Читать книгу Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.) - United States. Congress - Страница 52

Mr. Say presented memorials from sundry late officers in the Pennsylvania line of the Revolutionary army, stating that, from the peculiar circumstances of the memorialists, they have been compelled to dispose of the certificates of pay and commutation granted them for military services rendered to the United States; and praying such relief in the premises as to the wisdom and justice of Congress shall seem meet.

Mr. Wharton presented a petition from sundry late officers of the Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina lines of the said Revolutionary arm, to the like effect.

The said memorials and petition were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Durell moved that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That it be the duty of the Clerk of this House to furnish the Representatives in Congress from each State in the Union, for the time being, and the Delegates from each of the Territories thereof, with one copy of every public document, including the laws and journals printed by order of the House, to be by them transmitted to the principal seminary of learning in each State and Territory, respectively.

The resolution was read, and, on motion of Mr. Bacon, ordered to lie on the table.

Foreign Relations

The House then resumed the consideration of the first member of the first resolution reported on Thursday last, from the Committee of the Whole, which was depending yesterday at the time of adjournment, in the words following, to wit:

"Resolved, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain."

Mr. G. W. Campbell concluded his observations of yesterday, as given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. Quincy. – Mr. Speaker, I offer myself to the view of this House with a very sensible embarrassment, in attempting to follow the honorable gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) – a gentleman who holds so distinguished a station on this floor, through thy blessing, Mr. Speaker, on his talents and industry. I place myself with much reluctance in competition with this, our great political Æneas, an illustrious leader of antiquity, whom, in his present relations, and in his present objects, the gentleman from Tennessee not a little resembles; since, in order to evade the ruin impending over our cities – taking my honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) by one hand, and the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Montgomery) by the other (little Iülus and wife Creusa) – he is posting away into the woods with Father Anchises and all the household gods.

When I had the honor of addressing this House a few days ago, I touched this famous report of our Committee of Foreign Relations perhaps a little too carelessly; perhaps I handled it a little too roughly, considering its tender age, and the manifest delicacy of its constitution. But, sir, I had no idea of affecting very exquisitely the sensibilities of any gentleman. I thought that this was a common report of one of our ordinary committees, which I had a right to canvass or to slight, to applaud or to censure, without raising any extraordinary concern, either here or elsewhere. But, from the general excitement which my inconsiderate treatment of this subject occasions, I fear that I have been mistaken. This can be no mortal fabric, Mr. Speaker. This must be that image which fell down from Jupiter, present or future. Surely, nothing but a being of celestial origin would raise such a tumult in minds tempered like those which lead the destinies of this House. Sir, I thought that this report had been a common piece of wood —inutile lignum– just such a piece of wood as any day-laborer might have hewed out in an hour, had he health and a hatchet. But it seems that our honorable chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, maluit esse Deum. Well, sir, I have no objections. If the workmen will, a god it shall be. I only wish, that when gentlemen bring their sacred things upon this floor, that they would blow a trumpet before them, as the heathens do, on such occasions, to the end that all true believers may prepare themselves to adore and tremble, and that all unbelievers may turn aside, and not disturb their devotions.

I assure gentlemen that I meant to commit no sacrilege. I had no intention, sir, of canvassing very strictly this report. I supposed, that when it had been published and circulated, it had answered all the purposes of its authors, and I felt no disposition to interfere with them. But the House is my witness that I am compelled, by the clamor raised on all sides by the friends of the Administration, to descend to particulars, and to examine it somewhat minutely.

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased the other day to assert: – Sir, in referring to his observations, on a former occasion, I beg the House not to imagine that I am about to follow him. No, sir; I will neither follow nor imitate him. I hang upon no man's skirts; I run barking at no man's heel. I canvass principles and measures solely with a view to the great interests of my country. The idea of personal victory is lost in the total absorption of sense and mind in the impending consequences. I say he was pleased to assert that I had dealt in general allegations against this report, without pointing out any particular objection. And the honorable chairman (Mr. Campbell) has reiterated the charge. Both have treated this alleged omission with no little asperity. Yet, sir, it is very remarkable, that, so far from dealing in general allegations, I explicitly stated my objections. The alternatives presented by the report – war or suspension of our rights, and the recommendation of the latter, rather than take the risk of the former, I expressly censured. I went further. I compared these alternatives with an extract from an address made by the first Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Great Britain, and attempted to show, by way of contrast, what I thought the disgraceful spirit of the report. Yet, these gentlemen complain that I dealt in general allegations. Before I close, sir, they will have, I hope, no reason to repeat such objections. I trust I shall be particular, to their content.

Before entering upon an examination of this report, it may be useful to recollect how it originated. By the third section of the second article of the constitution, it is declared that the President of the United States "shall, from time to time, give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." It is, then, the duty of the President to recommend such measures as in his judgment Congress ought to adopt. A great crisis is impending over our country. It is a time of alarm, and peril, and distress. How has the President performed this constitutional duty? Why, after recapitulating, in a formal Message, our dangers and his trials, he expresses his confidence that we shall, "with an unerring regard to the essential rights and interests of the nation, weigh and compare the painful alternatives out of which a choice is to be made," and that "the alternative chosen will be maintained with fortitude and patriotism." In this way our Chief Magistrate performs his duty. A storm is approaching; the captain calls his choice hands upon deck; leaves the rudder swinging, and sets the crew to scuffle about alternatives! This Message, pregnant with nondescript alternatives, is received by this House. And what do we? Why, constitute a great Committee of Foreign Relations, and, lest they should not have their attention completely occupied by the pressing exigencies of those with France and Great Britain, they are endowed with the whole mass – British, Spanish, and French; Barbary Powers and Indian neighbors. And what does this committee do? Why, after seven days' solemn conclave, they present to this House an illustrious report, loaded with alternatives – nothing but alternatives. The cold meat of the palace is hashed and served up to us, piping hot, from our committee room.

In considering this report, I shall pay no attention to either its beginning or its conclusion. The former consists of shavings from old documents, and the latter of birdlime for new converts. The twelfth page is the heart of this report; that I mean to canvass. And I do assert, that there is not one of all the principal positions contained in it which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee. Let us examine each, separately:

"Your committee can perceive no other alternative but abject and degrading submission, war with both nations, or a continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of our commerce."

Here is a tri-forked alternative. Let us consider each branch, and see if either be true, in the sense assumed by the committee. The first – "abject and degrading submission" – takes two things for granted: that trading, pending the edicts of France and Great Britain, is submission; and next that it is submission, in its nature, abject and degrading. Neither is true. It is not submission to trade, pending those edicts, because they do not command you to trade; they command you not to trade. When you refuse to trade, you submit; not when you carry on that trade, as far as you can, which they prohibit. Again, it is not true that such trading is abject and disgraceful, and that, too, upon the principles avowed by the advocates of this report. Trading, while these edicts are suspended over our commerce, is submission, say they, because we have not physical force to resist the power of these belligerents; of course, if we trade, we must submit to these restrictions, not having power to evade or break through them. Now, admit, for the sake of argument, (what however in fact I deny,) that the belligerents have the power to carry into effect their decrees so perfectly; that, by reason of the orders of Great Britain, we are physically disabled from going to France; and that, by the edicts of France, we are in like manner disabled from going to Great Britain. If such be our case, in relation to these powers, the question is, whether submitting to exercise all the trade which remains to us, notwithstanding these edicts, is "abject and degrading."

In the first place, I observe, that submission is not, to beings constituted as we are, always "abject and degrading." We submit to the decrees of Providence – to the laws of our nature. Absolute weakness submits to absolute power; and there is nothing in such submission shameful or degrading. It is no dishonor for finite not to contend with infinite. There is no loss of reputation if creatures, such as men, perform not impossibilities. If then it be true, in the sense asserted by some of the advocates of this report, that it is physically impossible for us to trade with France and Great Britain and their dependencies, by reason of these edicts, still there is nothing "abject or degrading" in carrying on such trade as these edicts leave open to us, let it be never so small or so trifling; which, however, it might be easily shown, as it has been, that it is neither the one nor the other. Sir, in this point of view, it is no more disgraceful for us to trade to Sweden, to China, to the Northwest coast, or to Spain and her dependencies – not one of which countries is now included in those edicts – than it is disgraceful for us to walk, because we are unable to fly; no more than it is shameful for man to use and enjoy the surface of this globe, because he has not at his command the whole circle of nature, and cannot range at will over all the glorious spheres which constitute the universe.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) called upon us just now to tell him what was disgraceful submission, if carrying on commerce under these restrictions was not such submission. I will tell that gentleman. That submission is "abject and disgraceful" which yields to the decrees of frail and feeble power, as though they were irresistible; which takes counsel of fear, and weighs not our comparative force; which abandons the whole, at a summons to deliver up a part; which makes the will of others the measure of rights, which God and nature not only have constituted eternal and unalienable, but have also endued us with ample means to maintain.

My argument on this clause of the report of the committee may be presented in this form: either the United States have or they have not physical ability to carry on commerce in defiance of the edicts of both or of either of these nations. If we have not physical ability to carry on the trade which they prohibit, then it is no disgrace to exercise that commerce which these irresistible decrees permit. If we have such physical ability, then, to the degree in which we abandon that commerce which we have power to carry on, is our submission "abject and disgraceful." It is yielding without a struggle; it is sacrificing our rights, not because we have not force, but because we have not spirit to maintain them. It is in this point of view that I am disgusted with this report. It abjures what it recommends; it declaims, in heroics, against submission, and proposes, in creeping prose, a tame and servile subserviency.

It cannot be concealed, let gentlemen try as much as they will, that we can trade, not only with one, but with both these belligerents, notwithstanding these restrictive decrees. The risk to Great Britain against French capture scarcely amounts to two per cent.; that to France against Great Britain is unquestionably much greater. But, what is that to us? It is not our fault, if the power of Britain on the ocean is superior to that of Bonaparte. It is equal and exact justice between both nations for us to trade with both, as far as it is in our power. Great as the power of Britain is on the ocean, the enterprise and intrepidity of our merchants are more than a match for it. They will get your products to the Continent in spite of her navy. But suppose they do not; suppose they fail, and are captured in the attempt; what is that to us? After we have given them full notice of all their dangers, and perfect warning, either of our inability or of our determination not to protect them, if they take the risk, it is at their peril. And, upon whom does the loss fall? As it does now, through the operation of your embargo, on the planter, on the farmer, on the mechanic, on the day-laborer? No, sir; on the insurer – on the capitalist – on those who in the full exercise of their intelligence, apprised of all the circumstances, are willing to take the hazard for the sake of the profit.

I will illustrate my general idea by a supposition. There are two avenues to the ocean from the harbor of New York – by the Narrows, and through Long Island Sound. Suppose the fleets, both of France and Great Britain, should block up the Narrows, so that to pass them would be physically impossible, in the relative state of our naval force. Will gentlemen seriously contend that there would be any thing "abject or disgraceful," if the people of New York should submit to carry on their trade through the Sound? Would the remedy for this interference with our rights be abandoning the ocean altogether? Again: suppose, that instead of both nations blockading the same point, each should station its force at a different one – France at the mouth of the Sound, Britain at the Narrows. In such case, would staying at home, and refusing any more to go upon the sea, be an exercise of independence in the citizens of New York? Great philosophers may call it "dignified retirement," if they will. I call it, and I am mistaken if the people would not call it, "base and abject submission." Sir, what in such a case would be true honor? Why, to consider well which adversary is the weakest, and cut our way to our rights through the path which he obstructs. Having removed the smaller impediment, we should return with courage, strengthened by trial and animated by success, to the relief of our rights, from the pressure of the strongest assailant. But, all this is war; and war is never to be incurred. If this be the national principle, avow it; tell your merchants you will not protect them; but, for Heaven's sake, do not deny them the power of relieving their own and the nation's burdens, by the exercise of their own ingenuity. Sir, impassable as the barriers offered by these edicts are in the estimation of members on this floor, the merchants abroad do not estimate them as insurmountable. Their anxiety to risk their property, in defiance of them, is full evidence of this. The great danger to mercantile ingenuity is internal envy – the corrosion of weakness or prejudice. Its external hazard is ever infinitely smaller. That practical intelligence which this class of men possesses, beyond any other in the community, excited by self-interest – the strongest of human passions – is too elastic to be confined by the limits of exterior human powers, however great or uncommon. Build a Chinese wall, and the wit of your merchants, if permitted freely to operate, will break through it or overleap it, or undercreep it.

The second branch of the alternatives under consideration is equally deceptive – "War with both nations." Can this ever be an alternative? Did you ever read in history, can you conceive in fancy, a war of two nations, each of whom is at war with the other, without a union with one against the other immediately resulting? It cannot exist in nature. The very idea is absurd. It never can be an alternative, whether we shall find two nations each hostile to the other. But it may be, and if we are to fight at all, it is a very serious question, which of the two we are to select as an adversary. As to the third branch of these celebrated alternatives, "a continuance and enforcement of the present system of commerce," I need not spend time to show that this does not include all the alternatives which exist under this head – since the committee immediately admit, that there does exist another alternative, "partial repeal," about which they proceed to reason.

The report proceeds. "The first" (abject and degrading submission) "cannot require any discussion." Certainly not. Submission of that quality which the committee assume, and with the epithets of which they choose to invest it, can never require discussion at any time. But, whether trading under these orders and decrees be such submission, whether we are not competent to resist them in part, if not in whole, without a total abandonment of the exercise of all our maritime rights, the comparative effects of the edicts of each upon our commerce and the means we possess to influence or control either, are all fair and proper subjects of discussion; some of which the committee have wholly neglected and none of which have they examined, as the House had a right to expect.

The committee proceed "to dissipate the illusion" that there is any "middle course," and to reassert the position before examined, that "there is no other alternative than war with both nations, or a continuance of the present system." This position they undertake to support by two assertions. First, that "war with one of the belligerents only, would be submission to the edicts and will of the other." Second, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo, must necessarily be war or submission."

As to the first assertion, it is a miserable fallacy, confounding coincidence of interest with subjection of will; things in their nature palpably distinct. A man may do what another wills, nay, what he commands, and not act in submission to his will, or in obedience to his command. Our interest or duty may coincide with the line of conduct another presumes to prescribe. Shall we vindicate our independence at the expense of our social or moral obligations? I exemplify my idea in this way. Two bullies beset your door, from which there are but two avenues. One of them forbids you to go by the left, the other forbids you to go by the right avenue. Each is willing that you should pass by the way which he permits. In such case, what will you do? Will you keep house forever, rather than make choice of the path through which you will resume your external rights? You cannot go both ways at once, you must make your election. Yet, in making such election, you must necessarily coincide with the wishes and act according to the commands of one of the bullies. Yet who, before this committee, ever thought an election of one of two inevitable courses, made under such circumstances, "abject and degrading submission" to the will of either of the assailants? The second assertion, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo must necessarily be war or submission," the committee proceed to maintain by several subsidiary assertions. First – "a general repeal without arming would be submission to both nations." So far from this being true, the reverse is the fact; it would be submission to neither. Great Britain does not say, "you shall trade with me." France does not say, "you shall trade with me." If this was the language of their edicts, there might be some color for the assertion of the committee, that if we trade with either we submit. The edicts of each declare you shall not trade with my adversary. Our servile knee-crooking embargo says, "you shall, therefore, not trade." Can any submission be more palpable, more "abject, more disgraceful?" A general repeal without arming, would be only an exercise of our natural rights, under the protection of our mercantile ingenuity, and not under that of physical power. Whether our merchants shall arm or not, is a question of political expediency and of relative force. It may be very true that we can fight our way to neither country, and yet it may be also very true, that we may carry on a very important commerce with both. The strength of the national arm may not be equal to contend with either, and yet the wit of our merchants may be over-match for the edicts of all. The question of arming or not arming, has reference only to the mode in which we shall best enjoy our rights, and not at all to the quality of the act of trading during these edicts. To exercise commerce is our absolute right. If we arm, we may possibly extend the field beyond that which mere ingenuity would open to us. Whether the extension thus acquired be worthy of the risk and expense, is a fair question. But, decide it either way, how is trading as far as we have ability, made less abject than not trading at all?

I come to the second subsidiary assertion. "A general repeal and arming of merchant vessels, would be war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the enemies to plunder us, without retaliation upon them."

I have before exposed the absurdity of a war with two belligerents, each hostile to the other. It cannot be true, therefore, that "a general repeal and arming our merchant vessels," would be such a war. Neither if war resulted, would it be "war of the worst kind." In my humble apprehension, a war, in which our enemies are permitted to plunder us, and our merchants not permitted to defend their property, is somewhat worse than a war like this; in which, with arms in their hands, our brave seamen might sometimes prove too strong for their piratical assailants. By the whole amount of property which we might be able to preserve by these means, would such a war be better than that in which we are now engaged. For the committee assure us, that the aggressions to which we are subject, "are to all intents and purposes a maritime war, waged with both nations against the United States."

The last assertion of the committee, in this most masterly page is, that "a partial repeal must from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors, and war with the other." In the name of common sense, how can this be true? The trade to Sweden, to Spain, to China, is not now affected by the orders or decrees of either belligerent. How is it submission, then, to these orders for us to trade to Gottenburg, when neither France nor Britain command, nor prohibit it? Of what consequence is it to us what way the Gottenburg merchant disposes of our products, after he has paid us our price? I am not about to deny that a trade to Gottenburg would defeat the purpose of coercing Great Britain, through the want of our supplies, but I reason on the report upon its avowed principles. If gentlemen adhere to their system, as a means of coercion, let the Administration avow it as such, and support the system, by arguments, such as their friends use every day on this floor. Let them avow, as those friends do, that this is our mode of hostility against Great Britain. That it is better than "ball and gunpowder." Let them show that the means are adequate to the end; let them exhibit to us, beyond the term of all this suffering, a happy salvation, and a glorious victory, and the people may then submit to it, even without murmur. But while the Administration support their system only as a municipal regulation, as a means of safety and preservation, those who canvass their principle are not called upon to contest with them on ground, which not only they do not take, but which, officially, they disavow. As partial repeal would not be submission to either, so, also, it would not be war with either. A trade to Sweden would not be war with Great Britain; that nation is her ally, and she permits it. Nor with France, though Sweden is her enemy, she does not prohibit it. Ah! but say the committee, "a measure which would supply exclusively one of the belligerents, would be war with the other." This is the State secret; this is the master-key to the whole policy. You must not only do what the letter of these orders prohibits, but you must not sin against the spirit of them. The great purpose is, to prevent your product from getting to our enemy, and to effect this you must not only so act as to obey the terms of the decrees, but keeping the great purpose of them always in sight, you must extend their construction to cases which they cannot, by any rule of reason, be made to include.

Sir, I have done with this report. I would not have submitted to the task of canvassing it, if gentlemen had not thrown the gauntlet with the air of sturdy defiance. I willingly leave to this House and the nation to decide whether the position I took in the commencement of my argument is not maintained; that there is not one of the principal positions contained in the 12th page, the heart of this report, which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee.

It was under these general impressions that I used the word "loathsome," which has so often been repeated. Sir, it may not have been a well chosen word. It was that which happened to come to hand first. I meant to express my disgust at what appeared to me a mass of bold assumptions, and of illy-cemented sophisms.

I said, also, that "the spirit which it breathed was disgraceful" Sir, I meant no reflection upon the committee. Honest men and wise men may mistake the character of the spirit which they recommend, or by which they are actuated. When called upon to reason concerning that which, by adoption, is to become identified with the national character, I am bound to speak of it as it appears to my vision. I may be mistaken. Yet, I ask the question: is not the spirit which it breathes disgraceful? Is it not disgraceful to abandon the exercise of all our commercial rights, because our rivals interfere with a part; not only to refrain from exercising that trade which they prohibit, but for fear of giving offence, to decline that which they permit? Is it not disgraceful, after inflammatory recapitulation of insults, and plunderings, and burnings, and confiscations, and murders, and actual war made upon us, to talk of nothing but alternatives, of general declarations, of still longer suspension of our rights, and retreating farther out of "harm's way?" If this course be adopted by my country, I hope I am in error concerning its real character. But to my sense, this whole report is nothing else than a recommendation to us of the abandonment of our essential rights and apologies for doing it.

Before I sit down, I feel myself compelled to notice some observations which have been made in different quarters of this House on the remarks which, at an early stage of this debate, I had the honor of submitting to its consideration. My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased to represent me as appealing to the people over the heads of the whole Government, against the authority of a law which had not only the sanction of all the legislative branches of the Government, but also of the Judiciary. Sir, I made no such appeal. I did not so much as threaten it. I admitted, expressly, the binding authority of the law. But I claim a right, which I ever will claim, and ever will exercise, to urge, on this floor, my opinion of the unconstitutionality of a law, and my reasons for that opinion, as a valid ground for its repeal. Sir, I will not only do this, I will do more. If a law be, in my apprehension, dangerous in its principles, ruinous in its consequences, above all if it be unconstitutional, I will not fail in every fair and honorable way to awaken the people to a sense of their peril; and to quicken them, by the exercise of their constitutional privileges, to vindicate themselves and their posterity from ruin.

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was also pleased to refer to me, "as a man of divisions and distinctions, waging war with adverbs, and dealing in figures." Sir, I am sorry that my honorable colleague should stoop "from his pride of place," at such humble game as my poor style presents to him. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but confess that, "deeming high" of the station which I hold; standing, as it were, in the awful presence of an assembled people, I am more than ordinarily anxious, on all occasions, to select the best thoughts in my narrow storehouse, and to adapt to them the most appropriate dress in my intellectual wardrobe. I know not whether, on this account, I am justly obnoxious to the asperity of my honorable colleague. But, on the subject of figures, sir, this I know, and cannot refrain from assuring this House that, as on the one hand, I shall, to the extent of my humble talents, always be ambitious, and never cease striving to make a decent figure on this floor; so, on the other, I never can be ambitious, but, on the contrary, shall ever strive chiefly to avoid cutting a figure like my honorable colleague.

The gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Troup,) the other day, told this House that, if commerce were permitted, such was the state of our foreign relations, none but bankrupts would carry on trade. Sir, the honorable gentleman has not attained correct information in this particular. I do not believe that I state any thing above the real fact, when I say that, on the day this Legislature assembled, one hundred vessels, at least, were lying in the different ports and harbors of New England loaded, riding at single anchor, ready and anxious for nothing so much as for your leave to depart. Certainly, this does not look much like any doubt that a field of advantageous commerce would open, if you would unbar the door to your citizens. That this was the case in Massachusetts I know. Before I left that part of the country, I had several applications from men, who stated that they had property in such situations, and soliciting me to give them the earliest information of your probable policy. The men so applying, I can assure the House, were no bankrupts; but intelligent merchants, shrewd to perceive their true interests; keen to pursue them. The same honorable gentleman was also pleased to speak of "a paltry trade in potash and codfish," and to refer to me as the Representative of men who raised "beef and pork, and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages." Well, sir, I confess the fact. I am the Representative, in part, of men, the products of whose industry are beef and pork, and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages. And let me tell that honorable gentleman, that I would not yield the honor of representing such men, to be the Representative of all the growers of cotton and rice, and tobacco and indigo, in the whole world. Sir, the men whom I represent, not only raise those humble articles, but they do it with the labor of their own hands, with the sweat of their own brows. And by this, their habitual mode of hardy industry, they acquire a vigor of nerve, a strength of muscle, and spirit of intelligence, somewhat characteristic. And let me say to that honorable gentleman, that the men of whom I speak will not, at his call, nor at the invitation of any man or set of men from his quarter of the Union, undertake to "drive one another into the ocean." But, on the contrary, whenever they once realize that their rights are invaded, they will unite, like a band of brothers, and drive their enemies there.

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Johnson,) speaking of the embargo, said, that this was the kind of conflict which our fathers waged; and my honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) made a poor attempt to confound this policy with the non-intercourse and non-importation agreement of 1774 and 1775. Sir, nothing can be more dissimilar. The non-intercourse and non-importation agreement of that period, so far from destroying commerce, fostered and encouraged it. The trade with Great Britain was indeed voluntarily obstructed, but the enterprise of our merchants found a new incentive in the commerce with all the other nations of the globe, which succeeded immediately on our escape from the monopoly of the mother country. Our navigation was never suspended. The field of commerce at that period, so far from being blasted by pestiferous regulations, was extended by the effect of the restrictions adopted.

But let us grant all that they assert. Admit, for the sake of argument, that the embargo, which restrains us now from communication with all the world, is precisely synonymous with that non-intercourse and non-importation which restrained us then from Great Britain. Suppose the war, which we now wage with that nation, is in every respect the same as that which our fathers waged with her in 1774 and 1775. Have we from the effects of their trial any lively hope of success in our present attempt? Did our fathers either effect a change in her injurious policy or prevent a war by non-intercourse? Sir, they did neither the one nor the other. Her policy was never changed until she had been beaten on our soil, in an eight years' war. Our fathers never relied upon non-intercourse and non-importation, as measures of hostile coercion. They placed their dependence upon them solely as means of pacific influence among the people of that nation. The relation in which this country stood at that time with regard to Great Britain, gave a weight and a potency to those measures then, which in our present relation to her, we can neither hope nor imagine possible. At that time we were her Colonies, a part of her family. Our prosperity was essentially hers. So it was avowed in this country. So it was admitted in Great Britain. Every refusal of intercourse which had a tendency to show the importance of these then colonies to the parent country, of the part to the whole, was a natural and a wise means of giving weight to our remonstrances. We pretended not to control, but to influence, by making her feel our importance. In this attempt we excited no national pride on the other side of the Atlantic. Our success was no national degradation, for the more we developed our resources and relative weight, the more we discovered the strength and resources of the British power. We were the component parts of it. All the measures of the Colonies, antecedent to the Declaration of Independence, had this principle for their basis. As such, non-importation and non-intercourse were adopted in this country. As such, they met the co-operation of the patriots of Great Britain, who deemed themselves deviating from none of their national duties, when they avowed themselves the allies of American patriots, to drive, through the influence of the loss of our trade, the ministry from their places, or their measures. Those patriots did co-operate with our fathers, and that openly, in exciting discontent, under the effect of our non-intercourse agreements. In so doing, they failed in none of their obligations to their sovereign. In no nation can it ever be a failure of duty to maintain that the safety of the whole depends on preserving its due weight to every part. Yet, notwithstanding the natural and little suspicious use of these instruments of influence, notwithstanding the zeal of the American people coincided with the views of Congress, and a mighty party existed in Great Britain openly leagued, with our fathers, to give weight and effect to their measures, they did not effect the purposes for which they were put into operation. The British policy was not abandoned. War was not prevented. How then can any encouragement be drawn from that precedent, to support us under the privations of the present system of commercial suspension? Can any nation admit that the trade of another is so important to her welfare, as that on its being withdrawn, any obnoxious policy must be abandoned, without at the same time admitting that she is no longer independent? Sir, I could indeed wish that it were in our power to regulate not only Great Britain, but the whole world, by opening or closing our ports. It would be a glorious thing for our country to possess such a mighty weapon of defence. But, acting in a public capacity, with the high responsibilities resulting from the great interests dependant upon my decision, I cannot yield to the wishes of lovesick patriots, or the visions of teeming enthusiasts; I must see the adequacy of means to their ends. I must see, not merely that it is very desirable that Great Britain should be brought to our feet, by this embargo, but that there is some likelihood of such a consequence to the measure, before I can concur in that universal distress and ruin which, if much longer continued, will inevitably result from it. Since, then, every dictate of sense and reflection convinces me of the utter futility of this system, as a means of coercion, on Great Britain, I shall not hesitate to urge its abandonment. No, sir, not even although, like others, I should be assailed by all the terrors of the outcry of British influence.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I know not how to express the shame and disgust with which I am filled, when I hear language of this kind cast out upon this floor, and thrown in the faces of men, standing justly on no mean height in the confidence of their countrymen. Sir, I did, indeed, know that such vulgar aspersions were circulating among the lower passions of our nature. I knew that such vile substances were ever tempering between the paws of some printer's devil. I knew that foul exhalations like these daily rose in our cities, and crept along the ground, just as high as the spirits of lampblack and saline oil could elevate; falling, soon, by native baseness, into oblivion, in the jakes. I knew, too, that this species of party insinuation was a mighty engine, in this quarter of the country, on an election day, played off from the top of a stump, or the top of a hogshead, while the gin circulated, while barbecue was roasting; in those happy, fraternal associations and consociations, when those who speak, utter without responsibility, and those who listen, hear without scrutiny. But little did I think, that such odious shapes would dare to obtrude themselves, on this national floor, among honorable men; – the select representatives, the confidential agents of a wise, a thoughtful and a virtuous people. I want language to express my contempt and indignation at the sight.

So far as respects the attempt which has been made to cast such aspersions on that part of the country which I have the honor to represent, I beg this honorable House to understand, that so long as they, who circulate such insinuations, deal only in generals and touch not particulars, they may gain among the ignorant and the stupid a vacant and a staring audience. But when once these suggestions are brought to bear upon those individuals who in New England have naturally the confidence of their countrymen, there is no power in these calumnies. The men who now lead the influences of that country, and in whose councils the people on the day when the tempest shall come will seek refuge, are men whose stake is in the soil, whose interests are identified with those of the mass of their brethren, whose private lives and public sacrifices present a never-failing antidote to the poison of malicious invectives. On such men, sir, party spirit may indeed cast its odious filth, but there is a polish in their virtues to which no such slime can adhere. They are owners of the soil; real yeomanry; many of them men who led in the councils of our country in the dark day which preceded the national independence; many of them men who, like my honorable friend from Connecticut on my left, (Mr. Tallmadge,) stood foremost on the perilous edge of battle; making their breasts in the day of danger a bulwark for their country. True it is, Mr. Speaker, there is another and a much more numerous class, composed of such as through defect of age can claim no share in the glories of our Revolution; such as have not yet been blest with the happy opportunity of "playing the man" for their country; generous sons of illustrious sires; men, not to be deterred from fulfilling the high obligations they owe to this people by the sight of foul and offensive weapons. Men who, with little experience of their own to boast, will fly to the tombs of their fathers, and questioning, concerning their duties, the spirit which hovers there, will no more shrink from maintaining their native rights, through fear of the sharpness of malevolent tongues, than they will, if put to the trial, shrink from defending them through fear of the sharpness of their enemies' swords.

When Mr. Quincy had concluded, the House adjourned without taking a question.