DECEMBER, 1809. Conduct of the British Minister. hand on his heart and say that, by adopting this resolution, we are about "to unite in all the means 'the best calculated to establish the relations of the two countries on the solid foundations of justice, friendship, and mutual interest?" I hesitate not to say, that there is no man who can make such an asseveration. But, if it would be wise and politic to refrain from uttering this opprobrious resolution, in case the insult was gross, palpable, and undeniable, how much more wise and politic, if this insult be only dubious, and has, at best, but a glimmering existence? But, suppose the assertion contained in this resolution be, as it appears to many minds, and certainly to mine-false; I ask what worse disgrace, what lower depth of infamy can there be, for a nation, than deliberately to assert a falsehood, and to make the falsehood the groundwork of a graduated scale of atrocious aspersions upon the character of a public Minister? When I say that the assertion contained in this resolution is false, I beg gentlemen distinctly to understand me. I speak only as respects the effects of evidence upon my mind. I pretend not to make my perceptions the standard of those of any other. I know the nature of the human mind, and how imperceptibly, even to ourselves, passion and preconception will throw, as it were, a mist before the intellectual eye, and bend or scatter the rays of evidence before they strike on its vision. On a question of this kind, as I would not trust the casual impressions of others, so I have been equally unwilling to trust my own. have, therefore, submitted the grounds of my opinion to a rigid analysis. The process and the result of my reasonings I have laid before this House. If that which, to me, appears a palpable falsehood, to others appears a truth, I condemn not them. I can only lament such a diversity on a point, which, in its consequences, may be so important to the peace and character of the country. I H. of R. For my own part, I have purposely avoided all reference to any of the great questions which agitate the nation. I should deem myself humiliated to discuss them, under a resolution of this kind, which, in truth, decides nothing, but our opinion of the meaning of Mr. Jackson's language, and our sense of its nature; and has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with any of the national questions which have been drawn into debate. I declare, therefore, distinctly, that I oppose and vote against this resolution from no one consideration relative to Great Britain or the United States; from none of friendship or animosity to any one man, or any set of men. But simply and solely for this one reason, that, in my conception, the assertion, contained in this resolution, is a falsehood. But it is said that this resolution must be taken as a "test of patriotism." To this I have but one answer. If patriotism ask me to assert a falsehood, I have no hesitation in telling patriotism-"I am not prepared to make that sacrifice." The duty we owe to our country, is, indeed, among the most solemn and impressive of all obligations. Yet, high as it may be, it is, nevertheless, subordinate to that which we owe to that Being, with whose name and character truth is identified. In this respect, I deem myself acting upon this resolution under a higher responsibility than either to this House or to this people. Mr. GARDENIER said that he had the honor to represent a portion of this country, that was peculiarly and he might add exclusively interested in an intercourse with the British dominions. It is in the dominions of Great Britain, sir, said he, and in those alone, that they find a market for the products of their honest toil. It is, therefore, that they will not be persuaded to abandon that intercourse, the cause of all their prosperity, the cutting off of which must reduce them to inBur this resolution was devised for the purpose digence and distress, unless in a case of the most of promoting unanimity. Is there a man in this imperious necessity. Gentlemen may talk in House who believes it? Did you ever hear, Mr. this House, and others may talk out of it, as they Speaker, that language of reproach and insult please, the passions of men may be worked up to was the signal for conciliation? Did you ever any extent that human ingenuity can urge them; know contending parties made to harmonize in but when they have said and done all, the prosperity terms of insult, of reproach, and contumely? No, of the farmers, "of God's chosen people," in the sir. I deprecate this resolution on this very ac- Northern and Eastern States, depends upon this count, that it is much more like the torch of the intercourse; without it they must be poor, and furies, than like the token of friendship. Accord- revert to that state of indigence in which our ingly, it has had the effect of enkindling party glorious Revolution left them. They will not passions in the House, which had begun, in some abandon it on light ground; and, therefore, sir, I, degree, to be allayed. It could not possibly be as their representative, will not abandon it or see otherwise. A question is raised concerning ait abandoned but for the most cogent reasons. It constructive insult. Of all topics of dispute, those relative to the meaning of terms, are most likely to beget diversity and obstinacy in opinion. But this is not all. On a question merely relative to the construction of particular expressions, all the great and critical relations of the nation have been discussed. Is it possible to conceive that such a question as this, on which the debate has been thus conducted, could be productive of anything else than discord and contention ? is this same people which has been made most deeply to feel the effects of that experimental embargo system which evaporated last Spring. Yes, sir, we have suffered by it-I was about to say we alone-but I will add, all the other inhabitants of the United States, who tilled the earth for the purpose of getting eatables out of it, because it is this species of our produce of which the British dominions stand in need. We shall suffer by it to the end of time, because the ex H. of R. Conduct of the British Minister. periment made at our expense has taught those who were the consumers of what we raise, the means of doing without it. Yes, sir, we have suffered particularly by this system, and must suffer by every system growing out of the same principle. I beg gentlemen from the South to reflect that their cotton, tobacco, and rice, find a market principally on the Continent, and very much in France; they are not interested in the market in which we are, they have not suffered as we have, because at any rate they could not go to France. France would not let them come, and England would not let them go, and they themselves declared they ought not to go. DECEMBER, 1809. plundering and laying waste the whole of the fertile country on its banks, and the towns which rejoice to be planted on its shores? Nothing. Yes, sir, you may talk of war; but when that state of things comes, you will have cause to say it required strong considerations indeed to justify you in producing it. But, sir, this is not all. Remember that when we have war, we must have armies; when we have armies we must have a General; and remember that at the close of the Revolution, a period when there was more purity, more sincere patriotism than can possibly ever be found again—even then you found that there were men who dared to attempt to keep imbodied the army which had procured your liberty-and under what pretence? The want of pay. Are you sure that pretence would not again exist? Are you sure that none equally powerful may exist? Are you sure, if an attempt should be made after another war to excite the military to become the rulers of the country, that we should find another WASHINGTON to put down the traitorous parricidal attempt? I know not who may be the General then; but from the present I have little to hope. The school of Burr is not the school of patriot Generals, This Republic, notwithstanding all doubts to the contrary, can, in my opinion, exist to the end of time, unless it be put down by foreign invasion or by a military force collected within its own limits. It is hence that I dread a war; because a war must produce armies; and I am not satisfied that when there are armies we shall be safe, because they may be commanded by Republican Generals. The Republic of Rome was destroyed by a popular General. The leader of the Republic put down the Republic in England, and the great Napoleon had sworn eternal enmity to all Kings! The measure which is now proposed for the adoption of this assembly is a visitation which is worse than all the plagues through which we have gone. It is still worse than war itself, nearly the most dreadful calamity that can befall this nation. It is the worst measure that could have entered a head the most fertile in pernicious experiments; and this I shall endeavor to demonstrate. But let me first inquire whether it is the object of this resolution to lead us into a war? Gentlemen say, no; war is not intended to be produced by it. Then, sir, to what end and for purpose is the pledge, contained in the resolution, to be given? We are to pledge ourselves to bring out the whole force of the nation in support of the determination of the Executive; and yet that state of things which can alone call for bringing out this force is not to happen! We are to have no war, say gentlemen, and that in the same breath, in which they say they will bring out the whole force of the United States. Why then, sir, if it is to be so, if we are indeed to have no war, if it be not looked upon as probable, the whole sinks down to that empty paper gasconade to which I think it high time to put an end. But if it be a prelude to war, as the But I have said that the adoption of this reso resolution indicates, and as on the face of it it ap-lution would be worse and more to be dreaded pears to me to be intended, then let us pause a moment before we plunge our country into the calamities attendant on that state of things! It is easy to get into a war, but it is not so easy to get out of it! And here again, the country which I in part represent is to bear the brunt. If war should come, our defenceless seaports, in which is deposited the portable wealth of the nation, will be the first object of attack, of plunder, and of destruction; and if we are to have war, we must calculate that our enemy will endeavor to make that war as distressing as she can. The subjugation of our country she will never be mad enough to think of attempting. If she could not manage the infant in its cradle, she will hardly attempt to subdue the full-grown giant in his strength. It must be a war of plunder, devastation, and ruin, wherever it reaches. In the inland country, where no force can penetrate, they will only have to bear the burden of excessive taxation to defray the expenses of the war. We are subject not to that alone, but to the loss of those very means which would enable us to bear this taxation. What, in the event of war, would prevent the British from sailing up the Hudson, and from than even a state of war. To war there may be an end. You may conquer, you may compromise, and you may be obliged to yield. Neither of these is as pernicious as what this resolution promises. You are called upon to pass sentence in the face of the world, upon the reputation of a Minister of a great and powerful nation. This is the object of the resolution. I believe my honorable friend from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) who spoke the other day, was not afraid, as was sup posed by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. EPPES,) that his heart would be overcome by the irresistible charms of this resolution. I believe his paying little attention to its particular features was not owing to that. If it was, sir, his heart has become more susceptible than we have any evidence of its having been heretofore. I confess that I see in the resolution none of those charms that have so forcibly impressed themselves on the affections of the gentleman from Virginia. There is a coarseness of feature and a ruffian dialect, and altogether the style of a bully about it. Things not calculated to fascinate, whatever other impression they may make. It contains a condemnation of the conduct of a foreign Minis ter, an affair, in the first place, with which we have no Constitutional right to interfere, which belongs exclusively to the Executive, and upon which the Executive has not thought proper to intimate that it would be expedient for us to act, in order to aid him; but which we are to take up of our own mere volition, to no useful purpose, but perhaps so as to induce the most disastrous consequences. I shall not on this occasion examine whether the language of Mr. Jackson was insolent, affronting, and so forth; nor whether the dismission of him by the Executive was proper; because as this subject does not constitutionally belong to the Legislature, I would avoid as long as I could any remarks on it. It is to another point alone that I shall apply my observations. Allowing for the sake of argument-1st, that Mr. Jackson was insolent; 2d, that the President did right in dismissing him-I still contend this resolution ought not to pass; and to bring my ideas more particularly to a point, it is, therefore, that I am desirous that the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts now under consideration should prevail. H. OF R. that the British Government will entertain the same opinion of Mr. Jackson's conduct that ours has expressed; that they will think his dismission to have been proper, or, that finding him unacceptable, they would be willing to send another Minister. What will they say when you appeal to them not by argument but by menace-when you are not content with laying before them the conduct of their Minister, and requesting them, by recalling him, to pass the same censure on him which you yourselves are supposed to have done? What will they say, when instead of ap pealing to the justice or politeness of the British King in the first place, the Legislature tell him, if you do not agree to recall your Minister, here is the whole force of the nation to back our demand. What is this but a threat? They may say, "we should have been willing to yield to your argument, or at any rate to your request; but to your menace we cannot." Sir, you are about to deprive them of the power of yielding to you. I will put a case. Your servant, Mr. Speaker, has injured me; I represent his conduct to you, and say that if you do not punish him I I have forborne to make any remarks on this am determined to have satisfaction of you. Your subject in Committee of the Whole, because I reply would be, that you could not listen to me, did not wish to excite feelings which can but lest it should be supposed that you yielded through lead to imprudencies, and because I was well fear and not from a sense of justice. You would satisfied that the resolutions would be reported answer, had you appealed to my justice, I had by the Committee of the Whole. And upon the yielded; you have appealed to my fears, and you whole, sir, I cannot say I am much displeased have appealed in vain. If the object of this resothat the committee did agree to report them; but lution be utterly to prevent the possibility of in reporting them I think they have done all that Great Britain and this country agreeing on this their own arguments call upon the friends of the matter, no step could be devised in nature more Executive to do; and that when we give them certain of producing this result. Do you know legislative form and sanction, no one useful pur- beforehand that Great Britain will stand by her pose can be answered by it, but much pernicious Minister? Is an apprehension entertained of that? consequence may be produced. It is said, inas- Is it then doubtful whether the Minister has much as Mr. Jackson was insolent, inasmuch as done wrong? Or if not, is the Government of Mr. Madison did right in dismissing him, that Great Britain so profligate that you suppose she the President ought to have a knowledge of the will support her Minister when he has done sense of the members of the Legislature on these wrong? Grant it. But is this an argument by two points, so that he may be certain that the which you expect to obtain her acquiescence? course which he shall pursue to vindicate the It is out of the question. By adopting these resonational honor, will meet with a proper support lutions, you will have violated the reputation of in the Legislature. Well, sir-is not the Presi- an Ambassador, no less sacred than his person. dent now convinced of the sentiments of the ma- To punish him, either in person or reputation, is jority in both Houses? Is he not now satisfied the prerogative of his Sovereign alone. How then that they think he was right in the manner in can negotiation hereafter of any kind, or under which he considered Jackson's conduct, and that any circumstances, be renewed between the two he was right in dismissing him? If there were Governments? Here is thrown in the way a any use (which I do not agree that there is) in barrier which must be removed before ever the the President's knowing what is the opinion of two nations can speak together again. For, let both Houses of Congress on his conduct, he it be remembered that a Minister going from his knows it already from what has already taken own country into the country of strangers has place. Giving this resolution the sanction of nothing to protect him but his Government, and Legislative form cannot, therefore, be for the it is as much the duty of his Government to propurpose of making the President feel that he is tect his reputation as his person. If it be true supported; for, if that be really the purpose, it is that reputation is more valuable than life, then answered already. The Administration say Jack- indeed is his Government more emphatically son was guilty of a gross insinuation, and they bound to protect him from assaults upon his rehave dismissed him. We come out, and not putation than from assaults upon his person. only echo this sentiment, though in grosser lan-You have violated, says Great Britain, the repuguage, but say that we will draw out the whole tation of my Ambassador; I cannot be safe in force of the nation against any one who says dif- | sending another to you till you have made a due ferently. I will suppose, for the sake of argument, atonement. Now, if it should so happen that the 11th CoN. 2d SESS.-31 H. of R. Conduct of the British Minister. DECEMBER. 1809. British Government, not having the same ten-happy condition of our country as any gentleman derness and delicacy for our dignity which our own citizens may have, but feeling this tenderness and delicacy for (so they will express it) their insulted Minister, should not see this business in the same light in which it strikes us, are they not as much bound to protect the reputation of their Minister, violated by this open and gross denunciation, as if the assault were made upon his person! If they should think him innocent, and as such, that they are bound to support him, what fruits will this resolution produce? In the name of God, sir, are not gentlemen content with the difficulties and embarrassments which already exist? Is there not enough, in the name of Heaven, to keep us apart for years, but is this new and insuperable obstacle to even negotiation to be superadded? Hereafter, when the two nations desire to speak together, this matter must first be disposed of-and how? Are they to submit to this outrage on their Minister? Or are we to make atonement? Neither is to be expected. Why then would you throw this difficulty in the way, which, it strikes me, can never be gotten over? For the purpose of producing what good, I entreat you, sir? To show the world that you are of the same opinion with the Executive in considering the language of Mr. Jackson insolent? Or to show that you will stand by the Executive on the ground which he has taken? Who doubts it? Who doubts the devotion of Congress to the President? To what end then, to what useful end, is the giving legislative form and final sanction to these propositions? For, let it be understood, it is to this I now object specifically. There has not been and cannot be urged an argument which can show that any practical good can result from clothing these propositions in a legislative garb. In making these remarks to the House, I have carefully studied to avoid making a single remark which would wound the sensibility of gentlemen; because, although it is not my nature to be always so studiously sparing, yet upon this occasion my mind recoils with so much terror and horror from these unprecedented, pernicious resolutions, that I would sacrifice all minor considerations, all the gratification of party feelings, for the purpose of placing before gentlemen a view of the situation in which they are about to place this nation in relation to Great Britain. A situation in which two nations cannot negotiate. A situation unprecedented-unheard-of! We must have war as the only remedy for the passage of this resolution. A war may bury in the same grave with a multitude of our citizens this question about the violation of the ambassadorial character of Mr. Jackson. We may be able then to get clear of it; it may be forgotten, or a remedy be found for it, in the distressing calamities which will succeed, and if this resolution is indeed to pass, I do not know but I should myself be willing to have war in order to bring the two nations to that condition in which they can again speak to each other of their affairs. Sir, I wish to do right; I am impressed with as much grief for the un can profess; I would give a helping hand as cheerfully as any to extract the country from the terrible perplexities with Great Britain in which it is involved, and the more so as my immediate constituents are the victims of them. If this measure is to do good, if any beneficial consequences can result from giving a final sanction to the resolutions, let gentlemen point them out, and I will be as ready to vote against the motion for indefinite postponement as they can be. Bu even the attempt has not been, and will not and can not be made. You have already audibly express ed your opinion in Committee of the Whole; the Executive knows it. But, having done this, de not take way all possible chance of the two a tions being able to treat hereafter, if hereafte such circumstances should arise as would make the conclusion of a treaty practicable but for this obstacle, which may render even the commencement of a negotiation impracticable-for I am willing to allow that I do not at this time see how a treaty can be attempted. While the pres ent temper exists on the part of the British Government and of our Administration, I do not see that a treaty can be made. Let gentlemen go to war if they will; but let them not bring about that state of things which will prevent the possi bility of preserving peace and mutual intercourse by throwing in the way an unnecessary difficulty which cannot possibly produce any good. In thi view I shall vote for the present motion; and would to Heaven I had a tongue of fire that might pierce the hearts of gentlemen who hear me with this single question "What good will this measure produce?" I beg them to consider it most seriously; and in the fair spirit of argument! challenge them to answer me-How are the twe nations ever to speak to each other again? To what good purpose is this resolution to lead? I to no good on the one hand; and to so much pernicious result on the other, can they answer it to their country, if they refuse to stop where they are? Mr. PITKIN said, that he felt a reluctance in addressing the House, at so late an hour; but viewing, as he did, the resolution proposed, as an improper innovation on the legislative proceed ings of Congress; not only so, but as involving a question, which, in all probability, would materially affect the peace, the happiness, and future prosperity of this country, he could not resist the impulse of duty, in endeavoring to arrest its progress by an indefinite postponement. In the range I may take, said he, in the discus sion, it is possible I may also touch upon some of the topics which have been mentioned by those gentlemen who have preceded me, on different sides of the House. In doing this, I trust, I shall not transgress any of those rules which ought to be observed in all deliberative bodies; I trust I shall deliver my sentiments with firmness, but with a due regard to legislative decorum. In this late stage of the debate, I hope I shall be pardoned if I should repeat some of the obser = DECEMBER, 1809. Conduct of the British Minister. vations which have been made by others; it shall be my endeavor, sir, to avoid this as much as possible. I have stated that, in my view, this is an innovation in the legislative proceedings of Congress highly improper. As has been said, by several gentlemen, no prezcedent can be found in the history of our Government for a procedure like the present. A joint resolution, having for its object either to approve or disapprove the conduct of the President of the United States, in relation to foreign nations, or their Ministers, has never yet been adopted by Congress. And yet, sir, have not oocasions occurred, under this Government, in which, if such a procedure had been considered proper, it would have been done? Have no difficulties heretofore arisen between the Executive and the agents of foreign nations? H. OF R. obeyed no orders, no commands, but those of the King, his master. In both these cases there was no question but that the Executive and the Government had been insulted; and yet Congress, in neither of them, thought it necessary to pledge themselves by a joint resolution, or in any other way, to call out the whole force of the nation to repel such insults. But, sir, if it is necessary to pass a resolution of this kind, do not let it be couched in language which ill becomes the dignity of Congress and of this nation. If we have really been insulted by a foreign nation, or its Minister, let us tell them so, in a tone firm and proud, but dignified. Let us convince them that we feel for the honor of our country; but let us do it in a language which will show that we are conscious of its worth. This resolution is not for ourselves, but for a foreign nation; and let us not, when acting as legislators, forget that we are gentlemen. Need I recall the recollection of gentlemen to the celebrated cases of Genet and Yrujo? I should But, sir, the resolution in another point of view certainly consume the time of the House unne- has a bearing upon the future prospects of this cessarily in making a particular statement of the country, of vast moment. I can consider it in no facts in these cases. It is well known that Genet other light than as a conditional declaration of not only undertook to exercise acts of sovereign-war against Great Britain. The words of it are: ty in this country, but even to dictate to the Pres-" And the Congress of the United States do hereident of the United States what course he ought by solemnly pledge themselves to the American to pursue in the discharge of his duty. He went people and to the world, to stand by and support further, sir; not being able to shake the firmness the Executive Government in its refusal to reof the President, he published what has been em-ceive any further communications from the said phatically called his "Appeal to the People." Francis J. Jackson, and to call into action the What was the course which the then President whole force of the nation, if it should be necesthought proper to pursue? He informed Con-sary, in consequence of the conduct of the Execgress of the facts by a special Message, on the 5th December, 1793, in which he says: "It is with extreme concern I have to inform you, that the proceedings of the person whom they (the French Government) have unfortunately appointed their Minister Plenipotentiary here, have breathed nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation which sent him; their tendency, on the contrary, has been to involve us in war abroad, and discord and anarchy at home." Accompanying this Message was a letter written by the then Secretary of State, to our Minister at Paris, respecting the recall of the offending Minister, in which he says: "The Government thus insulted and set at defiance by Mr. Genet, committed in its duties and engagements to others, determined still to see in these proceedings, but the character of the individual." Also, "Mr. Genet not content with using our force, whether we will or not, in the military line, against nations with whom we are at peace, undertakes, also, to direct the civil government," &c. Did Congress, at that time, think proper to pass joint resolutions, approbating the conduct of the President, and reprobating that of the foreign Minister? They did not. And yet, sir, history scarcely furnishes an instance in which a Government was more grossly insulted than ours then was, by the French Minister. The case of Yrujo is of a still later date. Was not the Government then insulted? This Minister came to the seat of Government, and was ordered by the President to depart. He said that he would not go, that he utive Government, in this respect, to repel such 'insults," &c. For what purpose, let me ask, is the force of the nation to be called out? Can it be to repel the insult of Mr. Jackson merely? This, sir, would be too ridiculous. If anything is intended by it, it must be either to declare to the British Government that, in case they sanction the conduct of their Minister, war is inevitable; or, in case Great Britain, in consequence of our proceedings relative to Mr. Jackson, should make war upon us, that the force of the nation is to be called out to defend ourselves. I trust no gentleman will avow that the latter is intended. I do hope that we are not yet so degraded in our own estimation, or in the estimation of the world, as to render it necessary to make a formal declaration that, in case any nation makes war upon us, we will resist. What, sir, let me ask, is to be our situation, if the British Government should not view the conduct of their Minister in the same point of light as we do? Suppose the British Ministry should say that Mr. Jackson, instead of insulting our Government, has, for the purpose of repelling a charge of a breach of faith on their part, for disavowing the late arrangement, used a language calculated only to support the honor and dignity of his own? Having passed the resolution now on your table, what, let me ask, is to be done? The insult has now become that of the British Government. And, having declared that you will call into action the whole force of the nation to repel such insults, will you not do |