• . SPEECH 
 
 . • 
 
 I 
 
 OF 
 
 SENATOR DOUGLAS, 
 
 OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 * 
 
 NATAL APPROPRIATION BILL 
 
 DELIVERED IN 
 
 V 
 
 THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 JUNE 1 , 1 8 58. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY LEMUEL TOWERS. 
 
 • 1858 . 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 SENATOR DOUGLAS, OE ILLINOIS, 
 
 OH THE 
 
 NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. 
 
 a . 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 7, 1858. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the Naval Appropriation bill—Mr. 
 DOUGLAS said: 
 
 I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend 
 from Georgia, (Mr. Toombs,) and especially, that we ought to deter¬ 
 mine what we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in 
 the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies, before we decide the amount 
 of money we shall vote for war purposes. If we are going to content 
 ourselves with simple resolutions that we will not submit to that which 
 we have resolved for half a century, should never be repeated, I see no 
 use in additional appropriations for navy or for army. If we are going 
 to be contented with loud sounding speeches, with defiances to the 
 British lion, with resolutions of the Senate alone, not concurred in by 
 the other House, conferring no power on the Executive—merely capital 
 for the country, giving no power to the Executive to avenge insults or 
 prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting money ? I find that 
 patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, resolve strong; but are they 
 willing to appropriate the money ? Are they willing to confer on the 
 Executive, power to repel these insults, and to avenge them whenever 
 they may be perpetrated ? Let us know whether we are to submit 
 and protest, or whether we are to authorize the President to resist and 
 to prevent the repetition of these offences. If Senators are prepared 
 to vote for a law reviving the act of 1839, putting the army, the 
 navy, volunteers, and money at the disposal of the President to pre¬ 
 vent the repetition of these acts, and to punish them, if repeated, 
 then I am ready to give the ships and the money, but I desire to know 
 whether we are to submit to these insults with a simple protest, or 
 whether we are to repel them. 
 
 Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us 
 about the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tampico, 
 and disturbances in South America, and Indian difficulties in Pugets 
 Sound. Every enemy that can be found on the face of the earth is 
 defied except the one that defies us. Bring in a proposition here to 
 invest the President with power to repel British aggressions on Amen- 
 
4 
 
 can ships, and what is the response? High sounding resolutions de¬ 
 claring in effect, if not in terms, that, whereas, Great Britain has per¬ 
 petrated outrages on our flag and our shipping, which are intolerable, 
 and insufferable, and must not be repeated, therefore, if she does so 
 again, we will whip Mexico, or we will pounce down upon Nicaragua, 
 or we will get up a fight with Costa Rica, or we will chastise New 
 Grenada, or we will punish the Chinese, or we will repel the Indians 
 from Pugets Sound, [laughter,] but not a word about Great Britain! 
 What I desire to know is, whether we are to meet this issue with Great 
 Britain? I am told we shall do it when we are prepared. Sir, when will 
 you be prepared to repel an insult unless when it is given ? England 
 has her ships of war, of various sizes, searching our vessels, firing across 
 their bows, firing into their rigging, subjecting them to search not only 
 in the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Caribbean sea, and upon the Atlantic. 
 It is not confined to one captain, or one vessel, or one locality, but the out¬ 
 rages are committed by various ships, by the Styx on the coast of Cuba, 
 by the Forward five hundred miles east of there, by the Buzzard a thous¬ 
 and miles from Cuba., Every arrival at our ports brings us information of 
 the repetition of these offences, clearly demonstrating the fact that they 
 are not accidental. They are not confined to one locality; they are 
 not the acts of one ship or of one officer ; they are the result of orders 
 from Great Britain to execute this system of outrages on the American 
 flag and American commerce. Are we to submit to it ? If so, let us 
 not say another word about it, pass no resolutions, make no speeches, 
 vote no extra appropriations that we would not vote if these things had 
 not occurred. If, on the contrary, we are not going to submit to them, 
 why not act as we did on the northeastern boundary question in 1839. 
 When the news arrived here on the 2d of March, 1839, that an Ameri¬ 
 can citizen had been taken prisoner on the disputed boundary of Maine, 
 showing a disposition on the part of Great Britain to insist on her 
 claim to the exclusive possession of that country, instantly the Senate, 
 by a unanimous vote, passed a bill authorizing the President to repel 
 any attempt on the part of Great Britain to enforce that claim, and for 
 that purpose, putting at his disposal, the army, the navy, the militia, 
 fifty thousand volunteers, and ten millions of money, to enable him to 
 execute the will of the nation in that respect. Now, sir, why not re¬ 
 vive that act, striking out “ the disputed boundary,” and inserting “ her 
 claims to the right of visitation and search,” and then every provision 
 of that bill would be applicable to the present case. My friend from 
 Missouri, (Mr. Green,) calls my attention to the vote of the House of 
 Representatives on that occasion. It stood one hundred and ninety- 
 seven in the affirmative, and six in the negative. The vote in the 
 Senate was forty-one in the affirmative, none in the negative. 
 
 Your Clays, your Calhouns, your Websters, the great men of former 
 times were here then—men differing in politics in times of high party 
 strife, at a period when Mr. Van Buren was President, and Clay, Web¬ 
 ster, and Calhoun led the opposition. Still the moment this outrage was 
 perpetrated by Great Britain upon our rights, all party dissensions 
 were hushed, the opposition and the Administration stood as one man 
 ■when the honor of the nation was assaulted. They did not hesitate to 
 
5 
 
 confer upon Mr. Van Buren the power to resist the outrages committed 
 by Great Britain in case they should be persevered in. Why not now 
 revive the same law which was then passed by a unanimous vote in 
 the Senate, and with only six dissenting voices in the other House, and 
 confer upon President Buchanan the same power and authority which 
 was then conferred upon President Van Buren, on the motion of Mr. 
 Senator Buchanan. Do that, and then I am prepared to vote the 
 ships, the money, the men, anything, everything necessary to vindicate 
 our firm resolve. Yes, sir, I will go further, I will vote the ships and 
 the money even now, trusting that Congress before it adjourns will 
 arm the President with the necessary power and authority to prevent 
 a repetition of these aggressions. I am, however, extremely unwilling 
 to bury up the outrages of Great Britain, under all the talk and noise 
 that is made about the injuries perpetrated by the South American 
 Republics. I know that in South America outrages have been perpe¬ 
 trated on our commerce, on our citizens and their property, which 
 ought to have been punished on the spot. I know they are continuing, 
 and will continue from day to day, and year to year, until you clothe 
 the Executive with the authority to punish them as promptly as the 
 British Government punish similar outrages on their commerce, and 
 their rights, but these things have been going on in South America 
 for years. They are weak, feeble, unstable powers, entitled to our 
 sympathy and our contempt mingled together. While I would clothe 
 the Executive with power to punish them, I would only do it after I 
 had avenged the insults perpetrated by Great Britain, or I would in 
 the same act authorize the'President to avenge them. 
 
 Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her 
 character, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages, and 
 avenge ourselves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grappling 
 with the stronger. I never did fancy that policy, nor admire that 
 chivalry which induced a man when insulted by a strong man of his 
 own size, to say that he would whip the first boy he found in the 
 street, in order to vindicate his honor, or as is suggested by a gentle¬ 
 man behind me, that he would go home and whip his wife, [laughter,] 
 in order to show his courage, inasmuch he was afraid to tackle the 
 full grown man who had committed the aggression. Sir, these out¬ 
 rages cannot be concealed, they cannot have the go-by, we must meet 
 them face to face. Now is the time when England must give up her 
 claim to search American vessels, or we must be silent in our protests 
 and resolutions and valorous speeches against that claim. It will not 
 do to raise a navy for the Chinese seas, nor for Pugets Sound, nor for 
 Mexico, nor for the South American Republics. It may be used for 
 those purposes, but England must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be 
 looked upon as showing the white feather, if we strike a blow at any 
 feeble power until these English aggressions and insults are first punish¬ 
 ed, and security is obtained«lhat they are not to be repeated. 
 
 I shall vote for the amendment offered by my friend from Florida, 
 under the authority of the Committe on Naval Affairs, providing for 
 ten sloops of war. I shall also vote for the proposition of my friend 
 from North Carolina, for the ten gun boats. I wish he had increased 
 
 \ 
 
6 
 
 the number to fifty, because I understand they can be constructed for 
 about $100,000 apiece, and five millions of dollars would give you 
 fifty gun boats, vessels of a character more serviceable for coast defense 
 than auy other vessels you could have. They could enter every har¬ 
 bor, every creek, every bay, every nook where it is necessary to afford 
 protection, and each one of them singly would be strong enough in 
 time of war to capture an enemy’s Merchant vessel and bring it into 
 port, or sink it as easily as a seventy-four, or the largest class of ships 
 of vrar. I would increase the number of gun-boats to fifty; I would 
 give the sloops asked for by the committee, but I would never permit 
 this Congress to adjourn, after all the resolutions we have had reported, 
 and all the brave speeches we have made, until we give the President 
 power, and thereby make it his duty, to repel in future every repetition 
 of these British outrages on our flag, and to use the army, the navy, 
 the militia, and the treasury, to any extent which may be necessary 
 for that purpose. 
 
 [Pending the same discussion and in reply to the remarks of several 
 Senators on the same day, Mr. Douglas again addressed the Senate as 
 follows:] 
 
 Mr. Douglas. I concur entirely with the Senator from Virginia, in 
 the reasons he has given for the necessity of applying the provisions of 
 the bill which he has reported from the Committee on Foreign Rela¬ 
 tions, as a substitute for one I introduced, to Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa 
 Rica, and New Granada; but I do not perceive the necessity of limit¬ 
 ing the application to those countries, and not extending it beyond 
 them. If his objection be true, that my proposition was to confer a 
 war making power upon the President, then by applying the whole 
 power of these provisions to Mexico, and the other three countries, he 
 confers a war making power to that extent. I suppose if it is a viola¬ 
 tion of principle to give the President a war making power as applied 
 to one country, it is no more so to give it to him generally. The ob¬ 
 jection I had to his provision was this: I had introduced a bill to 
 authorize the President in cases of flagrant violations of the law of 
 nations under circumstances admitting of no dela} T , to repel and punish, 
 the aggression. The Senator from Virginia, takes the provisions of that 
 bill and endorses them as to four feeble, crippled powers, and omits the 
 very country that is now committing outrages upon our flag and our 
 shipping. I had introduced a bill, general in its provisions, applicable 
 to England, France, Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America— 
 everywhere where there were flagrant violations upon our flag under 
 circumstances admitting of no delay. 
 
 Mr. Mason. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him for a 
 moment. 
 
 Mr. Douglas. Certainly, with great p^asure. 
 
 Mr. Mason. Has the Senator remarked the difference between the 
 causes of quarrel existing between Great Britain and the United States, 
 and those existing between these Republics of Central America and 
 Mexico, and the United States. Great Britain has certainly commit- 
 
7 
 
 ted, or those in command of her armed vessels have committed, 
 high offenses against this country; hut we are utterly uninformed 
 whether those are avowed or disavowed, whether reparation will he 
 extended or refused on the part of that government. The matter is 
 open for explanation and renunciation. That is our position with 
 England. What is our relation with Mexico ? What is our relation 
 with Nicaragua, and those States in that neighborhood ? Our people 
 are taken by the Government forces within the territory of Mexico 
 and imprisoned, and are imprisoned at this hour. At Tampico, one of 
 her sea ports, from the decrepitude of the government, it is unable to 
 protect our people when they go there. They have been seized and im¬ 
 prisoned within the last sixty days, and stripped of their property, which 
 has been confiscated, with a knowledge that the Government of Mexico 
 is too feeble to extend redress. I say the measure reported by the 
 committee is not to make war upon Mexico. It is only to do for Mex¬ 
 ico what Mexico is bound to do herself. That is the whole of it. I 
 submit to the honorable Senator, as I cheerfully submit to the country, 
 whether the one bill is not properly authorized in morals towards 
 those Governments of Central America and Mexico, when if it were 
 done in like manner toward England, for the purpose of plunging us 
 into war, it would be an offense unpardonable in the legislative power, 
 in my judgment. 
 
 Mr. Douglas. I repeat that I agree with the Senator from Vir¬ 
 ginia, that there was abundant cause for the application of the power 
 which I proposed to confer, with reference to Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa 
 Rica, and New Grenada. I agree, also, that the conferring of that 
 power was not a war power, but a peace measure. The Senator does 
 not consider it a war power; I do not consider it a war power. If it is 
 not a war power with reference to them, it is not a war power when 
 applied to other countries. Hence the very fact that he acknowledges 
 that it is not a war power when applied to the countries to which he 
 proposes to apply it, is an admission that it would not be a war power 
 if it were made applicable to England, unless we are to understand 
 that we are to apply one rule to a weak power, and another to a strong 
 power. I do not understand that to be the rule. The measure that 
 I have proposed with reference to these difficulties, has been a measure 
 of peace. I intended the one which I brought forward, for which the 
 Senator from Virginia has introduced a substitute, adopting the same 
 measure but limiting its application, as a peace measure. It ought to 
 exist in time of peace. It only confers on the President of the United 
 States, outside of the limits of the Republic, that power which the 
 Chief Magistrate of every other nation does already possess. It is 
 only putting our Executive, in the vindication of the rights of Ameri¬ 
 can citizens abroad, on an equality with the Chief Magistrate of every 
 other nation on earth. If it is not a dangerous power in the hands of 
 all the kings, all the prime ministers, all the presidents of republics 
 lies outside of the United States, I apprehend that it cannot be deemed 
 a very dangerous one to be exercised by the President of the United 
 States on other people, and not upon our own citizens abroad. 
 
 Then, sir, what is the point of complaint ? The point at issue is 
 
 f 
 
8 
 
 that Great Britain is searching our vessels. The Committee on Foreign 
 Relations agreed unanimously, that she had no right to do it; that the 
 practice of the right of search was a belligerent right; that it was an 
 invasion of our sovereign rights; that we could never submit to it, 
 and would never submit to it. Having resolved that far, the commit¬ 
 tee being unanimous to that extent, there was a difference of opinion 
 as to how much further we should go. One side resolved that we will 
 not submit to it; the other side so resolved, with a provision that if 
 it should be done again we would repel it. That is all there is in the 
 case. If it is right to resolve not to submit to it, it is a point of honor 
 to repel the aggression when it is repeated. I ask if we are not dis¬ 
 graced, as a nation, if, after resolving that it is a belligerent act—that 
 it is an infraction of our sovereignty—that we will never submit to it, 
 we then refuse to authorize the President to repel the insult if it be 
 repeated ? That is the whole point. I desire, instead of bringing for¬ 
 ward a substitute for the Senator’s resolutions, to give the President 
 power and authority to carry out the assertion which the Senator from 
 Virginia, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, has 
 made. 
 
 Mr. Collamer. I wish to ask the Senator a question, if he will 
 allow me. 
 
 Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Collamer. I wish to ask where it is declared, either by the 
 committee or the Senate, to be a belligerent act ? 
 
 Mr. Douglas. The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations so 
 declares it, I think. 
 
 Mr. Collamer. That report has been presented to the Senate, but 
 it has never been acted upon as yet. I wish to ask the Senator one 
 more question : whether he regards the word “ belligerent” as apply- 
 t6 a nation, and whether a belligerent act is a national act ? If this is 
 a belligerent act, and is a national act, we should declare war. 
 
 Mr. Douglas. It does not follow, that for every belligerent act we 
 shall declare war. The Senator from Virginia, in his report as chairman 
 of the Committee on Foreign Relations, quoted Chief J ustice Marshall to 
 show that the practice of the right of search was a belligerent act. All 
 belligerent acts do not necessarily produce war. You may repel them; 
 you may grant letters of marque and reprisal—there are various remedies 
 short of war for repelling and redressing belligerent acts. It does not 
 follow by any means, when one nation perpetrates a violation of right 
 against another, which of itself is a belligerent act, that war is the 
 inevitable consequence, any more than it follows when one gentleman 
 says something offensive to another that a peremptory challenge is a 
 necessary result. A demand for explanation may be necessary. There 
 are preludes to a declaration. So it is between nations. There may be a 
 belligerent act performed. It leads to negotiation, to remonstrance. 
 When these means fail, then the question comes whether our rights or 
 honor be involved to such an extent as to make it imperative to go to 
 
 c 
 
9 
 
 war, as a final result. If this violation of the freedom of the seas 
 were a new thing—if the assertion of the right to search American 
 vessels were now made for the first or even the second time, we might 
 not, although treating it as a belligerent act, deem it necessary to go 
 to war. But when the question has gone through half a century of 
 dispute—when it has reached such a point that we refuse to discuss 
 the question of right any further—when we have asserted that the 
 argument is exhausted, and that the only thing left is to resort to re¬ 
 sistance, if it be persevered in any further, it will not do for us, in the 
 face of these outrages, repeated each day, to be silent with regard to 
 them, and proceed to legislate for the punishment of Mexico, Nicar¬ 
 agua, and other weak and feeble powers at a distance. The bill re¬ 
 ported by the Senator from Virginia, would be right if it were brought 
 forward at a time when the aggravation came from those countries 
 and not from England. I will vote for it. But to pass that by itself, 
 and remain silent with regard to these British outrages, is to confess 
 to the world that we are afraid of Great Britain, but we will maintain 
 our courage by punishing some smaller, feebler, weaker power. 
 
 I do not bring forward the proposition to revive the act of the 3d 
 of March, 1839, as a substitute for the bill reported by the Senator 
 from Virginia, as lie imagines. On the contrary, the two bills ought 
 to go together. The one which I bring forward is applicable to Eng¬ 
 land, and to her alone. It covers the present quarrel between us and 
 England—not as a war measure, but as a peace measure. The only 
 change that I make between that act as I bring it forward now, and 
 as it was in the shape in which it originally passed, is to strike out 
 the words “territory in dispute,” and insert, “the claim of the right 
 of search.” Then the two cases are parallel, and the provision is as 
 applicable to one as it is to the other. 
 
 Sir, there was one member of this body who, when the measure was 
 brought in in 1839, was disposed to treat it as an act of war, until the 
 great minds of the Senate, the patriots of that day, came forward and said 
 no, Great Britain is performing a belligerent act; we must resist it at 
 all hazards; if she perseveres in the wrong, then the consequences be 
 on her head for having persevered in the wrong. Hence you find that 
 Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Buchanan, and the leaders of the Senate of 
 all parties of that day, united with entire unanimity in conferring upon 
 President Van Buren the power to resist it. One man only hesitated. 
 A distinguished and respected Senator from New Jersey, made the very 
 point that is now being made, as to its being an act of war; but a 
 distinguished Senator from Mississippi appealed to him, after a pre¬ 
 liminary vote had been taken, and it was ascertained that the Senate 
 were unanimous, with one exception, not to persevere in his opposition, 
 but allow the Senate to stand unanimous in the assertion of a principle 
 upon which all agreed, and Mr. Southard, in deference to the opinion 
 of the remainder of the Senate, waived his objections, and allowed the 
 bill to pass by a unanimous vote. Sir, did it turn out to be a measure 
 of war, then? On the contrary, it resulted in peace, and you were 
 saved from a war with Great Britain on the northeastern boundary 
 question, by the unanimity of Congress at that time in preparing to 
 
10 
 
 repel the assault. The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the 
 House of Representatives it was one hundred and ninty-seven against 
 six. This unanimity among the American people, as manifested by 
 their representatives, saved the two countries from war, preserved peace 
 between England and the United States upon that question. If the 
 Senate had been nearly equally divided in 1839, if there had been but 
 half-a-dozen majority for the passage of the measure, if the vote had 
 been nearly divided in the House of Representatives, England would 
 have taken courage from the divisions in our own councils, she would 
 have pressed her claim to a point that would have been utterly inad¬ 
 missible and incompatible with our honor, and war would have been 
 the inevitable consequence. 
 
 I tell you, sir, the true peace measure is that which resents the in¬ 
 sult and redresses the wrong promptly upon the spot, with a una¬ 
 nimity that shows the nation cannot be divided. 
 
 Unanimity now, prompt action, and determined resistance to this 
 claim of the right of search is the best peace measure, and the only 
 peace measure, to which you can resort. You have said that this na¬ 
 tion will not submit to this right of search; every department of this 
 Government has repeated it, all political parties unite in, the sentiment; 
 there is one point on which the American people are united, and on 
 which they have stood for half a century. It is violated now. The 
 question is whether we shall present the same unanimity in resistance 
 that we do in denying the right to commit the outrage. Unanimity 
 on our part, unanimity in our councils, firm resolve, but kind and 
 respectful words will preserve peace. Sir, I desire peace. I would 
 lament a war with England, or with any other power, as much as any 
 other man in the Senate. Nor do I think that my constituents desire 
 war, but I believe that the true way to prevent it, is to be prepared to 
 resist aggression the moment it is made. What is the argument we 
 hear used to day The Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Hammond,) 
 who knows that I have for him the highest respect, portrays to us our 
 weak, feeble, and defenseless condition, our thousands of miles of coast, 
 our small navy, our limited resources, to show that we are not ready 
 for a war now. Sir, let Great Britain believe that picture, and she 
 will be ready now for a war with us. 
 
 Mr. Hammond. I did not speak about war to-day. The measure 
 proposed by the Naval Committee was one recommended before this 
 speck of war arose upon the horizon, and it was a necessary peace 
 measure. Six out of the seven members of the Naval Committee 
 thought that, as a peace measure, we should construct double the 
 amount of vessels that it is proposed to build ; but I studiously avoided 
 bringing in this question of war in portrayiug our resources to-day. I 
 stated distinctly, that if I was advocating this measure as a war measure, 
 I should think it a very meagre one ; and I regret that this debate, 
 which is on a uecessary peace measure, has extended into the question 
 of war which would be much more appropriate on two or three measures 
 that are to come up. I would be glad if Senators would avoid the 
 question of war with England, and let us take a vote upon this measure 
 which, whether we have war or peace, in my opinion, should pass. 
 
11 
 
 Mr. Douglas. I am very grateful to the Senator from South Caro¬ 
 lina, for the correction that he has made. I would not misrepresent 
 him, and I am sorry to have misapprehended him. I only say that I 
 concur fully with him, that the measure which he advocated is a wise 
 and judicious one, as a peace measure, but I think the necessity for it 
 is more imperative in consequence of the little specks of war that we 
 see upon the horizon. I have reason to suppose so, from the fact that 
 no Senator can rise to discuss it without referring to the possibility or 
 probability of war with England. But, sir, I cannot join w r ith him in 
 the expression of surprise or regret, that the discussion of the possibili¬ 
 ties of war or of collision with England, should have grown up upon 
 the discussion of the measure. He says it will all be repeated again. 
 Very true; but if the Senators who have alluded to the English ques¬ 
 tion had let it come up first, as the Senator from Virginia himself 
 knows I desired to have it, and had let it be decided, then when the 
 navy bill came up we should know whether it was necessary to make 
 provision in the navy bill for the contingencies that might be presented 
 by this English difficulty. If we could have been allowed to have 
 taken up that question, and discussed the bill reported by the Com¬ 
 mittee on Foreign Relations, and the bill that I introduced, for which 
 the Committee reported theirs as a substitute, and the subsequent bill 
 that I introduced or agreed upon any measure to authorize the Presi¬ 
 dent to resist the British pretension of a right of search and visitation, 
 then the Senate with entire unanimity would have joined in the sup¬ 
 port of whatever was necessary to carry it out; then the recommenda¬ 
 tion of the Committee on Naval Affairs would have met with no oppo¬ 
 sition ; Senators who oppose it now, would have supported it then. I 
 desired that question to come up first. I think we ought to lay aside 
 the navy bill now; we ought to refuse to take up the army bill until 
 we decide whether or not we are going to sustain the President in re¬ 
 sisting the practice of the right of search. If we are going to sustain 
 him on that point, we must give him the means, trust him, rally around 
 him, strengthen his hands, support him in protecting our flag, and 
 maintaining the honor of the country. If, on the contrary, we are 
 not to do that, let us say no more about British aggressions, no more 
 about the right of search, ho more in regard to her shooting across the 
 bows of our vessels. Let us be silent on all these points, and recognize 
 them as right, unless we are going to resist them; and if we are to 
 resist them, now is the time. Present unanimity now, a unanimous 
 vote, as you did in 1839; give the means to the President, and you 
 will have no more war, aud no repetition of the right of search. Our 
 divisions are the only encouragement that Great Britain has. Our 
 vacillation, our hesitation, our nervousness about the defenseless con¬ 
 dition of our coasts and of our cities are the sources of encouragement 
 to England. 
 
 Sir, I repel the idea that the American coast is so defenseless as 
 represented. I have passed round a great portion of the British coast, 
 and I undertake to assert that the American coast is in a better con¬ 
 dition of defense than that of Great Britain. New York is better de¬ 
 fended than Liverpool or London to-day. It is easier for a fleet to- 
 
12 
 
 enter the harbor of Liverpool or London than New York. There are 
 not as many obstacles in the way in the British cities as in the Ameri¬ 
 can. It is possible that a steam fleet might run by the fortifications 
 into either. It is not probable that it would ever escape from there 
 if it did : but it is possible that it might effect its escape. But, sir, I 
 do not believe that our coast is more exposed than hers, and I do not 
 believe our commerce is more exposed than hers. I do not believe 
 England is any better prepared for war with us than we are with her. 
 If she has a larger navy, she has a more exposed interest to protect 
 by that navy. She has her troubles in India; she has them at 
 the Cape; she has them all over the world; and her navy is divided, 
 and her army divided to protect them in those detached places, on 
 every continent and every island of the globe. Sir, the extent of her 
 power, spreading all around the globe, is one of the greatest sources 
 of her weakness; and the other fact that she is a commercial nation, 
 and we are an agricultural people, shows that she may be ruined, and 
 her citizens starved, while we, although at war abroad, are happy and 
 prosperous at home. 
 
 Besides, sir, as has been intimated by the Senator from Massachu¬ 
 setts, England has given pledges for her good behavior on this conti¬ 
 nent. She is bound over to keep the peace. She has large posses¬ 
 sions upon this continent, of which she could be deprived in ninety 
 days after war existed ; and she knows that the moment she eugagesin 
 war with us that moment her power upon the American continent 
 and upon the adjacent islands ceases to exist. While I am opposed 
 to war—while I have no idea of any breach of the peace with Eng¬ 
 land, yet I confess to you, sir, if war should come by her act and not 
 ours—by her invasion of our right and our vindication of the same, I 
 would administer to every citizen and every child Hannibal’s oath of 
 eternal hostility, as long as the English flag waved, or their govern¬ 
 ment claimed a foot of land upon the American continent or the adja- 
 cant islands. Sir, I would make it a war that would settle our dis¬ 
 putes forever, not only of the right of search upon the seas, but the 
 right to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil of the American conti¬ 
 nent or its appendages. England sees that, these consequences would 
 result. Her statesmen understand these results as well we, and much 
 better. Her statesmen have more respect for us in this particular than 
 we have for ourselves. They will never push this question to the 
 point of war. They will look you in the eye, march to you steadily, 
 as long as they find it is prudent. If you cast the eye down she will 
 rush upon you. If you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake 
 hands with you as friends, and have respect for you. 
 
 Mr. Hammond. Suppose she does not ? 
 
 Mr. Douglas. Suppose she does not, my friend from South Caro¬ 
 lina asks me. If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of bat¬ 
 tles—we will arouse the patriotism of the American nation—we will 
 blot out all distinctions of party, the voice of faction will be hushed, 
 the American people will be a unit, none but the voice of patriotism 
 
13 
 
 will be beard, and from tbe North and the South, from the East and 
 the West, we will come up as a band of brothers, animated by a com¬ 
 mon spirit and a common patriotism, as were our fathers of the Revo¬ 
 lution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterwards differ as we please, 
 and discuss at our leisure matters of domestic dispute. Sir, I am wil¬ 
 ling to suppose the case which is suggested by the Senator ffom South 
 Carolina : Suppose England does not respect our rights? To fight 
 her now- 
 
 Mr. Hammond. I said, suppose England would not submit to be 
 bullied. 
 
 Mr. Douglas. Who proposes to bully England ? 
 
 Mr. Hammond. I understood the Senator to say, that if we looked 
 down, she would rush on us; but if we looked up, she would give 
 way. I consider that bullying. 
 
 Mr. Douglas. Precisely; that is the case of a bully always. He 
 will fix his eye on his antagonist and see if it is steady. If it is not, 
 he will approach a little nearer. If it is, he stops; but, if his eye 
 sinks, he rushes on him—and that is the parallel in which I put Eng¬ 
 land, playing the bully with us. The question is, whether we will look 
 her steadily in the eye, and maintain our rights against her aggressions. 
 We do not wish to bully England. She is resisting no claim of ours, 
 She sets up the claim to search our vessels, stop them on the high seas, 
 invade our rights, and w T e say to her that we will not submit to that 
 aggression. I would ask to have the United States act upon the de¬ 
 fensive in all things—make no threat, indulge in no bullying, but sim¬ 
 ply assert our right, then maintain the assertion with whatever power 
 may be necessary, and the God of our fathers may have imparted to 
 us for maintaining it—that is all. I believe that is the true course to 
 peace. I repeat that, if war with England comes, it will result from 
 our vascillation, our division, our hesitation, our apprehensions lest we 
 might be whipped in the fight. Perhaps we might. I do not believe 
 it. I believe the moment England declares war against the United 
 States, the prestige of her power is gone. It will unite our own peo¬ 
 ple; it will give us the sympathy of the world ; it will destroy her 
 commerce and her manufactures, while it will extend our own. It will 
 sink her to a second rate power upon the face of the globe, and leave 
 us without a rival who can dispute our supremacy. We shall, how¬ 
 ever, come to that point early through the paths of peace. Such is 
 the tendency of things now. I would rather approach it by peaceable, 
 quiet means, by the arts and sciences, by agriculture, by commerce, 
 by immigration, by natural growth and expansion, than by warfare. 
 But if England is impatient of our rising power, if she desires to 
 hasten it, and should force war upon us, she will seal her doom now; 
 whereas, Providence might extend to her, if not a pardon, at least a 
 reprieve, for a few short years to come. 
 
 I repeat, again, that I am for peace and not for war. I have proposed 
 no proposition except with a view to peace. I believe that the power 
 
 * 
 
u 
 
 I desire to entrust in the hands of the President is advisable and neces¬ 
 sary for peace, and the friends of peace should rally as a unit and give 
 him that power. I am willing to trust him with the very power, in 
 the precise terms, and for the same object, for w r hi6h he and his com¬ 
 patriots in 1839 entrusted with President Van Buren. 
 
 ft </: ■■ r. - ■ j ■ in*; - ■ur<< ; r,ul '■ .»•') 
 
 O ' • j* > . •' 'i l (g‘ J.t .* \ \ T' • \ * • • 0 
 
 / 
 

 
 f 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 , 4 . 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 
 <* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 •‘4. 
 
 
 
 
 ' / 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 
 . 
 
 * 
 
 4 
 
 M • 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <.