principles. For it cannot, nor need not, be dissembled that the Federalists are universally opposed to the war; they deem it an unjustifiable and ruinous one, that it has been hatched in the fermented hot-bed of party prejudice. The man, therefore, who holds such language and entertains such opinions, and will, to gratify his avarice, lend his money to promote an object which he condemns as unwarranted, is guilty, in my opinion, of a censurable inconsistency; and should he lose that money, so unworthily loaned, it ought not, and, in me, it would not, excite any uneasiness on account of his loss.". Sir, it has been said by the gentleman (Mr. GRUNDY) "if the repealing decree had been dis'closed at its date, it would not have prevented 'the war, even if the Orders in Council had been ' repealed." And he seemed to be surprised at the temerity of my honorable colleague, (Mr. GROSVENOR,) who asserted to the contrary: "Es'pecially, as my honorable colleague and his party 'were wholly ignorant of the secret views of the Administration, while the gentleman (Mr. 'GRUNDY) and his party were admitted to a participation of those views." In the first place, I feel no disposition to deny that the honorable gentleman (Mr. GRUNDY) and his political friends are favored with the smiles and secret opinions of His Majesty, the President; and that they are honored with a familiar intercourse with that Nestor, the Vice President; and that the whole Executive Cabinet is open to them. And, sir, I have no inclination to deny what I am confident is true-that the whole Federal party are shut out from those gracious privileges. And, sir, there is another truth that I have no disposition to deny, which is, that that republican Government is in jeopardy, tottering to its fall, whose Chief Magistrate has official secrets for one, and not for the other part of its Legislators. And, sir, I loathe and detest those midnight consultations and intrigues which are to favor the interests and resentments of one part of the nation at the expense of the happiness and interests of the other. If gentlemen wish to know what induces me to believe that the war would not have been declared, if the repealing decree had been timely promulged, (and I presume the same reason induced my honorable colleague to think so,) I can very readily inform them. Had this decree been communicated to the British Government in time, that Government would have repealed the Orders in Council. Gentlemen may talk as much as they please of the declarations of the Prince Regent, the inference from what has been done is irresistible, upon every unprejudiced mind, to prove what would have been done. Sir, no truth is more certain than that those orders were repealed after the receipt of the repealing decree with as much promptness as the state of the British Cabinet would permit. And they verified, by a ready example, all their professions of a disposition to maintain a good understanding between their Government and the United States. H. OF R. In vain, then, do gentlemen tell us of the length of time which elapsed between the communication of the repealing decree and the repealing of the Orders in Council; no honest, sensible man, will venture to deny that, in this instance, the British Cabinet acted with good faith, and with a sincere desire to maintain peace between the two countries. The conclusion from these premises can be only one, and that is, that had the repealing decree been, as it ought to have been, disclosed seasonably to the British Cabinet, their Orders in Council would have been repealed; and we now should, instead of suffering the curses of this abominable war, have been enjoying the blessings of peace. Sir, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN) asserted, that "if the Orders in Council had been repealed, yet we should have had war. The impressment of our seamen was a 'sufficient cause, and for that would they have declared it." Now, sir, much as I respect that gentleman's talents and integrity, in this instance I must believe he is mistaken. For I will not believe that the Administration would have been given up to such fatal infatuation, such a bewildering, deadly mania, that they would have been so incurably mad as to have plunged this nation into a war on a point, in principle, the most inconsiderable in controversy, without making one more effort, at least, to an amicable adjustment of differences. I could not believe, if the melancholy fact was not in my view, that we should have been hurried into this war without preparation, and, of course, to loiter away month after month, without being able to commence any efficient operations. Sir, I did believe that a candid, prudent ruler of the nation, that a wise Legislature, who regarded their country's happiness, would have paused before they made a desperate, frantic plunge into an abyss from which it might require an age to be retrieved. I did suppose that our Administration would have stopped and cooled before they emptied a whole vial of wrath upon our heads. And I still must believe, if the Orders in Council had been repealed before the declaration of war, the Government would not have declared it, for a mere principle in theory, which unquestionably might have been accommodated upon fair and equitable grounds. But, sir, if the honorable gentleman (Mr. CALHOUN) is right, we are mistaken; if so, we err in judging too favorably of the Administration, both of head and heart; we err in supposing that they were wise enough to shun the precipice down which they have fallen, and sufficiently honest and prudent not to barter away the interest, the wealth, the peace, the blood, and independence of this once great and highly favored nation, for a toy—a butterfly. In this respect, and for this cause, we have erred, and are entitled to forgiveness. If we have thought more favorably of those who declared the war than the gentlemen are willing to admit they deserve, we will yield to their superior knowledge of the subject, and confess ourselves wrong. One thing, sir, I ought to say: if the dictates of common sense, and the experience of mankind, will not enable us to judge what course the Administration would have steered, the consequences of the war show most conclusively what course they ought to have steered. For, what but defeat and disgrace have we experienced in all our attempts to conquer the Canadas? Except the little advantages we have recently gained, the war has been one continued series of abortive attempts at victory; and, before this honorable House and my country, I venture to prophesy, that for even these successes, we shall be compelled to pay, with severe interest. Depend upon it, sir, with such an army, visited with the dreadful retributions which sooner or later blast and wither that Government which dares to mock Omnipotence by violating the laws of God, and trampling under foot humanity, I say, sir, with such an army, enfeebled with sickness, and with a spirit broken, ambition quenched by poverty and nakedness; cudgelled and abused by the beardless, upstart subalterns, whose nod the soldier must obey; and with such a man at the head of that army, the idea of reducing the Canadas is as romantic as the conquest of giants was in the hero of La Mancha. Mr. GASTON said, that when he entered the House that morning, he had no expectation of taking a part in this debate. He was perfectly conscious of the disadvantages under which he must appear, in attempting, without the benefit of previous reflection, an examination of the argument contained in the extraordinary harangue of the gentleman from Tennessee; an harangue evidently studied and elaborate. But as the question had been called for; as no other gentleman seemed disposed to occupy the floor; and as part of that argument demanded notice, he felt it his duty to claim the attention of the Chair for a few minutes. However unequal the contest, yet in the cause of truth, and of the best interests of his country, he could not hesitate to engage in it. Provided those were advanced, he was little solicitous as to the light in which he might appear. The gentleman had occupied no inconsiderable portion of the time of the House, with invectives against those who had discouraged loans and enlistments. To the part of the country, said Mr. G., which I have the honor to represent, such invectives are without the possibility of application. With us loans and enlistments have been considered as acts purely voluntary, in which every individual has been left free to pursue his inclinations. Indeed, in these days of distress, few of us have been able to lend, and the temptations to enlistment have not been strong enough to carry off many beside those whom all are willing to part with. The gentleman has also indulged himself in insinuations, where more seemed meant than met the ear, of a disposition to take the part of Great Britain, and of prepossessions in favor of the ene JUNE, 1813. my. These, he has indeed said, were not designed to apply to any gentleman occupying a seat on this floor. My experience, sir, has been too limited to enable me to ascertain whether I owe this exemption to the gentleman's sense of justice, or whether I am to consider it as a mere form of parliamentary decorum. In this state of doubt, as to the precise meaning of the gentleman, I will content myself with saying, that any charge of partiality to the cause of the enemy, as contrasted with that of my country, so far as regards me, would be utterly untrue. The bare supposition of it is intolerable. It will not be deemed egotism, I trust, to add, that baptized an American in the blood of a martyred father; bound to my native land by every moral and natural tie that can fasten on the heart of man; with not one motive of interest, of passion, or prejudice, to seduce the loyalty of my affections; never can I separate myself from the cause of my country, however that cause may have been betrayed by those to whose care it was confided. Without commenting on the delicacy of the course which the gentleman has in this respect pursued, its art and address are sufficiently obvious. It reminds me of the mode of escape which naturalists inform us is observed by the cuttle fish in time of peril. When his adversary is fast gaining upon him, and destruction seems inevitable, he muddies the water through which he glides, and finds safety in confusion. Thus it is with the gentleman from Tennessee. He would escape from this discussion; he would elude the inquiry, how far we owe this war to French imposition, by raising a tumult about British predilections and British arguments. But the stratagem cannot take. No gentleman will suffer himself to be diverted from the investigation which these resolutions fairly suggest; and such inquiry, deliberately pursued, must terminate in the discovery of the necessary, though melancholy truth. Mr. G. remarked, that whatever might be the issue of the resolutions, he cordially congratulated the nation that they had been introduced. It was due to the national honor, always involved in the honor of the national agents-and it was due to the best interests of the country, that the mystery which enveloped this subject should be dissipated. A formal authentic decree of the Government of France, bearing date the 28th of April, 1811, and purporting to be an absolute retraction of the Berlin and Milan decrees, was exhibited by that Government to our representative Mr. Barlow in May, 1812. On his expressing surprise at the decree, and its ancient date, the French Minister assured him that this decree had been communicated to his predecessor, Mr. Russell, and had been sent on to the French Ambassador at Washington, with orders to lay it before the President. This information from Mr.Barlow was given to this House at the close of its last session, in consequence of a call on the President for intelligence about our relations with France; and it came without any explanation, comment, or denial. On all hands it must be admitted, that a shameful fraud has been JUNE, 1813. French Decrees. H. OF R. to conceal them. This investigation, it has been justly urged, is demanded by a regard for the character of our Government in the estimation of our own citizens, and of the world. In answer to this we are told its character needs no protection, it is too pure, too unsullied to be affected by any charge. Sir, this is the language of rash, blind confidence! A most important decree of the French Government, vitally affecting the commerce, the peace, the independence, of this somewhere perpetrated. The reputation of the nation demanded that this fraud should be placed to the account of those who had committed it. Upon this imposture he, in his conscience, believed the war had turned. Nothing can be more important to the future safety of the people, than to learn how and whence this calamity had befallen them. Mr. G. declared himself, also, highly gratified with the liberal and manly course which had been pursued by the mover of these resolutions, and his honorable associates. The resolu-nation, is hidden from the Legislature and from tions had not been introduced at an early day after the session, because of the wish that an opportunity would be taken or made, by the Administration or its friends, to give the desired intelligence without a call from this side of the House. It was notorious that the public voice demanded a communication. A general curiosity pervaded the country to learn how it was that this decree of 28th April, 1811, had remained unknown here until after the declaration of war, and unknown in England until it was too late, by a repeal of the Orders in Council, to prevent a war. The public sensibility was alive in requiring full assurance that the charge of the fraudulent concealment of this decree-a charge which the French Minister of Foreign Affairs had advanced against our Government and its agents, was not true. Under these circumstances it had been hoped that the task of seeking this information would not be thrown on those who, although they would yield to none in regard for the honor of the nation, or for the honor of its Government, as such could not be presumed to feel a very intense interest in the personal reputation of those who administered its affairs. Mr. G. declared, that for one he had indulged this hope, and had openly expressed it to gentlemen attached to the Administration. It was not until time had shown that nothing would be done from that quarter, that the resolutions in question were presented. The same liberal motives which had delayed their introduction, governed in the course which had been afterwards pursued. Day after day was given before the motion was called up, that all who doubted might examine into its propriety. And when the attention of the House was at length claimed to this subject, all discussion was purposely forborne on the part of the mover and his associates, (under the presumption that a mere call for information would not be resisted,) until such discussion had been rendered unavoidable, by the invitation and defiance of its opponents. Such conduct on the part of a minority, Mr. G. believed, was not often witnessed. It evinced a magnanimity which he was proud to behold, and which augured well to themselves and their country. It was far from Mr. G's intention to travel over the ground which had been occupied by his friends who preceded him, and especially by the honorable gentlemen from New York, who had addressed the House yesterday. While the impressions of their manly footsteps might yet be seen, he should be satisfied with removing the obstructions with which it had been attempted the world, for more than twelve months after its date. Our Ambassador requires the cause of this concealment, and he is told by the official organ of the Government of France, in substance, that there has been no concealment on their part; but that the suppression has in fact been on the part of our Executive, or his agent. This charge of fraud is stated explicitly in the correspondence of Mr. Barlow. If this accusation be in no way repelled, what inference will be drawn from the uninterrupted silence of the accused? Sir, your own citizens must doubt, and foreign countries will more than doubt, about the truth of the charge. It is not yet, I hope, a maxim of our Government that "the King can do no wrong," There is no officer known to our Constitution and laws who is to be presumed incapable of misconduct. When an imputation of foul crime is brought against any of them, and from an accuser of high rank, according to the usages of nations, it is emphatically due to his country that the charge should be repelled. A disposition without cause to suspect public men of criminal conduct, and to swallow with credulity all that can be alleged against them, is indeed ungenerous and illiberal. But the opposite extreme, a determination to believe everything right which is connected with authority, and to applaud without examination all that has been or may be done by the "powers that be," is the characteristic of servility and folly. Of this temper it has been truly said, that "it is the screen by which power is concealed in its gradual progress to despotism, its most dangerous, if not its only dangerous approach. And even when nothing worse than imbecility wields the reins, it is by this it is up' held in its course from blunder to blunder, until it converts national misfortunes into national ruin." A position, said Mr. G., has been taken by the friends of the proposed resolutions, which has given great dissatisfaction to the advocates of the Administration, and against which all the force of assertion and of argument has been directed. No proposition can be more completely established. It is supported by evidence little short of demonstration. The proposition is this, that had the French repealing decree of the 28th April, 1811, been promulgated at the time of its date, or at any time before the fatal resolution had been taken, to plunge this once happy country into. war, it would have averted this dire calamity. Gentlemen in vain attempt to put this question to rest, in vain forbid this position to be taken It is taken, and it will be maintained with all the obstinacy of right, in the face of the nation, and in defiance of every effort that can be used to expel us. JUNE, 1813. and Britain, shows it fully. France and Britain were viewed as equal aggressors on our rights. The wrongs of both must be resented, and equally resented, or the wrongs of neither. Any measure of hostility against one, either through the melevelled also at the other, was pronounced to be submission. I do not say that the ground taken was correct. On the contrary, I am convinced, that it was false in fact, and erroneous in principle. But it was the ground deliberately taken by the concurrent voice of every branch of the Government, solemnly proclaimed to the world as the true American ground, and which, in theory at least, has never yet been abandoned. The act of May, 1810, was an explicit re-assertion of the principles of the report of 1808. It refused to resent immediately the wrongs of either belligerent, but pledged the faith of the Legislature, (an idle rash, unconstitutional pledge!) to become the enemy of that one which should persist in injustice, after the other should have returned from the evil of her ways. If either should cease from the violation of our neutral rights, and, on The Berlin and Milan decrees were permanent three months' notice of the fact, her rival enemy parts of a gigantic system, invented by Napoleon should refuse to imitate the praiseworthy examfor the destruction of his adversary. The avowed ple, then by an interdiction of all trade with her object of this system was to establish a code of ports, or in her productions, the obstinate foe was maritime laws, in support of which every com- to be punished. This law afforded a fit oppormercial nation was to be arrayed in a confede-tunity for French juggling. The famous letter racy, whereof he was to be the Protector, Legislator, and Judge. Of this code the elementary principles were, that the neutral flag should protect all that it covered; that arms and munitions of war should alone be deemed contraband; that fortified places could alone be blockaded; and that no blockade was effectual which was not also a siege. Great Britain was to be deemed an enemy of the human race, and cut off from human intercourse, until she acknowledged the new Napoleon code. The nation that declined to accede to this confederacy, was viewed as the ally of Britain, and subjected to the most rigorous and barbarous usages of war. Her ships were burnt on the ocean, and confiscated in port; her prop-tory. This demand was resisted upon the ground, erty plundered wherever found; her citizens made prisoners, and her territories invaded. It is not my design to proceed step by step through all the documents which are supposed to be connected with this subject. Few employ-dium of commercial or of actual warfare, not ments can be more stale, flat, and unprofitable, either to the speaker or to the hearer. Indeed, sir, however it may be with others, I am weary of documents. They are so multiplied as to involve every object in obscurity, and to afford to every man, who knows how to wrest a sentence from its plain meaning, a text on which to preach a political sermon, according to his own fancy. I am sick of these documents, because their perusal too plainly shows, what is not unfrequent in private controversies, that we have been written into a war. But it is necessary to take a rapid comprehensive view of the state of our foreign relations, and of our course of policy in regard to them, for a few years before the date of this suppressed decree. This will enable us to ascertain the effect which its promulgation would have produced. Britain refused to acknowledge this code; and, professing to retaliate on France the consequences of her own insolence, issued orders prohibiting neutral intercourse with a part of the French dominions so long as France enforced these monstrous decrees. These she proudly declared should last while the decrees lasted. In the revocation of them she would proceed step by step with the repeal of the decrees. It is foreign from my present purpose to inquire how far the retaliatory plea had any foundation; or if founded, whether it went in justification, or mitigation only, of the attack on neutral rights. What was the ground taken by our Government? On this point there cannot be mistake. The celebrated report of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, of November, 1808, unquestionably approved by the Executive, and by both branches of the Legislature, for on it was founded the law of non-intercourse with France of the 5th of August, 1810, of the Duke of Cadore, purported to be founded upon it. This letter announced a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, which were to cease to have effect on the first day of November following, upon one or the other of two conditions-a renunciation by Britain of her maritime doctrines, "her principles of blockade;" or an enforcement by America against Britain of the interdiction of intercourse. This equivocal promise was pronounced by our Executive an actual repeal of the obnoxious decrees; and Britain was demanded, upon the fact of such repeal, to comply with her engagement, to revoke her orders alleged to be retalia that the latter, instead of repealing, re-affirmed the decrees, the sole objects of which were to compel Britain to renounce her maritime rights, or neutral nations to withhold communication from her. Facts were asserted, and brought forth on each side, in support of the respective constructions given to this Delphic letter. At this time, and during this conflict of expositions in the interpretation of the French Puzzle-a conflict which had it not been followed by consequences the most serious, would have been indeed ludicrouslet us suppose, that the repealing decree of April 28, 1811, had made its appearance, as by its date it ought to have done. It must have entirely changed the state of affairs. It must have silenced the controversy as to the construction of the infamous Cadore letter, while it established what was then the fact. It must have forever severed the fatal alliance which the President's proclamation had made between the law of May, 1810, and this pretended repeal of the decrees on JUNE, 1813. French Decrees. H. of R. the 2d of November. And, sir, whether it had liberty to act only through those who are answerbeen followed by a corresponding revocation of able for what is wrong. The first moment when the British orders or not, it would, in all humana Cabinet could be had to deliberate on the French probability, have prevented this calamitous war. decree of April, 1811, produced the revoking order Would it have been followed by a correspond- of the 23d of June of last year-an order which ing revocation of the British orders? It is not the President has himself declared is susceptible given to man to pronounce with certainty upon of explanations that render it satisfactory. any event which has not happened; but, if it be Since, then, a knowledge of this decree, in possible to arrive at truth by inferring, from what May, 1812, was immediately followed by a satisdid take place, what would have taken place, had factory revocation of the obnoxious orders, why the same causes been brought into earlier opera- are we to believe that a knowledge of it in May, tion, there is no reason to doubt but that such a 1811, would not have produced the same conserevocation would then have followed. This de- quence? The gentleman from Tennessee undercree of the 28th of April, 1811, however insult- takes to inform us, and for this purpose has com. ing to the American Government in giving it the mented with as much fidelity as is usual with lie in the face of the world; and however, in most scholiasts on the Prince Regent's declaration other respects, the detestable reverse of what on what he calls Lord Castlereagh's despatch, and ought to have been desired, was a formal and ab- on the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the solute abrogation of the obnoxious edicts as re- British Minister, Mr. Foster. These, in his judggarded the United States. Under the hand of ment, clearly show that this would not have hapthe Emperor, and with all the solemnities of a pened. I cannot, if I would, follow the gentlefundamental law of his Empire, it announced: man through all these comments. My lungs "The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitively, already admonish me that I have spoken long, ' and to date from the first day of November last, and there is yet a view of this subject which considered as not having existed in regard to must not be overlooked. Permit me, however, to American vessels." Could there be any motive say that, whatever impression the circumstances of interest, any suggestion of pride, to prevent referred to were then calculated to make, and Great Britain from thereupon declaring that, as with the lights then alone appearing, they fall these decrees were definitively withdrawn from infinitely short now of supporting the inference American vessels, so, also, were her Orders in which the gentleman attempts to draw from them. Council? So far from it, every inducement must The Prince Regent's declaration affords us not the have operated with her to adopt this course. She slightest aid in the inquiry. It speaks only of a would find in the edict of the 28th of April a full and unconditional repeal of the decrees being complete victory over the American Government followed by a full and unconditional revocation as to the controversy whether France had there- of the Orders. It intimates nothing as to the eftofore repealed these decrees. It would have fect which would be produced on the orders by a afforded to her one of the most desirable opportu- repeal of the decrees, as it regarded one neutral nities to contrast her good faith with French per- only. And this was the explicit language of my fidy. If she regarded her honor, it would have friend from New York, notwithstanding the stateurged to the measure; if she valued American ment given of it by the gentleman from Tennestrade, she would not fail to embrace the certain see. It is one of the proudest triumphs of Truth, means of its restoration; if she cared for the that, to combat her with success, she must not be friendship of America, she had it completely in met upon her own ground. Is it strange that the her power to dissolve the bands which tied her to declaration of the Regent is silent on this point? France. The President was bound, by the act of No, sir; it was to be presumed that the new March, 1811, on which the French decree of the maritime code of Napoleon would be adhered to 28th April professed to be founded, to restore in- or relinquished. If adhered to, the orders were tercourse with Great Britain on the revocation to continue; if relinquished, they were to cease. of her orders; and no man was ignorant, much The dispute between the United States and Great less the British Court, that a restoration of that Britain was, as to the fact of the repeal or no reintercourse must, and would have been followed peal of the French decrees, and not whether the by the resentment of the tyrant of France. And, repeal was limited to America alone, or extended do we not know that, as soon as this decree was to all neutrals. made known to the British Government, it did occasion a corresponding revocation of the Orders in Council? I say, as soon, for, notwithstanding the objection that an interval of thirty days elapsed between the communication of this decree and the revocation of the orders, yet my estimable friend (Mr. GROSVENOR) has explained this circumstance to the conviction of scepticism itself; the Prince Regent was, in fact, without a Ministry. By the Constitution of that country, the monarch cannot act but through the intervention of his Ministers. As he is irresponsible to the law, for "he can do no wrong," he is at As to the despatch of Lord Castlereagh, none of us can pretend to know its contents, further than may be collected from the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Foster. The former of these gentlemen asks the latter, (letter June 3d, 1812,) whether the recollection which he has of the import of Lord Castlereagh's despatch, in supposing it to differ from Mr. Foster's own letter of the 30th May, in the circumstance of declaring that the decrees must be repealed, not only against the United States, but against the world, before any revocation will be had of the Orders, be accurate or not? Mr. Foster as |