation as to the 
 means. For in no other way can that satisfaction of 
 which I speak result, and which is, in a national point of 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 313 
 
 view, at the same time one of the most important 
 objects of government, and one of the most certain 
 evidences of its wisdom ; for men interested in protec- 
 tion will always deem themselves the best judges of the 
 nature of that protection. And as such men can never 
 be content with any thing short of efficient protection, 
 according to the nature of the object, so instinct not less 
 than reason will instruct them whether the means you 
 employ are in their nature real or illusory. Now, in 
 order to know what will give this satisfaction to the 
 persons interested, so desirable both to them and to 
 the nation, it is necessary to know the nature and grada- 
 tion in value of those interests, and to extend protec- 
 tion, not so much with a lavish as with a discriminating 
 and parental hand. If it happen in respect of any 
 interest, as it is acknowledged on all sides it is at 
 present the case with the commercial, that it cannot be 
 protected against all the world, to the utmost of its 
 greatness and dispersion, then the inquiry occurs, what 
 branch of this interest is most precious to commercial 
 men, and what is the nature of that protection which 
 will give to it the highest degree of certainty of which 
 its nature is susceptible ? It has been by the result of 
 these two inquiries, in my mind, that its opinion has 
 been determined concerning the objects and the degree 
 of protection. 
 
 Touching that branch of interest which is most 
 precious to commercial men, it is impossible that there 
 can be any mistake ; for however dear the interests of 
 property or of life exposed upon the ocean may be to 
 their owners or their friends, yet the safety of our 
 altars and of our firesides, of our cities and of our sea- 
 
314 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 board, must, from the nature of things, be entwined 
 into the affections by ties incomparably more strong and 
 tender. And it happens that both national pride and 
 honor are peculiarly identified with the support of these 
 primary objects of commercial interest. 
 
 It is in this view I state that the first and most im- 
 portant object of the nation ought to be such a naval 
 force as shall give such a degree of rational security as 
 the nature of the subject admits to our cities, and sea- 
 board, and coasting trade ; that the system of maritime 
 protection ought to rest upon this basis ; and that it 
 should not attempt to go further until these objects are 
 secured. And I have no hesitation to declare, that 
 until such a maritime force be systematically maintained 
 by this nation, it shamefully neglects its most important 
 duties and most critical interests. 
 
 With respect to the nature and extent of this naval 
 force some difference of opinion may arise, according to 
 the view taken of the primary objects of protection. 
 For myself I consider that those objects are first to be 
 protected in the safety of which the national character 
 and happiness are most deeply interested ; and these 
 are chiefly concerned, beyond all question, in the pres- 
 ervation of our maritime settlements from pillage and 
 our coast from violence. For this purpose it is requisite 
 that there should be a ship of war for the harl)or of 
 every great city of the United States, equal, in point of 
 force, to the usual grade of ships of the line of the mari- 
 time belligerents. These ships might be so instructed 
 as to act singly or together as circumstances might 
 require. My reason for the selection of this species 
 of force is, that it puts every city and great harbor of 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 315 
 
 the United States in a state of security from the insults, 
 and the inhabitants of your sea-coasts from the depreda- 
 tion, of any single ship of war of any nation. To these 
 should be added a number of frigates and smaller 
 vessels of war. By such means our coasting trade 
 might be protected, the mouths of our harbors secured, 
 in particular that of the Mississippi, from the buccaneers 
 of the West Indies, and hereafter, perhaps, from those 
 of South America. A system of protection graduated 
 upon a scale so conformable to the nature of the country 
 and to the greatness of the commercial interest, would 
 tend to quiet that spirit of jealousy which so naturally 
 and so justly begins to spring among the States. Those 
 interested in commerce would care little what local 
 influences predominated, or how the ball of power 
 vibrated among our factions, provided an efficient pro- 
 tection of their essential interests, upon systematic 
 principles, was not only secured by the letter of the 
 Constitution, but assured by a spirit pervading every 
 description of their rulers. 
 
 But it is said that " we have not capacity to maintain 
 such a naval force."' Is it want of pecuniary, or want 
 of physical capacity ? In relation to our pecuniary 
 capacit}^ I will not condescend to add any proof to that 
 plain statement already exhibited, showing that we have 
 an annual commercial exposure equal to six hundred 
 millions of dollars, and that two-thirds of one per cent 
 upon this amount of value, or four millions of dollars, 
 is more than is necessary, if annually and systematically 
 appropriated for this great object, so anxiously and 
 rightfully desired by your seaboard, and so essential to 
 the honor and obligations of the nation. I will only 
 
316 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 make a single other statement by way of illustrating 
 the smallness of the annual appropriations necessary for 
 the attainment of this important purpose. The annual 
 appropriation of one-sixth of one per cent on the amount 
 of the value of the whole annual commercial exposure 
 (one million of dollars) is sufficient to build in two 
 years six seventy-four gun ships ; and taking the average 
 expense, in peace and war, the annual appropriation of 
 the same sum is sufficient to maintain them afterwards 
 in a condition for efficient service. This objection of 
 pecuniary inability may be believed in the interior coun- 
 try where the greatness of the commercial property and 
 all the tender obligations connected with its preserva- 
 tion are not realized. But in the cities and in the com- 
 mercial States the extent of the national resources is 
 more truly estimated. They know the magnitude of 
 the interest at stake, and their essential claim to pro- 
 tection. Why, sir, were we seriously to urge this 
 objection of pecuniary incapacity to the commercial 
 men of Massachusetts they would laugh us to scorn. 
 Let me state a single fact. In the year 1745, the State, 
 then the colony of Massachusetts Bay, included a popu- 
 lation of 220,000 souls ; and yet, in that infant state of 
 the country, it owned a fleet consisting of three ships, — 
 one of which carried twenty guns, — three snows, one 
 brig, and three sloops, being an aggregate of ten vessels 
 of war. These partook of the dangers and shared in 
 the glory of that expedition which terminated with the 
 surrender of Louisburgh. Comparing the population, 
 the extent of territory, the capital and all the other 
 resources of this great nation, with the narrow means 
 of the colony of Massachusetts at that period of its 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 817 
 
 history, it is not extravagant to assert that the fleet it 
 then possessed, in proportion to its pecuniary resources, 
 was greater than would be, in proportion to the resources 
 of the United States, a fleet of fifty sail of the line and 
 one hundred frigates. With what language of wonder 
 and admiration does that great orator and prince of 
 moral statesmen, Edmund Burke, in his speech for con- 
 ciliation with America, speak of the commerce and en- 
 terprise of that people ! " When Ave speak of the 
 commerce with our colonies, fiction lags after truth ; 
 invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and barren." 
 " No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries ; no climate 
 that is not witness to their toils. Neither the persever- 
 ance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor the 
 dexterous and firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever 
 carried this most perilous mode of hard industry to the 
 extent to which it has been pushed by this recent peo- 
 ple, — a people who are still, as it were, but in the 
 gristle, and not yet hardened into the bone of man- 
 hood." And shall the descendants of such a people be 
 told that their commercial rights are not worth defend- 
 ing, that the national arm is not equal to their pro- 
 tection ? And this, too, after the lapse of almost 
 forty years has added an extent to their commerce 
 beyond all parallel in history, and after the strength and 
 resources associated to protect them exceed in point of 
 population seven millions of souls, possessing a real and 
 personal capital absolutely incalculable ? 
 
 Our pecuniary capacity, then, is unquestionable ; but 
 it is said we are deficient in physical power. It is 
 strange that those who urge this objection assert it only 
 as it respects Great Britain, and admit, either expressly 
 
318 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 or by implication, — indeed, they cannot deny, — that it 
 is within our physical capacity to maintain our maritime 
 rights against every other nation. Now, let it be granted 
 that we have such an utter incapacity in relation to the 
 British naval power ; grant that at the nod of that nation 
 we must abandon the ocean to the very mouths of our 
 harbors, nay, our harbors themselves. What then ? 
 Does it follow that a naval force is useless ? Because 
 we must submit to have our rights plundered by one 
 power, does it follow that we must be tame and sub- 
 missive to every other? Look at the fact. We have, 
 within these ten years, lost more property by tlie plun- 
 der of the minor naval powers of Europe, France in- 
 cluded, than would have been enough to have built and 
 maintained twice the number of ships sufficient for our 
 protection against their depredations. I cannot exceed 
 the fact when I state the loss within that period by 
 those powers at thirty millions of dollars. Our capacity 
 to defend our commerce against every one of these 
 powers is undeniable. Because we cannot maintain our 
 rights against the strong, shall we bear insult and invite 
 plunder from the weak ? Because there is one levia- 
 than in the ocean, shall every shark satiate his maw on 
 our fatness with impunity ? 
 
 But let us examine this doctrine of utter inability to 
 maintain our maritime rights against Great Britain, so 
 obtrusively and vehemently maintained by some who 
 clamor the most violently against her insults and in- 
 juries. If the project were to maintain our maritime 
 rights against that mistress of the sea by convoys 
 spread over every ocean, there would indeed be some- 
 thing ludicrously fanciful and wild in the proposition. 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 319 
 
 But nothing like this is either proposed or desired. The 
 humility of commercial hope in reference to that nation 
 rises no higher than the protection of our harbors, the 
 security of our coasts and coasting trade. Is it possible 
 that such a power as this shall be denied to exist in this 
 nation ? If it exist, is it possible that its exercise shall 
 be withheld ? 
 
 Look at the present state of our harbors and sea- 
 coast. See their ex^josure — I will not say to the fleets of 
 Great Britain, but to any single ship of the line, to any 
 single frigate, to any single sloop of war. It is true 
 the policy of that nation induces her to regard your 
 prohibitory laws, and her ships now seldom visit your 
 ports. But suppose her policy should change ; suppose 
 any one of her ships of war should choose to burn any 
 of the numerous settlements upon your sea-coast, or to 
 plunder the inhabitants of it, — would there not be some 
 security to those exposed citizens if a naval force were 
 lying in every great harbor of the United States com- 
 petent to protect or avenge the aggression of any single 
 ship of war of whatever force ? Would not the knowl- 
 edge of its existence teach the naval commanders of 
 that nation both caution and respect ? It is worthy of 
 this nation, and fully within its capacity, to maintain 
 such a force. Not a single sea-bull should put his head 
 over our acknowledged water-line without finding a 
 power sufficient to take him by the horns. 
 
 But it is said that, " in case of actual war with Great 
 Britain, our ships would be useless. She would come 
 and take them." In reply to this objection, I shall not 
 recur to those details of circumstances, already so fre- 
 quently stated, which would give our ships of war, 
 
320 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 fighting on their own coasts and in the proximity of 
 relief and supply, so many advantages over the ships 
 of a nation obliged to come three thousand miles to 
 the combat. But, allowing this argument from British 
 naval superiority its full force, I ask, What is that 
 temper on which a nation can most safely rely in the 
 day of trial? Is it that which takes counsel of fear, or 
 that whicli listens only to the suggestions of dut}^ ? Is 
 it that which magnifies all the real dangers until hope 
 and exertion are paralyzed in their first germinations ? 
 or is it that which dares to attempt noble ends by appro- 
 priate means ; which, wisely weighing the nature of 
 any anticipated exigency, prepares according to its 
 powers, resolved that, whatever else it may want, to 
 itself it will never be wanting ? Grant all that is said 
 concerning British naval superiority, in the events of 
 war has com^jarative weakness nothing to hope from 
 opportunity ? Are not the circumstances in which this 
 country and Great Britain would be placed, relative to 
 naval combats upon our own coast, of a nature to 
 strengthen the hope of such opportunity ? Is it of no 
 worth to a nation to be in a condition to avail itself of 
 conjunctures and occurrences, Mr. Speaker? Prepara- 
 tion, in such cases, is every thing. All history is 
 replete with the truth that " the battle is not always to 
 the strong, but that time and chance happen to all." 
 Suppose that Great Britain should send twelve seventy- 
 fours to burn our cities or lay waste our coasts. Might 
 not such a naval force be dispersed by storms, dimin- 
 ished by shipwrecks, or delayed and weakened by the 
 events of the voyage ? In such case, would it be noth- 
 ing to have even half that number of line-of-battle ships, 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 321 
 
 in a state of vigorous preparation, ready to take the 
 advantage of so probable a circumstance, and so provi- 
 dential an interposition ? The adage of our school-books 
 is as true in relation to States as to men in common 
 life, — " Heaven helps those who help themselves." 
 It is almost a law of nature. God grants every thing 
 to wisdom and virtue. He denies every thing to folly 
 and baseness. But suppose the worst. • Grant that, in 
 a battle such as our brave seamen would fight in defence 
 of their country, our naval force be vanquished. What 
 then? Did enemies ever plunder or violate more 
 fiercely when weakened and crippled by the effects of 
 a hard-bought victory than when flushed, their veins 
 full, they rush upon their prey, with cupidity stimu- 
 lated by contempt ? Did any foe ever grant to pusil- 
 lanimity what it would have denied to prowess? To 
 be conquered is not always to be disgraced. The 
 heroes who shall perish in such combats shall not fall 
 in vain for their country. Their blood will be the most 
 precious, as well as the strongest cement of our Union. 
 What is it that constitutes the moral tie of our nation ? 
 Is it that paper contract called the Constitution ? Why 
 is it that the man of Virginia, the man of Carolina, and 
 the man of Massachusetts, are dearer to each other 
 than is to either the man of South America or the 
 West Indies? Locality has little to do with implanting 
 this inherent feeling, and personal acquaintance less. 
 Whence, then, does it result but from that moral senti- 
 ment which pervades all, and is precious to all, of 
 having shared common dangers for the attainment of 
 common blessings. The strong ties of every people are 
 those which spring from the heart and twine through 
 
 21 
 
322 SPEECH ON MARITIME PEOTECTION. 
 
 the affections. The family compact of the States has 
 this for its basis, that their heroes have mingled their 
 blood in the same contests ; that all have a common 
 right in their glory ; that, if I may be allowed the 
 expression, in the temple of patriotism all have the 
 same worship. 
 
 But it is inquired. What effect will this policy have 
 upon the present exigency ? I answer. The happiest 
 in every aspect. To exhibit a definitive intent to main- 
 tain maritime rights by maritime means, what is it but 
 to develop new stamina of national character? No 
 nation can or has a right to hope respect from others 
 which does not first learn to respect itself. And how 
 is this to be attained ? By a course of conduct con- 
 formable to its duties and relative to its condition. If 
 it abandons what it ought to defend, if it flies from the 
 field it is bound to maintain, how can it hope for honor ? 
 To what other inheritance is it entitled but disgrace? 
 Foreign nations, undoubtedly, look upon this union 
 with eyes long read in the history of man, and with 
 thoughts deeply versed in the effects of passion and 
 interest, upon independent States associated by ties so 
 apparently slight and novel. They understand well 
 that the rivalries among the great interests of such 
 States ; the natural envyings which in all countries 
 spring between agriculture, commerce, and manufact- 
 ures ; the inevitable jealousies and fears of each other 
 of South and North, interior and seaboard ; the incipi- 
 ent or progressive rancor of party animosity, — are the 
 essential weaknesses of sovereignties thus combined. 
 Whether these causes shall operate, or whether they 
 shall cease, foreign nations will gather from the features 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 323 
 
 of our policy. They cannot believe that such a nation 
 is strong in the affections of its associated parts when 
 they see the vital interests of whole States abandoned. 
 But reverse this policy ; show a definitive and stable 
 intent to yield the natural protection to such essential 
 interests: then they will respect you. And to power- 
 ful nations honor conies attended by safety. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, what is national disgrace ? Of what 
 stuff is it composed ? Is a nation disgraced because its 
 flag is insulted ; because its seamen are impressed ; 
 because its course upon the highway of the ocean is 
 obstructed ? No, sir. Abstractedly considered, all this 
 is not disgrace. Because all this may happen to a 
 nation so weak as not to be able to maintain the dignity 
 of its flag, or the freedom of its citizens, or the safety of 
 its course. Natural weakness is never disgrace. But, 
 sir, this is disgrace, — when we submit to insult and to 
 injury which we have the power to prevent or redress. 
 Its essential constituents are want of sense or want 
 of spirit. When a nation, with ample means for its 
 defence, is so thick in the brain as not to put them into 
 a suitable state of preparation ; or when, with sufficient 
 muscular force, it is so tame in spirit as to seek safety 
 not in manly effort, but in retirement, — then a nation 
 is disgraced ; then it shrinks from its high and sovereign 
 character into that of the tribe of Issachar, crouching 
 down between two burdens ; the French burden, on 
 the one side, and the British burden on the other, so 
 dull, so lifeless, so stupid, that, were it not for its bray- 
 ing, it could not be distinguished from the clod of the 
 valley. 
 f It is impossible for European nations not to know 
 
324 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 that we are the second commercial country in the 
 workl ; that we have more than seven millions of peo- 
 ple, with less annual expenditure and more unpledged 
 sources of revenue than any nation of the civilized 
 world. Yet a nation thus distinguished — abounding 
 in wealth, in enterprise, and in power — is seen flying 
 away from " the unprofitable contest ; " abandoning the 
 field of controversy ; taking refuge behind its own 
 doors, and softening the rigors of oppression abroad by 
 a comparison with worse torments at home. Ought 
 such a nation to ask for respect ? Is there any other 
 mode of relief from this depth of disgrace than by a 
 change of national conduct and character? 
 
 With respect to Great Britain, it seems impossible 
 that such a change in our policy should not be auspi- 
 cious. No nation ever did or ever can conduct towards 
 one that is true in the same way as it conducts towards 
 one that is false to all its obligations. Clear conceptions 
 of interest and faithful fulfilment of duty as certainly 
 insure, sooner or later, honor and safety, as blindness 
 to interest and abandonment of duty do assuredly entail 
 disgrace and embarrassment. In relation to the prin- 
 ciple which regulates the commercial conduct of Great 
 Britain towards the United States, there is much scope 
 for diversity of opinion. Perhaps those judge most 
 truly who do not attribute to her any very distinct or 
 uniform system of action in relation to us, but who 
 deem her course to result from views of temporary 
 expediency, growing out of the circumstances of the 
 time and the character of our administration. If this 
 be the case, then whatever course of conduct has a 
 tendency to show a change in the character of the 
 
I 
 
 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 325 
 
 Ameiican policy must produce a proportionate change 
 in that of the British. And if tameness and systematic 
 abandonment of our commercial rights have had the 
 effect to biing upon us so many miseries, a contrary 
 course of conduct, having for its basis a wise spirit and 
 systematic naval support, it may well be hoped, will 
 have the opposite effect, — of renewing our prosperity. 
 But if it be true, as is so frequently and so confidently 
 asserted, that Great Britain is jealous of our commercial 
 greatness ; if it be true that she would depress us as 
 rivals ; if she begins to regard us as a power which may 
 soon curb, if not in aftertiraes spurn, her proud control 
 on her favorite element, — then, indeed, she may be dis- 
 posed to quench the ardor of our naval enterprise ; then, 
 indeed, it may be her care so to shape the course of her 
 policy as to deprive our commerce of all hope of its 
 natural protection, and to co-operate with and cherish 
 such an administration in this country as hates a naval 
 force and loves commercial restriction. In this view of 
 her policy, — and I am far from asserting it is not cor- 
 rect, — is it not obvious that she may be content with 
 the present condition of our commerce ? Except ac- 
 knowledged colonial vassalage, what state of things 
 would be more desirable to her ? The whole sea is her 
 own. Her American rival tamely makes cession of it 
 to her possession. Our commercial capital is already 
 seeking employment in her cities, and our seamen in 
 her ships. What then results? Is it not, on this view 
 of her policy, undeniable that an administration in this 
 country, for the purposes of Great Britain, is such as 
 thinks commerce not worth having or not worth defend- 
 
 I 
 
326 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 ing ; such as, in every scheme of nommal protection, 
 meditates to it nothing but additional embarrassment 
 and eventual abandonment ? Must not such an admin- 
 istration be convenient to British ministry if such be a 
 British policy ? And if British ministers should ever 
 find such an administration in this country made to 
 their hands, may we not anticipate that they will take 
 care to manage with a view to its continuance in power? 
 Of all policy the most ominous to British ascendency is 
 that of a systematic maritime defence of our maritime 
 rights. 
 
 The general effect of the policy I advocate is to pro- 
 duce confidence at home and respect abroad. These 
 are twin shoots from the same stock, and never fail to 
 flourish or fade together. Confidence is a plant of no 
 mushroom growth and of no artificial texture. It 
 springs only from sage councils and generous endeavors. 
 The protection you extend must be efiicient and suited 
 to the nature of the object you profess to maintain. If 
 it be neither adequate nor appropriate, your wisdom 
 may be doubted, your motives may be distrusted, but in 
 vain you expect confidence. The inhabitants of the 
 seaboard will inquire of their own senses and not of 
 your logic concerning the reality of their protection. 
 
 As to respect abroad, what course can be more certain 
 to insure it? What object more honorable, what more 
 dignified, than to behold a great nation pursuing wise 
 ends by appropriate means ; rising to adopt a series of 
 systematic exertions suited to her power and adequate 
 to her purposes ? What object more consolatory to the 
 friends, what more paralyzing to the enemies, of our 
 
SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION". 327 
 
 Union, than to behold the natural jealousies and rivalries, 
 which are the acknowledged dangers of our political 
 condition, subsiding or sacrificing? What sight more 
 exhilarating than to see this great nation once more 
 walking forth among the nations of the earth under 
 the protection of no foreign shield? peaceful, because 
 powerful ; powerful, because united in interests, and 
 amalgamated by concentration of those interests in the 
 national affections. 
 
 But let the opj)osite policy prevail ; let the essential 
 interests of the great component parts of this Union find 
 no protection under the national arm ; instead of safety 
 let them realize oppression, and the seeds of discord 
 and dissolution are inevitably sown in a soil the best 
 fitted for their root, and affording the richest nourish- 
 ment for their expansion. It may be a long time before 
 they ripen ; but sooner or later they will assuredly burst 
 forth in all their destructive energies. In the inter- 
 mediate period, what aspect does an union thus destitute 
 of cement present ? Is it that of a nation keen to dis- 
 cern and strong to resist violations of its sovereignty ? 
 It has rather the appearance of a casual collection of 
 semibarbarous clans, with the forms of civilization, and 
 with the rude and rending passions of the savage state : 
 in truth, powerful ; yet, as to any foreign effect, im- 
 becile : rich in the goods of fortune, yet wanting that 
 inherent spirit without which a nation is poor indeed : 
 their strength exhausted by struggles for local power ; 
 their moral sense debased by low intrigues for personal 
 popularity or temporary pre-eminence ; all their thoughts 
 turned, not to the safety of the state, but to the eleva- 
 
328 SPEECH ON MARITIME PROTECTION. 
 
 tion of a chieftain. A people presenting such an aspect, 
 what have they to expect abroad ? what but pillage, 
 insult, and scorn ? 
 
 The choice is before us. Persist in refusing efficient 
 maritime protection ; persist in the system of commercial 
 restrictions : what now is, perhaps, prophecy will here- 
 after be history. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE EELIEF OF SUNDRY MERCHANTS FROM 
 PENALTIES INNOCENTLY INCURRED. 
 
 Dec. 14, 1812. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE RELIEF OF SUNDRY MERCHANTS FROM 
 PENALTIES INNOCENTLY INCURRED. 
 
 Dec. 14, 1812. 
 
 [In the remarks preliminary to the speech of February 25, 
 1811, I have related how England refused to comply with the 
 conditions of the act repealing non-intercourse with her and 
 France, and of the consequent re-enactment of that measure as 
 far as she was concerned. After somewhat more than a year, 
 just about the time of our declaration of war, June 18, 1812, 
 she had thought better of the matter and revoked her Orders in 
 Council, which, if done eighteen months earlier, would have 
 saved the two countries from a conflict from which neither 
 reajied much credit or any advantage. After the revocation, and 
 before our declaration of war had reached England, American 
 merchants residing there, taking it for granted that the non-inter- 
 course would be repealed, if it did not cease, ipso facto, by the 
 action of the British ministry, oj^enly and in entire good faith, 
 loaded their ships with the prohibited articles and despatched 
 them to the United States. But the act was still in force ; war 
 had been declared ; the goods were forfeited, and, by the letter of 
 the law, three times their value besides. To exact these penal- 
 ties was more than even Mr. Madison's government ventured to 
 propose. But, as it was in the most pressing need of money, 
 Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, devised this plan 
 for extracting about nine millions of dollars from the honest 
 
332 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 error of the importers. The invoice vaUie of the merchandise 
 was about eighteen milHons. By the law, the entire importation 
 was forfeited, one half to go to the government and the other to 
 the informer. Mr. Gallatin proposed to relinquish the informer's 
 moiety to the importers, and to put that of the government into 
 the Treasury. How he justified to himself this cavalier treat- 
 ment of the informers we are not told ; it would certainly not 
 have been submitted to without an outcry by that valuable class 
 of citizens in our day : but this modified proposition was regarded 
 by the sufferers and the impartial part of the public as only a 
 mitigated form of spoliation of innocent parties. The resistance 
 to its infliction upon them which is expressed in this sj^eech had 
 the effect of causing the project to fail and the entire forfeitures 
 to be remitted. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Quincy (of Massachusetts) said that, in listening 
 to the debate, what had impressed his mind the most 
 forcibly was the simplicity of the question. He was 
 less surprised at the arguments which were urged than 
 that any argument was necessary. A mere statement 
 of the case, he should have thought, would have settled 
 the question. Twenty millions of dollars were said to 
 be forfeited to the United States, — an amount equal 
 to one-third of the whole national debt. This sum was 
 alleged to be due from comparatively a small class of 
 men, in particular sections of the country, in the cities 
 and on the seaboard. It was distributed among the 
 individuals of that class in various proportions. To 
 every one of them, the amount demanded is material. 
 The greater part of the fortunes of some is at stake. 
 To others it is a simple question of prosperity or ruin. 
 The principles arising out of the case and connected 
 with the decision are, in their nature, so complicated 
 and delicate that scarcely two men can be found on the 
 
EEMISSION OF PENALTIES. 333 
 
 floor of Congress Avho can agree by what scale remission 
 shall be graduated, if remitted at all. A case of this 
 magnitude, — so important to the public, so critical to 
 the individuals, so dubious in point of principle, and so 
 consequential in sectional alarm and interest, — it is 
 seriously contended, should be referred to the decision 
 of a single individual ; that one man should be invested 
 with the power to decide the fates of multitudes of his 
 fellow-citizens, and decree riches or poverty, not by any 
 known rule or standard, but according to his absolute 
 will and discretion ! Such is the power seriousl}' con- 
 tended for, in a country calling itself free, by men who 
 pretend to understand the nature of civil liberty and 
 to venerate its principles ! ! 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that the nature of the proposition 
 was not more astonishing^ than the main reason urgfed 
 in its support. And this was, that the Secretary of the 
 Treasury possessed this power alread}^ ; that the law 
 now placed it in its hands. As if the greatness of a 
 power, and its exceeding the trust which any man ought 
 to possess, and its irreconcilableness with the settled 
 principles on which public safety in a free country 
 depends, were not conclusive either that no such power 
 ever was invested, or that the possessor ought to be 
 deprived of it. 
 
 Mr. Quincy then proceeded to investigate the general 
 powers vested in the Secretary of the Treasury for the 
 mitigation or remission of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. 
 He contended that no such power was invested in the 
 head of that department as the Secretary had asserted 
 in his letter to the Committee of Ways and Means. In 
 this letter, the Secretary asserts that " the power to 
 
334 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 remit the share of the United States, and of all other 
 persons, in whole or in part, and on such terms and 
 conditions as ma}^ be deemed reasonable and just, is by 
 law vested in the Secretary of the Treasury." Mr. 
 Quincy said that this was nothing less than the asser- 
 tion of an absolute discretion in relation to the subject- 
 matter, — a discretion without limit, or principle, or 
 measure of control, or rule of decision, except the sov- 
 ereign will and pleasure of the individual possessing it. 
 For he who can do in relation to any matter or thing, 
 in the whole or in the part, and fix such terms and con- 
 ditions, as he may deem reasonable and just, has as 
 absolute an authority in that matter or thing as heart 
 can desire. And if, by any general law, such power be 
 invested in any person whatsoever, we have not much 
 to boast, in this respect, either of the wisdom or of the 
 freedom of our laws. 
 
 The question, then, is, whether this power, thus as- 
 serted to exist in himself by the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, be vested in him by law. Mr. Quincy said that 
 he confessed that, on the first reading of the statute, 
 being under the influence of the opinion thus unequiv- 
 ocally expressed by the Secretary, and not at once 
 perceiving how the terms of law had been wrested to 
 the purposes of official construction, he yielded a 
 momentary and reluctant assent to the claim of the 
 Secretary. Recollecting, however, what a fascinating 
 thing absolute power is, and how little imjalicit faith 
 any man has a right to claim in a case where the degree 
 of his power is dependent upon his own construction ; 
 recollecting also the character of the men who, in the 
 year 1797, when the law in question was passed, had 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 335 
 
 the reins of power, he began to doubt of the construc- 
 tion, and set himself carefully to investigate on what 
 grounds this arbitrary discretion, thus obtrusively as- 
 serted by the Secretary as existing in himself, was 
 founded. He said that the men who, at the time when 
 the law in question was passed, presided over the con- 
 struction of our laws were not only learned and able 
 men and true lovers of their country, but they were 
 men, also, deeply versed in the principles of civil lib- 
 erty ; they were natives of the soil, and had not been 
 educated in the arbitrary doctrines of the civil law, but 
 had drank in the essential principles of the ancient 
 Saxon common law, as it were, with their mother's 
 milk. Such men were not likely to grant so enormous 
 a power, by any general terms, even in an unguarded 
 moment. For, had reason failed them in a case of this 
 nature, instinct would have come to their aid. He 
 determined, therefore, to investigate this question, aloof 
 from the prejudices which the assertion of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, and the corroborative opinion of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, had created, and set 
 himself to examine what were those essential principles 
 of civil liberty which lay, as it were, at the base of all 
 statutes of this kind, and which were, in their nature, 
 so predominant and inherent that no friend of freedom 
 could possibly forget them when framing such a statute. 
 Mr. Quincy said that, on turning this subject in his 
 mind, he had found two principles of the nature Avhich 
 he sought. The first was, that the innocent should 
 never be confounded with the guilty : of consequence, 
 that the law must have been intended to be so con- 
 structed as that, as far as possible, the former should 
 
836 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 always escape, and the latter should always be punished. 
 The second was, that the object of the penalty was 
 only the enforcement of the provisions of the law ; of 
 consequence, that, when this object was attained, there 
 ought to be an end of the penalty, which was ever to 
 be considered as the sanction or vindicatory branch of 
 the law, and never be perverted to the purposes of the 
 ways and means of the Treasury. When the terms of 
 the statute under consideration were considered in ref- 
 erence to these principles, all doubt as to its true con- 
 struction vanished. The character of the framers of 
 the law was vindicated. No such power as that asserted 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the sub- 
 ject of the penalties, was vested in him. On the con- 
 trary, the real grant of power was precise, limited, and 
 perfectly consistent with the principles of civil liberty. 
 
 The law contained two clauses, which comprehended 
 all the powers relative to this subject vested in the 
 Secretary of the Treasury. The words are these. After 
 prescribing the modes by which testimony concerning 
 the circumstances of the case shall be collected and 
 transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, the stat- 
 ute proceeds : " Who shall, thereupon, have power to 
 mitigate or remit such fine, forfeiture, or penalty, or 
 remove such disability, or any part thereof, if, in his 
 opinion, the same shall have been incurred without wil- 
 ful negligence or any intention of fraud in the person or 
 persons incurring the same ; and to direct the prose- 
 cution, if any shall have been instituted for the recovery 
 thereof, to cease and be discontinued, upon such terms 
 or conditions as he may deem reasonable and just." 
 
 From these clauses in the statute, if from any, the 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 337 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury derives that unlimited discre- 
 tion, which he asserts in his letter to the Committee of 
 Ways and Means to be vested in his department. Now 
 these clauses are distinct and substantive, having rela- 
 tion to two objects, also distinct and substantive. The 
 first clause relates to the penalty incurred ; the second, 
 to the prosecution commenced. 
 
 As to the first clause relative to the penalty, fine, or 
 forfeiture incurred, so far from vesting an unlimited 
 discretionary power, it vests, strictly speaking, no dis- 
 cretion whatever. It is in truth a power to mitigate, 
 remit, or remove, according to a stated and specified 
 statute standard. This authority is to exercise his 
 judgment, upon the circumstances of the case, touching 
 the existence or non-existence of either of two partic- 
 ulars stated in the statute, wilful negligence or fraud. 
 Tf ei ther exist, he has the power to remit. If either 
 exist but in a partial degree, he has the power to grad- 
 uate the penalty, fine, or forfeiture to the degree of 
 guilt. And this is his whole power resulting from this 
 clause. The head of the Treasur}' is a mere tribunal to 
 decide, whether the statute guilt has been incurred, or 
 any part of it, and according to that judgment to grad- 
 uate the fine, penalty, or forfeiture. If there be no 
 guilt, his power of mitigation, that is of graduation, is 
 at an end. In such case it cannot be exercised. The 
 single authority he has is to remit altogether. He has 
 no more right to talk of " profits " or " extra profits," 
 or " equivalents," or to intimate boons or " loans," as 
 the grounds of remission, than he has to decree the 
 whole penalty into his own pocket for his private use. 
 The plain purpose of the law is, that guilt should suffer 
 
 22 
 
838 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 and that innocence should escape. And by guilt and 
 innocence is only meant statute guilt or statute inno- 
 cence. Wliatever is either wilful negligence or fraud is 
 statute guilt. Whatever is neither one nor the other is 
 innocence. It is easy to see how perfectly reconcilable 
 this is to the established principles of civil liberty. 
 Instead of a sharp-scented statesman, invested with 
 powers to hunt among fines, penalties, and forfeitures, 
 for the ways and means of the Treasury, we find only a 
 benignant and wisely constituted tribunal, with power 
 to judge, upon the circumstances of the case, how far 
 any statute guilt has been incurred, and to graduate 
 suffering according to the degree which shall appear. | 
 As to the second clause, relative to the prosecution | 
 commenced, there is, indeed a discretion invested in the 
 head of the Treasury. But it is a discretion extremely 
 limited in its nature, arising out of the necessity of the 
 case, extending only to very subordinate considerations, 
 and in the exercise of which there is little or no tempta- 
 tion to abuse. It relates only to the terms and condi- 
 tions on which he may direct the prosecution to cease. 
 These he is permitted to fix " as he may deem reason- 
 able and just." That such a power is necessary is obvi- 
 ous, because, although the innocent has a right to be 
 free from the imputation and penalty of guilt, yet the 
 costs and expenses which have been incurred is a loss 
 which must fall somewhere. The nature of tilings has 
 thrown it upon him, and no principle of justice can 
 transfer it to another. But the discretionary power here 
 given is, in the nature of things, extremely limited, and 
 extends only to those particulars which are incident to 
 the prosecution, to costs, expenses and sometimes com- 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 339 
 
 peiisation to custom-house officers for services rendered, 
 either in their seizure or in the care of tlie property. It 
 is obvious, also, that in exercising snch a discretion the 
 danger of abuse is limited, not only from the circum- 
 scribed nature of the sphere, but from the circumstances 
 in which it is exercised. He has no official inducement 
 to abuse his power. The particulars which are incident 
 to a prosecution are distinct, notorious, and easily to 
 be ascertained ; and, as to compensation due to the cus- 
 tom-house officer, the Secretary having, by no possibility, 
 any interest, personal or official, in the decision, may 
 safely be intrusted with it ; and ought to be, out of 
 regard to the indemnification of the officer. Here, 
 again, there is no interference with the established prin- 
 ciples of civil libert3\ The question relative to causing 
 the prosecution to cease has no connection with guilt or 
 innocence. It is merely ascertaining the inevitable loss 
 which he must bear on whom the bolt of heaven has 
 fallen. If a compensation is decreed, it is for the cus- 
 tom-house officer and not the Treasury. It is decreed 
 not as a part of the penalty, for that is incurred only in 
 consequence of guilt, which is in this case out of the 
 question ; but is decreed only as a part of that inevita- 
 ble loss which some one must bear, and of course he on 
 wdiom the lot is cast. 
 
 When the statute is considered, it will easily be seen 
 wdiat are the means by which the Secretary of the 
 Treasury grasps at this unlimited and arbitrary discre- 
 tion which he asserts in his letter to the committee. It 
 is by confounding what is distinct, and associating what 
 are separate. By a sort of Treasuiy amalgam, he con- 
 solidates both clauses of the statute into one, and 
 
340 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 attaches the power of annexing " terms and conditions 
 which he shall deem reasonable and just" to the clause 
 which has relation to the penalty, instead of restricting 
 it to the clause which has relation to the prosecution. 
 This may be a very happy construction for the Treasury, 
 but it is a very ruinous one for the citizen : at least, so 
 it is likely to prove, judging by the proposition now 
 under consideration. 
 
 If any one asks why these powers are to be con- 
 strued as though distinct and substantive, instead of 
 amalgamated and consolidated, I answer on four plain 
 and solid grounds : the terms of the law ; the policy of 
 the law ; the nature of the thing ; and the established 
 principles of civil liberty. 
 
 The terms of the law are select and appropriate. 
 Those connected with the remission or mitigation, in 
 whole or in part, not only give the power, but limit the 
 exercise of it by an express statute standard, — he is to 
 do the one or the other, according to the non-existence 
 or the degree of existence of " wilful negligence or in- 
 tention of fraud." Those connected with the causing 
 the prosecution to cease are equally precise. The power 
 of annexing terms and conditions, such as he may deem 
 reasonable and just, relates to that object, — the causing 
 of the prosecution to cease, — and nothing else. 
 
 The policy of the law is not less corroborative of this 
 construction. It is a remedial statute ; as such it must 
 be construed liberally. Its policy is to suffer all the 
 innocent and none of the guilty to escape. For this 
 purpose it has set up a statute standard by which the 
 Secretary is to decide who is innocent and the degree 
 of innocence, and graduate the penalty accordingly. 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 341 
 
 Therefore it is that the power of affixing conditions is 
 not annexed by the terms of the law to the power of 
 mitigating- and remitting. To the degree of statute 
 guilt which a man has incurred, the Secretary is morally 
 bound to punish. But when of this degree there is 
 none, he is then morally bound to acquit. Of " terms 
 and conditions " here there is no use ; for guilt must be 
 punished according to its degree, and innocence must 
 escape. Now the law permits no "terms or conditions " 
 to be made with the innocent ; no " equivalent " is asked 
 for not confounding them with the guilty. It is the 
 policy, it is the delight, of the law that they should go 
 free and unspotted, according to their innate purity. 
 
 The nature of the thing shows also that the power of 
 annexing such " terms and conditions as he may deem 
 reasonable and just " exclusively belongs to the power 
 of causing the prosecution to cease. For, from the nat- 
 ure of the thing, the question concerning causing the 
 prosecution to cease is subordinate in point of impor- 
 tance and secondary in point of time to the question 
 concerning mitigating or remitting the penalty. For 
 whether the decision of the Secretary be guilty of a part 
 or not guilty at all, the Secretary's power is in the same 
 state. It has thus far done its work. The degree of 
 guilt or innocence is ascertained ; the penalty is re- 
 mitted or graduated. The only remaining prerogative 
 of the Secretary relates to the prosecution. Here he 
 possesses the discretion before noticed. But it is a 
 power which, from the nature of the thing, cannot re- 
 troact, and bring again innocence or guilt into view. 
 That is already settled, at least in principle, and must 
 be before the question concerning the prosecution can 
 be agitated. 
 
342 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 But there is a stronger argument than all these, re- 
 sulting from the established i^rinciples of civil liberty. 
 What is the nature of that proud consciousness which 
 freemen feel and delight to acknowledge ? and of what 
 stuff is it composed ? What is it but the certainty with 
 which each individual is inspired that he holds life, lib- 
 erty, and property, subject only to known laws and 
 aloof from the will of any individual ? So long as he is 
 innocent, he has no compromise to make, no equivalent 
 to offer, no truckling to assume. He on whom any fine, 
 penalty, or forfeiture of the collection law has fallen by 
 any mischance or by the act of God, has as much right 
 to possess this consciousness as the proudest mortal of 
 us all. He stands before the tribunal of the Secretary 
 not to chaffer for a pardon. He is innocent. If there 
 be any portion of the statute guilt, graduate the punish- 
 ment ; but if there be none, cruel, wicked, despotic is 
 that construction which obliges him to compound for his 
 escape from a statute framed only to punish guilt ; to 
 pay " profits ; " to make " forced loans ; " to promise 
 " equivalents." For what ? Why, truly that, though 
 innocent, he should not partake the fate of guilt. 
 
 When I speak of innocence and guilt, I mean always 
 statute innocence or statute guilt. I have nothing to 
 do with the money dreams of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, nor with the day dreams of the gentleman 
 from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy). He did not pretend, 
 no man has pretended, no man can pretend, that there 
 was any intention of fraud or any wilful negligence in 
 the merchants whose case is now before the House. 
 But he told us at one time that their crime consisted 
 " in purchasing in Great Britain ; " at another, that it 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 343 
 
 consisted " in not co-operating with the poHcy of the 
 American government." Grant, for argument's sake, all 
 the guilt these charges include. Is that wilful negli- 
 gence or intention of fraud ? Free of this, are they not 
 innocent ? Innocent, are they not entitled to entire 
 remission ? 
 
 This construction for which I contend, I think I 
 can safely state, is conformable to the practice of the 
 Treasury, antecedent to the accession of the present 
 Secretary. At least so it appears, from the book of 
 abstracts of the Treasury, entirely to my satisfaction. 
 Yet, upon this point, I would not be considered as 
 expressing myself with absolute certainty, as I have not 
 had an opportunity to examine the original records of 
 the cases, nor yet to converse with the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, although I have been twice at his office for 
 that purpose. The abstracts of the Treasury, ante- 
 cedent to that period, do not indicate any thing like a 
 compromise with innocence for the sake of profit to the 
 Treasury. The judgments stated are " remission " or 
 " mitigation " on payment of fees or duties or costs, and 
 sometimes of a sum certain ; fifty or a hundred dollars 
 to the revenue officers, or to parties other than the 
 United States. Although I do not conceive the former 
 practice of the Treasury very material on the point, yet 
 it is some satisfaction to state that the early decisions 
 to which I allude seem to be guided by this principle, 
 that the Treasury should never gain any thing from fine, 
 penalty, or forfeiture, except in case of guilt. The first 
 case I could find, although there may have been others 
 antecedent, was that of Robert Gillespie in June, 1802. 
 It was the case of an importation of porter in casks, of 
 
844 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 less capacity than those required by law. The judg- 
 ment of the Secretary of the Treasury was : No wilful 
 negligence or fraud ; claim of the United States released 
 on payment of costs and one-fourth net proceeds. 
 
 Another case was that of Theodoric Armistead, 
 decided in Februar}^, 1812. Brandy had been imported 
 in casks of less capacity than required by law. The 
 judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury was : No 
 wilful negligence or fraud ; claim of the United States 
 released on payment of costs and charges, and two cents 
 per gallon for the use of the United States. And this 
 levy is expressly stated to be in addition to the duty 
 established by law. Why, Mr. Speaker, what a prin- 
 ciple is this? A Secretary of the Treasury declares, 
 in so many words, that the guilt specified in the statute 
 to which the penalty is annexed does not exist, yet 
 mulcts the individual at his discretion as the condition 
 on which innocence is not made subject to the penalty ! 
 If the Secretary of the Treasury can lay a tax of '* two 
 cents per gallon," why not of twenty ; if he can take 
 " one-fourth of the proceeds," according to his arbitrary 
 will, why not the half or the whole ? In these cases 
 what has become of that essential principle of civil 
 liberty, that innocence and guilt shall never be con- 
 founded ? Both Gillespie and Armistead, though clear 
 by the statute, have gone away from the legal tribunal 
 taxed by the Secretary. I dare say it will be said, they 
 were both satisfied. Doubtless, sir. The Secretary 
 had resolved himself into an arbitrary tribunal, and 
 what private individual dare question the opinion of the 
 Secretary? But it is the business of the legislature to 
 consider subjects in their principles and consequences, 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 345 
 
 and not 1)}' the convenience of this or that individual. 
 The importance of withstanding the beginnings of 
 oppressive encroachments could never be better illus- 
 trated than by the instances before us. These, and 
 cases like these, were the nest-eggs of the Treasury ; and 
 now we see what a monstrous brood is likely to be pro- 
 duced. The Secretary has gone on, year after year, exer- 
 cising an arbitrary discretion in cases of small amount 
 and affecting individuals only, till at last he starts up a 
 gigantic power, authorized to carve what he pleases out 
 of twenty millions of dollars, and to settle the destinies 
 of a whole class of citizens ! If doctrines and construc- 
 tions like these are to receive the sanction of this legis- 
 lature, come, Bonaparte, as soon as thou wilt, and thou 
 shalt find cabinet principles suited to all thy purposes ! 
 
 I have hitherto considered the case of the merchants' 
 bonds as though it were strictly within the principle of 
 the collection laws. And the bearing of my argument 
 has been this, — that if no such power as is asserted by 
 the Secretary is truly vested in him, in the cases of the 
 ordinary revenue, that much less ought he to be permitted 
 to exercise this most dangerous power in cases of so 
 much magnitude, and in all aspects so critical, as are 
 those under consideration. But is it true that the fines, 
 penalties, and forfeitures, accruing under the restrictive 
 system, have no other claims for relief than those gen- 
 eral ones which arise under the collection laws ? Alas, 
 sir ! the nature of these laws are such as to make those 
 claims far higher and more impressive. 
 
 I shall touch this subject of the restrictive system 
 with as much delicacy as possible. I wish not to offend 
 any prejudices. I know that the zeal and ardent affec- 
 
 k 
 
346 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 tion which some gentlemen show for this restrictive 
 system ver}^ much resemble the loves of those who, 
 according to ancient legends, had taken philtres and 
 love-powders. The ecstasy of desire is just in propor- 
 tion to the deformity of the object. I shall not, how- 
 ever, meddle with that topic any further than it is 
 connected with the subject before the House. 
 
 A great deal is said about the policy of the restrictive 
 system, and the necessity of a rigorous enforcement of 
 it. Now it appears to me that the desire to make this 
 system effectual ought to induce the release of these 
 bonds, and not their enforcement. The object of the 
 restrictive system is averred to be to produce a change 
 in the measures of the British cabinet by the suffering 
 which the loss of our commerce occasions to her citizens. 
 If this be the policy, then those measures are beyond all 
 question the best calculated to insure its success whose 
 tendency is to diminish the suffering as far as possible 
 of the citizens of your own country. The best chance 
 for success must necessarily be by convincing the think- 
 ing part of the community in Great Britain that, while 
 they suffer much, we suffer little or nothing. Were 
 such the case, then indeed the system might have some 
 hope of a prosperous result. But, when suffering there 
 is found to be attended with suffering here, then the 
 whole potency of the restrictive system results in this 
 question, — which can suffer the most, or which can bear 
 suffering the best. And what judgment will the peo- 
 ple of that country be likely to form, in relation to the 
 degree this people suffer or their capacity to endure? 
 when a sweep of twenty millions of dollars is seriously 
 advocated by some ; and when a majority seem inclined 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 347 
 
 to turn tlie penalties of the restrictive sj'stem, not into 
 a mean of punishment of fraudulent or wilful violations, 
 but into an instrument of ways and means of the Treas- 
 ury ? Does it need any ghost from the dead, or seer 
 from the skies, to tell the people of Great Britain that, 
 in a free country, such a sj'stem of oppression must be 
 short-lived, and that its supporters must soon become 
 detested ? So that, if the policy of the system be con- 
 sulted, it requires that its rigor should be softened as it 
 respects your own citizens. 
 
 But are there not other considerations materially dis- 
 tinguishing the character of the restrictive system from 
 that of your collection laws, and requiring a correspond- 
 ent mildness in the construction of the laws relative to 
 the former which the latter cannot claim ? Concerning 
 the constitutional power of the national legislature to 
 pass the laws of collection, there never was any question. 
 But concerning its power, under the Constitution, to 
 pass such a body of laws as those which compose the 
 restrictive system, there always has been, there is, and 
 ever will be, a question. A very great majority in all 
 the commercial States always have denied that the 
 power of regulating commerce included the power of 
 annihilating it altogether. They believe nothing in the 
 project ; and they believe as little in your right to con- 
 vert their only means of prosperity to the purposes of 
 hostility. They ever will deny that any power is vested 
 in this or any other body of men to bring down direct 
 and certain ruin on the whole commercial section of the 
 country under pretence of producing an indirect and 
 uncertain pressure upon a foreign nation. Surely this 
 is a reason for a mild exercise of the power arising under 
 
348 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 these restrictive laws. If a right be dubious, the 
 exercise of it ought not to be made more obnoxious 
 by oppression. 
 
 Not only the authority is dubious, but the provisions 
 of the law outrage every received notion of legislative 
 prudence and foresight. They " outherod Herod." In 
 six years Congress have passed twenty laws creating at 
 least one hundred new offences. These offences are 
 constituted of acts, previously not only innocent, but 
 laudable ; not only laudable, but they were the most 
 common and necessary acts of whole sections of country 
 and whole classes of men. These new offences subject 
 the offenders to the most grievous penalties, fines, and 
 forfeitures, known to the revenue laws ; and are involved 
 in such a complexity of enactments, re-enactments, pro- 
 visions, proclamations, whole revocations and half revo- 
 cations, that no man under heaven can tell when he is 
 safe, or how or where to steer his course, without being 
 meshed in the web spread for him by your statutes. 
 Some idea maybe had of the degree of oppression added 
 to these penal laws, by the restrictive system, from 
 comparing the applications for remission antecedent to 
 the commencement of that system with those subse- 
 quent to it. Antecedent to the 19th of AjDril, 1806, 
 when your restrictive system commenced, all the appli- 
 cations for remission in the fifteen previous years 
 amounted to somewhat short of thirteen hundred. In 
 the six years the restrictive system has been in opera- 
 tion, there have been nine hundred and fifty-four, and, 
 if to these be added those known at the department 
 and not yet acted upon, the whole number exceeds one 
 thousand. So that the annual average of applications 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 349 
 
 for remission, since the restrictive system, is double the 
 annual average of applications antecedent to that period. 
 In other words, 3'^ou have doubled the number of the 
 snares of the law, and the cries of its victims are heard 
 in a double proportion. Do a-ou think that, when the 
 web of the law is thus extended beyond all reason 
 and precedent, you can strain its penalties to the ex- 
 tremest rigor of the statute without public sentiment 
 revolting against you? Is it in human nature to see its 
 fellow struggling innocently in the toils of unnatural 
 laws, without coming to its aid and taking vengeance 
 on its persecutors ? 
 
 I know it will be said that it is not proposed to con- 
 fiscate the whole, but only a part. In other words, you 
 will take not all that you want, but all that you dare. 
 To this I reply, You have no right to a single dollar, not 
 to a cent. The merchants are free of all legal taint. 
 They are free from all statute guilt. There is in the 
 case neither " wilful negligence nor fraud." The Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury does not pretend either. But 
 this is his situation, and this is the secret of his applica- 
 tion to Congress for their sanction to his exercise of this 
 great discretionary power. Confiscate the whole of this 
 immense amount, ruin hundreds and thousands on ac- 
 count of the breach of the letter of a penal statute, 
 he dare not. Mitigate, upon any principle which would 
 aid the Treasury in its necessities, he could not. He 
 therefore transfers the whole matter to the broad shoul- 
 ders of the legislature ; talks about " the magnitude and 
 unforeseen nature of the case ; " asserts roundly an un- 
 limited discretion existing in his department; tells of 
 " profits and extra profits " made by the merchants ; of 
 
 I 
 
350 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 the " tax levied " by them on the community ; and sums 
 up the whole matter with a hint that " it was thought 
 proper not to exercise his authority until Congress had 
 taken the subject into consideration, and prescribed, if 
 they thought proper, the course to be pursued." Well, 
 sir, and what do we witness now that the subject is 
 before Congress ? Why, we see every friend of the 
 Secretary, every man who is supposed to be in his par- 
 ticular confidence, advocating that Congress " should 
 think projjer to prescribe no course whatever to be pur- 
 sued," but refer the whole to the absolute discretion of 
 the Secretary. Can any man witness all this and not 
 understand the meaning ? To my ear it is as plain as 
 though he uttered it in so man}^ words on this floor : 
 " The poverty of the Treasury and not my will consents. 
 If Congress will take the odium and the risk, I will take 
 the knife and the flesh, and I will cut where and just as 
 much as you shall authorize." 
 
 I shall not be able to speak upon this subject, I fear, 
 without offending the nice sensibilities of some gentle- 
 men in the House. Of late an opinion seems to be 
 gaining ground upon this floor that a member cannot 
 denominate a doctrine or principle to be base or wicked 
 without attributing those qualities to those who may 
 have happened to advocate such doctrine or principle ; 
 and this, too, notwithstanding he expressly declares that 
 he has no intention of appl34ng attributes to such per- 
 sons, nor even intimating that their view is the same 
 with his own upon the subject. I protest, sir, against 
 such a restriction of the rights of debate as totally in-. 
 consistent with the necessary freedom of public investi- 
 gation. It is not only the right but it is the duty of 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 351 
 
 every man to whose moral perception any thing pro- 
 posed or asserted seems base or wicked to brand such 
 proposition or assertion with its appropriate epithet. 
 He owes this duty not only to the public, but to the 
 individual who has been unfortunate or mistaken 
 enough to advocate such an opinion or make such as- 
 sertion. And provided he does this as the state of his 
 own perception on the subject, and without attributing 
 motives or similar perceptions of the thing to others, 
 not only there is no reasonable ground of offence, but, 
 on the contrary, such a course is the only one reconcila- 
 ble with duty. How else shall the misguided or mis- 
 taken be roused from their moral lethargy or blindness 
 to a sense of the real condition or nature of things ? 
 What mortal has an intellect so clear as not sometimes 
 to have his view of things doubtful or obscure ? Whose 
 moral standard is so fixed and perfect as that it never 
 fails him at the moment of need ? If, after these explana- 
 tions, any person takes an exception at the statement of 
 my perceptions on this subject, and any hot humor should 
 fly out into vapor upon the occasion, — it has its liberty, 
 — I shall regard it no more than " the snapping of a 
 chestnut in a farmer's fire." 
 
 I say, then, Mr. Speaker, that to my view, — let it be 
 understood, sir, I do not assert that it is even the true 
 view, much less that it is the view of any gentleman 
 who advocates an opposite doctrine, — I say that to my 
 view, and for my single self, I would as soon be con- 
 cerned in a highway robbery as in this Treasury attempt. 
 Sir, I think a highway robbery a little higher in point 
 of courage, and a little less in point of iniquity. In 
 point of courage there is obviously no comparison. In 
 
352 SPEECH ON THE 
 
 point of the quality of the moral purpose, the robber 
 who puts his pistol to your breast only uses his power 
 to get your property. He attacks nothing but your 
 person. But in this Treasury attempt the reputation of 
 the victim is to be attacked to make an apology for con- 
 fiscating his property. Guilt is alleged, — guilt, of which 
 he is clear by the terms of the law, — for the purpose of 
 making him, though innocent, compound for escaping 
 the penalty. What is this but making calumny the 
 basis of plunder ? 
 
 This is not the view of a solitary individual. I have 
 letters on this subject from men not merchants, nor, as I 
 am apprised, particularly connected with the mercantile 
 class, whose language is perfectly similar to that I have 
 expressed. Indeed, sir, some exceed even these ex- 
 pressions in bitterness and indignation. Men look very 
 differently at a question of this kind when they are 
 removed a thousand miles from the sufferers, and see 
 the principle through the fascinating medium of Treas- 
 ury relief, than when they stand by the side of the vic- 
 tims, and see distress and ruin entailed upon innocence, 
 or, what in a moral view is worse, witness innocence 
 compelled to compound for mercy as though it were 
 guilt ! 
 
 I have been told, sir, that this state of opinion ought 
 to be concealed ; that it was calculated to offend. I 
 have been also told that we on this side of the House 
 ought not to take any part in this debate ; that a party 
 current would be made to set upon the question, and 
 this to the merchants was inevitable ruin. To all this I 
 have but one answer. My sense of duty allows no com- 
 promise on this occasion nor any concealment. I stand 
 
REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 353 
 
 not on this floor as a commercial agent, huckstering for 
 a bargain. As one of the representatives of the people 
 of Massachusetts, I maintain the rights of these men, 
 not because they are merchants, but because they are 
 citizens. The standard by which their rights are pro- 
 posed to be measured may be made the common stand- 
 ard for us all. There will soon be no safety for any 
 man, if fines, penalties, and forfeitures be once estab- 
 lished as the ways and means of the Treasury. 
 
 If I could wish that evil might be done that good 
 might result, I should hope that you would confiscate 
 the property of these merchants. If such a disposition 
 really prevails in the national legislature towards this 
 class of men, it is desirable that it should be known. 
 Act out your whole character. Show the temper which 
 is in you. The sooner will the people of the commercial 
 States understand what they owe to themselves and to 
 their section of country when there is no longer any 
 veil over the purposes of the cabinet and its sup- 
 porters. 
 
 But, it will be asked, what will become in the mean 
 time of the individuals whose whole fortunes are at 
 stake ? Trembling for the prospects of themselves and 
 their families, they stand, like thrice-knouted Russians, 
 before the Treasury czar and autocrat. I say, sir, let 
 them be true to themselves and true to their class and 
 true to their country, and they have nothing to fear. 
 Let them remember that it is under the pretexts of law 
 that all tyranny makes its advances. It bribes the 
 avarice of the many to permit it to oppress the few. 
 It talks of necessity, — necessity, the beggar's cloak, the 
 tyrant's plea. Let the merchants refuse all compromise, 
 
 23 
 
354 SPEECH ON THE REMISSION OF PENALTIES. 
 
 whether in the shape of loans or of equivalents or of com- 
 mutation for extra profits. Let them scorn, while inno- 
 cent, to pay any part of a penalty which is due only in 
 case of guilt ; fly to the States, and claim their con- 
 stitutional interposition ; interest their humanity to 
 afford a shield against so grievous a tyranny ; above 
 all, let them throw themselves upon the moral senti- 
 ment of the community, which will never countenance, 
 when once made to realize the nature of, the oppression. 
 And let this be their consolation that, as in the natural 
 so it is often in the moral and political world, the dark- 
 est hour of the night is that which precedes the first 
 dawning of the day. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 Jan. 5, 1813. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 Jan. 5, 1813. 
 
 [This speech, with which I shall conclude this collectioa, was 
 one of the most effective — the most so, probably, unless with the 
 exception of the one on the Admission of Louisiana — that Mr. 
 Quincy ever delivered. It came at the moment when party 
 spirit raged the most furiously ; and it certainly did not have, nor 
 did it propose to have, any tendency to calm its violence. In his 
 old age he declared that he stood by it in its substance and in its 
 form, and that " he shrunk not from the judgment of after-times." 
 And he had no reason to do so. Keen as is its invective, bitter 
 as is its sarcasm, and severe and heavy as are its denunciations, 
 the facts on which all these rest are clearly stated and ful'y sus- 
 tained. It was this, indeed, which gave them their force and their 
 sting and aroused the rage of the friends of the administration to 
 the height of fury. For three or four days Mr. Quincy and his 
 speech formed the object of the attack and denunciation of the 
 democratic speakers, with Mr. Clay, wlio left the Speaker's chair 
 for the purpose, at their head. But these things moved him not, 
 or were accepted as unwilling testimonies to the strength of the 
 position he had taken up. Though most sensitive to any thing 
 that could affect his true honor and real reputation, Mr. Quincy 
 was singularly indifferent to all attacks made upon him in 
 Congress or by the press, which he knew were not deserved. No 
 one was ever more scrupulously careful to make sure that his 
 
358 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 words and actions, as a public man, were exactly true and just, j 
 and none more unaffectedly indifferent as to what was thought or 1 
 said of the one or the other by friend or foe. — Ed.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I fear that the state of my health may 
 prevent my doing justice to my sentiments concerning 
 this bilL I will, however, make the attempt, though I 
 should fail in it. 
 
 The bill proposes that twenty thousand men should 
 be added to the existing military establishment. This, 
 at present, consists of thirty-five thousand men. So 
 that the effect of this bill is to place at the disposal of 
 the executive an army of fifty-five thousand. It is not 
 pretended that this addition is wanted either for defence 
 or for the relief of the Indian frontier. On the con- 
 trary, it is expressly acknowledged that the present 
 establishment is sufficient for both of those objects. 
 But the purpose for which these twenty thousand men 
 are demanded is the invasion of Canada. This is un- 
 equivocally avowed by the Chairman of the Committee 
 of Foreign Relations (Mr. D. R. Williams), the organ, 
 as is admitted, of the will and the wishes of the Ameri- 
 can cabinet. 
 
 The bill brings necessarily into deliberation the con- 
 quest of Canada, either as an object in itself desirable, 
 or inferentially advantageous by its effect in producing 
 an early and honorable peace. 
 
 Before I enter upon the discussion of those topics 
 which naturally arise from this state of the subject, I 
 will ask your indulgence for one moment, while I make 
 a few remarks upon this intention of the American cab- 
 inet, thus unequivocally avowed. I am induced to this 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 359 
 
 from the knowledge which I have that this design is 
 not deemed to be serious by some men of both political 
 parties, as w^ell within this Honse as out of it. I know 
 that some of the friends of the present administration do 
 consider the proposition as a mere feint, made for the 
 purpose of putting a good face upon things, and of 
 strengthening the hope of a successful negotiation by 
 exciting the apprehensions of the British cabinet for the 
 fate of their colonies. I know, also, that some of those 
 who are opposed in political sentiment to the men wdio 
 are now at the head of affairs laugh at these schemes of 
 invasion, and deem them hardly worth controversy, on 
 account of their opinion of the imbecility of the Ameri- 
 can cabinet and the embarrassment of its resources. 
 
 I am anxious that no doubt should exist upon this 
 subject, either in the House or in the nation. Whoever 
 considers the object of this bill to be any other than that 
 which has been avowed is mistaken. Whoever believes 
 this l)ill to be a means of peace, or any thing else than 
 an instrument of vigorous and long-protracted war, is 
 grievously deceived. And whoever acts under such 
 mistake or such deception wall have to lament one of 
 the grossest, and perhaps one of the most critical, errors 
 of his political life.. I warn, therefore, my political 
 opponents — those honest men, of which I know there 
 are some who, paying only a general attention to the 
 course of public affairs, submit the guidance of their 
 opinions to the men who stand at the helm — not to 
 vote for this bill under any belief that its object is to aid 
 negotiation for peace. Let such gentlemen recur to 
 their past experience on similar occasions. They will 
 find that it has been always the case, whenever any 
 
360 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 obnoxious measure is about to be passed, that its passage 
 is assisted by the aid of some such collateral sugges- 
 tions. No sooner do the cabinet perceive that any 
 potion which they intend to administer is loathed by a 
 considerable part of the majority, and that their appre- 
 hensions are alive lest it should have a scouring effect 
 upon their popularity, than certain under-operators are 
 set to work, whose business it is to amuse the minds and 
 beguile the attention of the patients while the dose is 
 swallowing. The language always is, " Trust the cabi- 
 net doctors. The medicine will not operate as you 
 imagine, but quite another way." After this manner 
 the fears of men are allayed, and the purposes of the 
 administration are attained under suggestions very dif- 
 ferent from the true motives. Thus the embargo, 
 which has since been unequivocally acknowledged to 
 have been intended to coerce Great Britain, was adopted, 
 as the executive asserted, " to save our essential re- 
 sources." So also, when the present war was declared 
 against Great Britain, members of the House were 
 known to state that they voted for it under the sugges- 
 tion that it would not be a war of ten days ; that it was 
 known that Mr. Foster had instructions to make defini- 
 tive arrangements in his pocket ; and that the United 
 States had only to advance to tlie point of war, and the 
 whole business would be settled. And now an army 
 which in point of numbers Cromwell might envy, greater 
 than that with which Csesar passed the Rubicon, is to 
 be helped through a reluctant Congress, under the sug- 
 gestion of its being only a parade force, to make nego- 
 tiation successful ; that it is the incipient state of a 
 project for a grand pacification ! 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 361 
 
 I warn also my political friends. These gentlemen 
 are apt to place great reliance on their own intelligence 
 and sagacity. Some of these will tell you that the 
 invasion of Canada is impossible. They ask where are 
 the men, where is the money, to be obtained? And 
 they talk very wisely concerning common-sense and 
 common prudence, and will show with much learning 
 how this attempt is an offence against both the one and 
 the otlier. But, sir, it has been my lot to be an observer 
 of the character and conduct of the men now in power, 
 for these eight years past. And I state without hesita- 
 tion that no scheme ever was, or ever will be, rejected 
 by them merely on account of its running counter to 
 the ordinary dictates of common-sense and common 
 prudence. On the contrary, on that very account, I 
 believe, it more likely to be both suggested and adopted 
 by them. And — what may appear a paradox — for 
 that very reason the chance is rather increased that 
 it will be successful. 
 
 I could illustrate this position twenty ways. I shall 
 content myself with remarking only upon two instances, 
 and those recent, — the present war, and the late inva- 
 sion of Canada. When war against Great Britain was 
 proposed at the last session, there were thousands in 
 these United States — and, I confess to you, I was myself 
 among the number — who believed not one word of the 
 matter. I put my trust in the old-fashioned notions of 
 common-sense and common prudence. That a people 
 which has been more than twenty years at peace should 
 enter upon hostilities against a people which had been 
 twenty years at war ; that a nation whose army and 
 navy were little more than nominal should engage in 
 
362 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 war with a nation possessing one of the best appointed 
 armies and the most powerful marine on the globe ; that 
 a country to which neutrality had been a perpetual har- 
 vest should throw that great blessing away for a contro- 
 versy in which nothing was to be gained and every 
 thing valuable put in jeopardy, — from these and in- 
 numerable like considerations the idea seemed so absurd 
 that I never once entertained it as possible. And now, 
 after war has been declared, the whole affair seems so 
 extraordinary^ and so utterly irreconcilable to any pre- 
 vious suggestions of wisdom and duty, that I know not 
 what to make of it or how to believe it. Even at this 
 moment my mind is very much in the state of certain 
 Pennsylvanian Germans, of whom I have heard it 
 asserted that they are taught to believe bj^ their polit- 
 ical leaders, and do at this moment consider, the allega- 
 tion that war is at present existing between the United 
 States and Great Britain to be a '" federal falsehood." 
 
 It was just so with respect to the invasion of Canada. 
 I heard of it last June. I laughed at the idea, as did 
 multitudes of others, as an attempt too absurd for 
 serious examination. I was in this case, again, beset 
 by common-sense and common prudence. That the 
 United States should precipitate itself upon the un- 
 offending people of that neighboring colony, unmindful 
 of all previously subsisting amities, because the parent 
 state, three thousand miles distant, had violated some 
 of our commercial rights ; that we should march inland 
 to defend our ships and seamen ; that, with raw troops, 
 hastily collected, miserably appointed, and destitute of 
 discipline, we should invade a country defended by 
 veteran forces, at least equal in point of numbers to the 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 363 
 
 invading army ; that boiint}'- should be offered, and 
 proclamations issued, inviting the subjects of a foreign 
 power to treason and rebellion under the influences of a 
 quarter of the country upon which a retort of the same 
 nature was so obvious, so easy, and in its consequences 
 so awful, — in every aspect, the design seemed so 
 fraught with danger and disgrace that it appeared 
 absolutely impossible that it should be seriously enter- 
 tained. Those, however, who reasoned after this manner 
 were, as the event proved, mistaken. The war was 
 declared. Canada was invaded. We were in haste to 
 plunge into these great difficulties, and we have now 
 reason, as well as leisure enough, for regret and re- 
 pentance. 
 
 The great mistake of all those who reasoned concern- 
 ing 'the war and the invasion of Canada, and concluded 
 that it was impossible that either should be seriously 
 intended, resulted from this, that they never took into 
 consideration the connection of both those events with 
 the great election for the chief magistracy which was 
 then pending. It never was sufficiently considered by 
 them that plunging into war with Great Britain was 
 among the conditions on which support for the presi- 
 dency was made dependent. They did not understand 
 that an invasion of Canada was to be, in truth, only a 
 mode of carrying on an electioneering campaign. But, 
 since events have explained political purposes, there is 
 no difficulty in seeing the connections between projects 
 and interests. It is noAV apparent to the most mole- 
 sighted how a nation may be disgraced, and yet a cabi- 
 net attain its desired honors. All is clear. A country 
 may be ruined in making an administration happy. 
 
364 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 I said, Mr. Speaker, that such strange schemes, 
 apparently irreconcilable to common-sense and common 
 prudence, were on that very account, more likely to be 
 successful. Sir, there is an audacity which sometimes 
 stands men instead both of genius and strength. And 
 most assuredly he is most likely to perform that which 
 no man ever did before, and will never be likely to do 
 again, who has the boldness to undertake that which 
 no man ever thought of attempting in time past, and 
 no man will ever think of attempting in time future. 
 I would not, however, be understood as intimating that 
 this cabinet project of invasion is impracticable, either 
 as it respects the collection of means and instruments 
 or in the ultimate result. On the contrary, sir, I deem 
 both very feasible. Men may be obtained. For if forty 
 dollars bounty cannot obtain them, a hundred dollars 
 bou;ity may, and the intention is explicitly avowed not 
 to suffer the attainment of the desired army to be pre- 
 vented by any vulgar notions of economy. Money may 
 be obtained. What by means of the increased popu- 
 larity derived from the augmentation of the navy, what 
 by opening subscription offices in the interior of the 
 country, what by large premiums, the cupidity of the 
 moneyed interest may be tempted beyond the point of 
 patriotic resistance, and all the attained means being 
 diverted to the use of the army, pecuniary resources 
 may be obtained, ample at least for the first year. 
 And, sir, let an army of thirty thousand men be col- 
 lected, let them be put under the command of a popular 
 leader, let them be officered to suit his purposes, let 
 them be flushed with victories and see the fascinating 
 career of military glory opening upon them, and they 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 365 
 
 will not thereafter ever be deficient in resources. If 
 they cannot obtain their pay by your votes, they will 
 collect it by their own bayonets ; and they will not 
 rigidly observe any air-lines or water-lines in enforcing 
 their necessary levies, nor be staj-ed by abstract specu- 
 lations concerning right, or learned constitutional diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 I desire, therefore, that it may be distinctly under- 
 stood, both by this House and this nation, that it is my 
 unequivocal belief that the invasion of Canada, which 
 is avowed by the cabinet to be its purpose, is intended 
 by it, — that continuance of the war and not peace is its 
 project. Yes, sir, as the French Emperor said concern- 
 ing ships and colonies, so our cabinet, the friends of the 
 French Emperor, may say, with respect to Canada 
 and Halifax, — " They enter into the scope of its 
 policy." 
 
 [Mr. Quincy was here called to order by Mr. Hall, of 
 Georgia, for intimating that the members of the cabinet 
 were friends of the French Emperor. 
 
 Mr. Quincy said that he understood that the relations 
 of amity did subsist between this country and France, 
 and that in such a state of things he had a right to 
 speak of the American cabinet as the friends of France, 
 in the same manner as he had now a right to call them 
 the enemies of Great Britain. 
 
 The Speaker said that the relations of amity certainly 
 did subsist between this country and France, and that 
 he did not conceive the gentleman from Massachusetts 
 to be out of order in his expressions ; that it was im- 
 possible to prevent gentlemen from expressing them- 
 selves so as to convey an innuendo.] 
 
366 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 • 
 
 Mr. Quincy proceeded : If, Mr. Speaker, the gentle- 
 man from Georgia and his political friends would take 
 one thing into consideration, he and they will have no 
 reason to complain in case the cabinet be of that im- 
 maculate nature he supposes. No administration, no 
 man, was ever materially injured by any mere " innu- 
 endo." The strength of satire is the justness of the 
 remark, and the only sting of invective is the truth of 
 the observation. 
 
 I will now proceed to discuss those topics which 
 naturally arise out of the bill under consideration and 
 examine the proposed invasion of Canada at three dif- 
 ferent points of view. 
 
 1. As a means of carrjdng on the existing war. 
 
 2. As a means of obtaining an early and honorable 
 peace. 
 
 3. As a means of advancing the personal and local 
 projects of ambition of the members of the American 
 cabinet. 
 
 Concerning the invasion of Canada as a means of 
 carrying on the subsisting war, it is my duty to speak 
 plainly and decidedly, not only because I herein express 
 my own opinions upon the subject, but, as I conscien- 
 tiously believe, the sentiments also of a very great 
 majority of that whole section of country in which I 
 have the happiness to reside. I saj-, then, sir, that I 
 consider the invasion of Canada as a means of carrying 
 on this war as cruel, wanton, senseless, and wicked. 
 
 You will easily understand, Mr. Speaker, by this very 
 statement of opinion, that I am not one of that class of 
 politicians which has for so many years predominated in 
 the world, on both sides of the Atlantic. You will 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 367 
 
 readily believe that I am not one of those who worship 
 in that temple where Condorcet is the high priest, and 
 Machiavel the God. With such politicians the end 
 always sanctifies the means ; the least possible good to 
 themselves perfectly justifies, according to their creed, 
 the inflicting the greatest possible evil U]3on others. In 
 the judgment of such men, if a corrupt ministry, at 
 three thousand miles distance, shall have done them an 
 injury, it is an ample cause to visit witli desolation a 
 peaceable and unoffending race of men, their neigh- 
 bors, who happen to be associated with that ministry by 
 ties of mere political dependence. What though these 
 colonies be so remote from the sphere of the questions 
 in controversy that their ruin or prosperity could have 
 no possible influence upon the result ? What though 
 their cities offer no plunder? What though their con- 
 quest can yield no glory ? In their ruin there is revenge ; 
 and revenge to such politicians is tlie sweetest of all 
 morsels. With such men neither I, nor the people 
 of that section of country in which I reside, hold any 
 communion. There is, between us and them, no one 
 principle of sympathy, either in motive or action. 
 
 That wise, moral, reflecting people which constitute 
 the great mass of the population of Massachusetts, 
 indeed of all New England, look for the sources of their 
 political duties nowhere else than in those fountains 
 from which spring their moral duties. According to 
 their estimate of human life and its obligations, both 
 political and moral duties emanate from the nature of 
 things, and from the essential and eternal relations 
 which subsist among them. True it is that a state of 
 war gives the right to seize and appropriate the property 
 
368 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 and territories of an enemy. True it is that the colonies 
 of a foreign power are viewed, according to the law of 
 nations, in the light of its property. But in estimating 
 the propriety of carrying desolation into the peaceful 
 abodes of their neighbors, the people of New England 
 will not limit their contemplation to the mere circum- 
 stance of abstract right, nor ask what lawyers and juris- 
 prudists have written or said, as if this was conclusive 
 upon the subject. That people are much addicted to 
 think for themselves, and, in canvassing the propriety of 
 such an invasion, they will consider the actual condition 
 of those colonies, their natural relations to us, and the 
 effect which their conquest and ruin will have, not only 
 upon the people of those colonies, but upon themselves, 
 and their own liberties and constitution. And, above 
 alb what I know will seem strange to some of those who 
 hear me, they will not forget to apply to a case occur- 
 ring between nations, as far as is practicable, that heaven- 
 descended rule which the great Author and Founder 
 of their religion has given them for the regulation of 
 their conduct towards each other. They will consider 
 it the duty of these United States to act towards those 
 colonies as they would wish those colonies to act in 
 exchange of circumstances towards these United States. 
 The actual condition of those colonies, and the rela- 
 tion in which they stood to the United States antecedent 
 to the declaration of war, were of this nature. Those 
 colonies had no connection with the questions in dispute 
 between us and their parent state. They had done us 
 no injury. They meditated none to us. Between the 
 inhabitants of those colonies and the citizens of the 
 United States the most friendly and mutually useful 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 369 
 
 intercourse subsisted. The borderers on this and those 
 on the other side of the St. Lawrence and of the 
 boundary line scarcely realized that they were subjects 
 of different governments. They interchanged expres- 
 sions and acts of civility. Intermarriages took place 
 among them. The Canadians sometimes settled in the 
 United States. Sometimes our citizens emigrated to 
 Canada. After the declaration of war, had they any 
 disposition to assail us ? ^^^e have the reverse expressly 
 in evidence. They desired nothing so much as to keep 
 perfect the then subsisting relations of amity. Would 
 the conquest of those colonies shake the policy of the 
 British Cabinet? No man has shown it. Unqualified 
 assertions, it is true, have been made, but totally un- 
 supported by any evidence or even the pretence of 
 argument. On the contrary, nothing was more obvious 
 than that an invasion of Canada must strengthen the 
 ministry of Great Britain by the excitement and sym- 
 pathy which would be occasioned in the people of that 
 country, in consequence of the sufferings of the innocent 
 inhabitants of those colonies on account of a dispute in 
 which they had no concern and of which they had 
 scarcely a knowledge. All this was anticipated. All this 
 was frequently urged to this House, at the last and pre- 
 ceding sessions, as the necessary effect of such a meas- 
 ure. The event has justified those predictions. The late 
 elections in Great Britain have terminated in the com- 
 plete triumph of the friends of the British ministry. In 
 effecting this change, the conduct of these United States 
 in relation to Canada has had undeniably a mighty 
 influence by the disgust and indignation felt by the 
 British people at a step so apparently wanton and cruel. 
 
 24 
 
370 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 As there was no direct advantage to be hoped from 
 the conquest of Canada, so also there was none inci- 
 dental. Plunder thei-e was none ; at least none which 
 would pay the cost of the conquest. Glory there was 
 none. Could seven millions of people obtain glory by 
 precipitating themselves upon half a million and tram- 
 pling them into the dust? a giant obtain glory by 
 crushing a pigmy ! That giant must have a pigmy's 
 spirit who could reap or hope glory from such an 
 achievement. 
 
 Surely a people with whom we were connected by so 
 many natural and adventitious ties had some claims 
 upon our humanity. Surely, if our duty required that 
 they and theirs should be sacrificed to our interests or 
 our passions, some regret mingled in the execution of 
 the purpose. We postponed the decree of ruin until 
 the last moment. We hesitated, we delayed, until longer 
 delay was dangerous. Alas, sir ! there was nothing of 
 this kind or character in the conduct of the cabinet. 
 The war had not yet been declared when General Hull 
 had his instructions to put in train the work of destruc- 
 tion. There was an eagerness for the blood of the 
 Canadians, a headlong precipitation for their ruin, 
 which indicated any thing else rather than feelings of 
 humanity or visitings of nature on account of their con- 
 dition. Our armies were on their march for their fron- 
 tier, while yet peace existed between this country and 
 the parent State ; and the invasion ^^'as obstinately pur- 
 sued after a knowledge that the chief ground of contro- 
 versy was settled by the abandonment of the British 
 Orders in Council, and after nothing remained but a stale 
 ground of dispute, which, however important in itself, 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 371 
 
 was of a nature for which no man has ever 3'et pretended 
 that for it alone war would have been declared. Did 
 ever one government exhibit towards any people a more 
 bloody and relentless spirit of rancor ? Tell not me of 
 petty advantages, of remote and possibly useful contin- 
 gencies, which might arise from the devastation of those 
 colonies. Show any advantage which justifies that 
 dreadful vial of wrath, which, if the intention of the 
 American cabinet had been fulfilled, would at this day 
 have been poured out upon the heads of the Canadians. 
 It is not owing to the tender mercies of the American 
 administration if the bones of the Canadians are not at 
 this hour mingled with the ashes of their habitations. 
 It is easy enough to make an excuse for any purpose. 
 When a victim is destined to be immolated, every hedge 
 presents sticks for the sacrifice. The lamb who stands 
 at the mouth of the stream will always trouble the 
 water, if j-ou take the account of the wolf who stands 
 at the source of it. But show a good to us bearing 
 any proportion to the multiplied evils proposed to be 
 visited upon them. There is none. Never was there 
 an invasion of any country worse than this, in 23oint of 
 moral principle, since the invasion of the West Indies 
 by the buccaneers, or that of these United States by 
 Captain Kidd. Indeed, both Kidd and the buccaneers 
 had more apology for their deed than the American 
 cabinet. They had at least the hope of plunder. But 
 in this case there is not even the poor refuge of cupidity. 
 We have heard great lamentations about the disgrace of 
 our arms on the frontier. Why, sir, the disgrace of our 
 arms on the frontier is terrestrial glory in comparison 
 with the disgrace of the attempt. The whole atmos- 
 
372 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 phere rings with tlie utterance, from the other side of 
 the House, of this word, " Glory, glory," in connection 
 with this invasion. What glory ? Is it the glory of the 
 tiger, which lifts his jaws, all foul and bloody, from, the 
 bowels of his victim, and roars for his companions of 
 the wood to come and witness his prowess and his 
 spoils ? Such is the glory of Genghis Khan and of 
 Bonaparte. Be such glory far, very far, from my coun- 
 try. Never, never may it be accursed with such fame. 
 
 " Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil, 
 Nor in tlie glistering foil 
 Set ofl" to the world, nor in broad rumor lies ; 
 But lives and spreads alolt by those pure eyes 
 And perfect witness of all-judging Jove, 
 As he pronounces lastly on each deed." 
 
 May such fame as this be my country's meed ! 
 
 But the wise and thoughtful people of our northern 
 section will not confine their reflections to the duties 
 which result from the actual condition of those colonies 
 and their general relations to the United States. They 
 will weigh the duties the people of the United States 
 owe to themselves, and contemplate the effect which the 
 subjugation of those Canadians will have upon our own 
 liberties and Constitution. Sir, it requires but little 
 experience in the nature of the human character, and 
 but a very limited acquaintance with the history of 
 man, to be satisfied that with the conquest of the 
 Canadas the liberties and Constitution of this country 
 perish. 
 
 Of all nations in the world this nation is the last 
 which ought to admit among its purposes the design of 
 foreign conquests. States such as are these, connected 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 373 
 
 by ties so peculiar, into whose combination there enters 
 necessarily numerous jealousies* and fears, whose inter- 
 ests are not always reconcilable, and the passions, edu- 
 cation, and character of whose people on many accounts 
 are repugnant to each qther, with a Constitution made 
 merely for defence, it is impossible that an association 
 of independent sovereignties, standing in such relations 
 to each other, should not have the principles of its Union 
 and the hopes of its Constitution materially affected by 
 the collection of a large military force, and its employ- 
 ment in the subjugation of neighboring territories. It 
 is easy to see that an army collected in such a state of 
 society as that which exists in this country, where wages 
 are high and subsistence easily to be obtained, must be 
 composed, so far as resj)ects the soldiery, for the most 
 part of the refuse of the country ; and, as it respects 
 the officers, — with some honorable exceptions, indeed, — 
 must consist in a considerable degree of men desperate 
 sometimes in fortune, at others in reputation, " choice 
 spirits," men " tired of the dull pursuits of civil life," 
 who have not virtue or talents to rise in a calm and set- 
 tled state of things, and who, all other means of advance- 
 ment or support wanting or failing, take to the sword. 
 A l)ody of thirty or fifty thousand such men combined, 
 armed and under a popular leader, is a very formidable 
 force. They want only discipline and service to make 
 them veterans. Opportunity to acquire these Canada 
 will afford. The army which advances to the walls of 
 Quebec, in the present condition of Canadian prepara- 
 tion, must be veteran. And a veteran army under a 
 popular leader, flushed with victory, each individual 
 realizing that while the body remains combined he may 
 
374 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 be something, and possibly veiy great, that if dissolved 
 he sinks into insignificance, will not be disbanded b}* vote. 
 They will consult with one another, and with their 
 beloved chieftain upon this subject, and not trouble 
 themselves about the advice of the old people who are 
 knitting and weaving in the chimney-corners at Wash- 
 ington. Let the American people receive this as an 
 undoubted truth which experience will verify : M'ho- 
 ever plants the American standard on the walls of Que- 
 bec conquers it for himself, and not for the peo})le of 
 these United States. Whoever lives to see that event 
 — may my head be low in the dust before it happen ! — 
 will witness a dynasty established in that country by 
 the sword. He will see a king or an emperor, duke- 
 doms and earldoms and baronies distributed to the 
 officers, and knights' fees bestowed on the soldiery. 
 And such an army will not trouble itself about geo- 
 graphical lines in portioning out the divisions of its new 
 empire, and will run the parallels of its power by other 
 steel than that of the com^jass. When that event hap- 
 pens, the people of New England, if they mean to be 
 free, must have a force equal to defend themselves 
 against such an arm3\ And a military force equal to 
 this object will itself be able to enslave the countr3^ 
 
 Mr. Speaker, when I contemplate the character and 
 consequences of this invasion of Canada, when I reflect 
 upon its criminality and its danger to the peace and lib- 
 erty of this once hapj)y country, I thank the great 
 Author and Source of all virtue that, through his grace, 
 that section of country in which I have the happiness to 
 reside is in so great a degree free from the iniquity of 
 this transgression. I speak it with pride : the peoj)le of 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 375 
 
 that section have done what they could to vindicate 
 themselves and their children from the burden of this 
 sin. That whole section has risen, almost as one man, 
 for the purpose of driving from power by one great con- 
 stitutional effort the guilty authors of this war. If they 
 have failed, it has been, not through the want of will or 
 of exertion, but in consequence of the weakness of their 
 political power. When in the usual course of divine 
 providence, who punishes nations as well as individuals, 
 his destroying angel shall on this account pass over this 
 country, — and, sooner or later, pass it will, — I may be 
 permitted to hope that over New England his hand will 
 be stayed. Our souls are not steeped in the blood 
 which has been shed in this war. The spirits of the 
 unhapp}^ men who have been sent to an untimely audit 
 have borne to the bar of divine justice no accusations 
 against us. 
 
 This opinion concerning the principle of this invasion 
 of Canada is not peculiar to me. Multitudes who 
 approve the war detest it. I believe this sentiment is 
 entertained, without distinction of parties, by almost all 
 the moral sense and nine-tenths of the intelligence of 
 the whole northern section of the United States. I 
 know that men from that quarter of the country Avill 
 tell you differently. Stories of a very different kind are 
 brought by all those who come trooping to Washington 
 for place, appointments, and emoluments ; men who will 
 say any thing to please the ear, or do any thing to please 
 the eye, of Majesty, for the sake of those fat contracts 
 and gifts which it scatters ; men whose fathers, brothers, 
 and cousins are provided for by the departments ; whose 
 full-grown children are at suck at the money-distilling 
 
376 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 breasts of the Treasury ; the little men who sigh after 
 great offices ; those who have judgeships in hand or 
 judgeships in promise ; toads that live upon the vapor 
 of the palace ; that stare and wonder at all the fine 
 sights which they see there, and most of all wonder at 
 themselves, — how they got there to see them. These 
 men will tell you that New England applauds this 
 invasion. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, look at the elections. What is the 
 language they speak ? The present tenant of the chief 
 magistracy rejected by that whole section of country, 
 with the exce]3tion of a single State, unanimously. 
 And for whom ? In favor of a man, out of the circle of 
 his own State, without much influence and personally 
 almost unknowii : in favor of a man against whom the 
 prevailing influences in New England had previously 
 strong political prejudices ; and with whom, at the time 
 of giving him their support, they had no political under- 
 standing : in favor of a man whose merits, whatever in 
 other respects they might be, were brought into notice 
 in the first instance, chiefly, so far as that election was 
 concerned, by their opinion of the utter want of merit 
 of the man whose re-election the}^ opposed. 
 
 Among the causes of that universal disgust which 
 j^ervaded all New England at the administration and its 
 supporters was the general dislike and contempt of this 
 invasion of Canada. I have taken some pains to learn 
 the sentiments which prevail on this subject in New 
 England, and particularly among its yeomanry, the 
 pride and the hope of that country. I have conversed 
 with men, resting on their spades and leaning on the 
 handles of their ploughs, while they relaxed for a 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 377 
 
 moment from the labor by Avhich they support their 
 families, and Avhich gives such a hardihood and charac- 
 ter to their virtnes. The}' asked, " What do we want 
 of Canada ? We have land enough. Do we want 
 plunder ? There is not enough of that to pay the cost 
 of getting it. Are our ocean rights there ? or is it there 
 our seamen are held in captivity? Are new States 
 desired ? We have plenty of those already ? Are they 
 to be held as conquered territories ? This will require 
 an army there : then, to be safe, we must have an army 
 here ; and, with a standing army, what security for our 
 liberties?" 
 
 These are no fictitious reasonings. They are the 
 suggestions, I doubt not, of thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands of our hardy New England yeomanry, — men 
 who when their country calls, at any wise and real exi- 
 gency, will start from their native soils and throw their 
 shields over their liberties, like the soldiers of Cadmus, 
 " armed in complete steel ; " yet men who have heard 
 the winding of your horn to the Canada campaign with 
 the same apathy and indifference with which they would 
 hear in the streets the trilling of a jews-harp or the 
 tinkling of a banjo. 
 
 The plain truth is, that the people of New England 
 have no desire for Canada. Their moral sentiment 
 does not justify, and they will not countenance, its in- 
 vasion. I have thus stated the grounds on which they 
 deem, and I have felt myself bound to maintain, that 
 this contemplated invasion of that territory is, as it 
 respects the Canadians, wanton and cruel ; because it 
 inflicts the greatest imaginable evils on them without 
 any imaginable benefit to us ; that, as it respects the 
 
378 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 United States, such an invasion is senseless, because 
 ultimately ruinous to our own political safety ; and 
 wicked, because it is an abuse of the blessings of Divine 
 Providence, and a manifest perversion of his multiplied 
 bounties to the purpose of desolating an innocent and 
 unoffending people. 
 
 I shall now proceed to the next view I proposed to 
 take of this project of invading Canada, and consider it 
 in the light of a means to obtain an early and honorable 
 peace. It is said, and this is the whole argument in 
 favor of this invasion in this aspect, that the only way 
 to negotiate successfully with Great Britain is to appeal 
 to her fears, and raise her terrors for the fate of her 
 colonies. I shall here say nothing concerning the diffi- 
 culties of executing this scheme, nor about the possi- 
 bility of a deficiency both in men and money. I will 
 not dwell on the disgust of all New England, nor on 
 the influence of this disgust with respect to your efforts. 
 I will admit for the present that an army may be raised, 
 and that during the first years it may be supported by 
 loans, and that afterwards it will support itself by 
 bayonets. I Avill admit farther, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that success is possible, and that Great Britain 
 realizes the practicability of it. Now, all this being 
 admitted, I maintain that the surest of all possible ways 
 to defeat any hope from negotiation is the threat of 
 such an invasion, and an active preparation to execute 
 it. Those must be very young politicians — their pin- 
 feathers not yet grown, and, however they may flutter 
 on this floor, they are not yet fledged for any high or 
 distant flight — who think that threats and appealing 
 to fear are the ways of producing a disposition to nego- 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 379 
 
 tiate in Great Britain, or in any other nation Avliieh under- 
 stands what it owes to its own safety and honor. Xo 
 nation can yield to threat what it might ^''ield to a sense 
 of interest ; because, in that case, it has no credit for what 
 it grants, and, what is more, loses something in point of 
 reputation from the imbecility which concessions made 
 under such circumstances indicate. Of all nations in 
 the world. Great Britain is the last to yield to consider- 
 ations of fear and terror. The whole history of the 
 British nation is one tissue of facts tending to show the 
 spirit with which she meets all attempts to bull}^ and 
 browbeat her into measures inconsistent with her inter- 
 ests or her policy. No nation ever before made such 
 sacrifices of the present to the future. No nation ever 
 built her greatness more systematically on the principle 
 of a haughty self-respect, which yields nothing to sug- 
 gestions of danger, and which never permits either her 
 ability or inclination to maintain her rights to be sus- 
 pected. In all negotiations, therefore, with that power, 
 it may be taken as a certain truth that your chance of 
 failure is just in proportion to the publicity and obtru- 
 siveness of threats and appeals to fear. 
 
 The American cabinet understand all this very well, 
 although this House may not. Their policy is founded 
 uj)on it. The project of this bill is to put at a still 
 further distance the chance of amicable arrangement, in 
 consequence of the dispositions which the threat of 
 invasion of their colonies and attempt to execute it will 
 excite in the British nation and ministry. I have some 
 claim to speak concerning the policy of the men who 
 constitute the American cal)inet. For eight years I 
 have studied their history, characters, and interests. I 
 
380 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 know no reasons why I should judge them severely, 
 except such as arise from those inevitable conclusions 
 which avowed principles and distinct conduct have 
 impressed uj)on the mind. I say then, sir, without 
 hesitation, that in my judgment the embarrassment of 
 our relations with Great Britain, and keeping alive 
 between this country and that a root of bitterness, has 
 been, is, and will continue to be, a main principle of the 
 policy of this American cabinet. They want not a 
 solid settlement of our differences. If the nation will 
 support them in it, they will persevere in the present 
 war. If it will not, some general arrangements will be 
 the resort, which will leave open opportunities for dis- 
 cord, which, on proper occasions, will be improved by 
 them. I sha,ll give my reasons for this opinion. I wish 
 no sentiments of mine to have influence any farther 
 than the reasons upon which they are founded justify. 
 They are public reasons, arising from undeniable facts : 
 the nation will judge for itself. 
 
 The men who now, and who for these twelve years 
 past have, to the misfortune of this country, guided its 
 councils and directed its destinies, came into power on 
 a tide which was raised and supported by elements con- 
 stituted of British prejudices and British antipathies. 
 The parties which grew up in this nation took their 
 origin and form at the time of the adoption of the 
 treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay in 1794. The opposition 
 of that day, of which the men now in power were the 
 leaders, availed themselves very dexterously of the 
 relics of that hatred towards the British name which 
 remained after the revolutionary war. By perpetually 
 blowing upon the embers of the ancient passions they 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 381 
 
 excited a flame in the nation ; and, by systematically 
 directing it against the honorable men who at that time 
 conducted its affairs, the strength and influence of 
 those men were impaired. The embarrassments with 
 France, which succeeded in 1798 and 1799, were turned 
 to the same account. Unfortunately those who then 
 conducted public affairs attended less to the appearances 
 of things than to tlieir natures, and considered more 
 what was due to their country than was prudent in the 
 state of the prejudices and jealousies of the people, 
 thus artfully excited against them. They went on in 
 the course they deemed right, regardless of personal 
 consequences, and blind to the evidences of discontent 
 which surrounded them. The consequences are well 
 known. The supreme power in these United States 
 passed into the hands which now possess it, in which it 
 has been continued down to the present time. This 
 transfer of power was effected undeniably princijjally on 
 the very ground of these prejudices and antipathies 
 which existed in the nation against Great Britain, and 
 which had been artfully fomented by the men now in 
 power and their adherents, and directed against their 
 predecessors. These jDrejudices and passions constitute 
 the main pillar of the power of these men. In my 
 opinion they never will permit it to be wholly taken 
 away from them. They never will permit the people 
 of this country to look at them and their political 
 opponents free of that jaundice with which they have 
 carefully imbued the vision of their own partisans. 
 They never will consent to be weighed in a balance of 
 mere merits, but will always take care to keep in reserve 
 some portion of these British antipathies to throw as a 
 
382 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 make-weight into the opposite scale whenever they find 
 their own sinking. To continue, multiply, strengthen, 
 and extend these props of their power has been and 
 still is the object of the daily- study and the nightly 
 vigils of our American cabinet. For this the British 
 treaty was permitted to expire by its own limitation ; 
 notwithstanding the state of things which the treaty of 
 Amiens had produced in Europe was so little like per- 
 manent peace that the occurrence of the fact on which 
 the force of that limitation depended might easily have 
 been questioned with but little violence to the terms 
 and in perfect conformity with its spirit ; for this a 
 renewal of the treaty of 1794 was refused by our 
 cabinet, although proffered by the British government : 
 for this the treaty of 1807, negotiated by Messrs. 
 Monroe and Pinkney, was rejected; for this, in 1811, 
 fifty thousand dollars were paid out of the public 
 Treasury to John Henry for the obvious purpose of 
 enabling the American cabinet to calumniate their 
 political opponents on this very point of British influ- 
 ence upon the eve of elections occurring in Massachu- 
 setts, on the event of which the i^erpetuation of their 
 own power was materially dependent. Mr. Speaker, 
 such men as these never will permit a state of things to 
 pass away so essential to their influence. Be it peace 
 or war, arrangement or hostility, the association of these 
 British antipathies in the minds of the mass of the com- 
 munity with the characters of their political opponents 
 constitutes the great magazine of their power. This 
 composes their whole political larder. It is, like Lord 
 Peter's brown loaf, their "beef, mutton, veal, venison, 
 partridge, plum-pudding, and custard." 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 383 
 
 From the time of the expiration of the British treaty 
 of 1794, and the refusal to renew it, the American cab- 
 inet have been careful to precede negotiation with some 
 circumstance or other calculated to make it fail, or at 
 least to make a successful result less certain. Thus, in 
 1806, when, from the plunder of our commerce by Brit- 
 ish cruisers, a negotiation, notwithstanding the obvious 
 reluctance of the cabinet, was forced upon them by the 
 clamors of the merchants, the non-importation laAV of 
 April in that year was obtruded between the two coun- 
 tries. In the course of the debate upon that law, it 
 was opposed upon this very ground, that it was an ob- 
 stacle to a successful negotiation. It was advocated, 
 like the bill now under discussion, as an aid to success- 
 ful negotiation. It was also said, by the opponents of 
 that law of 1806, that Great Britain would not nego- 
 tiate under its operation, and that arrangement, at- 
 tempted under proper auspices, could not be difficult, 
 from the known interests and inclinations of that nation. 
 What was the consequence ? Precisely that which Avas 
 anticipated. The then President of the United States 
 was necessitated to come to this House and recommend 
 a suspension of the operation of that law, upon the 
 openly avowed ground of its being expedient to give 
 that evidence of a conciliatory disposition, really be- 
 cause, if permitted to continue in operation, negotiation 
 was found to be impracticable. After the suspension 
 of that law a treaty was formed. The merits of that 
 treaty it is not within the scope of my present argument 
 to discuss. It is sufficient to say it was deemed good 
 enough to receive the sanction of jNlessrs. Monroe and 
 Pinkney. It arrived in America, and was rejected by 
 
384 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 the authority of a single individual,' apparently because 
 of the insufficiency of the arrangement about impress- 
 ment, really because a settlement with Great Britain at 
 that time did not " enter into the scope of the policy " 
 of the American cabinet. The negotiation was, indeed, 
 renewed ; but it was followed up with the enforcement 
 of the non-importation law and the enactment of the 
 embargo ; both which steps were stated at the time, as 
 they proved afterwards, to be of a nature to make hope- 
 less successful negotiation. 
 
 In this state, the executive power of this nation for- 
 mally passed into new hands, but substantially remained 
 under the old principles of action and subject to the 
 former influences. It was desirable that a fund of pop- 
 ularity should be acquired for the new administration. 
 Accordingly an arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine, 
 and no questions asked concerning the adequacy of his 
 powers. But, lest this circumstance should not defeat 
 the proposed arrangement, a clause was inserted in the 
 correspondence, containing an insult to the British gov- 
 ernment, oifered in the face of the world, such as no 
 man ever gave to a private individual whom he did not 
 mean to offend. The President of the United States 
 said in so many words to the person at the head of 
 that government that he did not understand what be- 
 longed to his own honor as well as it was understood 
 by the President himself. The effect of such language 
 was natural ; it was necessary ; it could not but render the 
 British government averse to sanction Erskine's arrange- 
 ment. The effect was anticipated by Mr. Robert Smith, 
 
 1 President Jefferson, wlio rejected the treaty, witliout submitting it to 
 the Senate, as he was constitutionally bound to do, or even consulting liis 
 own cabinet. 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 385 
 
 then acting as Secretaiy of State. He objected to its 
 being inserted ; but it was done in the President's own 
 handwriting. As ]\Ir. Erskine's authority was denied 
 by the British government, it is well known that in fact 
 on the point of this indignity the fate of that arrangement 
 turned. Can any one doubt that our cabinet meant 
 that it should have this effect ? I send 30U woixl, Mr. 
 Speaker, " that I have agreed with your messenger, and 
 wish you to ratify it. I think you, however, no gentle- 
 man notwithstanding, and that you do not understand 
 as well as I what is due to 3^our own honor." What 
 think you, sir ? Would you ratify such an arrangement 
 if you could help it ? Does a proffer of settlement, con- 
 nected with such language, look like a disposition or an 
 intention to conciliate ? I appeal to the common-sense 
 of mankind on the point. 
 
 The whole state of the relations induced between this 
 country and Great Britain, in consequence of our em- 
 bargo and restrictive systems, was in fact a standing 
 appeal to the fears of the British Cabinet ; for, notwith- 
 standing those systems were equal in their terms so far 
 as they affected foreign powers, yet their operation was 
 notoriously almost wholly upon Great Britain. To yield 
 to that pressure, or do any thing which should foster in 
 this country the idea that it was an effectual weapon of 
 hostility, was nothing more than conceding that she was 
 dependent upon us, — a concession which when once 
 made by her was certain to encourage a resort to it by 
 us on every occasion of difficulty between the two na- 
 tions. Reasoning, therefore, upon the known nature of 
 things, and the plain interests of Great Britain, it was 
 foretold that during its continuance she would concede 
 
 25 
 
386 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 nothing, and the event has justified those predictions. 
 But the circumstance the most striking, and that fur- 
 nishing the most conclusive evidence of the indisposition 
 of the American cabinet to peace and their determina- 
 tion to carry on the war, is that connected with the 
 pretended repeal of the French decrees in November, 
 1810, and the consequent revival, in 1811, of our re- 
 strictive system against Great Britain. 
 
 If ever a body of men were pledged to any thing, 
 the American cabinet, its friends and supporters, were 
 pledged for tlie truth of this fact, that the French 
 decrees of Berlin and Milan were definitively repealed, 
 as it respects the United States, on the 1st of Novem- 
 ber, 1810. If ever any body of men staked their whole 
 stock of recantation upon any point, our cabinet did it 
 on this. They and their partisans asserted and raved. 
 They denounced every man as a British partisan who 
 denied it. They declared the restrictive system was 
 revived by the mere effect of the proclamation. But, 
 lest the courts of law should not be as subservient to 
 their policy as might be wished, they passed the law of 
 the 2d March, 1811, upon the basis of this repeal, and 
 of its being definitive. The British government refused, 
 however, to recognize the validity of this repeal, and 
 denied that the Berlin and Milan decrees were repealed 
 on the 1st November, 1810, as our cabinet asserted. 
 Thus, then, stood the argument between the British 
 ministry and our cabinet. The British ministry admitted 
 that, if the Berlin and Milan decrees were repealed on 
 the 1st November, 1810, they Avere bound to revoke 
 their Orders in Council. But they denied that repeal 
 to exist. Our cabinet, on the other hand, admitted 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 387 
 
 that, if the Berlin and Milan decrees were not repealed 
 on the 1st November, 1810, the restrictive system ought 
 not to have been revived against Great Britain. But 
 they asserted that repeal to exist. This was virtually 
 the state of the question between the two countries on 
 this point. And it is agreed, on all hands, that this 
 refusal of the British government to repeal their Orders 
 in Council, after the existence of the repeal of the 
 Berlin and Milan decrees, as asserted by tlie American 
 cabinet, was the cause of the declaration of war between 
 the two countries. So that, in truth, the question of 
 the right of war depended upon the existence of that 
 fact; for if that fact did not exist, even the American 
 cabinet did not pretend that, in the position in which 
 things then stood, they had a right to declare war on 
 account of the continuance of the British Orders in 
 Council. 
 
 Now, what is the truth, in relation to this all-impor- 
 tant fact, the definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan 
 decrees on the 1st November, 1810, — the pivot u23on 
 which turned the revival of the restrictive system and 
 our declaration of war ? Why, sir, the event has proved 
 that, in relation to that fact, the American cabinet was, 
 to say the least, in an error. Bonaparte himself, in a 
 decree dated the 28th of April, 1811, but not promul- 
 gated till a year afterwards, distinctly declares that the 
 Berlin and Milan decrees were not definitively repealed, 
 as relates to the United States, on the 1st November, 
 1810. He also declares that they are then, on that 
 28th of April, for the first time repealed. And he 
 founds the issuing of this decree on the act of the 
 American Congress of the 2d of March, 1811, — that 
 
388 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 very act which was passed upon the ground of the 
 definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees on the 
 ,1st November, 1810 ; and which, it is agreed on all 
 sides, the American government were bound in honor 
 not to pass, except in case of such antecedent repeal ! !- 
 
 Were ever a body of men so abandoned in the hour 
 of need as the American cabinet, in this instance, by 
 Bonaparte ? Was ever any body of men so cruelly 
 wounded in the -house of their friend? This — this 
 was " the unkindest cut of all." But how was it re- 
 ceived by the American cabinet ? Surely, they were 
 indignant at this treatment. Surely, the air rings with 
 reproaches upon a man who has thus made them stake 
 their reputation upon a falseliood, and then gives little 
 less than the lie direct to their assertions. No, sir, 
 nothing of all this is heard from our cabinet. There is 
 a philosophic tameness that would be remarkable if it 
 were not in all cases affecting Bonaparte characteristic. 
 All the executive of the United States has found it in 
 his heart to say in relation to this last decree of Bona- 
 parte, which contradicts Ins previous allegations and 
 asseverations, is that " this proceeding is rendered, 
 by the time and manner of it, liable to many objec- 
 tions " 1 ! ! 
 
 I have referred to this subject as being, connected 
 with future conduct, strikingly illustrative of the dispo- 
 sition of the American cabinet to carry on the war, and 
 of their intention, if possible, not to make peace. 
 Surely, if any nation had a claim for liberal treatment 
 from another, it was the British nation from the Amer- 
 ican, after the discovery of the error of the American 
 government in relation to the repeal of the Berlin and 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 389 
 
 Milan decrees in November, 1810. In consequence of 
 that error, the American cabinet had ruined numbers 
 of our own citizens who had been caught by the revival 
 of the non-intercourse law : they had revived that law 
 against Great Britain under circumstances which now 
 appeared to have been fallacious ; and they had declared 
 w^ar against her on the supposition that she had refused 
 to repeal her Orders in Council, after the French 
 decrees were in fact revoked ; whereas, it now appears 
 that they were in fact not revoked. Surely the knowl- 
 edge of this error was followed by an instant and anxious 
 desire to redress the resulting injury. As the British 
 Orders in Council were in fact revoked, on the knowl- 
 edge of the existence of the French decree of repeal, 
 surely the American cabinet at once extended the hand 
 of friendship, met the British government half way, 
 stopped all further irritation, and strove to place every 
 thing on a basis best suited to promote an amicable 
 adjustment. No, sir, nothing of all this occurred. On 
 the contrary, the question of ira^iressments is made the 
 basis of continuing the war. On this subject, a studied 
 fairness of proposition is preserved, accompanied with 
 S3'stematic perseverance in measures of hostility. An 
 armistice was proposed by them. It was refused hy us. 
 It was acceded to by the American general on the 
 frontiers. It was rejected by the cabinet. No consid- 
 eration of the false allegation on which the war in fact 
 was founded, no consideration of the critical and ex- 
 tremely essential nature to both nations of the sub- 
 ject of impressment, no considerations of humanity, 
 interposed their influence. They renewed hostilities. 
 They rushed upon Canada. Nothing would satisfy them 
 
390 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 but blood. The language of their conduct is that of the 
 giant, in the legends of infancy, — 
 
 Fee, Faw, Fum, 
 
 I smell the blood of an Englishman, 
 
 Dead or alive, I will have some. 
 
 Can such men pretend that peace is their object ? 
 Whatever may result, the perfect conviction of my mind 
 is that they have no such intention, and that, if it come, 
 it is contrary both to their hope and expectation. 
 
 I would not judge these men severely. But it is my 
 duty to endeavor to judge them truly, and to express 
 fearlessl}^ the result of that judgment, whatever it may 
 be. My opinion results from the application of the well- 
 known j)i'inciple of judging concerning men's j)urposes 
 and motives, — to consider rather what men do than what 
 they say ; and to examine their deeds in connection with 
 predominating passions and interests, and on this basis 
 decide. In making an estimate of the intentions of 
 these or any other politicians, I make little or no ac- 
 count of pacific pretensions. There is a general reluc- 
 tance at war and desire of peace which jDcrvades the 
 great mass of ever}^ people ; and artful rulers could 
 never keep any nation at war, any length of time 
 beyond their true interests, without some sacrifice to 
 that general love of peace which exists in civilized men. 
 Bonaparte himself \vi\\ tell you that he is the most pa- 
 cific creature in the world. He has already declared, by 
 his proclamation to Frenchmen, that he has gone to 
 Moscow for no other end than to cultivate peace and 
 counteract the Emperor of Russia's desire of war. In 
 this country, where the popular sentiment has so strong 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 391 
 
 an impulse on its affairs, the same obtrusive pretension 
 must inevitably be preserved. No man, or set of men, 
 ever can or will get this country at war, or continue it 
 long in war, without keeping on hand a stout, round 
 stock of gulling matter. Fair propositions will always 
 be made to go hand in hand with offensive acts. And 
 when something is offered so reasonable that no man 
 can doubt but it will be accepted, at the same moment 
 something will be done of a nature to embarrass the 
 project, and if not to defeat at least to render its accept- 
 ance dubious. How this has been in past time I have 
 shown. I Avill now illustrate what is doing and intended 
 at present. 
 
 As, from the uniform tenor of the conduct of the 
 American cabinet in relation to the British government, 
 I have no belief that their intention has been to make a 
 solid arrangement with that nation, so, from the evi- 
 dence of their disposition and intention existing abroad 
 and on the table, I have no belief that such is at present 
 their purpose. I cannot j)Ossibly think otherwise than 
 that such is not their intention. Let us take the case 
 into common life. I have demands, Mr. Speaker, 
 against you, very just in their nature, but different. 
 Some of recent, others of very old, date. The former 
 depending upon principles very clearly in my favor ; 
 the latter critical, difficult, and dubious, both in prin- 
 ciple and settlement. In this state of things, and dur- 
 ing 3'our absence, I watch my opportunity, declare 
 enmity ; throw myself upon your children and servants 
 and property which happen to be in my neighborhood, 
 and do them all the injury I can. While I am doing 
 this, I receive a messenger from you, stating that the 
 
392 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 grounds of the recent injury are settled, that you com- 
 ply fully with my terms. Your servants and children, 
 whom I am plundering and killing, invite me to stay 
 my hand until you return, or until some accommodation 
 can take place between us. But, deaf to any such 
 suggestions, I prosecute my intention of injury to the 
 utmost. When there is reason to expect your return, I 
 multiply my means of injury and offence. And no 
 sooner do I hear of your arrival than I thrust my fist 
 into your face, and say to you, " Well, sir, hei-e are fair 
 propositions of settlement. Come to my terms, which 
 are very just. Settle the old demand in my vva}', and 
 we will be as good friends as ever." Mr. Speaker, what 
 would be 3'our conduct on such an occasion ? Would 
 you be apt to look as much at the nature of the propo- 
 sitions as at the temper of the assailant ? If you did not 
 at once return blow for blow and injury for injury, would 
 you not at least take a little time to consider ? Would 
 you not tell such an assailant that you were not to be 
 bullied nor beaten into any concession ? If you settled 
 at all, might you not consider it your duty in some way 
 to make him feel the consequences of his strange intem- 
 perance of passion ? For myself, I have no question how 
 a man of spirit ought to act under such circumstances. 
 I have as little, how a great nation, like Great Britain, 
 will act. Now, I have no doubt, sir, that the American 
 cabinet view this subject in the same light. They un- 
 derstand well that — by the declaration of war, the 
 invasion of Canada, the refusal of an armistice, and per- 
 severance in hostilities, after the princii^al ground of 
 war had been removed — they have wrought the minds 
 of the British cabinet and people to a very high state of 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 393 
 
 irritation. Now is the very moment to get np some 
 grand scheme of pacification, such as may persuade the 
 American people of the inveterate love of our cabinet 
 for peace, and make them acquiescent in their perse- 
 verance in hostilities. Accordingly, before the end of 
 the session, a great tub will be thrown out to the whale. 
 Probably, a little while before the spring elections, terms 
 of very fair import will be proffered to Great Britain : 
 such as, perhaps, six months ago, our cabinet would not 
 have granted, had she solicited them on her knees ; such 
 as, probably, in the opinion of the people of this country, 
 Great Britain ought to accept ; such, perhaps, as, in any 
 other state of things, she would have accepted : but 
 such, as I fear, under the irritation produced by the 
 strange course pursued by the American cabinet, that 
 nation will not accept. Sir, I do not believe that our 
 cabinet expect that they will be accepted. They think 
 the present state of induced passion is sufficient to pre- 
 vent arrangement. But, to make assurance doubly 
 sure, to take a bond of fate that arrangement shall not 
 happen, the}" prepare this bill, — a bill which proposes 
 an augmentation of the army for the express purpose of 
 conquering the Canadas, — a bill which — connected 
 with the recent disposition evinced by our cabinet in 
 relation to those provinces, and with the avowed intent 
 of making their subjugation the means of peace through 
 the fear to be inspired into Great Britain — is as offen- 
 sive to the pride of that nation as can well be imagined ; 
 and is, in my apprehension, as sure a guarantee of con- 
 tinued war as could be given. On these grounds, my 
 mind cannot force itself to any other conclusion than 
 this, that the avowed object of this bill is the true one ; 
 
394 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 that the Canadas are to be invaded the next season ; 
 that the war is to be protracted ; and that this is the 
 real policy of the American cabinet. 
 
 I will now reply to those invitations to " union " 
 which have been so obtrusively urged upon us. If by 
 this call to union is meant an union in a project for the 
 invasion of Canada, or for the invasion of East Florida, 
 or for the conquest of any foreign country whatever, 
 either as a means of carrying on this war or for any 
 other purpose, I answer distinctly, I will unite with no 
 man, nor any body of men, for any such purposes. I 
 think such projects criminal in the highest degree and 
 ruinous to the prosperity of these States. But if by 
 this invitation is meant union in preparation for defence, 
 strictly so called ; union in fortifying our sea-board ; 
 union in putting our cities into a state of safety ; union 
 in raising such a military force as shall be sufficient, 
 with the local militia in the hands of the constitutional 
 leaders, the executives of the States, to give a rational 
 degree of security against any invasion, sufficient to 
 defend our frontiers, sufficient to awe into silence the 
 Indian tribes within our territories ; union in creating 
 such a maritime force as shall command the seas on the 
 American coasts, and keep open the intercourse at least 
 between the States, — if this is meant I have no hesita- 
 tion ; union on such principles you shall have from me 
 cordially and faithfully ; and this, too, sir, without any 
 reference to the state of my opinion in relation to the 
 justice or the necessity of this war ; because I well 
 understand such to be the condition of man in a social 
 compact that he must partake of the fate of the society 
 to which he belongs, and must submit to the privations 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 395 
 
 and sacrifices its defence requires, notwithstanding these 
 may be the result of the vices or crimes of its immediate 
 rulers. But there is a great difference between support- 
 ing such rulers in plans of necessary self-defence, on 
 Avhich the safety of our altars and firesides essentially 
 depends, and supporting them in projects of foreign 
 invasion, and encouraging them in schemes of conquest 
 and ambition which are not only unjust in themselves, 
 but dreadful in their consequences ; inasmuch as, let the 
 particular project result as it ma}^ the general effect 
 must be, according to human view, destructive to our 
 own domestic liberties and Constitution. I speak as an 
 individual, sir, for my single self ; did I support such 
 projects as are avowed to be the objects of this bill, I 
 should deem myself a traitor to my country. Were I 
 even to aid them by loan or in any other way, I should 
 consider myself a partaker in the guilt of the purpose. 
 But when these projects of invasion shall be abandoned ; 
 when men yield up schemes, which not onl}^ openly con- 
 template the raising of a great military force, but also 
 the concentrating them at one point and placing them 
 in one hand ; schemes obviously ruinous to the fates of 
 a free republic, as they comprehend the means by which 
 such have ever heretofore been destroyed, — when, I say, 
 such schemes shall be abandoned, and the wishes of the 
 cabinet limited to mere defence, and frontier and mari- 
 time protection, there will be no need of calls to union. 
 For such objects there is not, there cannot be, but one 
 heart and soul in this people. 
 
 I know, Mr. Speaker, that while I utter these things 
 a thousand tongues and a thousand pens are preparing 
 without doors to overwhelm me, if possible, by their 
 
396 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 pestiferous gall. Already I hear in the air the sound 
 of " traitor," " British agent," " British gold," and all 
 those changes of vulgar calumny by which the imagina- 
 tions of the mass of men are affected, and by which 
 they are prevented from listening to what is true and 
 receiving what is reasonable. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it well becomes any man standing in the 
 presence of such a nation as this to speak of himself 
 seldom ; and such a man as I am it becomes to speak of 
 himself not at all, except, indeed, when the relations in 
 which he stands to his country are little known, and 
 when the assertion of those relations has some connec- 
 tion and may have some influence on interests which it 
 is peculiarly incumbent upon him to support. 
 
 Under this sanction, I say, it is not for a man Avhose 
 ancestors have been planted in this country now for 
 almost two centuries ; it is not for a man who has a 
 famil}^, and friends, and character, and children, and a 
 deep stake in the soil ; it is not for a man who is self- 
 conscious of being rooted in that soil, as deeply and as 
 exclusively as the oak which shoots among its rocks : it 
 is not for such a man to hesitate or swerve a hair's 
 breadth from his country's purpose and true interests, 
 because of the yelpings, the bowlings, and snarlings of 
 that hungry pack wliich corrupt men keep directly or 
 indirectly in pay, with the view of hunting down every 
 man who dare develop their purposes, — a pack com- 
 posed, it is true, of some native curs, but for the most 
 part of hounds and spaniels of very recent importation, 
 whose backs are seared by the lash, and whose necks 
 are sore with the collars of their former masters. In 
 fulfilling his duty, the lover of his country must often 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 397 
 
 be obliged to breast the shock of calumny. If called to 
 that service, he will meet the exigency with the same 
 firmness as, should another occasion call, he would 
 breast the shock of battle. No, sir, I am not to be 
 deterred by such apprehensions. May heaven so deal 
 with me and mine, as I am true or faithless to the best 
 interests of this people ! May it deal with me accord- 
 ing to its just judgments when I fail to bring men and 
 measures to the bar of public opinion, and to expose 
 projects and systems of policy which I know to be 
 ruinous to the peace, prosperity, and liberties of my 
 country ! 
 
 This leads me naturally to the third and last point of 
 view at which I proposed to consider this bill, — as a 
 means for the advancement of the objects of the per- 
 sonal or local ambition of the members of the American 
 cabinet. With respect to the members of that cabinet, 
 I ma}" almost literally say I know nothing of them 
 except as public men. Against them I have no jDcr- 
 sonal animosity. I know little of them in private life, 
 and that little never made me ambitious to know more. 
 I look at them as public men, wielding powers and put- 
 ting in operation means and instruments materially 
 affecting the interests and prospects of the United 
 States. 
 
 It is a curious fact, but no less true than curious, that 
 for these twelve years past the whole affairs of this 
 country have been managed, and its fortunes reversed, 
 under the influence of a cabinet little less than despotic, 
 composed, to all efficient purposes, of two Virginians 
 and a foreigner. When I speak of these men as Vir- 
 ginians, I mean to cast no odium upon that State, as 
 
398 SPEECH ox THE INVASION OF CANADA, 
 
 though it were not entitled to its full share of influence 
 in the national councils ; nor, when I referred to one of 
 them as being a foreigner, do I intend thereby to sug- 
 gest any connections of a nature unworthy or suspicious. 
 I refer to these circumstances as general and undoubted 
 facts which belong to the characters of the cabinet, and 
 which cannot fail to be taken into view in all estimates 
 of plans and projects, so long as man is constituted as 
 he is, and so long as the prejudices and principles of 
 childhood never fail to influence in different degrees in 
 even the best men the course of thinking and action of 
 their riper years. 
 
 I might have said, perhaps, with more strict pro- 
 priety, that it was a cabinet composed of three Virgin- 
 ians and a foreigner,^ because once in the course of the 
 twelve years there has been a change of one of the 
 characters. But, sir, that change was notoriously mat- 
 ter of form rather than substance. As it respects the 
 cabinet, the principles continued the same ; the interests 
 the same ; the objects at which it aimed the same. 
 
 I said that this cabinet had been, during these twelve 
 years, little less than despotic. This fact also is noto- 
 rious. During this whole period the measures distinctly 
 recommended have been adopted by the two Houses of 
 Congress with as much uniformity and with as little 
 modification, too, as the measures of the British ministry 
 have been adopted during the same period by the British 
 Parliament. The connection between cabinet councils 
 and parliamentary acts is just as intimate in the one 
 country as in the other. 
 
 1 Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Gallatin. 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 399 
 
 I said that these three men constituted, to all ejfficient 
 purposes, the whole cabinet. This also is notorious. 
 It is true that during this period other individuals have 
 been called into the cabinet. But they were all of them 
 comparatively minor men, such as had no great weight 
 either of personal talents or of personal influence to 
 support them. They were kept as instruments of the 
 master spirits ; and when they failed to answer the 
 purpose, or became restive, they were sacrificed or pro- 
 vided for. The shades were made to play upon the 
 curtain ; they entered ; they bowed to the audience ; 
 the}' did what they were bidden ; they said what was 
 set down for them. When those who pulled the wires 
 saw fit, they passed away. No man knew why they 
 entered ; no man knew why they departed ; no man 
 could tell whence they came ; no man asked whither 
 they were gone. 
 
 From this uniform composition of the cabinet it is 
 obvious that the project of the master spirits was that 
 of essential influence within the cabinet ; for in such a 
 country as ours, so extended, and its interests so compli- 
 cated, it is impossible but those who would conduct its 
 affairs wisely and with a single eye to the public good 
 should strive to call around themselves the highest and 
 most independent talents in the nation, at least of their 
 own political friends. When this is not tlie case, it 
 must be apparent that the leading influences want not 
 associates but instruments. The same principle applies 
 to the distribution of ofiice out of the cabinet as to 
 filling places within it. Some mistakes may be expected 
 to happen in selections among candidates for appoint- 
 ments at a distance ; but if at any time a cabinet shall 
 
400 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 be systematically guided in such selection by a regard, 
 not to merit or qualifications, but to electioneering ser- 
 vices ; if the obvious design be to reward partisans, and 
 encourage defection to its party standard, then the 
 people may rest assured that the project such cabinet 
 has in view is not to serve the public interest, but to 
 secure their personal influence, and that they want not 
 competency for the employment but subserviency in it. 
 How this matter is I shall not assert, not because I have 
 not very distinct opinions upon the subject, but because 
 the sphere of appointment is too extensive to be com- 
 prehended in the grasp of a single individual ; and I 
 mean to make no assertion concerning motive or con- 
 duct of which there does not exist in my mind evidence 
 as well complete as conclusive. I refer to this subject, 
 therefore, only as a collateral and corroborative proof of 
 the purposes of the cabinet. Every man can decide for 
 himself in his own circle or neighborhood concerning 
 the apparent principle upon which the cabinet have 
 proceeded in making appointments, remembering al- 
 ways that the section of country against whose pros- 
 perity the policy of the cabinet is most systematically 
 levelled will be that in which subserviency to all its 
 purposes will be most studiousl}' inculcated among its 
 adherents. It will be in that quarter that the flames of 
 party animosity will be enkindled with the most sedu- 
 lous assiduity, as the means of making men forgetful of 
 their true interests, and obedient to their employers, in 
 spite of their natural prejudices and inclinations. 
 
 It is natural to inquire what are the projects con- 
 nected with the cabinet thus composed, and to what 
 ends it is advancing. To answer this question it is 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 401 
 
 necessary to look into the nature and relations of things. 
 Here the true criterions of judgment are to he found. 
 Professions are always plausible. Why, sir, Bonaparte 
 himself is the very milk of human kindness ; he is the 
 greatest lover of his species in the world ; he would not 
 hurt a sparrow if you take his own account of the 
 matter. What, then, do nature and the relations of 
 things teach ? They teach this, that the great hazard 
 in a government where the chief magistracy is elective 
 is from the local ambition of States and the personal 
 ambition of individuals. It is no reflection upon any 
 State to say that it is ambitious. According to their 
 opportunities and temptations all States are ambitious. 
 This quality is as much predicable of States as of in- 
 dividuals. Indeed, State ambition has its root in the 
 same passions of human nature, and derives its strength 
 from the same nutriment as personal ambition. All 
 history shows that such passions always exist among 
 States combined in confederacies. To deny it is to 
 deceive ourselves. It has existed, it does exist, and 
 always must exist. In our political relations, as in our 
 personal, we then walk most safely when we walk with 
 reference to the actual existence of things, admit the 
 weaknesses, and do not hide from ourselves the dangers, 
 to which our nature is exposed. Whatever is true let 
 us confess. Nations, as well as individuals, are only 
 safe in proportion as they attani self-knowledge, and 
 regulate their conduct by it. 
 
 What fact upon this point does our own experience 
 present ? It presents this striking one, — that, taking 
 the years for which the presidential chair is already 
 filled into the account, out of twenty-eight years since 
 
 26 
 
402 SPEECH OlSr the invasion of CANADA. 
 
 our Constitution was established, the single State of 
 Virginia has furnished the President for twenty-four 
 years. And, farther, it is now as distinctly known and 
 familiarly talked about in this city and vicinity who is 
 the destined successor of the present President after the 
 expiration of his ensuing term, and known that lie, too, 
 is to be a Virginian, as it was known and familiarly 
 talked about during the presidency of Mr. Jefferson, 
 that the present President was to be his successor. 
 And the former was, and the latter is, a subject of as 
 much notoriety, and, to human appearance, of as much 
 certainty too, as who will be the successor to the Brit- 
 ish crown is a matter of notoriety in that country. To 
 secure this succession and keep it in the destined line 
 has been, is, and will continue to be, the main object of 
 the policy of these men. This is the point on which 
 the projects of the cabinet for the three years j)ast have 
 been brought to bear, that James the First should be 
 made to continue four years longer. And this is the 
 point on which the projects of the cabinet will be 
 brought to bear for the three years to come, that James 
 the Second shall be made to succeed, according to the 
 fundamental rescripts of the Monticellian dynasty. 
 
 [Mr. Quincy was here again called to order. The 
 Speaker said that really the gentleman laid his premises 
 so remote from his conclusions that he could not see 
 how his observations applied to the bill.] 
 
 Mr. Quincy proceeded : On the contrary, sir, I main- 
 tain that both ray premises and conclusions are very 
 proximate to each other, and intimately connected with 
 the bill on the table, and with the welfare of this peo- 
 ple. 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 403 
 
 Is it not within the scope of just debate to show that 
 the general policy of the cabinet, and that also this par- 
 ticular project, have for their object the aggrandizement 
 of the cabinet themselves, or some member of it? If 
 this be the object of the bill, is it not proper to be 
 exhibited ? The topic may be of a nature high and 
 critical, but no man can deny that it is both important 
 and relevant. To secure the power they at present 
 jDOssess, to perpetuate it in their own hands, and to 
 transfer it to their selected favorites, is the great project 
 of the policy of the members of our cabinet. It would 
 be eas}'' to trace to this master passion the declaration of 
 war at the time and under the circumstances in which 
 it occurred. Antecedent to the declaration of war, it was 
 distinctly stated by individuals from that quarter of the 
 country under the influences of which this war was 
 adopted, that the support of the present President of 
 the United States, by their quarter of the country, 
 depended upon the fact of the cabinet's coming up to 
 the point of war with Great Britain. This state of 
 things, and the knowledge of it by the members of the 
 cabinet, was repeatedly urged in conversation by mem- 
 bers of this and the other branch of the legislature to 
 shake the incredulity in a declaration of war which at 
 that time existed in some of our minds. Without placing 
 any i-eliance on the reports of that day, this I assert, 
 unequivocally and without fear of contradiction, that 
 such were the passions which existed in the Southern 
 and Western States, and such the avowed determination 
 to war, that, had not the cabinet come up to that point, 
 its influence in those quarters was at an end. Without 
 their support, the re-election of the present Chief Magis- 
 
404 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 trate was hopeless. Now, sir, when continuance of 
 power is put into the scale, as in this instance it was 
 unquestionably, it is not for human nature to deny that 
 it had not a material influence in determining the 
 balance. For myself, I have never had but one opinion 
 on this matter, — I have never doubted that we should 
 not have had war declared at the last session if the 
 presidential election had not been depending. 
 
 Just so with respect to the invasion of Canada. It 
 was, in my judgment, a test required by the state of 
 opinion in the Southern and Western States of the 
 sincerity of the cabinet, and of its heartiness in the 
 prosecution of this war. This accounts for the strange 
 and headlong haste, and the want of sufficient prepara- 
 tion, with which the invasion was expedited. This 
 accounts for the neglect to meet the proposition for an 
 armistice when made b}^ the Governor of Canada, after 
 a knowledge of the revocation of the Orders in Council. 
 This accounts for the obtrusive attempts to gain a foot- 
 ing in Canada, and the obstinate perseverance in the 
 show of invasion until the members of the electoral 
 colleges had been definitive! v selected. Since which 
 event our armies have been quiet enough. When I see a 
 direct dependence between the perpetuation of power in 
 any hand, and the adoption of, and the perseverance in, 
 any particular course of measures. I cannot refrain from 
 believing that such a course has been suggested and 
 regulated by so obvious and weighty an interest. This 
 subject is capable of much greater elucidation. But 
 according to your suggestion, sir, I shall confine myself 
 to trace the connection of this master passion of the 
 cabinet with the bill now under consideration. 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 405 
 
 The projects of the cabinet for the present year are 
 loans, to the amount, at least, of twenty millions ; an 
 army, of fifty-five thousand men ; a grand scheme of 
 pacification, founded on some legislative acts or resolves ; 
 and a perpetuation of the war. The loans are expected 
 to be filled partly from the popularity derived in the 
 commercial cities by the vote for building seventy-fours, 
 partly by opening offices for receiving subscriptions in 
 the interior. Whatever is received will be diverted to 
 the army service. The grand scheme of pacification 
 will be made to appear very fair in terms ; but in the 
 state of irritation which has been produced in Great 
 Britain by the continuance of the war after the rej)eal 
 of the Orders in Council, and by the pertinacious per- 
 severance in the threats and preparation to invade 
 Canada, it will, it is eicpected, be rejected by her. This, 
 it is supposed, will give popularity to the war in this 
 country. The forty dollars bounty will, it is hoped, fill 
 tlie ranks. The army for the conquest of Canada will 
 be raised : to be commanded by whom ? this is the 
 critical question. The answer is in every man's mouth. 
 By a member of the American cabinet ; by one of the 
 three ; by one of that " trio "' who at this moment 
 constitute in fact, and who efficiently have always con- 
 stituted, the whole cabinet. And the man who is tlms 
 ntended for the command of the greatest array this new 
 world ever contained, an army nearly twice as great as 
 was at any time the regular army of our Revolution, I 
 say the man who is intended for this great trust is the 
 individual who is notoriously the selected candidate for 
 the next presidency ! 
 
 Mr. Speaker, when I assert that the present Secretary 
 
406 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 of State, who is now the acting Secretary of War, is 
 destined, by a cabinet of which he himself constitutes 
 one-third, for the command of this army, I know that 
 I assert intentions to exist which have not yet developed 
 themselves by an official avowal. The truth is, the mo- 
 ment for an official avowal has not yet come. The 
 cabinet must work along by degrees, and only show 
 their cards as they play them. The armj- must first be 
 authorized. The bill for the new majors-general must 
 be passed. Then, upon their plan, it will be found 
 necessary to constitute a lieutenant-general. " And 
 who so proper," the cabinet will exclaim, "• as one of 
 ourselves ? " " And who so proper as one of the cab- 
 inet ?" all its retainers will respond, from one end of 
 the continent to the other. I would willingly have 
 postponed any animadversion upon this intention of the 
 cabinet until it should have been avowed. But then it 
 would have been too late. Then the fifty-five thousand 
 men would have been authorized, and the necessity for 
 a lieutenant-general inevitable. Sir, I know very Avell 
 that this public animadversion may possibly stagger the 
 cabinet in its purpose. They ma}^ not like to proceed 
 in the design after the public eye has been directed 
 distinctly upon it. And the existence of it will be 
 denied, and its partisans will assert that this suggestion 
 was mere surmise. Be it so. It is, comparatively, of 
 little importance what happens to my person or char- 
 acter, j^rovided this great evil can be averted from my 
 country. I consider the raising such an army as this, 
 and the putting it under the command of that individual, 
 taking into view his connection with the present cabinet, 
 so ominous to the liberties of this country that I am not 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 407 
 
 anxious Avhat happens to me, if, b}^ any constitutional 
 responsibility, I can prevent it. 
 
 However, to the end that it may not be thought I 
 have made this assertion lightly, I will briefly state the 
 evidence upon which it is founded, and which to my 
 mind has given perfect conviction as to the intentions 
 of the cabinet. 
 
 First. As long ago as last June, it was, to my knowl- 
 edge, asserted by individuals connected with the admin- 
 istration, in this and the other branch of the legislature, 
 that it was the intention of the American cabinet to 
 place the Secretary of State at the head of the army. 
 
 Second. This intention was, early in the present ses- 
 sion, distinctly avowed by members in this and the other 
 branch of the legislature, to be the intention of the 
 cabinet. And these members were persons intimate 
 with the cabinet, and connected with them in politics ; 
 and, of all men, the most likely to know their intentions. 
 This can be proved, if denied. But it will not be. I 
 do not believe there is a man on this floor who is not 
 acquainted with the fact as well as mj'self. 
 
 Third. As soon as the session opened, the old Secre- 
 tary at War was hunted down. 
 
 Fourth. The burden of the whole department of war 
 is now transferred to the shoulders of the Secretary of 
 State. This great and oppressive trust which, at the 
 last session, it was seriously urged no single living wight 
 could bear, but that it required three persons to support 
 its pressure, is now cast solely upon this individual, 
 who, it seems, is able to uphold the mighty mountain 
 of that department in one hand, while he balances the 
 department of state in the other. 
 
408 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 Fifth. The Secretary of State has not merely entered 
 into a still-life possession of the department of war. 
 He is actively employed in arranging its details, and 
 putting it into a state of preparation. This work of 
 drudgery it can hardly be expected that any man would 
 undertake, for the sake of an unknown successor, unless 
 he had himself some prospect of interest in it. 
 
 Sixth. The Secretary of State is no sooner in posses- 
 sion of the department of war, than the plan of a great 
 army, an efficient pecuniary bounty, and a brilliant 
 campaign against Canada, is promulgated : of all which 
 he is the known author ; having communicated to the 
 Committee on Military Affairs the whole project, not 
 only in general, but in its details. Above all, that no 
 doubt concerning the ultimate purpose may exist, — 
 
 Seventh. Immediately after the Secretary of State 
 enters upon the duties of Secretary at War, he puts to 
 Adjutant-General Cushing this question : " How many 
 majors-general and, brigadiers are necessary for an 
 army of thirty-five thousand men ? " Now, as this 
 question was put by authority, and was intended to be 
 communicated to Congress, and was in its nature 
 very simple, one would have supposed that it would 
 have been enough, in all conscience, to have given to 
 it a direct answer. Besides, it is not always thought 
 proper, for those who are in the under grades of 
 departments, when one question is proposed, to enter 
 into the discussion of another. However, notwith- 
 standing these obvious suggestions, one-half of the 
 whole reply of General Cushing is taken up in inves- 
 tigating, not the question which was asked, but the 
 question on which the honest adjutant, in the sim- 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 409 
 
 plicity of his soul, tells the Secretary, " You have not 
 required my opinion." The whole of this part of the 
 letter runs thus : — 
 
 " In this country we have never had a grade between 
 the commander-in-chief and that of major-general ; hence 
 it was found necessar}^ in the 'continental army,' to give 
 to the senior major-general the command of the right 
 wing, and to the next in rank that of the left ; which, 
 from the limited number of general officers, often left 
 a division to a brigadier, a brigade to a colonel, and a 
 regiment to a subordinate field officer ; but in Europe 
 this difficulty is obviated by the appointment of general 
 officers of higher grades. 
 
 " From the best information I have been able to obtain 
 on this subject, I have no hesitation in saying that eight 
 majors-general and sixteen brigadiers to command the 
 divisions and brigades of an army of thirty-five thousand 
 men is the lowest estimate which the uniform practice 
 of France, Russia, and England, will warrant ; and that 
 this is much below the proportion of officers of these 
 grades actually employed in the army of the Revolution. 
 
 " As you have not required my opinion, whether it be 
 necessary to have a higher grade than that of major- 
 general, I have not deemed it proper to touch this sub- 
 ject, and have confined myself to the number of majors- 
 general and brigadiers deemed necessary to command 
 the divisions and brigades of an army of thirty-five 
 thousand men. It may not, however, be improper to 
 remark that, if it is intended to have no higher grade 
 than that of major-general, their number should be in- 
 creased to eleven ; so as to give one for the chief com- 
 
 27 
 
410 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 
 
 mand, one for each wing, and one for each division of 
 four thousand men." 
 
 It is entertaining to see how much trouble the worthy 
 adjutant takes to impress upon the mind that the Secre- 
 tary of State " had not required his opinion " on the 
 subject of a grade higher than that of a major-general. 
 He even goes so far as to say that he has '- not deemed 
 it proper to touch this subject." 
 
 Now, sir, I think he has touched the subject, and 
 treated it pretty thoroughly too. For he has shown, 
 not only that it is " difficult " to do without, but that it 
 is more economical to have, a grade higher than a major- 
 general. And this, too, in an army of only thirty-five 
 thousand men. But when this bill passes, the army will 
 consist of fifty-five thousand. The result is then inev- 
 itable : you must have, in such case, a grade higher than 
 a major-general ; in other words, a lieutenant-general. 
 Such, it cannot be denied, is the intention of the cabinet. 
 As little can it be denied that the Secretary of State, the 
 acting Secretary of War, is the cabinet candidate for 
 that office. So it has been distinctly avowed by the 
 friends and confidants of that cabinet ; and as such, I 
 have no question, is known by every individual in this 
 House. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, what an astonishing and alarming state 
 of things is this ! Three men, who efficiently have had 
 the command of this nation for many years, have so 
 managed its concerns as to reduce it, from an unex- 
 ampled height of prosperity, to a state of great depres- 
 sion, — not to say ruin. They have annihilated its 
 commerce, and involved it in war. And now the result 
 of the whole matter is, that they are about to raise an 
 
SPEECH ON THE INVASION OF CANADA. 411 
 
 army of fifty-five thousand men, invest one of their own 
 body with this most solemn command, and he the man 
 who is the destined candidate for the President's chair ! 
 What a grasp at power is this ! What is there in history 
 equal to it ! Can any man doubt what will be the result 
 of this project ? No man can believe that the conquest 
 of Canada will be effected in one campaign. It cost the 
 British six years to acquire it when it was far weaker 
 than at present. It cannot be hoped that we can ac- 
 quire it under three or four years. And what then 
 will be the situation of this army and our country? 
 Why then the army will be veteran ; and the leader a 
 candidate for the presidency ! And, whoever is a can- 
 didate for the presidency, with an army of thirty thou- 
 sand veterans at his heels, will not be likely to be 
 troubled with rivals or to concern himself about votes. 
 A President elected under such auspices may be nomi- 
 nally a President for years ; but really, if he pleases, a 
 President for life. 
 
 I know that all this will seem wild and fantastical to 
 very many, perhaps to all, who hear me. To my mind, 
 it is neither the one nor the other. History is full of 
 events less probable, and effected by armies far inferior 
 to that which is proposed to be raised. So far from 
 deeming it mere fancy, I consider it absolutely certain, 
 if this army be once raised, organized, and enter upon 
 a successful career of conquest. The result of such a 
 power as this, intrusted to a single individual, in the 
 present state of parties and passions in this country, no 
 man can anticipate. There is no other means of abso- 
 lute safety but denying it altogether. 
 
 I cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that the sphere in 
 
412 SPEECH ON THE INVASION OP CANADA. 
 
 which this great army is destined to operate is in the 
 neighborhood of that section of country where it is pro- 
 bable, in case the present destructive measures be con- 
 tinued in operation, the most unanimous opposition will 
 exist to a perpetuation of power in the present hands, or 
 to its transfer to its destined successor. I cannot forget 
 that it has been distinctly avowed by a member on this 
 floor, a gentleman from Virginia too (Mr. Clay), and 
 one very likely to know the view of the cabinet, that 
 " one object of this army was to put down opposition." 
 Sir, the greatness of this project and its consequences 
 overwhelm my mind. I know very well to what oblo- 
 quy I expose myself by this development. I know 
 that it is always an unpardonable sin to pull the veil 
 from the party deities of the day, and that it is of a 
 nature not to be forgiven either by them or their wor- 
 shippers. I have not willingly, nor without long reflec- 
 tion, taken upon myself this responsibility. But it has 
 been forced upon me by an imperious sense of duty. If 
 the people of the Northern and Eastern States are 
 destined to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to 
 men who know nothing about their interests, and care 
 nothing about them, I am clear of the great transgres- 
 sion. If, in common with their countrymen, my chilcren 
 are destined to be slaves, and to yoke in with negroes, 
 chained to the car of a Southern master, they, at least, 
 shall have this sweet consciousness as the consolation of 
 their condition, — they shall be able to say, " Our father 
 was guiltless of these chains." 
 
 RD-49 ' 
 

 t> '*►. 
 
 
 
 ♦• «*'% \^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^^0^