33/ .(o H74 \ I THREE E 357 .6 .H74 Copy 1 SPEECHES OP MR. HOLMES, IN THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1814. 4 »1 NEW YORK ! PRIJS^TEB BY E. COJ^RAl), NO. 4, FRANKFORT-STREET, SJRECJLY opposite TAMMANY-HALL. 1814, SPEECH OP MR. HOLMES, IN THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, OX Ills MOTION TO ERASE FROM THE JOURNALS OF THE SE- NATE, A RESOLVE PROPOSED iJT MR. Q,UIXCY, STATING THAT IT WAS " NOT BECOMING A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS TEOPLE" TO REJOICE AT OUR NAVAL VICTORIES. JIJK. FRESTDE^YT, AS the motion to erase the resolve of the 15th June, 1813, from your 'journals, was made by me, and as I was on the committee who reported against theerasure, it will probably be expected that I should give some reasons for this motion, and why I do not concur in the report of your com- mittee. I am not tenacious of the manner in which tliis erasure is to be elfccted. If tliat resolve ought to be erased, it is indifferent to me wheth- er it be done by the resolution in the form which I have proposed, or in any other mode which shall best con}port with the feelings of geistlemen and the delicacy of the subject. Indeed if my proposition to erase has omitted any part of that resolve which ought to have been included, let it be so amended as to conform to the facts as you understand them ; but it' the object of the proposition is good, let it not be defeated by misquoting or misconstruing it, as is done in this report. The proposition to erase, states that the resolve of June, is a " withholding the usual e.vpressions ot* respect and approbation" from captain LAWIIENCE, *' iVi this partirular respect;''^ that is, in the case of the destruction of the Peacock. In your report you misquote the words and deny the fact. It is true that none of the preamble of the resolve of June is recited, and you boast, that in that prc' amble you have stated that you have a " high sense of the naval skill and military and civil virtues of captain James Lawrence," [Here Mr. H. read the whole preamble aiid resolve, the proposition to eiase, and the report. Here, sir, you state, in substance, that though you like this captain Xawrence very well, and have a pretty good opinion of his skill and virtue, still you will do him no honor for this particular act, for fear you should encourage or approbate thisv»icked and uujisst war. Really, sir, is this a. compliment ? Is it not an indirect cejisure .' You have made him the ob- ject of a mo-;t invidious discriminatloa. Hitherto, the gentlemen of botl> political parties, in this Legislature, have united in voting approbation and thfinks to our nava! heroes, for acts of valor, not more pre-eminent than this. On the 18th of February last, this Senate, in a very handsome man- ner, complimented captain Bainbridge, for his enterprise, courage and skill in thecapture and destruction of the Java. By consulting the journals, I find the yeas were sixteen, and the nays none. The gentlemen who now compose the majority of this board, were then in the minority ; but they could have voted, if they chose. It will not I presume, be pretended that none of the minority were present, nor that if present, they were afraid, Hor did not know how' to vote — or that they left their seats. If present, which is very probable, th^y acquiesced in the vote of this majority, and hereby gave their assent and approbation to the measure. In the House during the same session, votes of thanks passed to capts. Hull, Decatur, Jones and Bairibrido;e — and the votes were unanimous. Durin©; this session, the hou<=e have, without distinction of party, passed a resolve of approbation and thanks to com. Perry, his officers and crew. Amidst these expressions of public applause, these universal bursts of approbation, and about the time onr enemies are conferring honors on the memory of Lawrence, your *' morality and religion" interposed an obstacle, and you must withhold the usual testimonials from this brave man. This too, sir, by the friends of the navy ! — Men who have 'clamored inee=santly against the administration for not encouraging t:iis species of thice. lint, sir, the public voice cy.lls for this erasure. Your political friends feel mortified and scandalized by this disgraceful resolve. Tliey wish it had never been placed on your journals. I am told that it has been in serious contemplation, by some of your own party in this town, even in Boston, tocaJl a town meeting to inslnict their Representatives and Senators to use their en- deavors to effect thit erasure. However this may be, I am satisfied that this is an act most of your party wisii bniied in oblivion. The proposition avoids party distinctions ; it was intended to be as inoffensive as possible. It sug- c^ests that this discrimination, may wound the feelings of his friends. Since the passing the resolve, it has been ascertained, that it Wiss done about the time that he died in defence of his country. ^Ve do not ask yoi\ to respect his memory, nor to bestow any honor on him for this particular act — But to leave it asthoiigh nothing had been done; to take away this reproach ; to wipe this fonl stain IVoin your state, 'i'he senthnents contained va this re- solve do not accord with the sentiments or acts of the people. They will rejoic'G at victories, and bestow honor on the heroes that achieve them, and yon, either from motives of policy or sincerity, are obliged to mingle iu their rejoicings. You cannot have forgotten the union of parties, in giving honor and a sword to Perry. All united, all put at risk their morals ami religion, and vied with each other who should be first in this wicked exul- tation ! But it is the prlr.ciple of the war which you disapprove. Has nothing, since the passi;^g of this resolve, happened to convince yon of the justice of, the war.' IS'othing to stop your clamor of French infiuence ? JNothing that, in ihc remotest degree, «iiscovers the pacific disposition of our govern- ment ? 1 f'hall not trouble the gentlemen nor myself again on this subject, Tf gentlemen could divest themselves of their British partialities, and prac- tise towards their g(»vernmcnt, the same charities wiiich they practise in {social life, they would by this time cease their clamor on tiie injustice of thjs war. It is but lair, it is rii^ht, that in a dispute of your own family with a neighbor, you should believe your own right, until they are proved in tlie n'rong. If you could but practice the same charity towards your country, we shonid heir none of these charges of an ui\ju,>t and wicked war. But suppose you will not; f^uppose tJuit you and Ciosi.t TJritain on the one hand should contend thai she is rxclusively right ; tljat the Ame- rican people on the other shonld contend that they are exclnsively right ; but tJiat Britain and her partizans in America shonld tenaciously contend against us on ail the points. And that some great, wise, sood and magna- nfnious prince, no way interested in our favor, shinild be willing to mediate, between us, and settle the dispute. And suppose roe should ai-cept his proposition, and you should reject it—would this be no evidence of the iustice of our quarrel ? And "after this, this prince should express his "approbation of our conduct, take pleasure ia doing justice to the wisdom and ni3P:naiiimity of our government, express his conviction that we havith us he has no political connexion, and he wants none. Feaco, commerce and honest lViend>hip are all he wishes. These facts, I perceive, make gentlemen somewhat uneasy. But I shail take care not to forget to call them to their remembrance on every proper occasion. But I apprehend that " Alexander the deliverer" is becoming unpopu- lar with your' parly. Vou will, I suspect, celebrate no more Russian vic- tories. He has been guilty of establlshin.?; the reputation of your adminis- tration in Europe, and ijou n ill Jievcr forgive him. I have dwelt longer than I inteiided «m the justice of thowar. It wants no proof. I return to the hirpplry. What is the policy or justice of this resolve? It may with much reason be said, that if he (f.awrence) had not lost the Chesapeake in the manner he did, we never should have spread this cold, unfeeling, negative resolve on our journals. No, sir, had he brought the tShannon into this harbor, you would have extolled him to the Your party have a wonderful faculty of engrossing the honors of the war, and throwing off the disgrace. Whenever a nran gains a victory, he is ?i federalist. If^it is a naval victory, it was done with a federal navy. When Perrv gained his victory on tlie lake, your party claimed the man and his ships too. Notwithstanding they had all been built since the war, it made no ditference in the clahn. Harrison's victory was yours.— But the moment any event takes place, which you can convert into a defeat, then, then you sing another tune. Then the vengcaiu-e of Heaven, and the phi- als of God's wrath are pouring down upon the perpetrators of this wicked war. In this case, it was known the Chesapeake was taken, and it vras a favorable time to set placed on your records a resolve of Usis description. As it was a disaster you c(Mild disclaim the act and execrate the \^ar. l,uU sir, it is not always the conqueror who doc=s the most honor to or confers the most benefit on his country. The dying words of the vanquisned, are often the pass word to fame. It is this which f.res the Hero m the day oi battle, and prompts him to deeds of immortal glory. ♦' oo\'r give up ■ruE SHIP" was his dving injunction. Don't give up tiie ship has been the 6 ^vord, j,iui it has been obeyed. Don't give- up the ship shall be the ivord of every American. And we will not give up the ship. She is weU found, condi- tioned and manned, and we have a pilot at the helm who knows his duty and will perform it. No, sir, let the storm of faction rage and exert its fury, the ship is safe. But this injunction dont plea:-;e yon — You rvovldgive up the ship — And the ship Massachusetts is given up — You struck her flag at the commencement of the contest — Your men deserted — Your pilot left the helm in the storm, and told you it was sacrilege to resist it, because it was GoiVs tempest. The ship is driven upon the rocks, she is wrecked, and I apprehend her destruction is inevitable. ^ But, sir, I beg pardon of the gentlemen for detaining tliem so long — I have been impelled by my feelings — We have most of us, propensitie-. which it is difficult to control — I pertieive we are fettered by this resolve — I wish it was erased. Suppose the resolve wliich has passed the house thi-! se,^sion in honor of Perry should come up for concurrence, we must either reject it, or be guilty of a most daring partiality. What is to be done ? Restore your record to a blank, wipe off the disgrace, and the public will be satisfied. SPEECH OF MR. HOLMES, IN THE SENATE OF 3IASSACHUSETTS, UURING THE DEBATE ON THE REPORTED ANSWER TO THE governor's SPEECH. MR. VUESWEJ^T, WHEN after eight days deep cogitation of the committee, an answer is produced, which I apprehend, will remain a standing monument of the degradation of this once respectable State ; the gentlemen of the majority must not deem it unreasonable, if 1 oc- cupy some time in discussing its merits. But in this, I confess, I despair of making any impression on the majority of this board. — * After having, during a war of eighteen months, taken their ground against their country and in favor of its eneraj^ ; after having con- demned their own government, and justified the aggressions and atrocities of the enemy, in every particular, without a solitary ex- ception, an attempt to dissuade them from this course, must in this case be desperate. I might as well attempt to convert an Atheist by scripture; I might as well go into the churchyard, rebuke the tombs, and expostulate with the sleeping ashes of the dead. No, sir, it is no? them whom I expect to convince or edify : it is an ap- prehen?>.r. that silence may be deemed an acquiescence in these inflammatory proceedings ; it is for the sake of my political friends, that I stand forth the advocate of my injured country. ^ agree with his Excellency, that the liberty of speech is impor- tant to a free people, and he who would restrain it, is a foe to republi- can freedom. It is a privilege which I highly prize, and %Yhich I shall take advantage of in this debate. True, it may be abused ; in bad times, bad men will endeavor to excite discontents. In the com- mencement of a war, slander and abuse are wonderfully successful. There was danger for a while, that the outrages of party might drive \\\?t administration from office, or compel them to make an ignominious peace. But truth prevailed. Notwithstanding every attempt to throw a stumbling Mock in the way of the administra- tion in ".p days of difficulty an;^ distress, their popularity has increas- ed, and the people are more united than at the conmiencexnent of 8 Oie war. You speak of the growing discontents of the people :*— V/here is your evidence ? in the elections ? In Avhat elections ? In New-York, ihe jnost commercial state in the Union ? In New- Jersey, where every branch has been regenerated in a year? In Maryland where you but just smuggled in your Governor ? In Ver- mont, to be sure, you have a minority Governor for one year : and 1 trust, for one year on'}'. But in the city of New-York, at a very- recent elcclion, the American cause prevailed by a change that Avas truly astonishing. And all this in time of Avar against the in- cessant clamors and slanders of a party, without any sedition act, or other act to screen the administration. His Excellency informs us, that he has received fifteen hun- dred stands of arms from the Secretary at War ; and you, in the answer, attribute this event to the efficacy of your famous Resolve of June last. To supj)ose that that anticlimax, that complete spe- cimen in the art of sinking, could produce any other etTect in the mind of the Secretary of War, than ridicule, is to me absolutely incredible. It began with a preamble full of invectives, with a *' Whereas,^' followed by a string of accusations against the whole course of the measures of the administration, and concluded with a *' Therefore Resolved, that the Adjutant General be requested to write to General Armstrong for the arms, &c." It was indeed, a pro- duction which promised much and performed nothing. It is proba- ble that General Armstrong, agreeablj'^ to his promise, sent you the arms as soon as they were ready ; but none the sooner for your piti- ful resolve. But this war is unjust. Must we travel over this ground again? This charge has been refuted more than a thousand times. But that makes no difference ; they can renew it though vanquished, they can argue still. The right of Blockade, Orders in Council, and Impressment are brought up, and all justified with greater ob stinac}'^ than in the Briiish Parliament. I have said, and I repeat it, that the priority of the Frencii Decrees could be no excuse for these Orders, if such had been the fact. What, sir, retaliate upon an innocent neutral the aggressions Avhich your enemy has committed upon that neutral ! The priori- ty of aggression makes no difference : Each nation must accoun t with us, for the injury it has done us : I have wondered the govern- ment of the United States, have CAcr condescended to discuss the c|uestion of the priority of these edicts though it is beyond questioK, that the blockade of the 16th of May, 1806, was far more injurious to American commerce, than the Berlin Decree of the 21 st Nov. following. This extraordinary blockade, obstructed the commerce of nearly one thousand miles of sea coast, including many im})or- lant commercial cities, and the mouths of several large and navigE" Me river?. But the advocates of Britain say that she had a right to do all this. She had force enough to invest this whole exteni', therefore, it was legally blockaded, whelhcr the force was ajipliejl or noi. So I suppose, gentlemen would contend that some other c©ast, equally extensive, was actually blockaded, because it might be ; and in this way, Britain might blockade every port in the- •world at the same time. But the strongest advocates for retaliation, have not pretended that it couid bejustified until after notice of the first aggression, and neglect or refusal io repel it. U|)on what principle, then w^as the Order of Council of 8th January, 1807, imposed ? This was but forty-seven days after the Berlin Decree' and before we could have had notice of it ; and yet Great Britain had a right, say they, to retaliate on us for an act which we could not prevent, and of which we did not know ! It is in vain to pre- tend, that this Order was not a retaliation of the Berlin Decree, be- cause left rigorous in terms. It v/as contrary to the known law of nations, and Britain had the power to enforce it ; but France had. no power to enforce her Decree, and it could be considered but an empty threat. But it is suggested, that this war is for the protection of Brit- ish seamen. This charge is without any foundation. We are con- tending for the protection of our own seamen on hoard of our own ships. The law of nations admits not the subjects of one nation to enter on board the ships of another, and to take such as thci/ shall judge their own. The case is simple, and capable of demonstra- tion. The ocean is the common highway of nations. On it, each has a concurrent, bui neither an exclusive jurisdiction. If, then, one nation has right to take such as she shall judge her own subjects, in this common jurisdiction, the other may retake the same sub- ject, if she judges him to be her own. if this nation has a right to re-capture, she has, asertiori, a right to resist the first taking — so that pursuing your principle, one nation claiming a citizen in juris- diction common to both, has a right to take him from another, while this other, if she claims him, has a right to resist. But, thouo-h the jurisdiction is concurrent on the ocean, it is not so on board ships» Here the jurisdiction is exclusive. The municipal law prevails here. Vattel says that a person born on shipboard, is con- sidered as the natural born subject of the nation to which the ship belonged, because within the exclusive jurisdiction of that nation. It is true that there are cases, in which a belligerent may enter on board for certain purposes; for instance, to search for contraband goods, and to prevent a violation of blockade. But these are exceptions, and goto prove the rule. It is manifest that these exceptions, especially that relative to contraband goods, are the effect of compact. They are part of the conventional law of nations. The natural law never defined what articles were con- traband. These exceptions so strictly defined, and carefully guard- ed, prove, incontestibly, the general rule, that each nation has an exclusive jurisdiction on board its ships on the ocean. But to pre- tend that because there is one exception, there is therefore another; that because the officers of one nation have a right to enter on board B 10 i.he ships of another, in search of contrdbaad goods, and if they have a rig;ht to carry in the sliip for trial, tiiat ihenjore such officers have a right to enter on board and take such men as they shall judge their own, rvithout trial, is, I confers, a course of reussoning, wliich I do not fully uiiderstand. If the right exists, why do not genllc- men Ave us the proof of it ? They are wise and learned in the law of nations ; where is the writer on national law, who has un- dertaken to establish the right of a nation to enter on board the shii)3 of another, and to take such as she may deem her own, with- out submitting the question to an international tribunal. But gentlemen insinuate that British subjects whom we have riatiiralized are the subjects of contention ; and they insist on the doctrine of perpetual allegiance ;osp' at least, that a naturalized cit- izen, has but a local protection. That is, inasmuch as allegiance; and protection are reciprocal ; and this protection does not extend beyond the territory of exclusive jurisdiction of the nation, so the alleoiance is subject to the same limitation, ^s a consequence of this doctrine, a British subject naturalized here, is obliged to fight against his native country until he gets three leagues fiX}m the shore, and the moment he crosses this imaginary line, he is absolved frons allegiance, and obliged to tight for his native against his adopted country. This consequence alone, is sufficient to mak« the propo- sition ridiculous. But the law has removed every deubt on this subject. Naturalization is defined, the giving a foreigner the rights of a citizen; or converting a foreigner into a citizeno This word itself carries with it its ow n definition, Ourcjw^n law has determined its effect. It was decided in New-York, that it operates retractive- /?7, and places the man in the same situation as if he had always been a citizen. The principle is the same in England. Coke and ElackFiione tell us, that, if a man be made a denizen, the ehildreu born after he was denizated shal! inherit but not those which were bor.i before. But it is not so in the case of naturalization ; because naturalization has a retrospective energy. But the British statute ■which provides for -the natur>?d!zation of g'jch foreign seamen, as shall have served two years on board these ships, puts this question beyond doubt. — The act makes them natural born subjects or na- tives within the kingdom. Butthe Answer to his Excellency's Speech has brought up the qnestion of retaliation ; and a wonderful degree of sympathy is ex- cited for Ids Majesty's *^ubject3. Newark is arlfully selected, pro- bably as the first aggression. I suppose the burning of the defence- less villages on the shores of the Chesapeake, are instances of Brit- ish mercy. The exciliilg the Indians to indiscriminate massacre, was British mercy. The brutalities of that Vandal, Cockburn, are instances of this mercy ! The cold-blooded murders of that Goth, Procter, are further instances of it I — Who were the .jggrea- sors in this business of retaliation ? The advocates of perpetual Ellegiunce will say-, x\merica \ With them a man is fixed to the 11 spot v.nere i^e drew his first breath. If an Ainericic, on a xis- it to Eno;land, happens to have a son born there, tlmugh the parent c-hou!d innnediateiy return \vi picture of British hu- manity. We are charged v/ith driving the aborigines froui their inheri- tances. It is but a short time since Mr. Jetferson was an object of ridicule, for his regard for tiie Indians and his disposition to civil- ize them. Now, that they are the allies of his Majesty, all hosliU >.ty agninst them is evidence of a disposition to exterminate them. Never was a charge more unfounded, cruel, or pernicious — V.'e have used them as children. They had no ground of complaint against us ; and wiiat good motive could have induced his Excellen- cy to infuse into the minds of the people and of these Indians, that the United States are determined to drive them oft' — The effect is beyond a doulit. It will awake them to vengeance, and the inno- cent blood which may flow in consequence, may one day be re- quired of us, who disseminate. charges sogrourwlless and injurious. But it is said that this is a war against New-England — Here is the attempt to excite local jealousies. New England has interests peculiar to herself! she must be separate. The Hon. Chairman, probabl3% looks forward to the period, when we can speokof thje Kingdom of New^ England; and possibly anticipates, that Josiaii THE First may be its future Sovereign. And sir, though 1 utterly abhor a Monarchy, if. we must have a King, I should be as willing that gentleman should v.ield the sceptre as any other — I should pre- fer him to George the Third ; for I do not think him quite so crazj'. I should prefer him to the Prince Regent, for he j)05sesses the char- ities of domestic life, which his Royal Highness does not appear to be overburthened with. I should prefer him to Bonaparte, because, though he is a military man, I do not believe he is ca;)able of doing half so mcch mischief. Having said this to j)acify the Hon. Mem- ber on his favorite subject, I shall now proceed to examine that part of the answer which relates to the Embargo, Gentlemen Iiave a wonderful faculty of denouncing laws as unconstitutional. It was to be expected that those gentlemen who regard their reputation as correct lawyers, would have deliberated before they decided. At least it was hoped, that inasmuch as we have a tribunal conipetent to decide tins question, and tiiat very sjieediiy, gentlemen instead of threatening to legislate against the legislation of Congrcs:^, vvtmid -I ^>- Jbave taken the means to have a decision in the Courts oi liie Uniteii States. Are they afraid to Irust the federal Judges? Do these gentlemen lack wisdom and integiUv ? Or is it this wisdom and integrity which they are afraid of ! The other Embargo was deem- ed by some unconstitutional, because it was unlimited; but it was decided otherwise in this stale, andif I mistake not, the Hon. Mem= ber from Worcester argued in favor of its constitutionality. The objection to the Embargo is, that it restricts the coasting trade, and gentlemen seem to insist, that the right to regulate commerce amons; the several states, means hctweeji state and state. I v/ili read you tVie opinion oi Gen. V^asbington on this subject— (Here Mr. H. read a communication of President Washington to the Senate, 28th March, 1 794, and insisted that it was in point.) But that clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to provide for the common defence and general welfare, is amply sufficient. Who can doubt of the im[)ortance of this measure to the common defence ; We are starving ourselves to feed our enemies. They suffer ex- ceedingly ; and perhaps this is cause of more than half the clam- our. Gentlemen feel compassionate to the District of Maine. — The people, to be sure, sutler privations, and they are willing to endure them ; but they are not starving, nor severely distressed ; and very fev/ of them would thank us for our condolence. The Embargo was a measure called for by both parties ; and the people Ivad rather bear it, hard as it is, than that their enemy should be fed. But centlemcn threatened Legislative ieterfereuce : Are they pre- pared for this ? They mean surely, by a state law, to repeal the Embargo, and enforce the repeal against the officers of the general government. This is coming out. If they are in earnest, 1 like this. You have talked long enough. We begin to doubt youv nerve. Your rich men have probably made up their minds, as well as those of desperate fortunes. They probably understand the meaning of the word revolution. They have probably thought vv-here they shall be when the wheel stops. But gentlemen magnr- fy the ill success and disgrace of this war. This was expected. — itseemstobea subject of exultation. I loo, regret, as much as any man the disasters of our arms. But it was not entirely unexpected- We had been thirty years at peace : The art of war was of course iie'^lected : Our revolutionary heroes have, one after another, pas- sed off the stage of action. *ln a free country, you must begin hos- tilities without preparation. If you prepare, the people will know ior what ; and if so, you tell your enemy, and his preparation will be correspondent. . if so, we may as well be at war at once. 'We had to encounter the prejudices of a people inured to peace; and to re- sist a desperate faction who were advocating the enemy and throw- in«- i)\'CTy obstacle in the way of the government. We had to raise troops and obtain money. *These obstacles are overcome.— And have we met with nothing but disgrace and defeat ? Were the de« leuoe of FortMei.'-s, Fert Steven^on; Sacket's Harbour asdCrcii^y Island, disgraceful ? Was the success on Lake Ontario, and the complete and signal victory on Erie, when, with an inferior force we captured in fair battle, a whole fleet, disgraceful ? Give ra« such disgraces as these and you are welcome to all the laurels which thicken round the brow of the mighty Cockburn ? The Speech and reported answer speak of debts and taxes. — "VVe were once told that a national debt was a national blessing. I never believed it. In war we must have debts and in peace we must pay them — Taxes sufficient to pay the interest, is all a people at war ought to endure ;" and this is all we shall be obliged to endure- But his Excellency intimates, that the debt will continue as long as the union of the States. Was this intended as a hint to the people, that to avoid the debt, they must divide the states ? I don't appre- hend that the people of this Commonwealth are yet ready to pay their debts this way. Our government, it is said, discover no disposition to peace, and