/CONSIDERATIONS ANSWER TO THE CONTAINING ', MR. MADISON'S INSTRUCTIONS TO MR. MUNROE. IRREPREHENSA DABAT POPULO RESPONSA PELENTI. ALBANY: W FRIXT,.EI> BY E. AND E. HOSFORD, FOR TfiE AUTHOR. J807, ' O / C) To the People of the State of New- York; THE following sheets are dedicated as a subject, if not of instruction, at least of reflec- tion, before they again plunge into a war, without duly weighing its principles and merits ; and who by experience have learnt the difficulty of over- turning established customs, as well as having been witnesses to the dire effects that have been, and ever will be felt, when attempts are made to sub- stitute novel forms or doctrines, in lieu of old customs and privileges. To the prudence of the people who enjoy so large a share in the Union y and who have so much at stake, and whose pe- culiar interests I am more acquainted with than those of the Southern States, I have addressed myself, in hopes that under existing circumstan- ces, they will pursue a firm, candid and unpre- judiced line of conduct, conformable to truth, hon- or, morality and integrity, without which, the measures of a country are corrupt, and its gov- ernment disposed of by intrigue, which is the rapid precursor of anarchy and ruin. BUZURG MIHIR. MG2730 CONSIDERATIONS, &c. I N a country where the professions of Printer and Editor, are combined with the pursuits of criticism, it requires more than common consideration, before a writer ventures to disclose his opinions to the world and publicly avow his sentiments. Amidst the various consolidation of employ- ments that frequently characterize Americans, I deem, the above to be more prejudicial and injurious to truth and reason, than any other cause that can be alledged. In sta- ting this opinion, I hope not to be misunderstood, as con- veying a stigma on the liberty of the press, or the erudition, of a critic, for on the contrary, I am too sensible of the ben- efits of the one, while I know how to appreciate the value of the other, so it is only the abuse and not the use of a good that I consider and regret. Candor from the critic has gen- erally been deemed a futile and fallacious expectation, though there are many whose abilities command our respect ; are vve then to look for it here ? where it is interwoven with interest, speculations, designs and politics where it appears like a motley vest of fiery red, jealous green, or envious yellow, displaying a lustring die, constantly misleading our senses and deceiving ater sight. If, in the most favorable light, we contemplate criticism with attention, and diligently examine whether it is free from a rival enmity, stupidity, the short-lived hope of ex- isting by another's fame, or to catch the public eye, to en- rich the private purse, we find it not perfect, but too fre- quently partaking more or less of those faults. How then is any moderation or discretion to be expected where all our worldly interests present themselves at once, and hurry us on to adopt not that which is thought right, but that which will be most advantageous, or best answer the immediate purposes of pique, party, profit or ambition. This is not the only evil, habit has rendered abuse famil- iar, and it is to be lamented that the critic is constantly lost in the reviler. So depraved and confirmed is the present taste, that scurrility is sought after with avidity, and the more it is used the more it appears to be relished. The cook profits by pleasing the palates of his guests, and vic- tims of licentious liberty must be offered up to satisfy the voracious aj/peuUjs. of a coarse multitude. The press and critics, scarce cool from the warmth of an election, were ea siy -K-i'xd by the conduct of the L d ; it was a propi- tious event to vivify the cause of turbulence, and was adroit- ly seized by the geniuses of discordance. The type still moist, was, with customary facility, arranged by the artist, and the ready letters easily slided into habitual orthography. The superlative system of superlative degrees was again re- sorted to ; synonymous words perverted the idiom ol our language, and abstrusely insinuated inferences were unwar- rantably deduced from premises. Such a period is not the most propitious to examine causes, or calmly trace their ef- fects, nor is it more favorable to discant on measures that appear to be prejudged, where conclusions are drawn, and on which the future destinies and actions of the United States seem to hang ; but if there is a moment for beneficient in- terposition, it is surely the present ; if there is a moment seriously to investigate and weigh the truth, it is the pres- ent ; if there is a moment that offers itself, attendant with every good, and by which incalculable evils may be avoided, it is probably the present, and it is a duty to seize it. This exordium marks me not as a warrior, nor i.m I induced by speculative opinions, to try the chance of ringing the chan- ges of fortune by hazarding what I possess. If slander hints I have an interest in preserving peace, I will disappoint her malice by allowing it, but it's no other interest than that ev- ery man possessing property and independence in the north- ern states, has in common with myself, and I do not wish to see it deteriorated or held up by modern profligacy as a pharo bank, that may be punted at with impunity ; I do not wish to witness here the distressing scenes of many ruined and a few enriched, nor the disgusting language of despera- does realized, when they state they cannot be worse off, but may be better ; I do not want to see property afloat ; the faith and justice of the country contaminated, or its interest or honor insulted. If there is an opportunity of preserving peace consistent with honor, policy i.nd interest, the public vveal surely demands it, and I presume it will not be advan- ccd that it is the interest of the northern states of Am'erida headlong to plunge themselves into a war with Great-Bri- tain, or that it will be an acquisition and an event to be wish- ed for, as bringing with it advantages immediately benefi- cial in themselves, or ultimately productive of wealth and resources. As I have never heard this opinion vindicated, I have a right to treat it as a sophism, and as sophistry is not the object of my researches, I hope the reader with myself, will be content in dismissing that point as unnecessary of in- vestigation, and admit the silence as a consent. It then clearly follows that the point of honor is the focus where the radiant American banners are to be collected and unfurled, that the days of chivalry are to be revived, or the more ancient and voracious system of a military republic, is after a lapse of seventeen centuries, about to burst forth in the new western world let it be so every age is stamped with its follies, and the present one can never be stigmatized as having en- tertained too high notions of honor. Reparation is to be made for the insult-*-Granted. But is not the cause to be investigated, nay, is it not at present before the proper tri- bunals, and have we had a statement from both parties, upon which we can form an impartial judgment ? surely we have not already lost the valuable acquisition of common sense, or like the Republicans of France drank the waters of Lethe. Is judgment to be prevented from exercising her decision, and is reparation to an injury to be denied because an insult has been felt. Reparation is to be made for the insult- Granted. But has not the narrative of the insult been exag- gerated, has it not been denied thut insult was intended, and have not the aggressors expressed their contrition for a con- duct they deemed it a duty to pursue ; if in die execution of orders, aggressions arise, let them be attributed to the proper motive, and let the causes be investigated. Had it been meant as an insult or indignity to the American flag, it would have been avowed ; on the contrary it appears to have proceeded from a misconception of the rights of nations, from mysterious points which may probably perplex the cabinets of the two countries, and which involve the chief purport of these lines. . Reparation is to be made for the insult Granted. But is not the term one of those misnomers that are ever charac- terizing public prints; if we analyze the word we shall not at all find it applicable to the transaction, since the transaction must cause the base on which the epithet is predicated, if so, was there any insult in first demanding the men I No* that is allotted, consequently the right of demand was no in- sult, it could be no injury and was a right. Was there any insult in persevering to demand the men ? No, it must be allowed if they had a right to demand, they had a right to persevere till the point was mutually adjusted. Was there any insult in sending on board a Lieutenant with a letter to require search ? (I use the term ;of the Admiral's gene- ral orders as unfortunately at present I know not whether Captain Humphries acted on any other, or whether he had specific orders) No, that requisition was refused, and at present we are ignorant whether Captain Humphries ex- ceeded his orders in resorting to force or not, if his orders were to proceed to force, it was an act of hostility and not an insult. Whether Admiral Berkeley or Captain Humphries have been to blame we at present know not, as it must de- pend on the instructions the Captain received, and whether the Admiral's orders are sxich as ought not to have issued, is a point to be adjusted by the two Governments, and on which the Admiral may have been mistaken, and the act of hostility disavowed by the British cabinet. It has not been denied but there was a cause, and scrutiny only will bear us out in unfolding the truth ; we must wait the event of an en- tire disclosure of the facts on both sides. Since I presume It will be allowed there was a cause, it will be equally per- mitted that separate opinions might be entertained on its merits ; that Admiral Berkeley might form an opinion con- trary to the American, and in that he may or may not be mistaken, and that the opinion on which he acted arose sole- ly from a conviction of his duty, is plain, and in pursuing that opinion his instructions proceeded from a sense of his duty, and not for the avowed purpose of an insult. It is clear he did not consider the requisition to search, as an insult, since he reciprocally subjected the vessels on his station to the same act, if required ; if an act of reciprocity was to be construed an insult, he it appears, must have ignorantly er- red, and have acted under a misconception, and was answer- able to his own Government also for permitting an indignity. Every one will allow thutif a British commander was to per- mit an insult he would be severely punished, then is it prob- able that the Admiral would render himself liable by per- mitting an insult, which he certainly is, if it is an insult, to allow a reciprocal search for mutineers or deserters. If it is an insult, America will have ample atonement in the chas- tisement the Admiral will suffer for promulgating doctrines derogatory to British dignity. Without anticipating the intentions of either Government by opinion, or committing myself by a resolution, I shall patiently wait the decision of an event, the full particulars of which, are as yet secret, and not draw my conclusions till the whole facts have been submitted to investigation. But I may hazard an opinion that if the point of honor is the axis solely on which peace or war turns, and that if the insult is the only cause of complaint, that we shall then be blest with a continuance of peace, as I presume America was not desirious of committing an injury, or Great-Britain an insult, but that it was an action arising from the unsettled state of things, and by a synchronism, transpired before the matter was finally adjusted. If Great-Britain has committed both an injury and insult, her blame is double, and it is her duty accordingly to yield double reparation ; but if their lurks behind these proceedings other sentiments and determina- tions, then we are not to attribute the failure of a continu- ance of peace, to the avowed object that reparation is to be made for the insult. The re-echoed complaints of insulted honor will vanish on the appearance of more substantial, but degraded interest, and with surprise shall we behold honor humbled to the rank of master of ceremonies, introducing; a diversified group. The mysteries of port folios, like the mysteries of Plato, are impervious to the public eye ; the statesman and philosopher alike enjoy the sequestered ar- canum ; the pages of their sacred book, are dealt out with a spare hand, and cautiously disclosed, least the undertakings of inferior geniuses should be overwhelmed and lost forever. We are left to form our opinions solely from what is present- ed us, and care is taken not to present more than will satisfy our puny minds and afford a prattling topic of conversation ; our conclusions are drawn, and we stand confessed it must be true, it proceeds from supreme authority, it is the finis sequi juris. Since then it is allowed to seek amusement in that which has transpired, I may be indulged in discanting on the Pamphlet, as report insinuates, Clio has claimed it as com- ing within her Province. The penetrating goddess may see and risk sources of calamities arising to mankind from its tenets, and she may let fall a tear of compassion on the page as she indites its effects. Under the specious pretext of justice, every ancient claim is to submit to its pretensions ; it is ushered into the world to support one cause, while its voracious system devours another ; while it holds out pro- tection, it encourages fraud, and while it attempts (o allay one evil, it preposterously promotes another. A novel doc- trine, worthy modern times. B On adverting to the Pamphlet, we find it bursts upon us with a principle, thut America considers a neutral flag on the high seas, as a safeguard to those sailing under it. Great-Britain on the contrary, asserts a right to search for and seize her own subjects. This right is denied and on the best grounds, says the Author. We are therefore here to take our stand and examine impartially which of these rights are just, and the effects that result from the adoption of ei- ther principle. I am ready to allow some evils may arise from the difficulty of distinguishing American from British subjects, and under that cover many may be carried off, but I deny that the abuses flowing from it, would justify Amer- ica in expecting a discontinuance of its exercise. I do not understand the logic of abolishing a right because an evil arises from it, for if that were the case, America might set the example and abolish commerce because it covers smug- gling ; this the Author dreads as it would at once remedy the evil and deprive him of farther argument. Here fol- lows another sophism, and least I should be accused of mis- tating, I have resolved to quote the whole sentence. " Although Great-Britain has not yet adopted, in the same l( latitude with most other nations, the immunities of a neu- fc tral flag, she will not deny the general freedom of the " high seas, and of neutral vessels navigating them, with *' such exceptions only as are annexed to it by the law of na- *' tions. She must produce then such an exception in the " law of nations, in favor of the right she contends for. But *' in what written and received authority will she find it ? in *' what usage except her own, will it be found ? She will find u in both, that a neutral vessel does not protect certain ob- *' jects denominated contraband of war, including enemies * ( serving in the war, nor articles going into a blockaded u port, nor as she has maintained, and as we have not con- *' tested, enemies' property of any kind. But no where will t{ she find an exception to this freedom of the seas, and of " neutral flags, which justifies the taking away of any per- " son, not an enemy in military service, found on board a neu- " tral vessel." In the first part of the sentence the illiberality of Great- Britain is held up to view, compared with other countries, and this too by an American. Ingratitude's a weed in every soil '. But the conclusion is, that she conforms to the law of nations on the high seas. She is next put to her trumps for an exception in the bw of nations of the right she contends for j he then shews that a neutral does not protect certain- 11 objects contraband of war, including enemies serving. in the war. But no where will she find an exception to this free- dom of the seas and of neutral flags, which justifies the tak- ing away of any person not in military service found on board a ntutral vessel. The plain English of this is, that a neu- tral does not protect enemies serving in the war. Had the Author began and ended there we might have comprehended him clearly, and I should have revered his opinion, but in the same breath almost, he adds the word military. Long habit- uated to live under a civil government, I was startled at the term, and conjectured something more was meant. Surely the marine of Great-Britain is not to be sacrificed by Amer- ica, us a peace-offering to the military of France, and a dis- tinction in the laws of war to be made between a mariner and a soldier. Is the physical marine force of Great-Briton to be less respected than the military of France ? Surely not. Would France permit a neutral in time of war, to re- cruit its armies with multitudes of her deserters ? No, she would insist on their being delivered up, or would justly de- clare war against them. The naval power of Great-Britain is as dear to her as the military power of France ; her mar- iners are as much her forces and protection as the military of Bonaparte ; every soldier in France is liable to be called on as the government may want his aid, and sois every sailor in Great-Britain. If France wants men, her conscriptions sat- isfy her demands, they are compelled to pursue a life con* trary to their interests and inclinations, and which in general, deterioates their future prospects. If Great-Britain wants sailors, she only removes men from serving a merchant to serving his country, his interest and inclinations were a sea- faring life, and in general, their future prospects are not de- teriorated, but amended. I refer the reader to British boun- ty and endowments. As to the discipline and curtailment of improprieties, it is only the same as the soldiers, and what law is to a profligate. A British sailor is not benefited, as I know of, by entering into the service of America ; disci- pline is there observed. But in time of war he avoids en- gagements ; he that can degrade his mind to use such wo- manlike language, little knows the hearts of British seamen, nor would America feel very secure with such protection : Is it not also worthy consideration ? whether the language that is used in misrepresenting the naval service, may not first operate as a check to the juvenile navy of America.- Why is the military solely to be considered, what gives it an exclusive priority, it is only the natural defence of one 12 country, while the navy is that of another ; how are they first organized, not by the laws of nations, but of individual states ; their regulations are municipal, and their numbers relative ; they increase and diminish according to their wants and ef- forts. France justifies her conscriptions by her efforts, and her inhabitants are curtailed in privileges and liberty by new municipal decrees, whilst Great-Britain on the other hand does not extend her means, for the right of impressing con- stitutes a part of the common law of England. The milita- ry and naval force of America are also regulated by internal laws, and in case of war, would not America consider her seamen as much a part of her physical force, as her soldiers. I hope enough has been advanced clearly and satisfactorily to prove, that no destinction can be made between the mili- tary and navy, as constituting a part of the physical force of belligerents, and consequently rendering them equally lia- ble to be taken out of a neutral vessel. It naturally occurs for us to inquire by what right even a military or naval character is taken out of a neutral, and out of this arises an important point, viz : a right of belligerents founded on the law of nations ; for belligerents, as well as neutrals, have rights ; they have a right, says Vattel, of doing against the enemy whatever is necessary for weakening him, for disabling him from making any further resistance in sup- port of his injustice ; and the most effectual, the most prop- er methods may be chosen, provided they have nothing odi- ous, be not unlawful in themselves, or exploded by the law of nature. Nay, he goes as far as to declare all enemies may be secured, though the European nations at present, sel- dom make use of the expedient of taking such as are in a peaceful and civil capacity ; but France, at the commence- ment of this war, detained as prisoners, all the British sub- jects of every description that were in her territories, and many whose sojourning there, was for literature, pleas- ure or curiosity. It being evident a belligerent may seize his enemies on board a neutral, to a plain mind it must be a paradox, he cannot take that which is his own, or appeal to any other tribunal with a prospect of success, but to that of arms ; this is really very kind in the neutral, tenaciously ta- king such good care of what belongs immediately to the claimant, at the same time allowing him to take away his en- emies ; but how does it turn out when this kind neutral meets the other belligerent, why he very kindly gives him up his adversary's subjects, so that afterwards, should the first bel- ligerent meet his old friend again, the neutral, a curious 13 conversation would pass. Well, how are all my fellow-citi- zens on board your ship, oh ! I gave them up to your ad- versary, he is your enemy and had a right to them, you know you took his out of my ship, so you are equal, and I am neutral exchange is no robbery, so I wish you a pleas- ant voyage. Before we proceed farther, let us in another point of view reflect upon the subject, and we certainly shall discover an insuperable objection, and which ought first to be fully and favorably ascertained before neutral protection was extended to the latitude required. We have seen that belligerents have a right to take out their enemies from neutral ships, why ? Because they are enemies, if so, all neu- tral ships bound to the ports of belligerents would have such men taken from them as were enemies, whether drove in by distress, or bound there ; if the neutral flag could not pro- tect them at sea, it cannot when in the ports of a belligerent. Blackstone in his commentaries observes, no subject of a nation at war with Great-Britain, can, by the law of nations, come into the realm, nor can travel himself upon the high seas, or send his goods and merchandize from one place to another without danger of being seized, unless he has letters of safe conduct. If this was not the law of nations, Great- Britain would not alter her statutes, or France her decrees, to benefit a neutral. But even should America be powerful enough to enforce this principle as a law, in the present sit- uation of Europe, how would it operate ; Great-Britain would soon be deprived of her physical force, and we should soon see nothing but neutral flags filled with her citizens. Would the evil here stop, would it not be soon turned to the pur- pose of supplying her enemies with colonial," if not every oth- er produce ? To view the effects of a neutral flag protecting all men under its colours, is no more than seeing the neutral prosper at the sole expense, if not existence, of one of the belligerents, without affecting or injuring the policy of the other in the smallest degree. Is that compatible with neu- trality ? Is gun-powder, saddles, &c. to be considered con- traband ? Yet to be deemed lawful to deprive a belligerent of his physical force. Surely such incongruity can never be seriously intended, nor can America wish to see the modern, cruel and tyrannizing expressions of Delenda est Carthago verified. Perish Britain, perish America ; the costly dreams of the latter will vanish with the substance of the former. But to proceed to conclusions, and to the farther justification of belligerents seizing their subjects on board neutrals, that point ought to be argued more fully, and the right of belli- u gerents established. The pamphlet next proceeds to state, in no instance do British treaties, as well as otiiers, affirm or imply a right in any sovereign to enforce his claims to the al- legiance of his subjects on board neutral -vessels on the high seas. This naturally involves two questions, first, the right of allegiance ; secondly, the right of neutrals. I shall clearly shew from these, the cause why the principle has never form- ed a part of treaties, as in fact it has been so pkdn a truism as even to have been admitted by the most sceptic statesmen. As a reasoner I might be justified in asking in what Author, except in the Pamphlet, will it be found, that neutrals have or whether by the same undaunted courage that has ever chaise terized her in distress, she wiii break the shackles that are forging to fet- ter her liberties. Whatever may be the result of pending negotiation, is dotibtfi.il ; if America obtains greater con- cessions than those hitherto made, it will be an advantage in which she may have reason to exult ; if she obtain the same it will be an advantage in which she may have reason to be satisfied, but there is little prospect when in the instructions of the Pamphlet, we find it thus writtew. u Frona every view of the subject, it is reasonable to expect that the ex- ception of the narrow seas, from the stipulation against im- pressments, will not be inflexibly maintained. Should it be so, your negotiation will be at an end" 1 1 ! ! Have ages pas- sed away in ignorance, and has England, untaught for so long a period, been adhering to a system unreasonable, which if abandoned, she may contemplate in sad repentance, as an irreparable injury to her reverwae, commerce and manufac- tures. By what law is America justly entitled to make these demands ? If she is determined to disregard ancient prm- leges even though they involve the nearest interests of anoth- er country ; if she is determittied to sacrifice their goodl to her prosperty, she is only playing the game of revolution- ary novelty, and setting up a doctrine that may be overthrown by its own arguments. This is modern philosophy, the w lights that are only extinguished by the bayonet. By an easy transition every thing that is ancient, is obsolete, that which is obsolete, may be analyzed, reduced to first prin- ciples, set afloat, and be contended for again ; where then is the security of long enjoying an advantage evidently ex- torted by threat, and reluctantly ceded through fear. Will 22 ttot Great-Britain watch her opportunity to demand her rights by using the same means as were used towards her, and if they fail, will she not resort to force. But perhaps it may be sidd, she has reached the zenith of her glory ; her boasted greatness and triumphant navy, are only to be seen recorded in the page of history ; her panegyrist will disguise, as he indites, that she was humbled and conceded to de- mands ; that her concessions undermined her power it is vanished it is no where to be found ! While America, ex- ulting in her prowess, contemplates her grandeur ; nay, in the midst of the epithalmium, she may unexpectedly be- hold the object of her ambition seized upon by trance. Surely, foresight and penetration constitute the greatest wis- dom of a statesman, and the man whose measures are only suited to the day, is wrong in not having more maturely weighed them but events are recorded in the book of late, and the wisest measures, like the best of men, do not always meet with their deserts. On a btxsis of reciprocity, what has America to give to Great-Brit an, that will induce the latter to cede her rights ; and what right does Great-Britain avowedly exercise, that she is not entitled to by the luw of nations, nay, which Amer- ica herself in case of war, would not use ; and why so sudden- ly does America complain when she has known these rights to be coeval to her discovery ; that they were the ancient rights of England, which America, while a colony, contend- ed for in junction with the mother country ; and that they are the same rights which were admitted at her independ- ence, when confirmed by treaty. The Pamphlet undisguis- edly asserts, the negociation shall cease, it the exception of the narrow seas from the stipulation aguinst impressments, is inflexibly maintained. Thus determining England shall cede aright she has ever tenaciously reserved, to satisfy the ambition or interest of America, and that without tendering any other advantage as a consideration. How are we to regard the Pamphlet but as the precursor of a manifesto, and the latter is the usual harbinger of war for what purpose to repel an innovation ? No. to extirpate an ancient privilege. To protect neutral rights ? No, to di- minish those of belligerents. To protect the natural ties of allegiance conformable to the laws of nations ? No, to set them adrift and break the very bonds of society. To defend the justice due to nations ? No, to retidn that which belongs to them, and refuse to surrender unto Caesar the things that ate Caesar's ; to give encouragement to such nations as in re- S3 gard to America, should be considered neutrals ; to enlist and detain her seamen with impunity : France might thea find ships and America men. Sweden, Denmark and Spain, and in short, every other neutral, would be alike entitled to> the physical force of America. These are the doctrines contended for hi the Pamphlet, and these are the doctrines for which the trumpet is sounded in the south, by the rest- less, the desperate, and such as Quarrel with minc'd pies, and disparage Their best and dearest friend, plumb porridge. But amidst the cooler and more considerate tempers of the north, and while we see an equally determined sentiment to support their honor and vindicate their country's rights, pervading every unprejudiced, enlightened and independent mind, we respect the solidity, discretion and prudence of their opinions ; as the reverencer of ancient customs, we honor those minds, who, amidst the chaos, still maintain the wise and wholesome doctrine, that a natural subject cannot expatriate himself. Had the Pamphlet argued from this principle, we should have bowed to his work instead of ad- miring his ingenuity ; but he has taken the ground of neu- tral protection, which certainly protects and allows expatri- ation, though it is worthy serious reflection and attention, that the refusal to deliver up the seamen who lately escaped and were taken into the American ship Chesapeake, was predicated on their being native Americans ; yet neverthe- less, we are left in the sophism, that if Great-Britain demand her own citizens, it is to be answered, they are under a neu- tral flag ; if she demand such Americans as have enlisted into her service, it is to be answered they are American cit- izens. More flagrant inconsistencies cannot be imagined ! ! Yet one word more, is it not a duty in a neutral if her citi- zens will persist in entering into the service of a belligerent, contrary to the impartiality the neutral should maintain, that those citizens should be punished as soon as caught. If the neutral would observe a rigid neutrality, it is her duty rigid- ly to punish such as transgress it. Were that the case, we should hear much less of these complaints that are circula- ted with so much avidity. This would operate as a check, but still a just debt would be due to the belligerent which ought to be liquidated, while the immoral transgressor should be made to suffer and compensate the fraud he had committed. From the general complexion of the Pamphlet, we have to fear war, and if it is declared on the grounds contained therein, such as have perused these pages, will be able tor decide on the justice of the cause. I shall be ready to allow, when causes and effects in regard to the affair of the Ches- apeake have been investigated by both governments and, made known, that we shall then be able to form a just opin- ion by perusing their contents, and we shall then know the true grounds, and whether they arose from the points being unsettled and liable to misunder? tanding by the two countries, or whether they proceeded from the British government as direct acts of hostility, for in no point of view has the con- duct appeared to .me otherwise than as proceeding from a misunderstanding, or else a direct hostility. The other epi- thets bestowed, being unbecoming solecisms, that, in them- selves, betray their pedigree. The affair of the Chesapeake may be made the cause of war, but at the sume time it can- not be denied, if the instructions in the Pamphlet are rigidly adhered to, but that America was, prior to that event, in- creasing her demands, and contending for new concessions and exactions, Great-Britain would be justified in withholding, conformable, as we have proved, to the law of nations. The advantages of.a war to the northern states of America, would be inconsiderable, with even an indulgence, that it should be prosecuted with a success equal to its wishes ; the acquisition of territory would only weaken the feeble union, and render its overgrown bulk too unwieldly to be supported by laws, without the aid of more military than seems, either to be relished or thought necessary by the inhabitants of the United States. Should the inhabitants and subjects in the British colonies be inclined to resist, their subjugation would cost more blood and treasure than they were worth, and the honor of adding Quebec to the United States, might require the genius of a Washington, or the valor of a Wolfe. It prob- ably would be defended with obstinacy, and the lives of many men would be sacrificed to un object, which, when obtained, would more concentrate the force of Great-Britain, and ease her revenue, than detriment or disable her power. Whilst useless wild countries were acquired, and speculators in rags, were dreaming on the profits and settlements they or their orphan families might make a century hence, and, while the yet uncultivated interior that already is possessed, was left in a state of nature, or poorly cultivated for want of population, should we be again astonished with accounts of new regions more wonderful and fertile than any yet dis- covered ; new sources for emigration would be opened, and the physical force of the country would be thus weakened and 25 Scattered ; along the coast the towns would be liable to be demolished ; commerce would be ruined ; the neutrals of Em-ope would enjoy it, or the friends of England. Bonds, mortgages, notes, and paper money Would depreciate ; agri^ culture would go back, and little more grain be raised thai! what was wanted for the farmer's use ; distresses would en- sue and the interfe rente of legislative acts would probably only mkke the evil the greater, and at once destroy all pub- lic confidence. The enemy Would be 1 creating the greatest misery, and without affording an opportunity of suffering any very material one on his part, perhaps it might be ulti- mately of service and induce him to employ his capital hi othei 1 channels, or to open communications and obtain else- where what America had formerly supplied, or supposing him to be injured and suffer, yet will that benefit the United St ites, or will he be compelled to accept such terms as A- merica shall dictate or even to give up the point he contend- ed 'for. If Ore at- Britain determines on not yielding to the demands of America, she'\vill act after every consideration from a thorough sense of the necessity ther