Chapter I: A. Coles (40)

Mr. Q. then took notice of an intimation which had been thrown out in relation to an express, sent off on the day preceding the Message of the President, giving notice that the embargo would be proposed the ensuing day. He said that there was no necessity of speaking of that matter by distant allusions, as if there was any thing that sought concealment. That is not an affair, said Mr. Q., that shuns the light. I had the honor and the happiness, in conjunction with another member of this House, from the State of New York, (Mr. EMOTT,) and a Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. LLOYD,) to transmit that intelligence to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, by an express which started on Tuesday afternoon. In doing this, we violated no obligation, even of the most remote and delicate kind. The fact that the Committee of Foreign Relations had decided that an embargo should be proposed on Wednesday, was openly avowed here on Tuesday, by various members of that committee, to various members of this House. Among others, I was informed of it. I shall always be grateful to the gentleman who gave me that information. Indeed, the whole commercial community are under great obligations to the Committee of Foreign Relations for their feeling and patriotism in resolving on that disclosure. It enabled us, by anticipating the mail, to give an opportunity for great masses of property to escape from the ruin our Cabinet was meditating for them. Yes, sir; to escape into the jaws of the British lion, and of the French tiger, which are places of refuge, of joy and delight, when compared with the grasp and fangs of this hyena embargo. What was the effect of this information? When it reached Philadelphia, the whole mercantile class was in motion, and all that had it in their power were flying in all directions from the coming mischief, as if it were a plague and a pestilence. Look, at this moment, on the river below Alexandria, and the poor seamen, towing down their vessels against wind and tide, anxious only to escape from a country which destroys under the mask of preserving.

Mr. GOLD.--The first object with a wise Legislature is, Is the law expedient? The second object, which should never for a moment escape attention, Can the law be executed? Under the first head, the advocates of embargo disclaim the measure as appertaining to the odious restriction system: they present it as the old-fashioned, legitimate precursor of war, as the provident measure of Government to protect your merchants against reprisals resulting from meditated hostilities.

In this view can you be prepared for war at the expiration of the embargo? Will you open your campaign at mid-summer? Whatever appearance this measure may now assume, the country have grounds to fear a relapse into the old system--you will go again back into Egypt.

But, on the second head, can your law be executed? Does the history of the past in our own, or any other country, warrant such an expectation? Can you watch the extended line, of forty-five degrees north, for hundreds of miles, so as to prevent a transit for commercial exchange, indispensable to the necessities of the country? No, sir, it is a vain expectation; your army of 25,000 could not prevent the intercourse: their sympathies would rather lead them to connive at what they could not fail to see. Great Britain, with a canvas that whitens every sea, her revenue boats always in motion, and tide waters at every inlet or avenue, has not been able to prevent the smuggling in of about one-half the tea consumed in that Kingdom. Such is the conviction of English writers! It may be found in the appendix to McCartney's Embassy, and in the Life of the second Pitt. Where men have expended their substance in purchasing and collecting an article for export, under the subsisting faith of your laws permitting such export, it is not mere injustice, but cruelty in the Government towards its citizens to arrest such a commerce by an _ex post facto_ law, and consign those concerned to the prison walls, and their families to beggary. Nothing short of the most imperious necessity, the safety of the community, can justify so severe a proceeding. But, sir, with a single exception of timber, the commerce between the northern frontiers and Canada, will, for the ninety days of this embargo, be little else than the mere exchange of articles indispensably necessary to the poor frontier settlers. How are they to be supplied with the article of salt? Believe me, sir, the morality of no part of the United States, or of any nation on earth, will restrain persons under such circumstances from eluding the laws. Does any man believe that this frontier traffic is not as beneficial to us as to our enemies? Can your law fail of producing more injury and loss to the United States, than benefit? Have you not witnessed, sir, that while you was exercising paternal care in enacting an embargo by water, for the seaboard, that our merchants and navigators, roused as by a shock of thunder, escaped from your shores, with their vessels, as from a destroying angel--from pestilence and death?

Mr. BLEECKER, in a speech of about twenty minutes, made an able, solemn, and impressive address to the House, urging them to ponder, and desist from the dangerous course they were pursuing, and forewarned them of the calamitous consequences that would inevitably result.

Mr. MITCHILL said, in viewing political subjects and dangers, some are inclined to look through political microscopes, which diminish them; others, misled by their imaginations, look through political telescopes, and are apt to magnify and enhance them. He, for one, was for viewing our situation with his naked optics--for looking at it as it really is. He could not be considered as less alive to the interests and happiness of the inhabitants of that city, respecting whom so much sensibility has been expressed, than any other gentleman. There were his intimate friends, connections, and what little property he possessed. No one could feel more for their sufferings under commercial restrictions, or in case of an assault upon it by the enemy. And if he was to consult only his personal sensibilities, they were all in favor of the people of that country with whom we are to enter into a conflict. He has no prejudice against them. He there received his education. He has lived in North and South Britain. From actual residence, he knows them from the Grampian Hills to Dover. He knows them, however, to be a proud, overbearing nation. From former residence, and also from recent intelligence, (and that within a few days, by late arrivals,) he knows that they consider us a sort of a generation whom they have a right to despise. We are viewed in this unworthy, degraded situation, not on account of our want of resources, or population; but because they believe we cannot stand together--that we have no confidence in ourselves--that we cannot lead armies into their countries. Their object has been, since the year 1806, to divide and distract us, and to prevent our taking efficient measures. Sir, what has been the cause of our present condition? It is well known that, in 1806, he was made the organ of his constituents, as other gentlemen were for Salem and other commercial places, to present to Congress their plaints and wailings, on account of the grievances they suffered upon the subject of carrying colonial produce, and the continuity of voyage. The archives of this House will prove this. They declared they should be ruined if the British doctrine should be countenanced. The Government were goaded by these applications for relief. The Government began, and continued pacific measures, until we have got into our present situation.

Mr. WIDGERY spoke with much warmth in favor of the embargo and war.

Mr. STUART said, if it was in order, he would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. WIDGERY) a few questions. He would ask that gentleman if he was, during the last embargo, a ship owner? If so, did he not go to England during the embargo? If so, how did he go?

Mr. WIDGERY answered that he went by water.

The SPEAKER observed these questions were not in order.

Mr. STUART said if they were not in order he would sit down.

The question was now taken on indefinite postponement, and determined in the negative--yeas 42, nays 72.

On motion of Mr. ROBERTS, the previous question was demanded by a majority of the members present: Whereupon the question was taken, in the form prescribed by the rules and orders of the House, to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?" and passed in the affirmative--yeas 67, nays 44.

The SPEAKER then decided that the main question to now put, was: "Will the House concur with the Senate in the amendments made to the bill?" and not upon the proposition for postponement.

From which decision Mr. RANDOLPH moved an appeal; which being seconded, the question was put, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and decided in the affirmative.

SATURDAY, April 4.

The House was cleared of all persons, and the doors were closed.

_Additional Brigadier Generals._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill authorizing the President of the United States to appoint additional Brigadier Generals, &c.

Mr. SAMMONS.--Mr. Speaker: If those officers are intended to command the militia, I trust in God this bill will not pass. What! shall our militia be commanded by officers commissioned by the President? Can the President be as well acquainted with the qualifications and abilities of officers in the militia as the Governors of the States? It cannot be expected. What spirit can be in the people to support the war if the Federal Government takes away the right of the States to appoint the officers for commanding their militia? If our Government takes away our liberty, is it necessary to contend with a foreign Government for our rights? In former times the officers were appointed in such parts as the men were raised: that is not the case now. Some time in the session, I was told by some of the Southern members, "we will give you officers if you will find the men." It is a fact, that, before our New York troops were raised, a Major from North Carolina was appointed; and was ordered to take the command of troops enlisted in New York. Governor Hull's son, from Detroit, is appointed to the command of one of our companies, and is on command with his father as his aid. Where is the justice? Shall we have companies without captains, or shall the United States pay for two captains? (for Hull is returned in Colonel Schuyler's regiment as captain.) He cannot belong there. In such proceedings I almost tremble for the consequence to my country.

There is no necessity or propriety in appointing more Generals, in my opinion, at present, for our regulars--for the President is directed to appoint eight Brigadiers and two Major Generals. I believe they are not all appointed, and of those that are appointed, I hear one is sent home because they have no command for him. If this bill passes, our Government will be as bad as that of Great Britain before the Revolution. In the Declaration of Independence we complain of the King, that "he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." But if those ten Generals are not sufficient, this House has passed a bill at the request of the President of the United States to commission and appoint the officers for fifty thousand militia volunteers. There are limits empowering how many he shall appoint--he may appoint twelve Brigadiers and four Major Generals--will not that be as many as he wanted?

MONDAY, April 13.

A confidential message was received from the Senate by a committee of that body appointed for the purpose, consisting of Mr. VARNUM and Mr. ANDERSON, notifying the House that the Senate have passed the bill, entitled "An act to prohibit the exportation of specie, goods, wares, and merchandise, for a limited time," with amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of the House.

The said amendments were read at the Clerk's table: When a motion was made by Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH that the said bill be _postponed indefinitely_.

And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 35, nays 62.

The question was then taken to concur in the said amendments, and passed in the affirmative.

Mr. SMILIE and Mr. PLEASANTS were appointed a committee to deliver a message to the Senate, and inform them that the House of Representatives have concurred in their amendment to the bill aforesaid.

The doors were then opened.

TUESDAY, April 14.

Mr. CRAWFORD, from the Joint Committee for Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined an enrolled bill "to prohibit the exportation of specie, goods, wares, and merchandise, for a limited time," and had found the same to be truly enrolled: When, the SPEAKER signed the said bill.

Mr. CRAWFORD and Mr. TURNER were appointed a committee to carry the said bill to the Senate for the signature of their President.

The doors were then opened; and having remained so for some time, they were again closed;.

When, Mr. TURNER, from the above-mentioned committee, reported that the committee had presented to the President of the United States the said bill, and that they were instructed by the President to inform the two Houses that he had approved and signed the same.

On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the injunction of secrecy imposed upon the said bill and the proceedings thereon, were then removed.

The doors were then opened.

MONDAY, June 1.

A confidential Message, in writing, was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Edward Coles, his Secretary; which he delivered in at the Speaker's table.

The House was then cleared of all persons, except the Members, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeepers, and the doors were closed; and the said Message was read, and is as follows:

[Confidential.]

_To the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States_:

I communicate to Congress certain documents, being a
continuation of those heretofore laid before them on the
subject of our affairs with Great Britain.

Without going back beyond the renewal, in one thousand eight
hundred and three, of the war in which Great Britain is
engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude,
the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts,
hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral
nation.

British cruisers have been in the continued practice of
violating the American flag on the great highway of nations,
and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it;
not in the exercise of a belligerent right, founded on the
law of nations against an enemy, but a municipal prerogative
over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended
to neutral vessels, in a situation where no laws can operate
but the law of nations, and the laws of the country to which
the vessels belong; and a self-redress is assumed, which, if
British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned,
is that substitution of force, for a resort to the responsible
Sovereign, which falls within the definition of war. Could the
seizure of British subjects, in such cases, be regarded as
within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged
laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be
adjudged, without a regular investigation before a competent
tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial, where
the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a
trial, these rights are subjected to the will of every petty
commander.

The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects
alone, that, under the pretext of searching for these,
thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public
law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their
country, and from every thing dear to them; have been dragged
on board ships of war of a foreign nation, and exposed, under
the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most
distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles
of their oppressors, and to be melancholy instruments of taking
away those of their own brethren.

Against this crying enormity which Great Britain would be so
prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United
States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations;
and that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory
dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the
practice, the British Government was formally assured of the
readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such
as could not be rejected, if the recovery of British subjects
were the real and the sole object. The communication passed
without effect.

British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating
the right and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and
harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most
insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless
proceedings in our very harbors; and have wantonly spilt
American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial
jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation,
when a neutral nation, against armed vessels of belligerents
hovering near her coasts and disturbing her commerce, are well
known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States, to
punish the greater offences committed by her own vessels, her
Government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of
honor and confidence.

Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate
force, and sometimes without the practicability of applying
one, our commerce has been plundered in every sea; the great
staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate
markets; and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and
maritime interests. In aggravation of these predatory measures,
they have been considered as in force from the dates of their
notification; a retrospective effect being thus added, as has
been done in other important cases, to the unlawfulness of the
course pursued. And to render the outrage the more signal,
those mock blockades have been reiterated and enforced in the
face of official communications from the British Government,
declaring, as the true definition of a legal blockade, "the
particular ports must be actually invested, and previous
warning given to vessels bound to them, not to enter."

Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste
our neutral trade, the Cabinet of Britain resorted, at length,
to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of Orders
in Council; which has been moulded and managed as might best
suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the
avidity of British cruisers.

To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendent
injustice of this innovation, the first reply was, that
the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain, as a
necessary retaliation on decrees of her enemy, proclaiming a
general blockade of the British Isles, at a time when the naval
force of that enemy dared not issue from his own ports. She
was reminded, without effect, that her own prior blockades,
unsupported by an adequate naval force actually applied and
continued, were a bar to this plea: that executed edicts
against millions of our property could not be retaliation
on edicts confessedly impossible to be executed: that
retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party setting the
guilty example, not on an innocent party, which was not even
chargeable with an acquiescence in it.

When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our
trade with her enemy, by the repeal of his prohibition of
our trade with Great Britain, her Cabinet, instead of their
corresponding repeal, or a practical discontinuance of its
orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them
against the United States, until the markets of her enemy
should be laid open to British products; thus asserting an
obligation on a neutral power to require one belligerent
to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of
another belligerent; contradicting her own practice towards
all nations, in peace as well as in war; and betraying the
insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief,
that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was
anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them.

Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of
the United States, and for its own consistency, the British
Government now demands, as prerequisite to a repeal of its
orders as they relate to the United States, that a formality
should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees, no wise
necessary to their termination, nor exemplified by British
usage; and that the French repeal, besides including that
portion of the decrees which operate within a territorial
jurisdiction, as well as that which operates on the high seas,
against the commerce of the United States, should not be a
single and special repeal in relation to the United States,
but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations,
unconnected with them, may be affected by those decrees. And,
as an additional insult, they are called on for a formal
disavowal of conditions and pretensions advanced by the French
Government, for which the United States are so far from having
made themselves responsible, that, in official explanations
which have been published to the world, and in a correspondence
of the American Minister at London with the British Minister
for Foreign Affairs, such a responsibility was explicitly and
emphatically disclaimed.

It has become, indeed, sufficiently certain, that the commerce
of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering
with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as supplying
the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but
as interfering with the money which she covets for her own
commerce and navigation. She carries on a war against the
lawful commerce of a friend, that she may the better carry on
a commerce with an enemy; a commerce polluted by the forgeries
and perjuries which are, for the most part, the only passports
by which it can succeed.

Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of
injured nations, the United States have withheld from Great
Britain, under successive modifications, the benefits of a free
intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but
outweigh the profits accruing from her restrictions of our
commerce with other nations. And to entitle these experiments
to the more favorable consideration, they were so framed as
to enable her to place her adversary under the exclusive
operation of them. To these appeals her Government has been
equally inflexible, as if willing to make sacrifices of every
sort, rather than yield to the claims of justice, or renounce
the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were the attempts
carried to overcome the attachments of the British Cabinet to
its unjust edicts, that it received every encouragement within
the competence of the Executive branch of our Government, to
expect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between
the United States and France, unless the French edicts should
also be recalled. Even this communication, although silencing
forever the plea of a disposition in the United States to
acquiesce in those edicts, originally the sole plea for them,
received no attention.

If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British
Government against a repeal of its orders, it might be found
in the correspondence of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States at London, and the British Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, in one thousand eight hundred and ten, on the question
whether the blockade of May, one thousand eight hundred and
six, was considered as in force, or as not in force. It had
been ascertained that the French Government, which urged this
blockade as the ground of its Berlin decree, was willing,
in the event of its removal, to repeal that decree; which,
being followed by alternate repeals of the other offensive
edicts, might abolish the whole system on both sides. This
inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so important
to the United States, and professed, so often, to be the
desire of both the belligerents, was made known to the British
Government. As that Government admits that an application of
an adequate force is necessary to the existence of a legal
blockade, and it was notorious that, if such a force had
ever been applied, its long discontinuance had annulled the
blockade in question, there could be no sufficient objection
on the part of Great Britain to a formal revocation of it;
and no imaginable objection to a declaration of the fact that
the blockade did not exist. The declaration would have been
consistent with her avowed principles of blockade; and would
have enabled the United States to demand from France the
pledged repeal of her decrees; either with success, in which
case the way would have been opened for a general repeal of
the belligerent edicts; or without success, in which case
the United States would have been justified in turning their
measures exclusively against France. The British Government
would, however, neither rescind the blockade, nor declare its
non-existence; nor permit its non-existence to be inferred and
affirmed by the American Plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by
representing the blockade to be comprehended in the Orders in
Council, the United States were compelled so to regard it, in
their subsequent proceedings.

There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of
the British Cabinet was justly considered as established.
The Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty here,
proposed an adjustment of the differences more immediately
endangering the harmony of the two countries. The proposition
was accepted with the promptitude and cordiality corresponding
with the invariable professions of this Government. A
foundation appeared to be laid for a sincere and lasting
reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly vanished. The
whole proceeding was disavowed by the British Government,
without any explanations, which could, at that time, repress
the belief, that the disavowal proceeded from a spirit of
hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United
States. And it has since come into proof, that at the very
moment when the public Minister was holding the language of
friendship, and inspiring confidence in the sincerity of the
negotiation with which he was charged, a secret agent of his
Government was employed in intrigues, having for their object a
subversion of our Government, and a dismemberment of our happy
Union.

In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards the United
States, our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare, just
renewed by the savages, on one of our extensive frontiers; a
warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex, and to be
distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It
is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which
have for some time been developing themselves among tribes
in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons,
without connecting hostility with that influence, and without
recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions,
heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that
Government.

Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have
been heaped on our country; and such the crisis which its
unexampled forbearance and conciliatory efforts have not been
able to avert. It might at least have been expected, that
an enlightened nation, if less urged by moral obligations,
or invited by friendly dispositions on the part of the
United States, would have found, in its true interest alone,
a sufficient motive to respect their rights and their
tranquillity on the high seas; that an enlarged policy would
have favored that free and general circulation of commerce
in which the British nation is at all times interested,
and which, in times of war, is the best alleviation of its
calamities to herself, as well as to other belligerents; and,
more especially, that the British Cabinet would not, for
the sake of a precarious and surreptitious intercourse with
hostile markets, have persevered in a course of measures which
necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market of a great and
growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of
an active commerce.

Other councils have prevailed. Our moderation and conciliation
have had no other effect than to encourage perseverance and to
enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafaring citizens still
the daily victims of lawless violence, committed on the great
common and highway of nations, even within sight of the country
which owes them protection. We behold our vessels, freighted
with the products of our soil and industry, or returning
with the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful
destinations, confiscated by prize courts, no longer the
organs of public law, but the instruments of arbitrary edicts,
and their unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced,
or inveigled in British ports into British fleets, whilst
arguments are employed in support of these aggressions, which
have no foundation but in a principle equally supporting a
claim to regulate our external commerce in all cases whatsoever.

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of
war against the United States; and on the side of the United
States, a state of peace towards Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these
progressive usurpations, and their accumulating wrongs, or,
opposing force to force in defence of their national rights,
shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty
Disposer of events, avoiding all connections which might
entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and
preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable
re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question,
which the constitution wisely confides to the Legislative
Department of the Government. In recommending it to their early
deliberation, I am happy in the assurance, that the decision
will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a
virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

Having presented this view of the relations of the United
States with Great Britain, and of the solemn alternative
growing out of them, I proceed to remark, that the
communications last made to Congress on the subject of our
relations with France, will have shown, that since the
revocation of her decrees, as they violated the neutral
rights of the United States, her Government has authorized
illegal captures by its privateers and public ships; and that
other outrages have been practised on our vessels and our
citizens. It will have been seen, also, that no indemnity had
been provided, or satisfactorily pledged, for the extensive
spoliations committed under the violent and retrospective
orders of the French Government against the property of our
citizens, seized within the jurisdiction of France. I abstain,
at this time, from recommending to the consideration of
Congress definitive measures with respect to that nation, in
the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions between
our Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris and the French Government
will speedily enable Congress to decide, with greater
advantage, on the course due to the rights, the interests, and
the honor, of our country.

JAMES MADISON.

WASHINGTON, _June 1, 1812_.

A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said message be referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union:

And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 37, nays 85.

On motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, the Message was referred to a committee appointed on that part of the President's Message which relates to our foreign relations.

TUESDAY, June 2.

The House met, and adjourned till to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, June 3.

_Report on Foreign Relations._

Mr. CALHOUN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the Message of the President of the United States of the first instant, made a report, stating at large the causes and reasons of a war with Great Britain, which was read as follows:

"That, after the experience which the United States have had
of the great injustice of the British Government towards them,
exemplified by so many acts of violence and oppression, it
will be more difficult to justify to the impartial world their
impatient forbearance, than the measures to which it has become
necessary to resort, to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate the
rights and honor of the nation. Your committee are happy to
observe, on a dispassionate view of the conduct of the United
States, that they see in it no cause for censure.

"If a long forbearance under injuries ought ever to be
considered a virtue in any nation, it is one which peculiarly
becomes the United States. No people ever had stronger motives
to cherish peace; none have ever cherished it with greater
sincerity and zeal.

"But the period has now arrived, when the United States must
support their character and station among the nations of the
earth, or submit to the most shameful degradation. Forbearance
has ceased to be a virtue. War on the one side, and peace on
the other, is a situation as ruinous as it is disgraceful.
The mad ambition, the lust of power, and commercial avarice
of Great Britain, arrogating to herself the complete dominion
of the ocean, and exercising over it an unbounded and lawless
tyranny, have left to neutral nations an alternative only
between the base surrender of their rights, and a manly
vindication of them. Happily for the United States, their
destiny, under the aid of Heaven, is in their own hands. The
crisis is formidable only by their love of peace. As soon as it
becomes a duty to relinquish that situation, danger disappears.
They have suffered no wrongs, they have received no insults,
however great, for which they cannot obtain redress.

"More than seven years have elapsed since the commencement of
this system of hostile aggression by the British Government,
on the rights and interests of the United States. The manner
of its commencement was not less hostile than the spirit with
which it has been prosecuted. The United States have invariably
done every thing in their power to preserve the relations of
friendship with Great Britain. Of this disposition they gave
a distinguished proof at the moment when they were made the
victims of an opposite policy. The wrongs of the last war had
not been forgotten at the commencement of the present one. They
warned us of dangers, against which it was sought to provide.
As early as the year 1804, the Minister of the United States
at London was instructed to invite the British Government to
enter into a negotiation on all the points on which a collision
might arise between the two countries, in the course of the
war, and to propose to it an arrangement of their claims on
fair and reasonable conditions. The invitation was accepted.
A negotiation had commenced, and was depending, and nothing
had occurred to excite a doubt that it would not terminate to
the satisfaction of both the parties. It was at this time, and
under these circumstances, that an attack was made by surprise,
on an important branch of the American commerce, which affected
every part of the United States, and involved many of their
citizens in ruin.

"The commerce on which this attack was so unexpectedly made,
was that between the United States and the colonies of France,
Spain, and other enemies of Great Britain. A commerce just in
itself; sanctioned by the example of Great Britain, in regard
to the trade with her own colonies; sanctioned by a solemn act
between the two Governments in the last war; and sanctioned by
the practice of the British Government in the present war: more
than two years having then elapsed, without any interference
with it.

"The injustice of this attack could only be equalled by the
absurdity of the pretext alleged for it. It was pretended by
the British Government that, in case of war, her enemy had no
right to modify its colonial regulations, so as to mitigate
the calamities of war to the inhabitants of its colonies. This
pretension, peculiar to Great Britain, is utterly incompatible
with the rights of sovereignty in every independent State. If
we recur to the well-established, and universally admitted law
of nations, we shall find no sanction to it in that venerable
code. The sovereignty of every State is co-extensive with its
dominions, and cannot be abrogated, or curtailed in its rights,
as to any part, except by conquest. Neutral nations have a
right to trade to every port of either belligerents, which
is not legally blockaded, and in all articles which are not
contraband of war. Such is the absurdity of this pretension,
that your committee are aware, especially after the able
manner in which it has been heretofore refuted and exposed,
that they would offer an insult to the understanding of the
House, if they enlarged on it; and if any thing could add
to the high sense of injustice of the British Government in
this transaction, it would be the contrast which her conduct
exhibits in regard to this trade, and in regard to a similar
trade by neutrals, with her own colonies. It is known to the
world, that Great Britain regulates her own trade, in war
and in peace, at home and in her colonies, as she finds for
her interest; that in war she relaxes the restraints of her
colonial system in favor of the colonies, and that it never was
suggested that she had not a right to do it, or that a neutral,
in taking advantage of the relaxation, violated a belligerent
right of her enemy. But with Great Britain every thing is
lawful. It is only in trade with her enemies, that the United
States can do wrong: with them, all trade is unlawful.

"In the year 1793, an attack was made by the British Government
on the same branch of our neutral trade, which had nearly
involved the two countries in war. That difference, however,
was amicably accommodated. The pretension was withdrawn, and
reparation made to the United States for the losses which they
had suffered by it. It was fair to infer from that arrangement,
that the commerce was deemed by the British Government lawful,
and that it would not be again disturbed.

"Had the British Government been resolved to contest this trade
with neutrals, it was due to the character of the British
nation, that the decision should be known to the Government of
the United States. The existence of a negotiation which had
been invited by our Government, for the purpose of preventing
differences, by an amicable arrangement of their respective
pretensions, gave a strong claim for the notification, while
it afforded the fairest opportunity for it. But, a very
different policy animated the then Cabinet of England. Generous
sentiments were unknown to it. The liberal confidence and
friendly overtures of the United States were taken advantage
of to ensnare them. Steady to its purpose, and inflexibly
hostile to this country, the British Government calmly looked
forward to that moment when it might give the most deadly wound
to our interest. A trade, just in itself, which was secured
by so many strong and sacred pledges, was considered safe.
Our citizens, with their usual industry and enterprise, had
embarked in it a vast proportion of their shipping and of their
capital, which were at sea under no other protection than the
law of nations, and the confidence which they reposed in the
justice and friendship of the British nation. At this period,
the unexpected blow was given. Many of our vessels were seized,
carried into port, and condemned by a tribunal, which, while it
professes to respect the law of nations, obeys the mandate of
its own Government in opposition to all law. Hundreds of other
vessels were driven from the ocean, and the trade itself in a
great measure suppressed.

"The effect produced by this attack on the lawful commerce
of the United States, was as might have been expected from
a virtuous, independent, and highly-injured people. But
one sentiment pervaded the whole American nation. No local
interests were regarded, no sordid motives felt. Without
looking to the parts which suffered most, the invasion of our
rights was considered a common cause, and from one extremity
of our Union to the other, was heard the voice of a united
people, calling on their Government to avenge their wrongs, and
vindicate the rights and honor of the country.

"From this period, the British Government has gone on in a
continued encroachment on the rights and interests of the
United States, disregarding in its course, in many instances,
obligations which have heretofore been held sacred by civilized
nations.

"In May, 1806, the whole coast of the continent, from the Elbe
to Brest, inclusive, was declared to be in a state of blockade.
By this act, the well-established principles of the law of
nations, principles which have served for ages as guides, and
fixed the boundary between the rights of belligerents and
neutrals, were violated. By the law of nations, as recognized
by Great Britain herself, no blockade is lawful, unless it be
sustained by the application of an adequate force; and that
an adequate force was applied to this blockade, in its full
extent, ought not to be pretended. Whether Great Britain was
able to maintain legally so extensive a blockade, considering
the war in which she is engaged, requiring such extensive naval
operations, is a question which is not necessary at this time
to examine. It is sufficient to be known, that such force
was not applied, and this is evident, from the terms of the
blockade itself, by which, comparatively, an inconsiderable
portion of the coast only was declared to be in a state of
strict and rigorous blockade. The objection to the measure
is not diminished by that circumstance. If the force was not
applied, the blockade was unlawful, from whatever cause the
failure might proceed. The belligerent who institutes the
blockade, cannot absolve itself from the obligation to apply
the force, under any pretext whatever. For a belligerent to
relax a blockade which it could not maintain, with a view
to absolve itself from the obligation to maintain it, would
be a refinement in injustice, not less insulting to the
understanding, than repugnant to the law of nations. To claim
merit for the mitigation of evil which the party either had not
the power, or found it inconvenient to inflict, would be a new
mode of encroaching on neutral rights. Your committee think it
just to remark, that this act of the British Government does
not appear to have been adopted in the sense in which it has
been since construed. On consideration of all the circumstances
attending the measure, and particularly the character of the
distinguished statesman who announced it, we are persuaded that
it was conceived in a spirit of conciliation, and intended to
lead to an accomodation of all differences between the United
States and Great Britain. His death disappointed that hope, and
the act has since become subservient to other purposes. It has
been made, by his successors, a pretext for that vast system
of usurpation, which has so long oppressed and harassed our
commerce.

"The next act of the British Government which claims our
attention, is the Order of Council of January 7, 1807, by
which neutral powers are prohibited trading from one port to
another of France, or her allies, or any other country with
which Great Britain might not freely trade. By this order,
the pretensions of England, heretofore disclaimed by every
other power, to prohibit neutrals disposing of parts of their
cargoes at different ports of the same enemy, is revived, and
with vast accumulation of injury. Every enemy, however great
the number, or distant from each other, is considered one, and
the like trade, even with powers at peace with England, who,
from motives of policy, had excluded or restrained her commerce
was also prohibited. In this act, the British Government
evidently disclaimed all regard for neutral rights. Aware that
the measures authorized by it could find no pretext in any
belligerent right, none was urged. To prohibit the sale of our
produce, consisting of innocent articles, in any port of a
belligerent, not blockaded; to consider every belligerent as
one, and subject neutrals to the same restraints with all as if
there was but one, were bold encroachments. But to restrain,
or in any manner interfere with our commerce with neutral
nations, with whom Great Britain was at peace, and against whom
she had no justifiable cause of war, for the sole reason that
they restrained or excluded from their ports her commerce, was
utterly incompatible with the pacific relations subsisting
between the two countries.

"We proceed to bring into view the British Order in Council
of November 11, 1807, which superseded every other order, and
consummated that system of hostility on the commerce of the
United States, which has been since so steadily pursued. By
this order all France and her allies, and every other country
at war with Great Britain, or with which she was not at war,
from which the British flag was excluded, and all the colonies
of her enemies, were subject to the same restrictions as if
they were actually blockaded in the most strict and rigorous
manner; and all trade in articles, the produce and manufacture
of the said countries and colonies, and the vessels engaged in
it, were subjected to capture and condemnation as lawful prize.
To this order certain exceptions were made, which we forbear to
notice, because they were not adopted from a regard to neutral
rights, but were dictated by policy, to promote the commerce
of England, and so far as they related to neutral powers, were
said to emanate from the clemency of the British Government.

"It would be superfluous in your committee to state, that, by
this order, the British Government declared direct and positive
war against the United States. The dominion of the ocean was
completely usurped by it, all commerce forbidden, and every
flag driven from it, or subjected to capture and condemnation,
which did not subserve the policy of the British Government,
by paying it a tribute, and sailing under its sanction. From
this period, the United States have incurred the heaviest
losses, and most mortifying humiliations. They have borne the
calamities of war without retorting them on its authors.

"So far your committee has presented to the view of the House
the aggressions which have been committed, under the authority
of the British Government, on the commerce of the United
States. We will now proceed to other wrongs, which have been
still more severely felt. Among these is the impressment of
our seamen, a practice which has been unceasingly maintained
by Great Britain in the wars to which she has been a party
since our Revolution. Your committee cannot convey in adequate
terms the deep sense which they entertain of the injustice
and oppression of this proceeding. Under the pretext of
impressing British seaman, our fellow-citizens are seized in
British ports, on the high seas, and in every other quarter to
which the British power extends; are taken on board British
men-of-war, and compelled to serve there as British subjects.
In this mode our citizens are wantonly snatched from their
country and their families; deprived of their liberty, and
doomed to an ignominious and slavish bondage; compelled to
fight the battles of a foreign country, and often to perish
in them. Our flag has given them no protection; it has been
unceasingly violated, and our vessels exposed to dangers by
the loss of the men taken from them. Your committee need not
remark that, while this practice is continued, it is impossible
for the United States to consider themselves an independent
nation. Every new case is a new proof of their degradation.
Its continuance is the more unjustifiable, because the United
States have repeatedly proposed to the British Government an
arrangement which would secure to it the control of its own
people. An exemption of the citizens of the United States from
this degrading oppression, and their flag from violation, is
all that they have sought.

"This lawless waste of our trade, and equally unlawful
imprisonment of our seamen, have been much aggravated by the
insults and indignities attending them. Under the pretext
of blockading the harbors of France and her allies, British
squadrons have been stationed on our own coast, to watch
and annoy our own trade. To give effect to the blockade of
European ports, the ports and harbors of the United States
have been blockaded. In executing these orders of the British
Government, or in obeying the spirit which was known to animate
it, the commanders of these squadrons have encroached on our
jurisdiction, seized our vessels, and carried into effect
impressments within our limits, and done other acts of great
injustice, violence, and oppression. The United States have
seen, with mingled indignation and surprise, that these acts,
instead of procuring to the perpetrators the punishment due to
unauthorized crimes, have not failed to recommend them to the
favor of their Government.

"Whether the British Government has contributed by active
measures to excite against us the hostility of the savage
tribes on our frontiers, your committee are not disposed to
occupy much time in investigating. Certain indications of
general notoriety may supply the place of authentic documents,
though these have not been wanting to establish the fact
in some instances. It is known that symptoms of British
hostility towards the United States have never failed to
produce corresponding symptoms among those tribes. It is also
well known that, on all such occasions, abundant supplies
of the ordinary munitions of war have been afforded by the
agents of British commercial companies, and even from British
garrisons, wherewith they were enabled to commence that system
of savage warfare on our frontiers, which has been at all
times indiscriminate in its effect, on all ages, sexes, and
conditions, and so revolting to humanity.

"Your committee would be much gratified if they could close
here the detail of British wrongs; but it is their duty to
recite another act of still greater malignity than any of those
which have been already brought to your view. The attempt to
dismember our Union, and overthrow our excellent constitution,
by a secret mission, the object of which was to foment
discontents and excite insurrection against the constituted
authorities and laws of the nation, as lately disclosed by
the agent employed in it, affords full proof that there is no
bound to the hostility of the British Government towards the
United States; no act, however unjustifiable, which it would
not commit to accomplish their ruin. This attempt excites
the greater horror, from the consideration that it was made
while the United States and Great Britain were at peace, and
an amicable negotiation was depending between them for the
accommodation of their differences, through public Ministers,
regularly authorized for the purpose.

"The United States have beheld, with unexampled forbearance,
this continued series of hostile encroachments on their rights
and interests, in the hope that, yielding to the force of
friendly remonstrances, often repeated, the British Government
might adopt a more just policy towards them; but that hope no
longer exists. They have, also, weighed impartially the reasons
which have been urged by the British Government in vindication
of those encroachments, and found in them neither justification
nor apology.